Home Off Topic

10% Tax Cut for Middle Income Earners?

13

Replies

  • Bimini TwistedBimini Twisted Posts: 11,444 AG
    Remember the good old days when the Tea Party feigned that they stood for something?
  • MelbourneMarkMelbourneMark Posts: 2,200 Captain
    Remember the good old days when the Tea Party feigned that they stood for something?
    I agree.  Few, if any, of the Repubs that were elected during that time period actually attempt to limit govt spending.  
    I can think of 3 or 4...  


    I honestly don't know what libtards stand for anymore; other than anti-trump crap..  Repubtards kinda stand for a few things, but they are just riding the coattails of a decent economy at this point.. 

    we really need another viable party(s)
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,011 AG
    edited October 2018 #64
    Democrats stand for the same thing that Republicans did when they were the minority -- that's to say just the opposite of the party in charge.  Argue about the issues all you want, it really comes down to that objectively speaking, and neither party has the higher ground when it comes to "standing for something".

    Frankly, if we are to make progress, we need to stop thinking about issues through a political party's lens, and stop electing politicians that play to only one side and whose position changes like the political wind -- but rather elect principled individuals willing to compromise with each other for the common good.  I am less concerned wether a politician is conservative or liberal in tendency, as long as they are not too far one way or the other and willing to give and take for improvement's sake. 

    We need to stop playing into the game of misdirection.  Stop focusing on marginal problems like a few thousand refugees four month's walk away from our border or the latest trend in white supremacist dog whistles -- or whatever BS Fox News is feeding us and CNN/MSNBC in turn express their outrage echoed around here -- and focusing on the real issues that affect us all where we can actually find common ground and effect positive change: social spending, defense spending, balanced budgets, effective taxation, and real wage growth.  Issues I'll bet even a diverse group like us are far more alike than we are different -- and we should focus on those common themes rather than the political conversations clearly positioned to divide us.

    As for your suggestion, I'm not sure another party is the necessarily answer, but as I think about it if that means neither of today's parties hold a majority then that might force coalition and compromise between multiple parties, and in that light what you said makes some sense -- the multi-party system is also a model that works in other democratic countries similar to our own in Europe and elsewhere.  So maybe you're right.

    Good night.
  • NewberryJeffNewberryJeff Posts: 7,447 Admiral
    Its hard to accurately quantify how much of the "good economy" is a result of the tax cuts.  But, it did appear that many larger corporations did pass some "savings" down the line..  

    I personally think our entire tax system is a fraud.  I think their should be zero tax for corporations/personal.  We should have a national sales tax(with exemptions).  But, both parties won't be able to dole out "favors" via tax breaks..


    As for the DEBT; both parties are to blame.  Both parties increased the debt.  Obama doubled it.  Trump may do the same..  Our currency will suffer at some point; and we will be a 2-3rd world economy once the rest of the world uses a different currency.  
    As long as we're spending $700 billion on our military, the rest of the world wouldn't dare threaten our monetary hegemony  :)
  • FinfinderFinfinder Posts: 9,999 Admiral
    edited October 2018 #66
    Remember the good old days when the Tea Party feigned that they stood for something?
     True happy times for the establishment .....,  the good old days when only the Tea Party people were racist Na- zi's instead of 50 % of the country, the most hated person by the left was a woman who only could see Russia from her house , everything was Bush's fault , fascists like Occupy Wall Street didn't wear masks and the surest way to avoid an IRS audit was to register as a Democrat.   .   
  • MelbourneMarkMelbourneMark Posts: 2,200 Captain
    Its hard to accurately quantify how much of the "good economy" is a result of the tax cuts.  But, it did appear that many larger corporations did pass some "savings" down the line..  

    I personally think our entire tax system is a fraud.  I think their should be zero tax for corporations/personal.  We should have a national sales tax(with exemptions).  But, both parties won't be able to dole out "favors" via tax breaks..


    As for the DEBT; both parties are to blame.  Both parties increased the debt.  Obama doubled it.  Trump may do the same..  Our currency will suffer at some point; and we will be a 2-3rd world economy once the rest of the world uses a different currency.  
    As long as we're spending $700 billion on our military, the rest of the world wouldn't dare threaten our monetary hegemony  :)
    That logic has worked, for now... However, once China/Russia/other countries start trading oil in other currencies; the worldwide value of our dollar could collapse.   And, China/Russia have said exactly that, and will start trading with each other based on other currencies...  
    I cannot blame other countries who question our economy, as we are a small nation compared to China/India/Europe.  

    *also, why do you think "we" killed/trying to kill dictators with large gold/silver reserves? Gaddafi wanted to form a new currency based on actual-value of gold/silver... and we killed his butt...  Its all about who controls the currency, and nothing more. 
  • Fish HaidFish Haid Posts: 8,417 Admiral

    Is that 10% of the 40% I already pay in taxes, or a REAL 10% cut?

    I agree on cutting Defense spending.  We need more OFFENSE spending.  Why are Iran and Iraq still allowed to sell oil?  Why don't we own those places outright?  What's the point of being the world's leader if we have to kiss everyone's hiney?

    23895.gif
  • NewberryJeffNewberryJeff Posts: 7,447 Admiral
    Its hard to accurately quantify how much of the "good economy" is a result of the tax cuts.  But, it did appear that many larger corporations did pass some "savings" down the line..  

    I personally think our entire tax system is a fraud.  I think their should be zero tax for corporations/personal.  We should have a national sales tax(with exemptions).  But, both parties won't be able to dole out "favors" via tax breaks..


    As for the DEBT; both parties are to blame.  Both parties increased the debt.  Obama doubled it.  Trump may do the same..  Our currency will suffer at some point; and we will be a 2-3rd world economy once the rest of the world uses a different currency.  
    As long as we're spending $700 billion on our military, the rest of the world wouldn't dare threaten our monetary hegemony  :)
    That logic has worked, for now... However, once China/Russia/other countries start trading oil in other currencies; the worldwide value of our dollar could collapse.   And, China/Russia have said exactly that, and will start trading with each other based on other currencies...  
    I cannot blame other countries who question our economy, as we are a small nation compared to China/India/Europe.  

    *also, why do you think "we" killed/trying to kill dictators with large gold/silver reserves? Gaddafi wanted to form a new currency based on actual-value of gold/silver... and we killed his butt...  Its all about who controls the currency, and nothing more. 
    Trading of oil futures in yuan has zero effect on the dollar as the world's reserve currency.  Oil is way down on the list of why foreign governments want dollars. Russia's central bank has added dollars recently and the Chinese won't be exchanging all of their dollars for euros any time soon.  

    Libya is another example of US geopolitical policy enforcement, made possible by our dominate behemoth of a military.
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,665 Admiral
    edited October 2018 #70
    Fish Haid said:

    Is that 10% of the 40% I already pay in taxes, or a REAL 10% cut?

    I agree on cutting Defense spending.  We need more OFFENSE spending.  Why are Iran and Iraq still allowed to sell oil?  Why don't we own those places outright?  What's the point of being the world's leader if we have to kiss everyone's hiney?

    Lol, you don't pay anywhere near 40%, unless you make millions a year.  The tax rate isn't flat, rather it is buckets.  Somebody who makes 100k is in the 24% bracket, but their first 9k is taxed 10%, next 30k 12%, so forth and so on.  

    A person making 100k has an effective rate of 18.29%, not including credits or deductions.  It also doesn't include tax deductible items like healthcare and 401k contributions.  Folks aren't paying remotely as much as they think they are.  I dare say the average individual has not the slightest clue how federal income taxes work.  My effective rate is 16% and I'm in the 89th percentile for income.  

    The shorter version is anybody here who is paying 40% are likely doing their taxes wrong.  It does explain why people want tax breaks, because most think they are paying 2-3x more than they actually are.


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • NACl H2O LuvrNACl H2O Luvr Posts: 12,389 AG
    edited October 2018 #71
    kellercl said:
    How cute....all this feigned outrage over debt from the same folks who applauded as the last admin added $9Trillion to the debt in 8 years. Whhhhhaaaa!!
    7.5 trillion, and I had a problem with that as well.  This administration will be adding roughly 3 trillion in 4 years.  Not quite on pace, but close to the previous administration.  If a second term becomes reality, I suspect this administration will in fact pass the previous.  I do note the other day you said 10 trillion, I pointed out it was 7.5, now you have backed off to 9...  you are getting close.  Maybe if I point out your inaccuracy a couple more times...   
    Unlike you, I can back up where I get my numbers, and not just spout "how smart I am"


    ...the debt will be roughly $19.97 trillion when President-elect Donald Trump takes office on Friday.

    Thus, the national debt under Obama will have grown by about $9 trillion, or an increase of 86%.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/national-debt-deficit-added-under-president-barack-obama-2017-1


    Maybe if you tell us a few more time how smart you are, we'll start to believe you.

  • frankfrank Posts: 13,292 AG
    edited October 2018 #72
    So
    Back to the new tax cut 
    Will the executive branch send out the military to round up Congress to vote on the bill they never wrote so we can see it done by November per the President?

    Skeptical minds are asking 

    And why do the need to do this anyway if the great big beautiful tax cut they already passed was so well thought out?
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 23,346 AG
    Running a deficit during a recession is normal and expected running a deficit during a boom is idiotic folly. Remember what Clinton did?
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,011 AG
    edited October 2018 #74
    Fish Haid said:

    I agree on cutting Defense spending.  We need more OFFENSE spending.  Why are Iran and Iraq still allowed to sell oil?  Why don't we own those places outright?  What's the point of being the world's leader if we have to kiss everyone's hiney?

    Because the last time a country decided to expand its territory militarily like that it started a world war, and the last time the US took their cue in Iraq (x2) it didn't work out so well.   

    Were you joking?
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,665 Admiral
    edited October 2018 #75
    kellercl said:
    How cute....all this feigned outrage over debt from the same folks who applauded as the last admin added $9Trillion to the debt in 8 years. Whhhhhaaaa!!
    7.5 trillion, and I had a problem with that as well.  This administration will be adding roughly 3 trillion in 4 years.  Not quite on pace, but close to the previous administration.  If a second term becomes reality, I suspect this administration will in fact pass the previous.  I do note the other day you said 10 trillion, I pointed out it was 7.5, now you have backed off to 9...  you are getting close.  Maybe if I point out your inaccuracy a couple more times...   
    Unlike you, I can back up where I get my numbers, and not just spout "how smart I am"


    ...the debt will be roughly $19.97 trillion when President-elect Donald Trump takes office on Friday.

    Thus, the national debt under Obama will have grown by about $9 trillion, or an increase of 86%.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/national-debt-deficit-added-under-president-barack-obama-2017-1


    Maybe if you tell us a few more time how smart you are, we'll start to believe you.

    You can go to government websites and do the math yourself.  2009 through 2017 is 7.5 trillion.  I'm more than happy to check my math, mistakes happen. 

    Edit
    2009 through 2017: 7.946 trillion.  Just goes to show, don't trust what you read.  Do your own math.  

    Your first clue should have been your article using the word "roughly" in regards to basic math.  Whatcha got now?  :)

    2009 1412.69
    2010 1294.37
    2011 1299.59
    2012 1086.95
    2013 679.54
    2014 484.6
    2015 438.49
    2016 584.65
    2017 665.37
    7946.25

    Edit 2
    Not only does your article use terms like "roughly" but it also got their number from "extrapolation"...  can you at least try next time?  I'm embarrassed for you at this point.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • mplspugmplspug Palmetto FloridaPosts: 12,881 AG
    Remember the good old days when the Tea Party feigned that they stood for something?
    Are those the same days people refused to post "lie #46,995" replies?

    Captain Todd Approves

  • MRichardsonMRichardson Posts: 10,446 AG
    edited October 2018 #77
    Anyone who willingly pays greater than 10% of any income to the gov't and tells us that they are fine with it, that taxes should be raised, should have their taxes raised to 90%. They can feel great and cover the tax revenue lost from the rest of us that are happy with less taxes.
    I have never seen live bones, but I know that they are often used by rich people to decorate the interior.
  • Soda PopinskiSoda Popinski GrovelandPosts: 13,534 AG
    Anyone who willingly pays greater than 10% of any income to the gov't and tells us that they are fine with it, that taxes should be raised, should have their taxes raised to 90%. They can feel great and cover the tax revenue lost from the rest of us that are happy with less taxes.
    If Jesus can make it work with 10%  why can't the government? 
    Like is like a Helicopter.  I do not know how to operate a Helicopter  
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,665 Admiral
    Anyone who willingly pays greater than 10% of any income to the gov't and tells us that they are fine with it, that taxes should be raised, should have their taxes raised to 90%. They can feel great and cover the tax revenue lost from the rest of us that are happy with less taxes.
    Yes because 10% and 90% are practically identical!


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • NewberryJeffNewberryJeff Posts: 7,447 Admiral
    Anyone who willingly pays greater than 10% of any income to the gov't and tells us that they are fine with it, that taxes should be raised, should have their taxes raised to 90%. They can feel great and cover the tax revenue lost from the rest of us that are happy with less taxes.
    That's just internet nonsense typed in an attempt to signal their progressiveness.  None of them voluntarily pay more than they have to.

  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,665 Admiral
    edited October 2018 #81
    Anyone who willingly pays greater than 10% of any income to the gov't and tells us that they are fine with it, that taxes should be raised, should have their taxes raised to 90%. They can feel great and cover the tax revenue lost from the rest of us that are happy with less taxes.
    That's just internet nonsense typed in an attempt to signal their progressiveness.  None of them voluntarily pay more than they have to.

    Or some people realize the military, parks, highways, border patrol, courts, prisons, ICE, etc aren't free.  Living in a civilized country comes at a cost.  What this country offers, compared to other nations, is a good deal.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,011 AG
    Anyone who willingly pays greater than 10% of any income to the gov't and tells us that they are fine with it, that taxes should be raised, should have their taxes raised to 90%. They can feel great and cover the tax revenue lost from the rest of us that are happy with less taxes.
    That's just internet nonsense typed in an attempt to signal their progressiveness.  None of them voluntarily pay more than they have to.


    I have no problem paying more in taxes.  Those tax laws should be applied equally, however.  

    And your "volunteer" analogy is a weak one -- are you a fake conservative if you pay more than 10% or don't personally patrol the border looking for illegals?

    Of course not.  Only a fool would suggest otherwise.
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,665 Admiral
    And to be clear, I'm all for cuts including social programs.  But the reality is a sub 10% income tax rate isn't viable for essential programs.  Many of which keep us safe.


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • NewberryJeffNewberryJeff Posts: 7,447 Admiral
    You guys make good points. 
    But, last year Americans only gifted the federal government $2.6 million.  Let's see if you can do better this year, I'm sure the extra cash will be put to good use.

    https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/23779454


  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,011 AG
    I don't know about you or anyone else, but i prefer charity be given directly to the person in need or through a non-governmental organization.

    To each their own.
  • frankfrank Posts: 13,292 AG
    frank said:
    So
    Back to the new tax cut 
    Will the executive branch send out the military to round up Congress to vote on the bill they never wrote so we can see it done by November per the President?

    Skeptical minds are asking 

    And why do the need to do this anyway if the great big beautiful tax cut they already passed was so well thought out?
    anyone, anyone 
    beuller?
  • nuevowavonuevowavo Posts: 6,823 Admin
    There won't be any tax cut. It won't ever come up for a vote in the lame duck session. This was just a bone thrown out to the base to get them fired up for the midterms.
    Federales, bring my baby back to me!
  • Bimini TwistedBimini Twisted Posts: 11,444 AG
    nuevowavo said:
    There won't be any tax cut. It won't ever come up for a vote in the lame duck session. This was just a bone thrown out to the base to get them fired up for the midterms.
    A bone, is that a euphemism for lie?
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 23,346 AG
    Anyone who willingly pays greater than 10% of any income to the gov't and tells us that they are fine with it, that taxes should be raised, should have their taxes raised to 90%. They can feel great and cover the tax revenue lost from the rest of us that are happy with less taxes.
    If Jesus can make it work with 10%  why can't the government? 
    Because the government is real...
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 33,389 AG
    edited October 2018 #90
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    How cute....all this feigned outrage over debt from the same folks who applauded as the last admin added $9Trillion to the debt in 8 years. Whhhhhaaaa!!
    7.5 trillion, and I had a problem with that as well.  This administration will be adding roughly 3 trillion in 4 years.  Not quite on pace, but close to the previous administration.  If a second term becomes reality, I suspect this administration will in fact pass the previous.  I do note the other day you said 10 trillion, I pointed out it was 7.5, now you have backed off to 9...  you are getting close.  Maybe if I point out your inaccuracy a couple more times...   
    Unlike you, I can back up where I get my numbers, and not just spout "how smart I am"


    ...the debt will be roughly $19.97 trillion when President-elect Donald Trump takes office on Friday.

    Thus, the national debt under Obama will have grown by about $9 trillion, or an increase of 86%.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/national-debt-deficit-added-under-president-barack-obama-2017-1


    Maybe if you tell us a few more time how smart you are, we'll start to believe you.

    You can go to government websites and do the math yourself.  2009 through 2017 is 7.5 trillion.  I'm more than happy to check my math, mistakes happen. 

    Edit
    2009 through 2017: 7.946 trillion.  Just goes to show, don't trust what you read.  Do your own math.  

    Your first clue should have been your article using the word "roughly" in regards to basic math.  Whatcha got now?  :)

    2009 1412.69
    2010 1294.37
    2011 1299.59
    2012 1086.95
    2013 679.54
    2014 484.6
    2015 438.49
    2016 584.65
    2017 665.37
    7946.25

    Edit 2
    Not only does your article use terms like "roughly" but it also got their number from "extrapolation"...  can you at least try next time?  I'm embarrassed for you at this point.  
    You are using fiscal year deficits which is not what what NACI is talkign about. The fiscal year for the fed does not run from January to December. Why would you use 2017 when Trump took office in January of that year. 

    I used the Treasury Department Debt site and put in Obama's start date of January 20, 2009 and Obama's last day of January 19th 2017

    The total debt on his start date - $10,626,877,048,913.08
    The total debt on his last day - $19,944,429,217,106.77

    This is an increase in total debt under Obama's term of $9,317,552,168,193.6

    This is the number NACI is talking about and the one most people use,

    We could look at just public debt and it is as follows

    Public debt on his start date - $6,307,310,739,681.66
    Public debt on his last day - $14,403,768,885,198.20

    This is an increase in public debt under Obama's term of $8,096,458,145,5216.5

    You are not close no matter which I choose. the math is useless if you use the wrong data to begin with

    https://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=01&startDay=20&startYear=2009&endMonth=01&endDay=19&endYear=2017

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,665 Admiral
    edited October 2018 #91
    You are correct that 2017 shouldn't be in there, copy and paste error.  The numbers I am getting for annual deficit are as follows:

    2009 1412.69
    2010 1294.37
    2011 1299.59
    2012 1086.95
    2013 679.54
    2014 484.6
    2015 438.49
    2016 584.65

    No where near the 9 million which was claimed.  Also bear in mind the original number that was claimed was 10 million.  So NaCl has already backed down a trillion.  
    The fiscal numbers by calculation are 7.2 trillion, so I overestimated via copy/paste error.  Why those don't match the debt tracker is interesting, and frankly doesn't make much sense to me at the moment.  Though the take home point is still clear.  NaCl is wrong about his 10 and 9 trillion numbers.    

    https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2009-u-s-federal-budget-and-spending-3306311

    https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

    Again, by the numbers 2009 through 2016, 7.2 trillion.  Not 10 trillion, not 9 trillion.  Though annual deficit not equating to debt, still is irrational to me.  I get budget starts Oct 1st, not January first, but 3 months over 8 years isn't going to account for a difference in 1.8+ trillion in deficit vs debt.  Debt should the accumulation of annual deficit.  Either funny math is going on with the annual deficit numbers or funny math is going on with the debt calculator.  Those two should mirror pretty darn close.  I find that beyond odd.      

    Edit
    And those numbers aren't odd just for the previous administration, but the current as well.  According to your method, the current has added 1.7 trillion....  which far exceeds the current deficit.  Does the deficit not take into account interest on the debt?  The current, based on deficit should be closer to 1.4 trillion, the 0.3 trillion difference still makes no sense.      



    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
Sign In or Register to comment.