Re: Trump's Full Court Press on Tax Reform
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:52 pm
It's that old trickle down effect bullshit meme resurfacing.
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
If you’re pitching a tax plan as a yuge gift to the middle class, and not at all helpful to the nation’s top-earners, it’s not great for your case when people who analyze these things for a living conclude that, actually, your plan is hugely beneficial to the top 1 percent and of little help—and possible detriment—to just about everyone else. The Trump administration and the G.O.P., in all of their collective wisdom, apparently did not see this coming when they unveiled the framework of their regressive tax-reform plan last Wednesday. Now, in the wake of deafening criticism that the proposal will be a giant, papaya-colored giveaway to a group of people who most Americans think should be taxed more, Trump officials have been forced to explain why they’ve decided that millionaires and billionaires such as themselves need a much bigger tax break—an effort that has centered on claiming that anyone telling you such things couldn’t possibly have any idea what they’re talking about.
When asked about a new analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center that the top 1 percent of earners would enjoy almost 80 percent of the benefits of the plan, White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney claimed, falsely, that Joe Biden’s former economic adviser works for the organization and therefore its analysis cannot be trusted. (The former adviser, Jared Bernstein, worked at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.) “It‘s not surprising that, you know a former chief economic for a Democrat vice president doesn’t like a Republican plan,” Mulvaney told Fox News’s Chris Wallace. Elsewhere, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and National Economic Council director Gary Cohn, who last week couldn’t guarantee middle-class families won’t pay more in taxes, argued along with House Speaker Paul Ryan that because their plan is missing so many key details, it’s not possible to say that it’s the wealthy who will benefit the most.
But the contours of the plan, such as they are, are relatively clear-cut. As New York’s Jonathan Chait points out, while the Tax Policy Center notes that “Many aspects of the plan were unspecified or left to be determined by the tax writing committees in Congress,” the group’s “preliminary analysis” was fleshed out by previous proposals such as “the House Republican leadership’s ‘A Better Way’ blueprint,” elements of which House Republicans will presumably incorporate into the final bill. “If House Republicans change the contours of their proposal,” Chait writes, “then the Tax Policy Center will publish a new analysis reflecting the changes.” It’s not that complicated, unless you have a vested interest in making it so in order to obscure the fact that you’re trying to push through a plan that is almost exclusively beneficial to people like Donald Trump.
Yeah, that particular argument is just ridiculous. This whole trying to punish blue states while giving even more to red states move is just infuriating. I was talking to my parents last night - we tend to lean left but always had issues where we sided with the Republicans. Now it feels like every single position they take is directly opposed to every moral and ethical sense I have.malchior wrote:The big move this week in tax reform was that the fucking moron sent forth his budget and treasury liars forth suggesting that red states are subsidizing "blue state" local and state tax deductions.
Yeah, eliminating the tax deduction is probably dead at this point (though with this Congress, who knows). There's no point in GOP representatives in blue states running for reelection if they do this, at any rate.malchior wrote:The big move this week in tax reform was that the fucking moron sent forth his budget and treasury liars forth suggesting that red states are subsidizing "blue state" local and state tax deductions. No analysis supports that. It is insane. NJ gets something like 50% of its tax dollars back. NY is in the same boat. Delaware too, etc. It clearly is aimed at their idiotic base but I don't get how that is going to get this done. I think it is most likely a dead idea because I've been seeing a strong pattern of Rs in "blue states" saying that they won't be able to survive tax reform in current form. Especially if they kill these deductions to fund killing AMT and lowering the top bracket. That the administration is making their case in such a weak fashion underscores it for me. It reeks of desperation.
Which will be Obama's fault.Octavious wrote:And then a massive recession.
On some deduction details:The proposal, negotiated by the White House and congressional leaders, is intended to simplify and lower tax rates, especially for corporations and for pass-through businesses, the type of individually owned company President Donald Trump relies on to organize his own finances.
The catch is that the money to lower those rates has to come from somewhere — from cutting spending, raising tax revenues in other ways, or borrowing. Republicans passed a budget that would allow them to borrow $1.5 trillion by piling it onto the deficit over the next decade, and a bookkeeping trick might give them $500 billion more to play with.
The state and local deduction isn't the only issue that could affect the middle class.
The GOP tax framework would double the standard deduction, to $12,000 per individual, but it would also get rid of a $4,050 personal exemption for each household member. As a result, taxpayers with two or more children could see more income taxed under the new plan, and at a higher starting rate of 12 percent rather than the current 10 percent.
To help avoid this problem, the framework calls for a larger child tax credit. But it offers few details, and the gains would depend a lot on the credit's overall size, how much of it would be refundable and what income levels could take advantage of it.
More details:Senate Republicans just voted in favor of killing your property tax deduction, New Jersey.
The GOP senators, whose states received $223 billion more from the federal government than their residents send to Washington, voted Thursday in favor of eliminating the state and local tax deduction.
The deduction helps mostly helps residents in states like New Jersey that pay more in federal taxes than they get back from D.C.
"It's outrageous and patently unfair." U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said in an interview after the vote. "There has to be a fundamental principle of tax fairness, not just between low-income wage earners and high-income wage earners, but the tax fairness really has to be between the states as well."
N.J. subsidizes other states
The amendment was approved primarily along party lines, 52-47, with U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., absent because of his ongoing trial on federal corruption charges.
The effort to end the deduction was led by U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-West Virginia, whose state in 2015 received $2.07 from Washington for every $1 in federal taxes paid, more than 47 other states, according to the Rockefeller Institute.
New Jersey, on the other hand, got just 74 cents back for each $1, lowest among the 50 states.
That's right. In order to pass a tax bill via reconciliation (since there's no way in hell they're getting 60 votes), they have to first pass a budget resolution. That was this vote (and I think they still have to pass a budget resolution in the House). They did the same thing before the tries at a health care reconciliation bill last (fiscal) year.Kraken wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:09 am This was a procedural vote, right? They haven't voted on that provision for realsies yet...right?
I don't object to paying taxes if I feel that they're levied fairly and mostly put to good use. Taxes are the price of civilization. But I am going to be ripe for a pitchfork and a torch if the Koch tax cut comes out of my pocket.
It really does feel like things are deteriorating at a faster rate on more fronts than I can even follow, and that it's only going to keep getting worse. Every generation thinks it's living in the end times...but how many have this much evidence to back it up?Octavious wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:44 am Corporate lives matter! Seriously though, we almost totally collapsed the country because of the Bush tax cuts and were thinking of not only doing it again, but more extreme? I saw screw it, let it burn to the ground at this point.
Kraken wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:01 pmIt really does feel like things are deteriorating at a faster rate on more fronts than I can even follow, and that it's only going to keep getting worse. Every generation thinks it's living in the end times...but how many have this much evidence to back it up?Octavious wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:44 am Corporate lives matter! Seriously though, we almost totally collapsed the country because of the Bush tax cuts and were thinking of not only doing it again, but more extreme? I saw screw it, let it burn to the ground at this point.
Another hit to the middle class that has virtually no effect on the 1%.Republicans are looking for ways to generate revenue to support broad reductions in individual tax rates. One idea is to limit the amount of pretax money households can sock away for retirement saving. Such a move would likely generate significant political blowback but it hasn’t been explicitly ruled out, stirring worry among industry lobbyists.
....
Lobbyists and others in the retirement and financial services industries who have spoken to congressional staff and committee members say lawmakers are looking at proposals that would allow 401(k) participants to contribute significantly less than what is currently allowed in a traditional tax-deferred 401(k). An often mentioned amount is $2,400 a year. It isn’t clear whether that would only apply to 401(k)s or IRAs or both.
Yeah even with Trump I would happily take 1987 - 2017 over 1915 - 1945 - people in the first half of the 20th century had a much stronger case about things rapidly deteriorating.GreenGoo wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:40 pmKraken wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:01 pmIt really does feel like things are deteriorating at a faster rate on more fronts than I can even follow, and that it's only going to keep getting worse. Every generation thinks it's living in the end times...but how many have this much evidence to back it up?Octavious wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:44 am Corporate lives matter! Seriously though, we almost totally collapsed the country because of the Bush tax cuts and were thinking of not only doing it again, but more extreme? I saw screw it, let it burn to the ground at this point.
The MacArthy era, the cuban missile crisis both seem to have been much worse than what's happening now. The great depression was within the last century, too.
I'll withold my judgment until after Drumpf is out of office. Whether that's tomorrow, 2020 or 2024. What happens after that will determine where the country is headed more fully.
It's grimly hilarious to think back to all the GOP officials attacking democratic tax and policy plans as "class warfare".pr0ner wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:19 pm For me, that would be at least an extra $10k that's taxed as income now rather than in the future.
And that would be on top of losing the state and local tax deduction, if that comes to pass.
Nope. This won't be a tax cut for me. Not at all.
This is worse than the Mccarthy era by far already. I'd give you the cuban missile crisis as an absolute because that was a point in time event that could have ended civilization.GreenGoo wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:40 pmKraken wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:01 pmIt really does feel like things are deteriorating at a faster rate on more fronts than I can even follow, and that it's only going to keep getting worse. Every generation thinks it's living in the end times...but how many have this much evidence to back it up?Octavious wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:44 am Corporate lives matter! Seriously though, we almost totally collapsed the country because of the Bush tax cuts and were thinking of not only doing it again, but more extreme? I saw screw it, let it burn to the ground at this point.
The MacArthy era, the cuban missile crisis both seem to have been much worse than what's happening now. The great depression was within the last century, too.
Financial regulation and no gold standard for the win. We dodged one in 2008 but I'm not so sure we aren't seeing massive deterioration. Think about last year compared to this year. We are significantly worse off governance wise being ruled by a government that was elected by the "minority" of voters. It could get better but the trend change is not looking good at the moment.El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:19 pmYeah even with Trump I would happily take 1987 - 2017 over 1915 - 1945 - people in the first half of the 20th century had a much stronger case about things rapidly deteriorating.
El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:23 pmIt's grimly hilarious to think back to all the GOP officials attacking democratic tax and policy plans as "class warfare".pr0ner wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:19 pm For me, that would be at least an extra $10k that's taxed as income now rather than in the future.
And that would be on top of losing the state and local tax deduction, if that comes to pass.
Nope. This won't be a tax cut for me. Not at all.
From 1932 - 1945 over 6 million civilians (Jews and other minorities) were intentionally murdered as part of a systematic government policy. Tens of millions more (>20 million in the USSR alone) died as part of a global war. The Ukranian famine and the Bengal famine, which were largely caused by governmental policies, probably killed at least 10 million more between those two events. And we haven't even touched the civilian deaths in WWII China!malchior wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:28 pmFinancial regulation and no gold standard for the win. We dodged one in 2008 but I'm not so sure we aren't seeing massive deterioration. Think about last year compared to this year. We are significantly worse off governance wise being ruled by a government that was elected by the "minority" of voters. It could get better but the trend change is not looking good at the moment.El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:19 pmYeah even with Trump I would happily take 1987 - 2017 over 1915 - 1945 - people in the first half of the 20th century had a much stronger case about things rapidly deteriorating.
Thanks for the condescending history lessons. Believe what you want but even during those periods you didn't have elected officials in the US telling verifiable falsehoods and being cheered on by the ignorants masses. I merely said it is *trending* badly. Worse than Mccarthy for sure and could be massive deterioration in progress. It might end up being worse than the Depression years here. We have movements in multiple states depending on who is in charge with 30-40% support to secede from the union such as what we see in Texas and California. These are not normal times.El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:46 pm Well, even with that limit you had the Great Depression, Japanese internment, and apartheid enforced under color of law, not to mention wartime atrocities like the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo.
And on disunity... there was the time before then that U.S. governance failed so completely that the country split into two warring sides, killing millions of Americans.
Shrug. Thank you for your unnecessary hostility.malchior wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:54 pmThanks for the condescending history lessons. Believe what you want but even during those periods you didn't have elected officials in the US telling verifiable falsehoods and being cheered on by the ignorants masses. I merely said it is *trending* badly. Worse than Mccarthy for sure and could be massive deterioration in progress. It might end up being worse than the Depression years here. We have movements in multiple states depending on who is in charge with 30-40% support to secede from the union such as what we see in Texas and California. These are not normal times.El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:46 pm Well, even with that limit you had the Great Depression, Japanese internment, and apartheid enforced under color of law, not to mention wartime atrocities like the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo.
And on disunity... there was the time before then that U.S. governance failed so completely that the country split into two warring sides, killing millions of Americans.
Wait - you don't think your post came across as condescendingly hostile?El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:04 pmShrug. Thank you for your unnecessary hostility.malchior wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:54 pmThanks for the condescending history lessons. Believe what you want but even during those periods you didn't have elected officials in the US telling verifiable falsehoods and being cheered on by the ignorants masses. I merely said it is *trending* badly. Worse than Mccarthy for sure and could be massive deterioration in progress. It might end up being worse than the Depression years here. We have movements in multiple states depending on who is in charge with 30-40% support to secede from the union such as what we see in Texas and California. These are not normal times.El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:46 pm Well, even with that limit you had the Great Depression, Japanese internment, and apartheid enforced under color of law, not to mention wartime atrocities like the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo.
And on disunity... there was the time before then that U.S. governance failed so completely that the country split into two warring sides, killing millions of Americans.
I was kind of surprised you took it that way. This is certainly the worst leadership in the countries history, but bad shit has always been happening. The total bald face lying to the point of insanity is certainly new and exciting. Hopefully he doesn't create a trend, but I can't see how we ever really go back to normal after he has shockingly shown how little people care about the truth.malchior wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:07 pmWait - you don't think your post came across as condescendingly hostile?El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:04 pmShrug. Thank you for your unnecessary hostility.malchior wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:54 pmThanks for the condescending history lessons. Believe what you want but even during those periods you didn't have elected officials in the US telling verifiable falsehoods and being cheered on by the ignorants masses. I merely said it is *trending* badly. Worse than Mccarthy for sure and could be massive deterioration in progress. It might end up being worse than the Depression years here. We have movements in multiple states depending on who is in charge with 30-40% support to secede from the union such as what we see in Texas and California. These are not normal times.El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:46 pm Well, even with that limit you had the Great Depression, Japanese internment, and apartheid enforced under color of law, not to mention wartime atrocities like the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo.
And on disunity... there was the time before then that U.S. governance failed so completely that the country split into two warring sides, killing millions of Americans.
I mean, obviously it did come across that way to you given the response, but no, that was not my intention.malchior wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:07 pmWait - you don't think your post came across as condescendingly hostile?El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:04 pmShrug. Thank you for your unnecessary hostility.malchior wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:54 pmThanks for the condescending history lessons. Believe what you want but even during those periods you didn't have elected officials in the US telling verifiable falsehoods and being cheered on by the ignorants masses. I merely said it is *trending* badly. Worse than Mccarthy for sure and could be massive deterioration in progress. It might end up being worse than the Depression years here. We have movements in multiple states depending on who is in charge with 30-40% support to secede from the union such as what we see in Texas and California. These are not normal times.El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:46 pm Well, even with that limit you had the Great Depression, Japanese internment, and apartheid enforced under color of law, not to mention wartime atrocities like the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo.
And on disunity... there was the time before then that U.S. governance failed so completely that the country split into two warring sides, killing millions of Americans.