Good for you. Then why do you feel the need to look down on the less fortunate instead of just feeling grateful for what you have achieved? BTW: The same narrative goes for the rich as well: Why don't they open another business if they are so good at it and want more money, instead of lobbying the legislature for handouts? Seems like they want something for nothing, just like anyone else. Except anyone else does bot have millions of dollars to buy votes.
Who said I look down on them? Expecting them to do for themselves is not the same as looking down on them. As for the rest of your post. Well seeings as I don't think any of us should be paying taxes on our income I have a feeling that we won't come to an agreement.
I am to a point. I'm no anarchist. I understand a need for some amount of government. I simply disagree with the left and right with how and for what taxes are collected and spent on.
I don't know where you get this from. Simplification was nothing more than GOP rhetoric designed to appeal to talk radio right wingers who are too lazy to fill out a two page form once a year. And there is no evidence that this bill produces the promised simplification. The only tax breaks and deductions that people are talking about eliminating affect people, not corporations. We have not seen the promised list of tax loopholes that will be closed in order drop the corporate tax rate this much, But we HAVE seen the typical hypocricy of the talk radio right, which yelled for eight years about debt and the deficits, but don't say one word about the $1.5 trillion hole in the national debt that this bill would produce (using the GOP's very optimistic projections).
Most lower- and middle-income Americans already have simple enough taxes. They're not spending "dozens of hours of documentation gathering" or having "sleepless nights worrying about leaving money on the table or triggering an audit." There shouldn't be a dime of tax relief for anyone making more than $250,000 per year. Cut business taxes? Yes, especially for firms investing in R&D, infrastructure, and job training. We should help exporters. Rich people can get their tax cut through the growth of businesses they own.
We're covering the tax cuts with spending reductions in entitlements. Joe Average will be worse off when the dust settles. Even cuts to Medicaid potentially impact average people. Indigent seniors who can no longer take care of themselves are eligible for skilled nursing care that costs about $7,000 per month. How many average people would be able to cover three or four years at $84,000 per year? Nearly half of Medicaid spending goes to skilled nursing and we have Boomers just starting to need care. Holding Medicaid to below the rate of inflation will create a funding crisis in skilled nursing for seniors.
You had 8 years to express your views on taxation to Obama..... Sorry to break it to you but you lost the election, the presidency, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court and 1000 other public offices. The one thing this means is that the majority of American people disagree with your positions on issue, Trump and the Republicans got the mandate to change the tax law the way they see fit. That being said, your opposition party should negotiate with Trump administration in good faith and come up with mutually acceptable changes to the tax proposal. But given that the Dems are into sabotage, not negotiations, they are just shooting themselves in the foot and the bill will pass as is, all this "it's not fair" internet whining notwithstanding.
Sounds good until one realizes it's not that easy for rich Americans to get out of paying the tax man. Those of us who live outside the U.S. part or all of the year and have foreign holdingd know all about the reach of Uncle Sam's tax collectors.
I have expressed my views on taxes for many years--I'm an economist--and I didn't "lose" anything because I've never voted for a Democrat in my life. Obama won a mandate in 2008 and blew it. It looks as though Republicans are doing the same thing with their 2016 green light. Our political system isn't designed for what you recommend. Republicans should pass something they like, and by my thinking sustain public support. Their plans for health care, taxes, and entitlements are out of the mainstream and will see them replaced.
Geez, leave it to the reactionaries to start crying about a tax bill that's not yet law. Here are the steps in the legislative process with the tax bill - the tax bill is still in step 5 in the Senate and won't make it to step six or seven until the Senate passes its own version. The bill could die in the Senate Introduction: Only a member of Congress may introduce a bill. After a bill is introduced, it is assigned a designation number. Only members of the House of Representatives may introduce bills concerning taxes. Referral to committee: The leader of the house in which the bill was introduced then refers the bill to an appropriate committee or committees. Committee action: The committees can refer the bill to subcommittees for action, hearings, markup sessions, and votes. The committee can also kill the bill by doing nothing at all, a process known as pigeonholing. Referral to the full body: If a committee approves a bill, the bill is sent on to the full House or Senate. Floor debate and vote: The full body debates the bill and then votes. The two houses differ significantly in how they handle debate: In the House, the Rules Committee has the power to limit debate and the number of amendments offered during debate. A vote in which every member’s vote is recorded is called a roll-call vote. In the Senate, members are allowed to speak as much as they wish and to propose as many amendments as they wish. There is no Senate Rules Committee. Conference committee: Often, the two houses produce different versions of a single bill. When this happens, both houses appoint members to a conference committee, which works to combine the versions. After the conference committee’s report, both houses must vote on the new bill. The President: The president’s only official legislative duty is to sign or veto bills passed by Congress. If the president signs the bill, it becomes law. If the bill is vetoed, it goes back to Congress, which can override the veto with a two-thirds vote in both houses. Veto overrides are rare—it is extremely difficult to get two-thirds of each house of Congress to agree to override. Instead, presidential vetoes usually kill bills.
I know that is true. Of course, taxation and tax protections or shelters can be sort of a game of strategy, that most of us can't afford to play. However, companies or people with a great deal at stake can afford to hire the best minds, can afford to structure in ways that cost small fortunes- to protect large ones. I personally believe that you should be entitled to what you earn, and I also believe you should pay your fair share of the cost of running the nation. The questions are- why we waste so much and manage our national finances so incredibly poorly- resulting in the taxpayers never getting good value- and why we seem to be intentionally creating and promoting dependence, which is a state no man is really happy in. Our government is failing to actually serve the best interests of the people, and that is the prime purpose it is there to serve.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Kevin Hassett did a nice job talking on the tax plan in his White House Briefing. He spoke about how the Economic Policy Committee meeting at the OECD in Paris has wide spread acclaim for President Trump's plan, in particular his approach to corporate taxation. He talked about how lower marginal rates produce economic growth in every model tested and gives incentive to companies who stay in the US. The president had three, what he called, non-negotiables. That there is a 20 percent corporate tax rate; that there's a big middle-class tax cut; and that the bill simplified the tax code. In the model tested it met these three main goals. There are two CEA reports that explain four different ways for the average family to accumulate a $4,000 savings benefit, which is based on actual changes from other countries who have done the same thing, not just speculation. He also explained that the deficit for the plan sounds like a lot but is actually only .6% of GDP in the 10th year. He even compared some of the things in this plan that Obama did during the recession with democratic and bipartisan support. After watching him, I spent some time researching him and watching a few more videos of his speeches all over the world. Seems like a very knowledgeable guy and he has many bipartisan friends and friends who have worked with democratic administrations and they all support him and mostly support the President's plan.
LOL. Is that the same Kevin Hassett who co-authored a book "Dow 36,000" right before the crash of 1999? His thesis then was that the stock market was grossly undervalued. Now, we are supposed to believe his "models" that predict the average guy will get a $4,000 benefit from the corporate tax break? Give me a break. Welcome to the forum, btw.
Give you a break? Why? Have you never been wrong about anything- and if you have, did that make you wrong about everything? In recalling the last election, it seems that a very large number of people who were supposed to be very wise turned out to be downright stupid wrong. Gee- even Hillary, to her great shock found out she was wrong.
Could be, you can deduce from my post that I am not familiar with him. The model is not his. The model is what was made by the President, his advisors, and legislators, and likely some lawyers. It was evaluated by the CEA not him.
You are correct. The bill is a joke. That's why you see so little support for it. I listen to The Five on Fox news nearly every day. Both times they have spoken about this bill, even the hyper partisan republicans aren't supporting this on the air. This bill is written, bought, and paid for by the swamp creatures of DC. Just like the Obamacare bills, I hope to see this one crash and burn also.
There is a difference between being wrong about something and writing a whole book based on a whopper of a prediction in your field of expertise. We keep hearing this $4,000 number that Trump touts, probably based on this guy's "models". Would you bet on that number? If they have all these "models", why can't they even produce a table that would show how each family of income brackets would be directly affected by the tax cuts? I tell you why: This is all a bunch of propaganda, with no real models behind it.
Have you ever tried to read a tax law? Hell even the people who are promoting it don't understand it. The accountants- including the IRS- don't understand it. I once had an auditor tell me that the letter I had from his boss on how to handle a certain kind of sale was wrong, and they were taxing and penalizing me anyway. He said, and I quote- "Nothing we say is binding on us. If you want binding, it must be an opinion on the letterhead of our legal department". In other words, the auditors are free to make it up as they go along. I can agree that the opinions on the proposed law are full of assumptions and presumptions, but I suspect they go both ways.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/news It's the one called growth potential of deregulation. Certainly some debate to be had about it and who pays for the corporate tax is another highly contentious debate. This is the only time I will do your research for you.
In other words, the so called "models" mean nothing. In any case, we'll keep the $4,000 number for raise of the average family in mind. When it won't pan out (and it won't), we'll hold Trump and co accountable. The average family hasn't seen a $4,000 raise since the 80s, so this is highly unlikely. I'd still like to see the models, if you can cite them.
