Taxes, taxes, taxes and LESS TAXES... wait, what?!?!?

[Woobie]

Because they need a safety valve in case it appears that the debt added to the deficit will exceed $1.5T. If it's projected to go above that, then taxpayers in the $50-$75K category are going to see their cuts evaporate. The great thing, is that it kicks in 2027, via the Byrd Rule, which will offset placing blame should those tax cuts expire. The drafters of this bill are still trying to convince us that the reason the corporate cuts are permanent, is the tired belief in trickle down economics. American businesses are making a killing, and have been for a very long time. The fact that business executives since 1982 have seen their wealth increase so dramatically, comparatively to the average American worker, highlights the fact that trickle down economics, doesn't benefit the workers of those companies. It's essentially a windfall for those businesses to pay themselves more.

So you don't think the wealth of those corporations has impacted the middle class? Where would the working class be working? Broke companies? Is your pension plan invested in broke companies? Should we eradicate the rich companies and base our economy on subsistence farming and cottage industry like much of the world? That would bring the classes closer.

I suppose you're right. There hasn't been any wealth trickling down. It isn't like our lower classes have a higher standard of living than most of the world's middle classes or something. And before you tell me how the wealth differential between the classes in America is, just remember how many amenities the average American below the poverty level enjoys that Andrew Carnegie never did.

The attack on "trickle down" isn't based on living standards or any measurable data, but on the jealous attitude that ALL the wealth should have trickled down. Thou shalt not covet.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So you don't think the wealth of those corporations has impacted the middle class? Where would the working class be working? Broke companies? Is your pension plan invested in broke companies? Should we eradicate the rich companies and base our economy on subsistence farming and cottage industry like much of the world? That would bring the classes closer.

I suppose you're right. There hasn't been any wealth trickling down. It isn't like our lower classes have a higher standard of living than most of the world's middle classes or something. And before you tell me how the wealth differential between the classes in America is, just remember how many amenities the average American below the poverty level enjoys that Andrew Carnegie never did.

The attack on "trickle down" isn't based on living standards or any measurable data, but on the jealous attitude that ALL the wealth should have trickled down. Thou shalt not covet.

Your post runs in direct contradiction of the explanation of those wishing to pass this bill. If they explained it the way you explained it, I'd have zero problem with it, because they would be being honest, and allowing the voters to decide how they feel about it. What you will hear those supporting this say, is that this bill in needed because "the American middle class hasn't gotten a raise in (x amount) of years." Have you not heard that? And if you have, you don't think that's a misleading argument?

 

[Woobie]

Your post runs in direct contradiction of the explanation of those wishing to pass this bill. If they explained it the way you explained it, I'd have zero problem with it, because they would be being honest, and allowing the voters to decide how they feel about it. What you will hear those supporting this say, is that this bill in needed because "the American middle class hasn't gotten a raise in (x amount) of years." Have you not heard that? And if you have, you don't think that's a misleading argument?

Oh, in that case. Yeah, it's a misleading argument. Probably purposefully misleading, but I don't rule out complete stupidity coming from the bunch that brought us "it took 20 minutes for the Internet I sent my secretary to make it through the pipes." But if they stumble into doing something mostly good it isn't as irritating as when they completely screw over the country. As far as the lying goes, they've been doing it their entire adult lives. I don't know if they would know how to tell the truth. Doesn't make it right, I know.

 

[Alpo]

So you don't think the wealth of those corporations has impacted the middle class? Where would the working class be working? Broke companies? Is your pension plan invested in broke companies? Should we eradicate the rich companies and base our economy on subsistence farming and cottage industry like much of the world? That would bring the classes closer.

I suppose you're right. There hasn't been any wealth trickling down. It isn't like our lower classes have a higher standard of living than most of the world's middle classes or something. And before you tell me how the wealth differential between the classes in America is, just remember how many amenities the average American below the poverty level enjoys that Andrew Carnegie never did.

Yes, Andrew Carnegie never had a cell phone or cable TV. Neither did Jesus. How far back do you wish to go? Ramses II? Lucy?

The attack on "trickle down" isn't based on living standards or any measurable data, but on the jealous attitude that ALL the wealth should have trickled down.

No, it is based on the inability of proving that tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans in any way increases business investment, improved GDP or the lifting of boats for any other class of Americans.

Thou shalt not covet

You really want a war of biblical references re; the poor and the rich man?

https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/91a7f92b-d4ba-4d29-ae5f-8022f9bb944d

Has CEO pay reflected long-term stock performance? In a word, “no.” Companies that awarded their Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) higher equity incentives had below-median returns based on a sample of 429 large-cap U.S. companies observed from 2006 to 2015. On a 10-year cumulative basis, total shareholder returns of those companies whose total summary pay (the level that must be disclosed in the summary tables of proxy statements) was below their sector median outperformed those companies where pay exceeded the sector median by as much as 39%.1

 

[Woobie]

https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/91a7f92b-d4ba-4d29-ae5f-8022f9bb944d

So? I can't guarantee every company will make good choices. There are still humans in charge. And there has been a trend in business to spend on "talent" at the top. Maybe that hasn't been the best choice for every firm. This does nothing to refute my post.

Besides, I'm sure you're going to tell me next how that CEO did not employ any private staff. Nor did he spend on any luxury items requiring reasonably paid craftsmen to produce. Nope, he just buried the money.

 

[Alpo]

I'm afraid it makes your point only superficially plausible. Specious.

Money invested does not add to the GNP directly. We've had this discussion in the past.

What adds more value (on average) to the GDP: $20 million bonus given to a CEO or $2,000 paid to each of 10,000 people employed by the same company?

 

[caverjamie]

Because they need a safety valve in case it appears that the debt added to the deficit will exceed $1.5T. If it's projected to go above that, then taxpayers in the $50-$75K category are going to see their cuts evaporate.

Ah I see. I think of myself as fairly conservative, but I don't like the sound of that at all. I would think we should make it permanent and have some fiscal accountability with the federal budget, or admit that we can't control ourselves in a budget sense and not enact the cuts in the first place. Oh well I'm in for the ride regardless...

 

[Woobie]

I'm afraid it makes your point only superficially plausible. Specious.

Money invested does not add to the GNP directly. We've had this discussion in the past.

What adds more value (on average) to the GDP: $20 million bonus given to a CEO or $2,000 paid to each of 10,000 people employed by the same company?

1. How so?

2. You were wrong in that discussion, and soundly beaten. It doesn't have to be direct. Indirect is better than not at all, which is what happens as part of taxation.

3. Is this the ton of bricks vs. ton of feathers riddle? They're both $20 million. Well, sort of. The government taxes the first instance much higher, so less of it makes it into the economy. But it isn't for us to decide. The money belongs to the shareholders, so they can decide to give it to the CEO, employees, vendors, themselves or charity. Oh yeah, rich companies do that too.

 

[Jimb]

I'm all for lower corporate rates...keep the companies and jobs here as much as possible....but I don't think this trickles down to me, currently employed, in any way; an urban myth at best used to solicit votes. Rather than talking about the eye candy that news outlets and politicians throw out there....we should be more concerned about the actual adjusted tax rates.....and all the loop holes purposely created to game this number. I probably don't devote enough learning time to the subject, but I've always thought a flat type tax, provided our govmnt was small enough to run on it, would be the way to go. Keep it simple stupid....my tax rate is 18%, and my adjusted number goes bye bye....but this must also apply to corporate rates. Don't ask me to quote specifics, but I do know it's generally correct that corporate adjusted rates are much lower than my own.......consistently year after year. So, all these unadjusted numbers used as voter bait are really just fluff. But, my gut says that my adjusted rate will remain stagnant with this new plan, while the corporate adjusted rates will sink much lower. "Middle Class Plan" my butt!
Please educate me on my incorrectness

 

[hoosierdoc]

Right, because the first $200 trillion we're in debt is because the citizens were allowed to keep too much money. Eye roll. I support any plan that puts more of a citizens money in his pocket instead of confiscated by .gov. Your whole comment is based on the premise all money belongs to the government. Any shortfall caused by spending outstripping earning MUsT be made up by confiscating more money from citizens. NEVER from .gov doing with less

note I did not say "hands someone his neighbor's wage"


tax cuts lead to expanded government income. Every time. There is obviously a delay.

Because they need a safety valve in case it appears that the debt added to the deficit will exceed $1.5T. If it's projected to go above that, then taxpayers in the $50-$75K category are going to see their cuts evaporate. The great thing, is that it kicks in 2027, via the Byrd Rule, which will offset placing blame should those tax cuts expire. The drafters of this bill are still trying to convince us that the reason the corporate cuts are permanent, is the tired belief in trickle down economics. American businesses are making a killing, and have been for a very long time. The fact that business executives since 1982 have seen their wealth increase so dramatically, comparatively to the average American worker, highlights the fact that trickle down economics, doesn't benefit the workers of those companies. It's essentially a windfall for those businesses to pay themselves more.

 

[BugI02]

Trickle down economics you mean? Typically that does not help the economy. Why would it? If you owned a huge business, and the govt gave you a substantial tax cut, what would you do with that extra money? What is your incentive to pass that money along to your regular workers? They aren't going to leave if you don't throw them a bone. Now your shareholders and executives, you gotta take care of them.

The ONLY thing that raises wages is competition for/shortage of workers/talent. So what is more likely to set a business climate in which we approach "full" employment (and thus increased competition for available workers) - high tax high regulation or competitive tax sensible regulation. It's not a difficult concept

 

[BugI02]

Yes, Andrew Carnegie never had a cell phone or cable TV. Neither did Jesus. How far back do you wish to go? Ramses II? Lucy?

No, it is based on the inability of proving that tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans in any way increases business investment, improved GDP or the lifting of boats for any other class of Americans.

[But you CAN prove that high tax rates DO increase business investment, improve GDP or lift the boats of the 99%? I seriously doubt it]

You really want a war of biblical references re; the poor and the rich man?

https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/91a7f92b-d4ba-4d29-ae5f-8022f9bb944d

*.*

 

[ATM]

How about a flat tax of say ...zero


and a government small enough to run on it would be refreshing as well.

 

[BugI02]

Or perhaps a flat tax of, say 17% with a baked in 1% decline per year until it reaches some level deemed appropriate to perform only the Constitutionally articulated duties of FedGov - say 8%

 

[jamil]

Or perhaps a flat tax of, say 17% with a baked in 1% decline per year until it reaches some level deemed appropriate to perform only the Constitutionally articulated duties of FedGov - say 8%

17% ???

**** that. 7%.

 

[churchmouse]

Or perhaps a flat tax of, say 17% with a baked in 1% decline per year until it reaches some level deemed appropriate to perform only the Constitutionally articulated duties of FedGov - say 8%

The lamentations of the woman would be heard round the world and the streets filled with angry mobs wanting their monthly from uncle sugar.
And what of SS benifits. Some of us have actually paid into them all of our lives. If I missed these points up thread disregard.

 

[churchmouse]

How about a flat tax of say ...zero


and a government small enough to run on it would be refreshing as well.

Realistically you know this will not ever happen yes.

 

[hoosierdoc]

The lamentations of the woman would be heard round the world and the streets filled with angry mobs wanting their monthly from uncle sugar.
And what of SS benifits. Some of us have actually paid into them all of our lives. If I missed these points up thread disregard.

Fairtax sets a 23% sales tax and completely eliminates SS/Medicare/corporate/income and all other federal taxes. Maintains funding of these programs too

 

[2A_Tom]

Until they start adding them back in.

 

[churchmouse]

Until they start adding them back in.

That would be where we as an electorate should stand united and keep these greedy perves at bay.

But that ain't gonna happen.