Bosses pocket Trump Tax Windfall

Rather "Hoosier8-logic" ...

 

About 150,000 fellow Yanks who live here in France would say otherwise. And the British rate is around 200,000.

In fact, those Yanks living outside the US are estimated to total around 9 million. Which is larger than the populations of 39 American states.

And yet we have no representatives in Congress, and we pay American taxes (as well as national taxes where we live!)

You can't see beyond the 3-mile offshore limit ... !

 

Pay the max tax rates, youd impose on others.
Pay your fair share

 

MY POINT: THIS NEW ERA CALLED THE INFORMATION AGE

Do you know the difference between Mandatory and Discretionary Spending;

The Discretionary Budget spending is consumed almost by half with DoD-spending.

You need a lesson in the difference between Mandatory and Discretionary Spending. I cannot post the graphics here, so you must go to this link:
Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go Federal Budget 101

There you will learn that:
*The difference between Mandatory and Discretionary Spending (in terms of volume) is that the former is twice the amount of the latter.
*From the article, note this:

*Now, pray tell me how you are going to reduce the "Mandatory Budget" to lower overall spending? By pissing off retired Americans or those who benefit from Medicare?
*Simply because YOU DON'T WANT TO TOUCH THE DOD BUDGET!

The lesson you (and others like you) must learn is that on this earth human-beings are far more important than weapons! Which is why I maintain that both Healthcare and Postsecondary Education must become part of the Mandatory Spending budget.

Yes, that is going to be gut-wrenching for the nation. But, America has been asleep with it's own highly contestable notion that it is the Greatest Country on Earth for far too long!

My Point: We are a nation with a deep attachment for a "way-of-working" that is outdated, unfair and financially decrepit. And that nation is neither fit nor prepared for this New Era called the Information Age ...

 

Sorry you think people are not as smart as you but hey, some people actually understand what mandatory spending is.

Here is the CBO's projection of spending growth. Mandatory spending is only increasing and is, even now, the largest part of the budget.

 

If Mandatory Spending is increasing it is No Big Wondrous News. It has been increasing for a donkey's age!

You are making an effort to drown the point I proposed. Which is this:

As regards education, the US is going through EXACTLY THE SAME TURMOIL as was made for introducing secondary-schooling more than a century ago! It took a good sixty-years (between the middle of the 19th to the 20th century) to assure that all states were offering FREE SECONDARY SCHOOLING!

In fact, as Tertiary Education goes, the number of Americans who have an advanced degree is not that bad compared to the rest-of-the-world. (See here.)

What I am insisting upon is that - for instance - Canada has nearly-free Tertiary Education, which is why it has both more highly educated people AND THEREFORE A LOWER-RATE OF NATIONAL INCOME DISPARITY AND ALSO PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION LIVING IN POVERTY!

As regards poverty in Canada, the stats show about 9.5% living below the Poverty Threshold, whilst in the US it is 13.9%. So, yes! I am making a less-than-tenuous link between level-of-education and percent-of-population living below the Poverty Threshold.

Because Canada is not trying to show the world that it has the most wondrous of Defense Mechanisms on earth! Defense against what? We can't even defend the nation against Abject Poverty ... !

 

The reason Canada has less disparity and less poverty is because they don't have a continual wave of unskilled uneducated disease ridden third world illegal immigrants flowing across their borders.

It's really that simple.

 

You could eliminate military spending altogether and it will not solve the debt crisis. Adding more mandatory spending as you suggest will only exacerbate the problem of growing mandatory spending.

 

Yes, you are right. I quite agree. (Wow! ;^)

Nonetheless, more government subsidy is necessary to get the American people:
*A decent National Healthcare System that expands lifespan. I live in Europe, with its National Healthcare System, and on average we here live four-more years than you (plural) do in the US. So, I gather, you are happy to die at the average of 79. Well, I'd rather stick around till I'm 83! And,
*The Industrial Age for us is over and done with in the US. It lasted a century and a half, and made America the Great Economy that it is today. But, we are now in the Information Age and to find a decently Good Job one needs a Post-secondary Level diploma (vocational, Associates, Bachelors, Masters, or Doctorate). And the average cost per year in the US for any of those degrees is $14.7K per-year at a state-subventioned institute-of-higher-learning. (And much, much higher at private colleges/universities.)
*So, my simple thesis from the above factual evidence is that poor-parents who do not get proper secondary schooling, and even if they do, will breed children they cannot afford to send into a post-secondary education. And, since there is no (or far too little) state- or Federal tertiary-level educational-aid available today, they are incarcerated-in-poverty!
*It would therefore seem perfectly logical to me that - in order to diminish our percentage of people living below the Poverty Threshold ($25K per year of revenue for a family of four) - we must provide educational-subsidies for a post-secondary education to all who want to pursue one.. (As both Bernie and Hillary proposed in the last election for families with Gross Income less than $100K a year!)

And all the above suggestions are well worth diminishing the DoD-budget at a time when we are at war with NO COUNTRY!

Of course, you may care to differ. But that's what Debate Forums are all about ... !

 

There are so many things that affect the 'average' lifespan that I don't think 4 years is a true indicator of anything. Genetic makeup, my family lives into their late 80's early 90's. Diet, drugs, etc.. Americans, with all this wealth, tend to have way too much food available and different habits. Even demographic makeup affects the average such as many blacks suffer from diabetes or sickle cell anemia and die younger on average (again, genetics). Amount of physical activity, Americans drive 2 blocks to go to a grocery store instead of walking.

Even how metrics are measured country to country are not the same so affect the average. For instance, how birth deaths are measured.

Much could be done here without touching the medical establishment to increase the average but it takes a willing population to eat right and exercize.

 

Yeah right. Typical blindness on the Rabid Right of American politics. (Aka, "smugness".)

Moving right along ...

 

Translation: You have little clue what the metrics are.

 

Some people MUST HAVE the last word.

You've had yours.

Feel better now ... ?

 

Well, if you don't know the metrics used, it is time for you to run away.

 

Yes, simple to simpletons.

How many people work for hourly rates? From the BLS here:

But who cares about half a million workers earning only the Minimum Wage? Tough luck. That's the way the cookie-crumbles.

We Americans are so fascinated by the rich people, we could care less about the truly poor. In fact, they are an embarrassment.

The sooner they die off, the better ...

 

I've been throwing the "metrics" at your prefabricated one-liner sarcasm throughout this thread.

I dislike intensely those who insist on rebutting with ridicule. Fortunately the site has a solution for people-like-you.

You go on "Ignore" ...

 

WTF does minimum wage have to do with this???? NOTHING!!!!!

If someone isn't happy with their minimum wage, then do something about it like learn a new fricking skill or get an education that will bring in more fricking money!!!

 

Trump's Tax the Rich SALT deduction limitations are finally forcing the Gentrified to pay a little more of their long overdue fair share.

Every Democrat on the Trail has pledged to remove this cap in order to reduce taxes on the 1%.

They know who butters their toast.

 

My taxes were reduced about $12,000. Has the OP poster not noticed we have record low unemployment, and rising wages? For some people not even hindsight vision is 20/20.

 

Yup, most of those paying more tax under the new SALT rules are the very wealthy. I thought Democrats wanted to raise taxes on them?

 

These seeking high office in the Democrat Party know that their toast is buttered by the privileged gentrified and they want their SALT deduction caps removed.

All this "I'm sad I can't pay more taxes!" crap isn't to be believed. After these folks virtue signal for higher taxes they immediate run to their accountant to find out how to get around the taxes they support. Well, there is no getting around this SALT deduction cap!

Lifting the SALT deduction CAP is tax-cuts for the top 10% of taxpayers and every Democrat running for President supports this tax cut for the richest among us.

They fool no one!

 

The SALT cap was brilliant, why should the rest of America subsidize a handful of big-spending states?

 

I worked for a defense contractor for awhile. Seeing how things were run, and how cumbersome everything was, I wondered how they ever made money. Turned out, the more money they paid me to chase papers around, the more money they made, as most contracts are cost plus profit. Whatever the costs, plus 20% for profit.

 

The economy works best if there is a kind of balance between competing forces. The problem with the wealthy reinvesting their windfall, is that it allows them to buy up small companies, killing off competition in the process.

 

Here in Oregon, the homeless are almost exclusively White US citizens.