Quantcast
Trump's tax proposal: raise taxes on the poor, give to the rich

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump's tax proposal: raise taxes on the poor, give to the rich

Nem said:
TurboElder said:

He already did.

"U.S. economy accelerated during first full Trump quarter"
http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/28/news/economy/gdp-second-quarter-trump-economy/index.html

The economy also benefited during the second quarter from increased federal government spending.

What do you figure that means? See, by constructing things and spending money, for example a wall, you will create alot of jobs. That is a way to expand the economy. But you know, that doesn't last forever and it will just increase the debt. So, the investments better be good, and a wall certainly won't be giving any ROI.

So, who do you figure will pay for all that increased debt? Mr Trump will have ran away by then, i assure you. 

"Trump budget cuts spending by $3.6 trillion over 10 years, with deep cuts to safety net"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-budget-balance-deep-cuts-20170522-story.html



Around the Network

After reading a few articles, it will be very interesting how this all fall but I say let it ride. Lets see who actually will benefit from Trumps tax plan. We have Kansas as an idicator how this will not always work when you throw a lot of tax breaks but then you do not have enough taxes to support basic government function. We will see if business will bring their money back to the US but I doubt it. Its not like any of those business were paying the full tax rate anyway and if Trump 15% rate will not take away all those other tax breaks for those industries then they probably will not even pay the 15%. 15% rate for private contractors will be great for me so I am interested to see how this goes.



There were a lot of morons voting for this guy sadly.



Locknuts said:
Cut taxes for everyone. Shrink the government.

Why is a shrinking government good? 



TurboElder said:
Nem said:

The economy also benefited during the second quarter from increased federal government spending.

What do you figure that means? See, by constructing things and spending money, for example a wall, you will create alot of jobs. That is a way to expand the economy. But you know, that doesn't last forever and it will just increase the debt. So, the investments better be good, and a wall certainly won't be giving any ROI.

So, who do you figure will pay for all that increased debt? Mr Trump will have ran away by then, i assure you. 

"Trump budget cuts spending by $3.6 trillion over 10 years, with deep cuts to safety net"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-budget-balance-deep-cuts-20170522-story.html

lolol You actually believe that? Notice the "over 10 years part". Notice how he raised the debt ceiling. Gosh it's easy to fool some people. It's like you never seen politicians before.



Around the Network
TheWPCTraveler said:

I'm quite annoted at the substance of the original post, or the lack thereof. Let's fix that.

First off is a direct link to the paper: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/144971/a_preliminary_analysis_of_the_unified_framework_0.pdf [1]

All emphases going forward are added by me, to denote a direct quote. Bolding is for emphasis.

Page 3:

In 2018, the average tax bill for all income groups would decline. Taxpayers in the bottom 95 percent of the income distribution would see average after-tax incomes increase between 0.5 and 1.2 percent. Taxpayers in the top 1 percent (incomes above $730,000), would receive about 50 percent of the total tax benefit; their after-tax income would increase an average of 8.5 percent. Between 2018 and 2027, the average tax cut as a share of after-tax income would fall for all income groups other than the top 1 percent. In 2027, taxpayers between the 80th and 95th percentiles of income (between about $150,000 and $300,000) would experience a slight tax increase on average.

In other words, all groups will receive a boost in after-tax income. It's just that the rich would receive most of the benefit (though getting billionaires to relocate to America and (ideally) preventing them from using offshore tax havens would actually be a reasonable revenue-raising plan in my eyes; ditto with corporations and their offshore subsidiaries)

The WaPo article appears to be referring to the referring to Table 3, in particular the columns under "Tax units with tax cut or increase."
In particular, the average tax increase for certain tax units is larger than the average tax cut for other tax units. The issue with using that as a metric is that the percentage of tax units is already given - and the fact is that they still get a tax cut, contrary to what the OP states.

EDIT: The article actually refers to the (upper) middle class - those within the 80th to 95th percentiles.
And, the paper does, indeed state this, a net tax increase.

In 2018, about 12 percent of taxpayers would face a tax increase of roughly $1,800 on average. More than a third of taxpayers making between about $150,000 and $300,000 would pay more, mainly because most itemized deductions would be repealed.

In 2027, the overall average tax cut would be smaller than in 2018, increasing after-tax incomes 1.7 percent (table 3). Taxpayer groups in the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution—those making less than about $150,000—would receive average tax cuts of 0.5 percent or less of after-tax income. Taxpayers making between about $150,000 and $300,000 would on average pay about $800 more in taxes than under current law. About 80 percent of the total benefit would accrue to taxpayers in the top 1 percent, whose after-tax income would increase 8.7 percent. An alternative presentation of the distributional effects of the framework is available in appendix B.

Who would have guessed the OP info was fake right?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

monocle_layton said:
Superman4 said:

Yet the Liberal media and Democrats throw out BS labels like Nazi and Racist to try and drive their point home or paint the President in a bad light. Increasing deportations of illegals and removing DACA doesnt make Trump a racist. Last time I checked their are plenty of white people in this country illegally from other countries. Last I checked Trump also denounced all hate groups including Neo-Nazis and the KKK. The reason Hillary and Obama get pointed out is because the Democrats and Liberals hale them as their gods that do no wrong while crapping from their mouths about Trump and everything they feel he is doing wrong. From a policy standpoint Trump is one of the best Presidents we have had in ages. If he had Obamas ability to speak he would be an amazing President. We have essentially swapped one for the other, one spoke a good game and was poor on execution with bad ideas, the other is bad with speaking but has great ideas about what needs to happen. If he had Obamas speaking ability he would have no problem getting everything he wants, ACA would be gone, Travel ban would be in place etc. 

All of that said though, the media is making the US look like a bunch of idiots, not Trump. The constant spin from companies like CNN, MSNBC, Wapo etc. get their base all riled up and create problems out of nothing. Those companies need to either report the news as it happens without interjecting their opinions or start off each show with "This is our opinion on what just happened". 

Minute I saw 'liberal media' I knew this would be bullshit again.

 

Stop using whataboutism. For fuck's sake, do I look like the guy who jerks off to Obama or any specific person? I don't care if Starocean calls Trump Hitler or a communist. I clearly avoid doing that, and actually criticize people.

 

However, as long as you continue to use 'liberal media' in your arguments, it'll forever be viewed as idiotic. It's as impetuous as blaming Fox News for every issue.

StarOcean said:
monocle_layton said:

 

'Buh Obama!'

 

Ok, now what about Trump? Why is it that any criticism avout Trump will always be directed to Obama or Hillary? Stop beating the bush and answer the actual problem.

That's their only defense. Whataboutism. Since they can't defend their Nazi leader, they attack anyone else. They're basically saying, "Since Person A broke the rules, it's okay for ME to break the rules." Which isn't how the world works but it the crux of their political ideology. It's weak and pathetic, like Trump. 

They seem to not understand that you can condem more than one group at a time. For example one of the most infuriating things is when I hear people go, "This is what science is focused on? Why do we fund them?" When they see an article about a minor and sometimes stupid study. While ignoring that "science" is not an organization and has millions of people studying different things in each respective branch of said subject. 

Whataboutism is another way of saying "I can't find a way to justify his actions."

Ill just leave this here....

 

"Since they can't defend their Nazi leader, they attack anyone else"



StarOcean said:
Superman4 said:

Yet the Liberal media and Democrats throw out BS labels like Nazi and Racist to try and drive their point home or paint the President in a bad light. Increasing deportations of illegals and removing DACA doesnt make Trump a racist. Last time I checked their are plenty of white people in this country illegally from other countries. Last I checked Trump also denounced all hate groups including Neo-Nazis and the KKK. The reason Hillary and Obama get pointed out is because the Democrats and Liberals hale them as their gods that do no wrong while crapping from their mouths about Trump and everything they feel he is doing wrong. From a policy standpoint Trump is one of the best Presidents we have had in ages. If he had Obamas ability to speak he would be an amazing President. We have essentially swapped one for the other, one spoke a good game and was poor on execution with bad ideas, the other is bad with speaking but has great ideas about what needs to happen. If he had Obamas speaking ability he would have no problem getting everything he wants, ACA would be gone, Travel ban would be in place etc. 

All of that said though, the media is making the US look like a bunch of idiots, not Trump. The constant spin from companies like CNN, MSNBC, Wapo etc. get their base all riled up and create problems out of nothing. Those companies need to either report the news as it happens without interjecting their opinions or start off each show with "This is our opinion on what just happened". 

Used "Liberal media" unironically. Already not gonna read for that. I'll use "Nazi" and "racist" for as long as you call it "liberal media". 

I used to watch CNN on the regular. I stopped after this election made clear that they are the worst offenders for BS "news". They make Fox look like Ghandi. Everything that Trump says they twist into something its not and blow it way out of proportion. Fox was actually way more on point and stuck to what was said for both Hillary and Trump during the lection, I watched both. So the term "Liberal Media" is a just description considring everything that comes from that Network and a number of others is complete spin towards their agenda. The terms Nazi and racist just fit in with that Liberal agenda since they are also complete BS statements. 



Superman4 said:
StarOcean said:

Used "Liberal media" unironically. Already not gonna read for that. I'll use "Nazi" and "racist" for as long as you call it "liberal media". 

I used to watch CNN on the regular. I stopped after this election made clear that they are the worst offenders for BS "news". They make Fox look like Ghandi. Everything that Trump says they twist into something its not and blow it way out of proportion. Fox was actually way more on point and stuck to what was said for both Hillary and Trump during the lection, I watched both. So the term "Liberal Media" is a just description considring everything that comes from that Network and a number of others is complete spin towards their agenda. The terms Nazi and racist just fit in with that Liberal agenda since they are also complete BS statements. 

I am going to have to call BS on that Fox was more on point.  Both sides took what Trump said and interpreted the way they see it.  The fact that Trump would say things without much clarification is the reason why this happen.  Fox spent a lot of time making his comments appear more positive and other news took them as negative.  In the end, it always falls on the speaker to be more concise in what they say that does not allow others to have to guess its meaning.  Basically it appears you are saying you like the more positive spin which may be more to what you want to believe then reality.

Its not like Trump is a good speaker and its not like he hasn't been proven to lie on countless occasions.  You do not need the talking points of CNN to easily prove when he is doing the classic politician role of using half-truths.  The fact is Trump doesn't even do that, he just makes up his own Truth and these can be easily proven.  There is definitely way to much spotlight on everything he says but then again he is the one that initiate it.  He has and always will be an attention seeking person and while he cry “Fake News” all the time, if people actually ignored him he probably would flip out.



If you think hard and long about it, it actually makes sense.

Poor/muddle class people may tend to hoard their money, and saved money isn't spend money, less tax for the state. Rich people on the other hand spend more money the more money they have, which in turn is good for state and economy, and good for the little man. See. All is good and well.



Hunting Season is done...