The GOP tax bill would be very bad for the economy.

Other analysis said the bill would increase employment by 0.6%.

Elsewhere it was said that over ten years the bill would cost the middle class $2.5 billion in additional taxes and it would cut the taxes on the top 1% by $2.8 billion. That constitutes a shifting of the burden from those who can best afford what little they pay, to the backs of the middle class.

 

cutting the corporate rate in half will be great for business, jobs, income, GDP as the stock market is showing!!
Restricting business with socialism liberalism regulations etc leads to poverty. Remember East/West Germany and 132 other examples?

 

Corporate tax reductions is part of 'race to the bottom' protectionism. Every government (or group) think they will win at other's expense. But the end result? Tax further inefficiently skewed towards the poor. It is economic stupidity.

 

For many years the Republicans have wanted to end all "entitlements" (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare) and they finally struck upon a plan some years ago. The plan was to "shrink the economy so it was small enough to drown in a bathtub" as Grover Norquist put it. IOW crash the economy as they are now doing by starving it for revenue, claiming that tax cuts for the rich will boost the GDP and jobs, and the economy in general (!!!!!!!!) and give windfalls to the rich at the same time.

Then when everyone is broke and poor and desperate except for the few wealthy corporate elite, no one will object to destroying entitlements.

If the people don't raise hell before it's too late, they will get what they deserve.

 

This is an interesting angle. We have probably underplayed the long term game of right wing inefficiency. Of course we can beat it in argument, right wing economics is cretinous. But we can't necessarily stop its long term influence as it twists politics via business cycle, austerity and other corrupt perception over economic crisis.

 

Now I learn that the Democrats put a motion on the floor, asking for time to read the proposed bill (even though it includes much hastily scribbled changes in the margins of pages), and the Republicans VOTED IT DOWN!!!!!!!!

Try justifying that!

Also, the Republicans delivered the bill of about 500 pages just yesterday afternoon and then scheduled a vote on it last night!!!!! Try justifying that, too!

 

Justifying the fake game game between Democrat and Republican herd? I don't think I can do that. Anyone active in either party typically has to be assumed to be part of consensus politics.

 

Here's a quick picture of the GOP Senate tax bill. The House bill does similarly.



.

And this doesn't even consider the corporate tax cuts.

Also, why in hell are LOBBYISTS conferring on the tax bill and helping write it???

At an earlier time in another case Paul Ryan ranted against "rushing a bill through" Congress and called for a gradual, deliberative process allowing for reading, studying, and debating a tax bill. Now? Not so much.

The Democrats are status quo corporatists with plenty to complain about, but at least they are advocating for the people and against this atrocity called a "tax bill" with all the last minute scribbled changes in the margins.

 

Republicans are claiming that this tax bill will boost the economy and GDP and create jobs. In order to boost the GDP there must be an increase in consumption, and that would require an increase in money to spend among the population. But an annual tax cut of $10 - $100, -IF it were true, -is not adequate to boost spending measurably.

This Republican effort is really about a further reduction in federal revenue so they can then justify, with little opposition, the elimination and/or deep cutting of "entitlements" while funneling as much as possible upward to the pockets of the rich. What a perverse plan!

 

More of that BS arguement that fails the commons sense test.

The bottom 50% dont pay any taxes anyways so please tell me how they are going to be hurt by an tax plan.

The top 1% make the most money so of course they will be most heavily affected. This is true of a tax hike or a tax cut. Cut everyones taxes by 1% and yoh will find someone calling it a tax cut for the rich.

 

(Corrected version)
You're spreading falsehoods.

. . . . . AGI . . . . . . # w/taxable Inc. . . . . Tax Amt.
(Amounts in THOUSANDS)
. . . . . $1 - $5,000 . . . . . 355,760 . . . . . . . 40,941
$5,000v - $10,000 .. . . 1,971,291 .. . . . . 368,015
$10,000 - $15,000 .. . . 6,085,567 . . . . 1,381,283
$15,000 - $20,000 .. . . 6,850,887 . . . . 3,523,850
$20,000 - $25,000 .. . . 7,851,151 . . . . 6,191,130
$25,000 - $30,000 .. . . 7,999,445 . . . . 8,752,589
$30,000 - $40,000 . . . 14,358,239 . . . 25,167,676
$40,000 - $50,000 . . . 11,493,776 . . . 32,530,207 . . . Tot.: $177,747,487,000
$50,000 - $75,000 . . . 19,872,288 . . . 99,791,796


https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-...-tax-returns-publication-1304-complete-report

Your "zero tax" actually totals almost $178 billion for 2015.

 

Its a known fact that the bottom 50% dont actually pay taxes once you account for all of the credits and deductions.

 

If you would bother to examine the IRS data that I quoted, you would see that it DOES count all those things. So AGAIN, you are wrong. THAT IS WHAT "TAXABLE INCOME" IS.

 

Which table and file are you quoting?
I've not found the figures you've presented yet.
But while income may reduce government assistance one can receive, I don't think it is counted as income so it can very well exceed any tax paid.
The problem I have with statistical data, especially that provided by government is that it does not provide a complete picture.
How many people file no tax return at all, yet receive government benefits?
How many of the returns are by single persons, single persons with 1, 2, 3, or more dependents, couples with no dependents, couples with 1, 2,3, or more dependents? How many of the lowest income filers are retired persons?

 

Quit complaing ..you finnaly going to pay your fair share

 

Once again your finnaly going to pay your fair share

 

Again, the website is:
https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-...-tax-returns-publication-1304-complete-report

Scroll down to “Table 1.2: All Returns: Adjusted Gross Income, Exemptions, Deductions, and Tax Items”

Click on “Tax Year” 2015

I believe you must file a return to get welfare.

 

so as a typical liberal you think printing money boosts GDP?? If that was true the govt could always print and GDP would always go up. You know nothing close to Econ 101 but please stay a liberal all your life

 

yes, it's like cutting off the blood supply to a tumor. Its exactly what our Founders tried to do when they wrote the Constitution.

 

Thanks, I hadn't run across that statistical data before, but taking note of (All figures are estimates based on samples—money amounts are in thousands of dollars)

But I think you should have looked a little further to the right, taking into account "Income tax after credits" (10) and (11), and posted the numbers from "Total income tax" (12) and (13) which I show below:

AGI - CREDITS . . . . . . # w/taxable Inc. . .Tax Amt.
(Amounts in THOUSANDS)
$1 under $5,000....................199,682...............40,941
$5,000 under $10,000........1,926,254.............368,015
$10,000 under $15,000.......4,333,058.........1,381,283
$15,000 under $20,000.......5,195,436.........3,523,850
$20,000 under $25,000.......5,404,801.........6,191,130
$25,000 under $30,000.......5,319,345.........8,752,589
$30,000 under $40,000.....10,563,700......25,167,676
$40,000 under $50,000.......9,702,501.......32,530,207. . . [Tot.: $45,425,484,000 (actual $ Amt.)]
$50,000 under $75,000......18,684,013.......99,791,796

Also, the tax applied to the ranges shown above would be as shown below:

TAX AFTER ALL DEDUCTIONS HAVE BEEN APPLIED
Taxable Inc.......................Min Tax.....Max Tax
$1 under $5,000........................$0........$498
$5,000 under $10,000..........$503......$1,033
$10,000 under $15,000......$1,040......$1,783
$15,000 under $20,000......$1,790......$2,533
$20,000 under $25,000......$2,540......$3,283
$25,000 under $30,000......$3,290......$4,033
$30,000 under $40,000......$4,040......$5,765
$40,000 under $50,000......$5,778......$8,265
$50,000 under $75,000......$8,278.....$14,515

And this data applies to those who filed tax returns, a few of whom may actually be a part of the bottom 50%, and although not required to file a return have done so to receive a refund of all income tax paid OR to take advantage of some form of additional government benefit which can only be claimed by filing a return.

Note also: To receive welfare does NOT require one to file a tax return.

 

The JCT’s table are slanted. For example, in 2019, the JCT shows that the Senate bill would cut taxes 7 to 9 percent across income groups, except those earning over $1 million would get a 5 percent cut. So the cuts seem fairly equal, although a bit smaller at the top. Those results are skewed because the JCT includes both income and payroll taxes in the denominator in calculating the percentage cuts, even though Congress is not changing payroll taxes. A much better way to calculate income-tax cuts is as a percentage of current income taxes paid, but neither TPC nor JCT show the results that way. If you recalculat the JCT results, you will find that middle-income groups would get by far the largest cuts as a percentage of current income taxes. For example, households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 would get a 24 percent cut in 2019, while those over $1 million would get just a 6 percent cut.

These skewed findings are much the same in many different cases to create the illusion of putting the bill on the backs of the middle classes when in fact they are helped the most and the top earners pay nearly 80% of all federal income tax.

 

Look at the other tables. They all say that.

My 2nd and 3rd columns WERE their columns 12 and 13.

Great. Refer back to the original question which you defined and posed.

And I don't see your "TAX AFTER ALL DEDUCTIONS HAVE BEEN APPLIED" or the numbers you gave or the significance of this. Refer back to your question. I believe this is about a claim that the bottom half of income earners "don't pay any income tax". Am I right?

 

Seems to me that when you try to state a "total" tax cut, you would want to represent ALL taxes as the baseline.

That is the difference between calculation of "total tax reduction" and "income tax reduction". Post a link to your JCT table and let's see what it says.

That's one year. In ten years the benefit for the middle class is gone, and the benefit for the rich increases.

But we don't need a tax cut in the first place. We need programs. We need an increase in the minimum wage. We need taxation of profits being held offshore. We need MORE tax brackets. We need an end to lobbyists writing legislation. We need limits on the number of lobbyists per corporation. We need many changes.

 

to make it illegal to hire those not worth the minimum wage. Creating unemployment is a perfectly liberal idea.

 

we already have highest corporate tax in world, our corporations and high paying jobs are moving out, and you want to make it worse with even higher taxes; all so liberal govt will have more money to create more Chi-Raqs?