Tax Bill is a loser

[∞∞∞]

Remember the Democrats hated Reagan's tax cut too.

I've spoken to older Democrats that voted for Reagan (and maybe some can verify this).

From what I've heard, the difference between Reagan and Trump isn't taxes, it's that Reagan cut taxes while making people feel proud of their country and continuing the US' upward trend in civil rights and liberties. People felt like they mattered.

Trump and today's GOP just makes a large part of people feel like they're a lesser-American. The Constitution doesn't mention capitalism; it's based on natural rights and fundamental freedoms. Every American society is flawed in upholding those ideals, but Reagan and 80s Republicans seem to have tried based on what I've heard. Those same Democrats that voted for Reagan can't say the same for today's GOP.

[Baldy]

Eight years and $9,000,000,000,000 of debt later, now the Donks begin to worry about deficits.

[bluehenbillk]

OK I started this thread, and now I have a retraction to make:

When the original House bill was passed - it wasn't a very good bill at all - It 100% killed SALT, medical deductions, a watered down child tax credit etc. Bottom line was my taxes were going to go up - significantly.

Enter the Senate bill & then the committee compromising. SALT back on the table up to $10K, medical deductions back in, "Little Marco" steps up for the child tax credit, tax rate deductions present on ALL current day tax brackets and guess what - now the bottom line is my taxes will go DOWN.

The bill isn't perfect, but it's no long a loser in my mind.

[CAA Flagship]

Remember the Democrats hated Reagan's tax cut too.

I've spoken to older Democrats that voted for Reagan (and maybe some can verify this).

From what I've heard, the difference between Reagan and Trump isn't taxes, it's that Reagan cut taxes while making people feel proud of their country and continuing the US' upward trend in civil rights and liberties. People felt like they mattered.

Trump and today's GOP just makes a large part of people feel like they're a lesser-American. The Constitution doesn't mention capitalism; it's based on natural rights and fundamental freedoms. Every American society is flawed in upholding those ideals, but Reagan and 80s Republicans seem to have tried based on what I've heard. Those same Democrats that voted for Reagan can't say the same for today's GOP.

Ugh. There are all sorts of differences between then and now. Reagan's ability to communicate effectively is a big one. But that is not substantive. The media, and Trump himself, has made many people dislike him. But that does not have a real affect on their lives. It is policy that matters. There is no bigger issue for America, or any other country for that matter, than jobs. It affects all races, creeds, genders, political slants, etc. Trump was asked what is needed to help race relations in America. He said "jobs". I don't know if he really understood what he said there, but that really is a big factor. Put a team together of different races, creeds, genders, etc. together working on a common goal and it will break down the divides. It's why "diversity" is pushed so hard. But if you are not working together towards a common goal, it is far less effective. So while Trump said, what I believe to be, the correct answer, he has failed on the messaging. That is why I think there is a difference of opinion on the two tax plans.

[CAA Flagship]

OK I started this thread, and now I have a retraction to make:

When the original House bill was passed - it wasn't a very good bill at all - It 100% killed SALT, medical deductions, a watered down child tax credit etc. Bottom line was my taxes were going to go up - significantly.

Enter the Senate bill & then the committee compromising. SALT back on the table up to $10K, medical deductions back in, "Little Marco" steps up for the child tax credit, tax rate deductions present on ALL current day tax brackets and guess what - now the bottom line is my taxes will go DOWN.

The bill isn't perfect, but it's no long a loser in my mind.

Well that's why it is wise to wait to see what actually gets passed.
But just because YOU will have taxes go down doesn't mean it is a good bill. The altering of taxes is just a primer for the economy. A strong economy and job security would be worth far more than an INCREASE in taxes to most people. And a strong economy is needed for any hope of paying down our national debt. The gamble here is that we won't get the strong economy without the primer. We'll see what happens from here......

[GannonFan]

While you're correct about Republicans supposedly carrying about the deficit your faux outrage is laughable and it echoes the Democrat talking points today. Obama added $8 trillion in debt and at least $850 million was due to tax cuts during Obama's presidency. Did I miss your concern about it then?

Very true. The parallels to ObamaCare run deep (both bills pushed through by a majority without taking the time to really study and understand the consequences) and I wonder how long those parallels will last.

The impact on the 2018 election will be interesting. I'm guessing that Conk strategists are counting on people being happy enough with the extra coins in their pocket to help them maintain the majority. The kicker will be what happens in early 2019 when the middle class gets kicked in their financial nuts while filing their 2018 tax returns. How bad will the nut kicking be? How angry will people get? How long will the anger last? Will it have a significant impact on the 2020 elections?

Who's taxes are going up in 2019? Maybe people in the high cost of living spots like NY and CA (and CT and NJ and other spots), but those are all solidly blue states that wouldn't vote GOP in a Presidential election anyway. The kicker isn't going to happen until 2025 (or thereabouts) when the temporary things in this tax bill are slated to run out. Who is in power then will have to deal with that and deal with the electoral fallout if the decisions they make (extend or end). Ryan is kinda right about this - assuming the economy doesn't go in the toilet, which it won't anytime soon, people are going to have more money in their pockets and will have a relatively booming economic growth through 2018. The GOP may be able to hold onto Congress as a result of a bill like this getting through, long term implications be damned - short term it could very well be a winner.

[CAA Flagship]

So the SALT deduction limits in blue states have them scheming to pull an "end run" on the tax plan. Blue states are looking at ways to circumvent the tax plan including going to a payroll tax system or allowing SALT to be a charitable contribution.

[BDKJMU]

Was about to say...a one time expense for publicity when they'll be saving 100's of millions annually.

Nice gesture, but if trickle-down actually worked, those guys would get permanent raises.

As for the tax bill, I remember when the GOP was about lowering the deficit. I guess it wasn't enough that Gen X/Millenials fought their wars, took the brunt of the recession, are saddled with student debts, and can barely afford having a family or homes...we now have to figure out 1.5T of additional debt when all these **** are dead in 15 years. But hey we deserve it because something about "avocado toast."

While you're correct about Republicans supposedly carrying about the deficit your faux outrage is laughable and it echoes the Democrat talking points today. Obama added $8 trillion in debt and at least $850 million was due to tax cuts during Obama's presidency. Did I miss your concern about it then?

Actually 9 trillion:
Inauguration Day 2009 (January 20): National debt was $10.626 trillion.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/ ... =&endYear=
Inauguration Day 2009 (January 20): National debt was $19.947 trillion.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/ ... =&endYear=

[BDKJMU]

Remember the Democrats hated Reagan's tax cut too.

How many of his 11 tax increases had he implemented by that time?

Still one of the more influential people on policy to do this day....

Reagan's tax cuts were far bigger than his tax increases..News flash: He was a net tax cutter
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronal ... eal-story/

[AZGrizFan]

How many of his 11 tax increases had he implemented by that time?

Still one of the more influential people on policy to do this day....

Reagan's tax cuts were far bigger than his tax increases..News flash: He was a net tax cutter
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronal ... eal-story/

Hey, Walter did what AlGore couldn't....carried his own state.

[kalm]

How many of his 11 tax increases had he implemented by that time?

Still one of the more influential people on policy to do this day....

Reagan's tax cuts were far bigger than his tax increases..News flash: He was a net tax cutter
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronal ... eal-story/

Who did those tax cuts go to? And what about the debt?

[CID1990]

Americans don't give a damn about the deficit. That has become abundantly clear over the last few administrations, at least it has to me. And I might be one of the few people left who gets riled up about it. Actually giving a fvxk about deficit spending is starting to be like being a libertarian.... youre perceived as an outlier and a bit odd in a tinfoil hat kind of way

But there's one thing I notice about this tax bill - 8 in 10 taxpayers are going to pay noticeably less in taxes this year. And the people who will pay more are earning well into 6 figures and own homes in very expensive and taxy localities

The tax bill is polling low right now but it is going to improve - and that is going to pose a messaging problem for Democrats in the midterms

I think that if they have to rely on Trump's personal qualities for their campaign fodder there's going to be some disappointment again


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Reagan's tax cuts were far bigger than his tax increases..News flash: He was a net tax cutter
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronal ... eal-story/

Who did those tax cuts go to? And what about the debt?

The middle class got a tax cut.

As far as percentage "the rich" as the donks like to say, got the most. But if the "rich" are paying the overwhelmingly majority of the taxes, its virtually impossible to a cut where percentage wise, the "rich" don't get the majority of the cut.

As far as the national debt, the govt doesn't have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem..

[JohnStOnge]

That "Dear Leader" thing with the Republican congressmen/senators taking turms praising Trump was really creepy.

The Republican Party has serious problems. That was creepy and I think it likely it was perceived by most people as creepy.

[CAA Flagship]

This SALT deduction limit is an interesting trap set for the Dems, and it looks like they may fall for it. They just might come up with a work-around to "help the rich". Wouldn't that be something? How the hell do they message that move?

[CAA Flagship]

That "Dear Leader" thing with the Republican congressmen/senators taking turms praising Trump was really creepy.

The Republican Party has serious problems. That was creepy and I think it likely it was perceived by most people as creepy.

Yup. It was over the top.
Small price to pay to keep him from saying something stupid.
Yes, it's child management, but he's the person sitting in the seat that will get some of the most needed things done. Small price to pay.

[JohnStOnge]

That "Dear Leader" thing with the Republican congressmen/senators taking turms praising Trump was really creepy.

The Republican Party has serious problems. That was creepy and I think it likely it was perceived by most people as creepy.

Yup. It was over the top.
Small price to pay to keep him from saying something stupid.
Yes, it's child management, but he's the person sitting in the seat that will get some of the most needed things done. Small price to pay.

The price is continued destruction of the credibility of the Republican Party and Conservatism. Short term gain in exchange for long term loss. HUGE long term loss. The Black Sabbath tune "Hand of Doom" comes to mind.

[CAA Flagship]

Yup. It was over the top.
Small price to pay to keep him from saying something stupid.
Yes, it's child management, but he's the person sitting in the seat that will get some of the most needed things done. Small price to pay.

The price is continued destruction of the credibility of the Republican Party and Conservatism. Short term gain in exchange for long term loss. HUGE long term loss. The Black Sabbath tune "Hand of Doom" comes to mind.

Loss? They're playing against the Cleveland Browns, cryin out loud.

[93henfan]

Yup. It was over the top.
Small price to pay to keep him from saying something stupid.
Yes, it's child management, but he's the person sitting in the seat that will get some of the most needed things done. Small price to pay.

The price is continued destruction of the credibility of the Republican Party and Conservatism. Short term gain in exchange for long term loss. HUGE long term loss. The Black Sabbath tune "Hand of Doom" comes to mind.

Broken record much?

Let me know if you’re ever in DC or DE. I’ll help you work up some new material.

[kalm]

Who did those tax cuts go to? And what about the debt?

The middle class got a tax cut.

As far as percentage "the rich" as the donks like to say, got the most. But if the "rich" are paying the overwhelmingly majority of the taxes, its virtually impossible to a cut where percentage wise, the "rich" don't get the majority of the cut.

As far as the national debt, the govt doesn't have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem..

Reagan thought there was a revenue problem. That's why he raised taxes in 1982 and 1983...on the middle class.

Soon the president realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable.

In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.

The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked.

Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent.

For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits.

A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax.

https://www.smu.edu/News/2009/ravi-batr ... 3march2009

"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility. They're on an anti-tax jihad -- one that benefits the prosperous classes."

- David Stockman, Director of OMB 1981-1985, "Father of Supply Side".

[Baldy]

Reagan thought there was a revenue problem. That's why he raised taxes in 1982 and 1983...on the middle class.

Soon the president realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable.

In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.

The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked.

Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent.

For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits.

A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax.

https://www.smu.edu/News/2009/ravi-batr ... 3march2009

Thanks for this thought provoking objective and balanced opinion piece from a fervent anti-capitalist.

"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility. They're on an anti-tax jihad -- one that benefits the prosperous classes."

- David Stockman, Director of OMB 1981-1985, "Father of Supply Side".

FTR, Stockman has been fired from just about every job he's had and has been charged criminally and civilly for financial fraud, so he has that going for him.
His job and reputation at OMB was pretty much only as a negotiator. Even he has been quoted as saying that he didn't know what all those numbers meant.

[kalm]

Reagan thought there was a revenue problem. That's why he raised taxes in 1982 and 1983...on the middle class.

Soon the president realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable.

In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.

The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked.

Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent.

For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits.

A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax.

https://www.smu.edu/News/2009/ravi-batr ... 3march2009

Thanks for this thought provoking objective and balanced opinion piece from a fervent anti-capitalist.

"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility. They're on an anti-tax jihad -- one that benefits the prosperous classes."

- David Stockman, Director of OMB 1981-1985, "Father of Supply Side".

FTR, Stockman has been fired from just about every job he's had and has been charged criminally and civilly for financial fraud, so he has that going for him.
His job and reputation at OMB was pretty much only as a negotiator. Even he has been quoted as saying that he didn't know what all those numbers meant.

Reagans Director of OMB for 4 years and one of the founding fathers of supply side economics admitted THEY didn't understand the numbers...let that sink in...

Ravi Batra is a lefty no doubt but I'm pretty sure he's on board with capitalism as long as it's regulated correctly. I noticed you didn't dispute his numbers.

[GannonFan]

Thanks for this thought provoking objective and balanced opinion piece from a fervent anti-capitalist.


FTR, Stockman has been fired from just about every job he's had and has been charged criminally and civilly for financial fraud, so he has that going for him.
His job and reputation at OMB was pretty much only as a negotiator. Even he has been quoted as saying that he didn't know what all those numbers meant.

Reagans Director of OMB for 4 years and one of the founding fathers of supply side economics admitted THEY didn't understand the numbers...let that sink in...

Ravi Batra is a lefty no doubt but I'm pretty sure he's on board with capitalism as long as it's regulated correctly. I noticed you didn't dispute his numbers.

You give Stockman a lot of credit for things that he didn't understand and that he certainly did not think up. Come on, this is the same guy who said "I invest in anything that Bernanke can’t destroy, including gold, canned beans, bottled water and flashlight batteries". Supply siders are just as bereft of economic understanding as the Keynseians on the other side of the spectrum, but Stockman was and is never at that level of thinking - he ran OMB, not the Treasury.

[houndawg]

Eight years and $9,000,000,000,000 of debt later, now the Donks begin to worry about deficits.

Deficits don't matter. - Dick Cheney

[Baldy]

Thanks for this thought provoking objective and balanced opinion piece from a fervent anti-capitalist.


FTR, Stockman has been fired from just about every job he's had and has been charged criminally and civilly for financial fraud, so he has that going for him.
His job and reputation at OMB was pretty much only as a negotiator. Even he has been quoted as saying that he didn't know what all those numbers meant.

Reagans Director of OMB for 4 years and one of the founding fathers of supply side economics admitted THEY didn't understand the numbers...let that sink in...

Ravi Batra is a lefty no doubt but I'm pretty sure he's on board with capitalism as long as it's regulated correctly. I noticed you didn't dispute his numbers.

Gannon pretty much hit the nail on the head regarding Stockman. He wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he was one hell of a negotiator.

Batra, on the other hand, is a clown show. He is in no way "on board" with capitalism. As I said, he is a fervent anti-capitalist. He is a scholar of the PROUT school of economic chaos and disorder. They are of the belief that capitalism will collapse due to inequality and in its place would be a system that puts limits on the accumulation of wealth, and that material goods are common property. That may seem normal to you, but yeah the guy is a nut bag.