Corrected title: Now the GOP has accomplished massive tax reform

[Puffnstuff]

But we already agreed that the rich aren't just taking home what 'they made', they are taking home what other people made as well. If they had really made all they are taking home that means all productivity increases over the last 3 decades are due to the top 1% of people and you already said that wasn't the case.

Each time Republicans rule the roost a little bit more wealth gets transferred to the rich and we can see the result of that as the disparity in wages continues to climb.

 

[greatnoob]

Yes, they changed things because the loss of mandate destroyed their insurance industry!!! As for their standing right now, they are currently operating under an insurance model that includes an individual mandate. (ie: the ACA) This is just further proving my point. Come on man, you can't make the argument that because a mandate was re-introduced after their choice to remove it collapsed their individual insurance market that removing the mandate didn't hurt them. It literally destroyed it.

With that example in mind, doesn't removing the individual mandate seem like a catastrophically bad idea?



Don't forget it will also mean higher taxes for the middle class in perpetuity. And yes, the middle class did get a (temporary) tax cut, it was just that the top 1% of individuals got 83% of the tax cuts and the other 99% of people got 17% of them. You mentioned earlier that if this tax cut was entirely for the rich you would oppose it. What would the skew have to be for you to reach that tipping point? I mean isn't 83% pretty horrible?



So in other words you think cutting taxes is more important than fiscal responsibility?

You're arguing with a moron who doesn't even know what he, himself, believes in. He's flip flopping like a dying fish trying to rationalise his own contradictory positions but failing miserably.

"We need these tax cuts for corps and the rich, I don't support gutting social services but we should reduce spending, how? I don't know but reduce spending so we can have these tax cuts for the rich that I don't know why we need atm. Also free market and communism."

 

[fskimospy]

You're arguing with a moron who doesn't even know what he, himself, believes in. He's flip flopping like a dying fish trying to rationalise his own contradictory positions but failing miserably.

"We need these tax cuts for corps and the rich, I don't support gutting social services but we should reduce spending, how? I don't know but reduce spending so we can have these tax cuts for the rich that I don't know why we need atm. Also free market and communism."

Meh, I like him just fine. While I think the argument that removing the mandate didn't hurt their insurance markets because their insurance markets were later fixed by re-introducing a mandate is ridiculous I think he is approaching this discussion from an honest place, which is something not so many people here do. (like taj or SlowSpyder) It's entirely possible to think someone's ideas are silly and wrong while appreciating that they hold them honestly.

 

[blackangst1]

Yes, they changed things because the loss of mandate destroyed their insurance industry!!! As for their standing right now, they are currently operating under an insurance model that includes an individual mandate. (ie: the ACA) This is just further proving my point. Come on man, you can't make the argument that because a mandate was re-introduced after their choice to remove it collapsed their individual insurance market that removing the mandate didn't hurt them. It literally destroyed it.

With that example in mind, doesn't removing the individual mandate seem like a catastrophically bad idea?

Thank you for pointing out the ACA was responsible for the mandate (not sure why I didnt think of that), thus (possibly) contributing to WA states success. With that, there are two points about the mandate that still dont sit right with me. The first, so many people are required to buy insurance that dont need it. And second, the ACA (or any other legislation) has not even begun to fix whats truly wrong with American healthcare, the cost of care.Thus, we have millions who choose to pay the penalty instead of buying insurance, because its cheaper. Ill need to give this more thought.

Don't forget it will also mean higher taxes for the middle class in perpetuity. And yes, the middle class did get a (temporary) tax cut, it was just that the top 1% of individuals got 83% of the tax cuts and the other 99% of people got 17% of them. You mentioned earlier that if this tax cut was entirely for the rich you would oppose it. What would the skew have to be for you to reach that tipping point? I mean isn't 83% pretty horrible?

If youll allow me, Ill answer your question with a question.
https://taxfoundation.org/new-irs-data-wealthy-paid-55-percent-income-taxes-2014/

Our current taxing scheme is very progressive. Every year the wealthy pay a larger share revenue. In 2014 it was 55%. My question is, what percentage SHOULD it be? 70? 80? And 35% of filers have a negative tax rate.

So in other words you think cutting taxes is more important than fiscal responsibility?

These two things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[blackangst1]

But we already agreed that the rich aren't just taking home what 'they made', they are taking home what other people made as well. If they had really made all they are taking home that means all productivity increases over the last 3 decades are due to the top 1% of people and you already said that wasn't the case.

I think people should be compensated relative to the value they bring to society. That's what a free market is all about. Right now that's not happening however, and we basically have a situation where a small fraction of the country is capturing the gains from everyone else's work. It's best to correct for those market failures through public policy.

So taking this to the next level...

I think you would agree Bill Gates created a company that has had a MAJOR impact to our economy over the last 20 years. With that said, I think you would agree the executives's annual pay is far and away more than the average employee. Oh and then theres Gates. He no longer works there, yet receives a huge amount more than employees who keep the company running.

So who should the lions share of profit go to? The man who made the whole thing possible, or the worker bees that keep it running? We both know one could not exist without the other. But the creater, founder, person in charge, whatever is always compensated more favorably. Do you suggest that should change? If so, how would that be possible AND constitutional at the same time?

 

[blackangst1]

You're arguing with a moron who doesn't even know what he, himself, believes in. He's flip flopping like a dying fish trying to rationalise his own contradictory positions but failing miserably.

"We need these tax cuts for corps and the rich, I don't support gutting social services but we should reduce spending, how? I don't know but reduce spending so we can have these tax cuts for the rich that I don't know why we need atm. Also free market and communism."

I hope youre smart enough to understand we could have just as easily paid for this IN FULL without cutting services.

Right?

 

[fskimospy]

Thank you for pointing out the ACA was responsible for the mandate (not sure why I didnt think of that), thus (possibly) contributing to WA states success. With that, there are two points about the mandate that still dont sit right with me. The first, so many people are required to buy insurance that dont need it. And second, the ACA (or any other legislation) has not even begun to fix whats truly wrong with American healthcare, the cost of care.Thus, we have millions who choose to pay the penalty instead of buying insurance, because its cheaper. Ill need to give this more thought.

If youll allow me, Ill answer your question with a question.
https://taxfoundation.org/new-irs-data-wealthy-paid-55-percent-income-taxes-2014/

Our current taxing scheme is very progressive. Every year the wealthy pay a larger share revenue. In 2014 it was 55%. My question is, what percentage SHOULD it be? 70? 80? And 35% of filers have a negative tax rate.

Our FEDERAL INCOME TAX scheme is very progressive but our overall system of taxation is not. If you don't just look at income taxes but instead look at all money people pay to the government, meaning state/local taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc, the outcome is that our system is BARELY progressive. This chart is from 2012 so it's a bit old but I don't think if you did it again today it would be that dramatically different. (probably a bit more progressive overall)

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...total-us-taxes-are-barely-progressive/262536/

I don't have an exact number for what it should be, but the rich should pay a lot more than they do now. The fact that Bill Gates is paying a similar proportion of his income as someone who is struggling to feed their kids and keep a roof over their head is insane to me. I find the conservative focus on the income tax only to be very misleading. I mean I know why they do it as it helps them argue that the rich need tax cuts, but it's not an honest description of the tax system people really deal with.

These twqo things are not mutually exclusive.

It would seem in the case of this bill they are. As I think I've said before though, one silver lining of this bill is that the next time conservatives bring up the debt or deficit as a reason not to enact social safety net programs or to cut spending or whatever we can laugh in their face. This bill has shown they don't actually care about debt or deficits... at all.

 

[fskimospy]

So taking this to the next level...

I think you would agree Bill Gates created a company that has had a MAJOR impact to our economy over the last 20 years. With that said, I think you would agree the executives's annual pay is far and away more than the average employee. Oh and then theres Gates. He no longer works there, yet receives a huge amount more than employees who keep the company running.

So who should the lions share of profit go to? The man who made the whole thing possible, or the worker bees that keep it running? We both know one could not exist without the other. But the creater, founder, person in charge, whatever is always compensated more favorably. Do you suggest that should change? If so, how would that be possible AND constitutional at the same time?

I'm not saying that some people shouldn't be compensated more favorably, I'm saying that system has become so skewed that it's lost touch with reality. The gap between CEO and worker pay, for example, has exploded and what does the US have to show for it? Are we more innovative than we were when the gap was smaller? Are our firms performing better? What?

 

[blackangst1]

Our FEDERAL INCOME TAX scheme is very progressive but our overall system of taxation is not. If you don't just look at income taxes but instead look at all money people pay to the government, meaning state/local taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc, the outcome is that our system is BARELY progressive. This chart is from 2012 so it's a bit old but I don't think if you did it again today it would be that dramatically different. (probably a bit more progressive overall)

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...total-us-taxes-are-barely-progressive/262536/

I don't have an exact number for what it should be, but the rich should pay a lot more than they do now. The fact that Bill Gates is paying a similar proportion of his income as someone who is struggling to feed their kids and keep a roof over their head is insane to me. I find the conservative focus on the income tax only to be very misleading. I mean I know why they do it as it helps them argue that the rich need tax cuts, but it's not an honest description of the tax system people really deal with.



It would seem in the case of this bill they are. As I think I've said before though, one silver lining of this bill is that the next time conservatives bring up the debt or deficit as a reason not to enact social safety net programs or to cut spending or whatever we can laugh in their face. This bill has shown they don't actually care about debt or deficits... at all.

Well, since this bill only affects income taxes, thats what I addressed. At least we agree its progressive.

As far as your last paragraph, Im also in agreement. This bill, should it backfire in a big way, would be disastrous for the GOP come election time. As my allegiance is on neither side, ,maybe thats what we need.

 

[ch33zw1z]

yea right, Cons have severe short term memory loss. when the bill comes in a few years no one will remember and it will be fake news while Dems try to fix it.

 

[ivwshane]

Thank you for pointing out the ACA was responsible for the mandate (not sure why I didnt think of that), thus (possibly) contributing to WA states success. With that, there are two points about the mandate that still dont sit right with me. The first, so many people are required to buy insurance that dont need it. And second, the ACA (or any other legislation) has not even begun to fix whats truly wrong with American healthcare, the cost of care.Thus, we have millions who choose to pay the penalty instead of buying insurance, because its cheaper. Ill need to give this more thought.


If youll allow me, Ill answer your question with a question.
https://taxfoundation.org/new-irs-data-wealthy-paid-55-percent-income-taxes-2014/

Our current taxing scheme is very progressive. Every year the wealthy pay a larger share revenue. In 2014 it was 55%. My question is, what percentage SHOULD it be? 70? 80? And 35% of filers have a negative tax rate.




These two things are not mutually exclusive.

Do you know why they paid a larger share of taxes? (hint they own a larger share of the wealth).

You support a tax bill that won't do anything you want or think it will do and I can only assume why, because it will benefit you personally.

It adds to the debt, a lot.
It doesn't reduce government spending.
It won't spur economic growth because most of the benefits go to benefactors that are already flush with cash or are foreign investors.

However, Republicans have already started talking about cutting entitlements to pay for this, something you claimed you didn't want to happen.

Btw, these tax cuts for the middle class are worse than they were under the Bush tax cuts. Do you remember how helpful the Bush tax cuts were to you? Do you remember how well the economy took off?

From reading your posts, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, it appears you don't believe in wealth distribution which is what taxes are and what their purpose is. If that assumption is correct then what do you propose do you think taxes serve? What roll do you think government should play in American society and what is the basis for that opinion?

 

[fskimospy]

Well, since this bill only affects income taxes, thats what I addressed. At least we agree its progressive.

As far as your last paragraph, Im also in agreement. This bill, should it backfire in a big way, would be disastrous for the GOP come election time. As my allegiance is on neither side, ,maybe thats what we need.

Sure but isn't the most important thing what our tax system is as a whole? I mean what does it matter to the average person if they paid the government a dollar in income tax or a dollar in payroll tax? They are out a dollar either way. As it stands now our highly progressive federal income tax is the only thing keeping us from having a system where the poor pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than the rich.

 

[Engineer]

He doesn't care as long as he gets to keep more of his money, no matter the amount. They don't care who else gets money or about deficits, etc. as long as they get the take home more.

 

[dank69]

Thank you for pointing out the ACA was responsible for the mandate (not sure why I didnt think of that), thus (possibly) contributing to WA states success. With that, there are two points about the mandate that still dont sit right with me. The first, so many people are required to buy insurance that dont need it. And second, the ACA (or any other legislation) has not even begun to fix whats truly wrong with American healthcare, the cost of care.Thus, we have millions who choose to pay the penalty instead of buying insurance, because its cheaper. Ill need to give this more thought.


If youll allow me, Ill answer your question with a question.
https://taxfoundation.org/new-irs-data-wealthy-paid-55-percent-income-taxes-2014/

Our current taxing scheme is very progressive. Every year the wealthy pay a larger share revenue. In 2014 it was 55%. My question is, what percentage SHOULD it be? 70? 80? And 35% of filers have a negative tax rate.




These two things are not mutually exclusive.

There is no such thing as a person that does not need health insurance unless they can afford millions in healthcare expenses.

 

[blackangst1]

Do you know why they paid a larger share of taxes? (hint they own a larger share of the wealth).

You support a tax bill that won't do anything you want or think it will do and I can only assume why, because it will benefit you personally.

It adds to the debt, a lot.
It doesn't reduce government spending.
It won't spur economic growth because most of the benefits go to benefactors that are already flush with cash or are foreign investors.

However, Republicans have already started talking about cutting entitlements to pay for this, something you claimed you didn't want to happen.

Btw, these tax cuts for the middle class are worse than they were under the Bush tax cuts. Do you remember how helpful the Bush tax cuts were to you? Do you remember how well the economy took off?

From reading your posts, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, it appears you don't believe in wealth distribution which is what taxes are and what their purpose is. If that assumption is correct then what do you propose do you think taxes serve? What roll do you think government should play in American society and what is the basis for that opinion?

Let me address a few of these. First, this tax bill DOES in fact accomplish *PART* of what I want, which is reduced tax burden for EVERYONE. I have stated Im not particularly happy the bottom quintiles "in pocket" money will drop slightly after 10 years. Im happy with the corp tax rate being permanent, and wish the personal rate cuts were, but that wasnt possible under the confines of this bill's passage.

Second, the amount of debt is being presented dishonestly. Is 1.5T a ton of money? Yup sure is. BUT! Its spread over 10 years, which equates to approx. 3.75% of last years revenue. We all know revenue increase every year, so over 10years it would be less than that. The Bush cut was +/-3%. e.

As far as the your comment about how Bush's econimy took off after his cuts, I caught the sarcasm. His economy tanked. But the housing collapse, which, you know, caused the recession, had NOTHING to do with his tax cuts. So its a non-point.

Nope it does nothing to reduce spending. Our national debt has not been at zero since Andrew Jackson. So as a matter of policy, we simply must admit deficit spending is a fact of life. I have come to terms with this. In our lifetime, only 2 Presidents (that Im awware of) have sat in office when the deficit was reduced: Obama and Clinton. Now, we all know the POTUS isnt responsible for deficit spending, congress is. In Clintons case, a monkey could have reduced the debt, as the tech boom was just firing up. Nevertheless, 3 out of 4 of his congresses were GOP majority. Obama, on the other hand, well....he had a royal mess. His 4 congresses experienced 2 Dem controlled and 2 GOP controlled. But all 8 years were nothing but obstructionism, with most of that falling to the GOP. Make no mistake though...no one on either party wanted to work with the other. So I honestly dont know what to make of that deficit reduction. Its amazing a budget ever even got passed.

On to my point. No president has ever reduced federal spending.in over 100 years that did anything significant. That needs to change. I know people want their perks, but damn...our federal spending is way out of control. Neither Bush's nor Trump's tax cuts address this. I think the idea of reducing spending in such a way as to make a difference is an idea buried in a deep dark hole, and that frustrates me.

I think its funny how all through this thread I have repeated my desire to reduce spending and only one person asked me many pages ago...what would I cut?

First on the chopping block would be military. A 1.5T cut over 10 years would have been a piece of cake, with no addition to debt. But, to my last point, no one in WADC wants to cut spending.

 

[blackangst1]

There is no such thing as a person that does not need health insurance unless they can afford millions in healthcare expenses.

A catastrophic policy? sure. But full insurance? No, not everyone does.

 

[blackangst1]

Sure but isn't the most important thing what our tax system is as a whole? I mean what does it matter to the average person if they paid the government a dollar in income tax or a dollar in payroll tax? They are out a dollar either way. As it stands now our highly progressive federal income tax is the only thing keeping us from having a system where the poor pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than the rich.

Im not sure how true that is...

About fifteen million American households, or 10 percent of all taxpayers, receive more cash from the IRS than they contribute in federal income taxes and payroll taxes. That's thanks to "refundable credits," tax credits that can bring your tax bill into negative territory. And nearly 51% of all filers pay NO federal income taxes.

 

[Engineer]

Im not sure how true that is...

About fifteen million American households, or 10 percent of all taxpayers, receive more cash from the IRS than they contribute in federal income taxes and payroll taxes. That's thanks to "refundable credits," tax credits that can bring your tax bill into negative territory. And nearly 51% of all filers pay NO federal income taxes.

You're talking about FEDERAL income taxes. He's talking about ALL taxes as a portion of a person's income (payroll, state and local income, sales, excise, etc.).

Side note, the reason that fewer people are paying taxes and more are getting refunds is a result of falling wages. Credit and government are the only two entities keeping the SPENDING public up, by design. How else would people continue to keep a 70% spending economy going if all the people who lost good paying jobs didn't have the money to spend?

 

[dank69]

A catastrophic policy? sure. But full insurance? No, not everyone does.

And the ACA offers catastrophic coverage.

 

[fskimospy]

Im not sure how true that is...

About fifteen million American households, or 10 percent of all taxpayers, receive more cash from the IRS than they contribute in federal income taxes and payroll taxes. That's thanks to "refundable credits," tax credits that can bring your tax bill into negative territory. And nearly 51% of all filers pay NO federal income taxes.

Again though, you're talking about federal income tax, not total tax burden. When you account for ALL taxes our system isn't very progressive at all.

Like I said, I don't see why it matters what sort of tax you're paying as a dollar out the door is a dollar out the door.

 

[blackangst1]

You're talking about FEDERAL income taxes. He's talking about ALL taxes as a portion of a person's income (payroll, state and local income, sales, excise, etc.).

Side note, the reason that fewer people are paying taxes and more are getting refunds is a result of falling wages. Credit and government are the only two entities keeping the SPENDING public up, by design. How else would people continue to keep a 70% spending economy going if all the people who lost good paying jobs didn't have the money to spend?

I, and the article, specified that difference.

 

[blackangst1]

And the ACA offers catastrophic coverage.

Yes, and?

 

[Engineer]

I, and the article, specified that difference.

Oh, and that 51% number is falling.....

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2016-02-24

(45% as of 2016 but with this new tax cut, not sure if it will continue to fall with rising economy of fall as a result of temporary tax cuts and credits).

 

[ivwshane]

Let me address a few of these. First, this tax bill DOES in fact accomplish *PART* of what I want, which is reduced tax burden for EVERYONE. I have stated Im not particularly happy the bottom quintiles "in pocket" money will drop slightly after 10 years. Im happy with the corp tax rate being permanent, and wish the personal rate cuts were, but that wasnt possible under the confines of this bill's passage.

Second, the amount of debt is being presented dishonestly. Is 1.5T a ton of money? Yup sure is. BUT! Its spread over 10 years, which equates to approx. 3.75% of last years revenue. We all know revenue increase every year, so over 10years it would be less than that. The Bush cut was +/-3%. e.

As far as the your comment about how Bush's econimy took off after his cuts, I caught the sarcasm. His economy tanked. But the housing collapse, which, you know, caused the recession, had NOTHING to do with his tax cuts. So its a non-point.

Nope it does nothing to reduce spending. Our national debt has not been at zero since Andrew Jackson. So as a matter of policy, we simply must admit deficit spending is a fact of life. I have come to terms with this. In our lifetime, only 2 Presidents (that Im awware of) have sat in office when the deficit was reduced: Obama and Clinton. Now, we all know the POTUS isnt responsible for deficit spending, congress is. In Clintons case, a monkey could have reduced the debt, as the tech boom was just firing up. Nevertheless, 3 out of 4 of his congresses were GOP majority. Obama, on the other hand, well....he had a royal mess. His 4 congresses experienced 2 Dem controlled and 2 GOP controlled. But all 8 years were nothing but obstructionism, with most of that falling to the GOP. Make no mistake though...no one on either party wanted to work with the other. So I honestly dont know what to make of that deficit reduction. Its amazing a budget ever even got passed.

On to my point. No president has ever reduced federal spending.in over 100 years that did anything significant. That needs to change. I know people want their perks, but damn...our federal spending is way out of control. Neither Bush's nor Trump's tax cuts address this. I think the idea of reducing spending in such a way as to make a difference is an idea buried in a deep dark hole, and that frustrates me.

I think its funny how all through this thread I have repeated my desire to reduce spending and only one person asked me many pages ago...what would I cut?

First on the chopping block would be military. A 1.5T cut over 10 years would have been a piece of cake, with no addition to debt. But, to my last point, no one in WADC wants to cut spending.

You conveniently ignored the affects of Bush's tax cuts which happened at the beginning of his term and had zero effect on the economy. So no, it's not a "non point", just because you want it to be.

You also can't complain about the debt and then ignore the 1.5t more debt this bill will create because "it's spread over 10 years".

Just in case you weren't aware, the Congress may set the budget but the president has to sign it into law. Which means the budget was negotiated by both parties and when Republicans have full control they don't reduce spending, they increase it by a large magnitude. You could claim the same for Democrats but you be willfully ignoring the fact that the last two Democrat presidents and the Democrat Congress they enjoyed came in at a time of economic recessions.

Hey we agree on something! I too would cut military spending. Where we don't agree is on a tax bill that is A) unwarranted in this economic climate B) does nothing of value to help the general welfare of this country C) used funny math to pass.

You didn't address my other question. What do you think the point of taxes are and what roll do you think government should play in our society?

 

[dank69]

Yes, and?

Sorry, I forgot the crayons. If you admit that everyone at least needs catastrophic insurance and the ACA offers catastrophic insurance, what is the problem with the mandate?