"Trump Probably Picked the Worst Time to Propose a Giant Tax Cut"

either way, but making the middle class tax cuts temporary white the tax cuts for the rich are permanent is a slap in the face to the middle class

just raise the standard deduction more, 90% of us would get a huge tax cut

the rich woudl get the same tax cut, but to them it's chump change

 

You already know "permanent" is an oxymoron when it comes to tax laws.

 

you already know the republicans tax plan makes the tax cuts for the rich permanent and the tax cuts for the middle class temporary

 

And I'll repeat, "permanent and temporary" are used interchangeably when it comes to laws. Just look at welfare, I'm sure at the time it was supposed to be a "temporary" solution.

 

How can you post that and not see what it means. It proves your entire case wrong. The problem was spending not the tax cuts. It's Hauser's law in full effect.



It doesn't matter what the tax rate is. Revenue is always in the same small range.

 

the tax cuts are permanent unless changed for the rich
the tax cuts for the middle class are temporary
can play games with words all you want, but the facts are the facts

make then both the same, either permanent or temporary, don't play favorites

 

I agree, we should raise the rates in fact for corps by 25% and give a 35% tax cuts to those that keep their jobs here

 

I didn’t move the goal posts. You should re-read my posts. YOU tried to move them and got shown where you were wrong.

So you post an article in Forbes, and then don’t even pay attention to the content of what you posted. That article you posted tries to corrolate lowering of the top marginal rate to increases in all tax receipts, which at a minimum is diengenous, and in reality is comparing apples to transmissions. But you knew that before you posted it. What other changes happened to the tax code at the same time ?

Maybe you should ask St Reagan what happened when he tried EXACTLY that in the early 80’s. Within 2 years he had to increase taxes on the bottom to cover the losses in revenue. And then he did it yet AGAIN just another 2 short years after that to conver even more losses. Those 2 tax increases were the largest post war tax increases, and they fell almost solely on th backs of the working class.....That graph would look exactly the same in the 1980’s, and if you leave out those 2 huge tax increases on the working class in your copy, then hell yeah, receipts went up.

You need to learn simple math friend. You cannot give someone a dollar, and then when they spend it make it 2.

1+1 != 3

 

No no. Backpedaling hard, are you? You tried to equate sales taxes with income taxes. Neither are related, and sales taxes has ZERO to do with cuts in federal income taxes. Now do the walk of shame.

 

You say you disagree but then go on to basically agree. The financial collapse started as a normal economic downturn that is in normal times easily absorbed but when you suddenly had millions of people with no savings, mediocre employment and no savings trying to meet a mortgage payment as their hours got cut at the local 7-11 it was a recipe for disaster. The normal economic downturn quickly mushroomed into a collapse as people began defaulting in droves and housing prices fell through the floor.

 

Jesus on a bicycle

YOU said that if we cut income taxes, that spending will increase, thus covering the losses in revenue for the cuts...YOU said that !

I pointed out that that is impossible.......

Nice try tho

 

No it didn't because those people were NOT WORKING explain how people on food stamps using other people's money to buy food is better for the economy than them work and EARNING the money they use to buy food. How does that grow the economy and produce more tax revenue?

 

Which taxes are you talking about?

 

Wasn't a nice try, it is fact. More money in the pocket of citizens, more money that will flow into the economy. More money flowing into the economy, the greater the overall federal tax revenues are. Yes, it's not only possible, it's highly probable.

. Not every tax cut will increase revenue, nor will every tax increase. Most tax cuts partially pay for themselves with increased revenue from higher economic growth, but not all.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/three-times-revenue-increased-after-tax-cuts/article/2557140

 

The only permanent tax cut is the death tax. As well it should be, or the cap raised several fold.

 

Oh well there goes the budget deficit

"In 2014, the estate tax raised $19.3 billion according to the OMB, or 0.6 percent of total federal revenue of over $3 trillion."
https://taxfoundation.org/estate-tax-provides-less-one-percent-federal-revenue

 

What bothers me is that we can't get good legislation out of this government, no matter which party takes over majority control. It also bothers me that this doesn't matter come election time, apart from helping inspire swing-state voters to make the same stupid mistake they always make and simply vote for the other party, as if it's going to make a difference. Granted, Trump appeared to be something different. That was his promise as a non-politician. Well, now you can see that simply electing a wacko as president isn't going to achieve the desired effect, can't you? In fact, the president is probably not the person/office to focus on so much. The president is mostly a figurehead and has powers that are quite limited by our constitution. Trump never had a prayer of accomplishing much. The fact that he's so abrasive and lacking in competence to act as president isn't helping, but neither is that the main issue.

We need representatives (not necessarily career politicians, but then again, not necessarily otherwise) cooperating to deliver good, practical policy improvements on behalf of those electing them. That's how we get good health care and a better tax code. Not by this silly partisan warring and the two-party elections that keep sending increasingly dishonest and ridiculous incompetents to Washington.

 

the trump tax plan

 

the economic crash was not the fault of the poor was my point... lol

but yes I agree, the housing collapse was because of the failing economy due to foreign outsourcing and foreign imports sending too much money and jobs overseas and people not having the money to pay their mortgages

and it's gonna get worse, temporary band-aids wont fix it forever unless we address the problem

 

and republicans are trying to end that one

 

the local economy benefits from food stamps as well as the people it is helping, because that money is always spent locally
tax cuts for the rich may or may not be spent, may not even be spent in this country

 

The people in the local economy are paying taxes to fund those food stamps it takes that money out of their pockets. If government funding the grocery bill grows the economy and produces tax revenues then why don't we have the government give them to EVERYONE? Or we can all quit our jobs and start collecting them and just think how great will be the economy.

Can you point me to a county in this country on the high end of food stamp recipients that has a better economy that one with few food stamp recipients?

 

It doesn't even raise $20B and look at what it puts families through. End and end it now.

 

Specifically which taxes are you talking about?

 

Are you opposed to lower taxes or something? If so, would you have been opposed at any time during the last 8 years?