Good thing we have a progressive tax policy then.
That’s fucking dumb coming from you. Poor people pay nothing, they get checks that came out of rich and middle class people’s salaries.
That’s fucking dumb coming from you. Poor people pay nothing, they get checks that came out of rich and middle class people’s salaries.
What claim do they have on our wealth? What did they do to deserve it? Exist, breathe and shit? Fuck them and fuck lefties
The Republican tax plan is "progressive"? Please.
I never quote you because you're predictably insane; but you should do your research about the Republican tax bill.
You should be happy with your bonus and happy your employer saves money that may allow them to keep your ass hired. Did you donate your check to a black baby momma?I got a $1500 one time bonus from my employer because of the tax bill (it ended up being around 800 after taxes). I work for a fortune 500 company that is going to save billions because of the bill which they're probably going to use on stock buybacks and dividends. But Republicans think that a small one time payoff is worth increasing the deficit in a huge way. Yeah okay.
Good. You haven’t learned to scam the system. You must have gotten a check when you filed taxes. I hope it was smallWhat are these so called 'checks' the poor receive? Last year I was incredibly broke and practically homeless, and I couldn't get a damn thing besides food stamps which amounted to like 90 bucks per month.
The fuck? It should be barer bones such that they’re almost dead and can’t reproduce. You want welfare recipients to get more?Holy shit welcome back.
Oh and Arg thinks he lives in a social democracy rather than America. American welfare sounds bare-bones.
The Republican tax plan is "progressive"? Please.
It all starts with the corporate tax rate.
The new rate — down to 21 percent, from 35 percent — takes the United States from the top of the global tax spectrum to the lower end. Countries like Australia, France, Germany and Japan, all of which have effective corporate tax rates of at least 30 percent, will be under pressure to follow.
“It’s a huge incentive to governments around the world who want to see more investment to be part of that,” said Andrew Mackenzie, the chief executive of the mining giant BHP, which has its headquarters in Australia and major operations in North and South America. “They will have to follow suit.”
Corporate rates were already on a downward trajectory. Many countries have used low taxes as an advantage over the United States, which offers a huge domestic market, plentiful venture capital and relatively light workplace regulation.
“There will be pressure for a new round of lowering corporate taxes,” said Stefano Micossi, the director general of Assonime, an Italian association of publicly listed companies.
China, a frequent target of Mr. Trump’s over its trade practices, may also be forced to play the tax game.
The fuck? It should be barer bones such that they’re almost dead and can’t reproduce. You want welfare recipients to get more?
![]()
A married couple with 2 children, under the poverty line (24,600 in 2018) will pay increased, negative taxes once you include the (increased) child tax credit. The entire tax bracket is still progressive, as in rich persons pay more than poor persons. The biggest tax breaks are on business/investment, which will encourage business/investment. Other countries have already taken note:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/22/business/tax-bill-global-profits.html
It's funny Matt is suddenly concerned about the deficit. Liberals are never concerned about the deficit when it comes to increasing spending (military excluded), only when reducing taxation.
So lefties want the middle class to pay 10% tax and the rich to pay 70% tax, is that right?
How is that fair?
Do poor people get a tax break under the new plan? Yes they do, on paper; but you're delusional if you think that constitutes the extent of the tax plan, or if you think poor people are getting a better deal than the wealthy.
In the long run, the deficit will spike and monies for lower-income families (in the form of various programs) will be the first thing to go...... This isn't "progressive," it's practically draconian.
The bigger break, again, for the middle class and to a greater degree, the wealthy, is related to stockmarket gains due to increased business investment.
The deficit and the debt have been out of control for decades, and sure attempts to handle it through inflation are likely to have the worst impact across the board, as opposed to potential program cuts. The estimated increase in the deficit from the CBO is 1.4 trillion combined across ten years, which is to say 1.4 trillion more added to the national debt in addition to what would already be added.
The US added that much in only 1 year in 2009, 1.2 in 2010, 1.3 in 2011, and 1.1 in 2012. I think the deficit concerns over ten years over tax cuts for everyone, rather than absurd bailouts for banks and bridges to nowhere, are overblown. If cuts have to occur to programs, those seeds have been sown persistently under every President but Clinton's second term for the last 90+ years, and most egregiously under the Obama administration. A projected ~5% increase in the deficit per year isn't going to be the sudden cause for cuts.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306
I don't care what it's related to. I'm not sure you understand that this is almost meaningless in this conversation.
You're basically just saying that because the wealthy have earned more they get a bigger tax break. That's one of the most tautological points you've ever made, and speaks little to the actual concern, which is that the Republicans are targeting programs that will make it harder for poor people to get by while also giving them a minimal tax break to soften the blow.
As I've already said, the point has to do with what people can manage to survive on and live a life that isn't absolutely miserable. Even with this break, poor families have practically nothing left to invest when needs are met.
The super wealthy don't need the tax cut they're getting; in fact, they can still reinvent and grow their companies with a much smaller tax break. They've been doing it already. This isn't a project to grow businesses and expand industry for everyone, it's a thank-you to Republican donors. You're apologizing for politics at its most vile. It's pretty funny that you think this is some kind of move in the direction of individual liberty via market freedom.
For low- to moderate-income people, the elimination of SALT deductions likely won’t matter because both the House and Senate bills double the standard deduction, from $6,350 to $12,000 for individuals and from $12,700 to $24,000 for couples. The Tax Policy Center estimates that this would lead to a drop in the number of taxpayers who itemize, from 45 million to 18 million. Many low- to moderate-income people will simply take the standard deduction as opposed to itemizing, rendering special interest deductions moot.
But for high-income individuals and couples in high-tax areas, the elimination of SALT deductions would likely lead to a higher tax bill; it would also likely lead to losses in revenue for state and local governments. But of the top 10 states that claim the highest SALT deductions for households that make more than $200,000, all 10 are states Hillary Clinton carried in 2016.
Now you're just apologizing for a shitty plan by backpedaling to lob criticism as past presidents. I think you like this plan mainly because lower-income families are being told to pull themselves up by their bootstraps while the Republicans are taking away all their boots.
It's funny Matt is suddenly concerned about the deficit. Liberals are never concerned about the deficit when it comes to increasing spending (military excluded), only when reducing taxation.
Ah the old “from each to each” bullshit. Lol idgaf about the rich personally, whether they worked hard for their money, or sat on their ass and let their investments make money for themselves, or kicked a ball around, or played make believe as someone else on the big screen.Do poor people get a tax break under the new plan? Yes they do, on paper; but you're delusional if you think that constitutes the extent of the tax plan, or if you think poor people are getting a better deal than the wealthy.
In the long run, the deficit will spike and monies for lower-income families (in the form of various programs) will be the first thing to go. The tax breaks for the wealthy are far greater than the tax cuts for the poor, and the Republicans have already said that programs to aid lower-income families will be cut. This isn't "progressive," it's practically draconian.
It's about what someone can survive on versus what someone can't. You think that economic prosperity syncs up with some kind of innate aptitude for survival and that poverty warrants nonexistence, making you the worst kind of social Darwinist. This is why I usually ignore you. All your comments boil down to "but it's not fair for rich people!" Fuck off.
I just hate redistribution. It’s the government stealing and the poor receiving something for nothing that makes me mad.
Are you even capable of understanding that most of the time the poor are poor because they were born into a broken system with little means of escape?
I’m fully aware of that but don’t think we should use government force on the unwilling (rich and middle class taxpayers) to fix itAre you even capable of understanding that most of the time the poor are poor because they were born into a broken system with little means of escape?