If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

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.

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.

So lefties want the middle class to pay 10% tax and the rich to pay 70% tax, is that right?

How is that fair?

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.

 

[Dak]

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.

When you already pay little to no income tax, in comparison with those who were paying a lot, of course across-the-board reductions are going to aid those who were being affected the most. You can't cut nothing (but the working poor will receive a larger return). The middle class will in fact be helped the most though, because 2% of $50k, although less in total dollars, is more economically impactful for persons in that strata, in addition to affecting more people.

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.

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 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

 

[Einherjar86]

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.

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. This is a hopelessly tautological point, 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 reinvest 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.

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

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.

 

[Dak]

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.

You know what makes it harder for people to get by? Being dependent on fixed incomes provided by the government that do not keep pace with the inflation used to fund them. Access to entry level work with the ability to progress and improve their incomes through their own actions improves the ability to get by. Not sitting by the mailbox waiting for not-enough money.

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.

That they don't need the taxcut is also a more or less tautological point. It is a project to grow business and expand industry for everyone, because they don't only provide the taxcuts to donor corporations. Furthermore, if you look at how corporate donations go (at least from easily gleaned data), it tends to skew a bit towards Democrats:

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

30 out of the 50 top corporate donors give majority to Democrat/Liberal candidates. There is only one aspect that I can find in the bill where there is some targeted taxation, and that is wealthy persons in Democrat voting states via the SALT deduction. I don't know why any Democrat would complain about that though. It's more taxes from rich persons who mostly vote for higher taxes.

https://www.curbed.com/2017/12/6/16739576/tax-reform-salt-deduction-repeal

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.

I'm currently poor and the plan helps me. I'm also bootstrapping via government funds. Bootstrapping as in, doing something for the funds to improve myself and provide services to others. Just getting a check for breathing isn't bootstrapping. They even took out the student loan/stipend thing everyone was concerned about (which would have been a dumb inclusion)! Looking forward towards expected earnings, I also expect that the plan will be helpful.

Your problems with the tax bill are of the following:

1. Potential cuts to welfare programs (not a part of the tax bill).
2. The rich having X amount more of their money as opposed to the US Treasury having it.
3. Relatedly: Projected increase in the deficit (not a problem at other times when it wasn't related to tax cuts - ie, deficit spending in itself isn't immoral/unethical).

I see no moral panic over the tax bill itself here, unless people having more of their money is unethical (a debate without end). Within the bill itself, the poor are helped or left alone. Furthermore, it may increase the availability of jobs for actual bootstrapping (which reductions in immigration will also help). The actual taking away of boots and straps are high taxes, high immigration, and rising minimum wages which eliminate access to entry-level work.

That Republicans may also want to cut welfare programs is a separate fight and problem with other hypothetical bills, since cuts could obviously come from other places, like the military budget (won't happen, but could).

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm glad the bill helps you in the short run. It'll help me and my wife too (since the stipend tax got nixed, at least). But we don't see potential program cuts as a "separate fight," since most of what's been written about the bill makes it clear that there's going to be hell to pay down the road. And I don't buy any argument that a bigger tax cut for the wealthy will open the path to new jobs. There are so many other factors here that counteract that possibility.

I know I'm ideologically convicted in this regard, but the bigger amount on the tax refund isn't what unsettles me. What unsettles me is that this amount subtracts monies from elsewhere and sets the stage for massive overhauls, at which point a number of people will be left out to dry. If we choose to do nothing, then that's an ethical crisis. If we choose to do something, it'll likely cost us way more than that little extra amount we'd all be paying in taxes.

 

[Matt]

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.

Ive always been concerned about the deficit. I supported most of the stimulus because I was concerned primarily about the country surviving.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

As long as half of our budget goes towards ponzi scheme welfare that primarily helps useless eaters (the elderly), the deficit problem is never going away.

 

[arg]

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.

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.


I just hate redistribution. It’s the government stealing and the poor receiving something for nothing that makes me mad.

 

[rms]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/01/15/deported-after-30-years/1034668001/

feels like we'll never get a comprehensive article stating how these things happen. anyone know of one? it's always just the sob political story

 

[Matt]

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?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

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?

Elaborate on the broken system.

 

[arg]

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 it

Those that want to help them should do it out of their own pocket and free will

That won’t cover everybody who needs help but life’s tough

 

[EternalMetal]

As long as half of our budget goes towards ponzi scheme welfare that primarily helps useless eaters (the elderly), the deficit problem is never going away.

Honestly, what do you propose as a solution? The elderly are an issue because we cant just leave them to die without help. If you have ever had grandparents in your family who needed money and healthcare to stay alive, you will know that it is also a huge burden on families.

I just hate redistribution. It’s the government stealing and the poor receiving something for nothing that makes me mad.

Your oversimplification of socioeconomic programs, narrowminded viewpoint that only focuses on "people receiving something for nothing", and your complete lack of empathy for anybody but yourself make you a low IQ shitposter with an opinion that nobody should give a fuck about. Many of these programs may not exactly be doing what they are intended to, and require some overhauling, but you arent enough of a human being to have the conversation with.

 

[Dak]

Ive always been concerned about the deficit. I supported most of the stimulus because I was concerned primarily about the country surviving.

Well, it's certainly true that's the ridiculous rhetoric that went along with the salesjob on them, but it was completely bullshit. The country was never in danger of not surviving. The rich/bankers were in danger of losing bubble gains. Fortunately the "country" bailed them out with deficit spending and inflation.

And I don't buy any argument that a bigger tax cut for the wealthy will open the path to new jobs. There are so many other factors here that counteract that possibility.

I know I'm ideologically convicted in this regard, but the bigger amount on the tax refund isn't what unsettles me. What unsettles me is that this amount subtracts monies from elsewhere and sets the stage for massive overhauls, at which point a number of people will be left out to dry. If we choose to do nothing, then that's an ethical crisis. If we choose to do something, it'll likely cost us way more than that little extra amount we'd all be paying in taxes.

More money in the hands of consumers might not lead to more jobs, but at a minimum it would allocate funds more inline with true demand. The stage was set for massive overhauls by creating the ponzi schemes of SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Hastening the reckoning isn't any more or less ethical than kicking the can so it gets worse later. To wit, I specifically disagree with the last sentence.

 

[Matt]

Elaborate on the broken system.

Our system is built for white, upper middle to higher class people. Those born into poverty stay there usually. There's a reason why the black/brown unemployment rate is significantly higher than that of white people and it isn't because those people are just lazier.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, it's certainly true that's the ridiculous rhetoric that went along with the salesjob on them, but it was completely bullshit. The country was never in danger of not surviving. The rich/bankers were in danger of losing bubble gains. Fortunately the "country" bailed them out with deficit spending and inflation.



More money in the hands of consumers might not lead to more jobs, but at a minimum it would allocate funds more inline with true demand. The stage was set for massive overhauls by creating the ponzi schemes of SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Hastening the reckoning isn't any more or less ethical than kicking the can so it gets worse later. To wit, I specifically disagree with the last sentence.

To wit, I disagree with the penultimate sentence.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Our system is built for white, upper middle to higher class people. Those born into poverty stay there usually. There's a reason why the black/brown unemployment rate is significantly higher than that of white people and it isn't because those people are just lazier.

How is it built that way? That fails to explain successful non-white minority groups as well as generations of failure in many parts of white America. More tangible factors would seem to include:

1. A suppressed Hispanic median income due to continued import of illegal immigrants
2. High rates of felony convictions among blacks reducing their employability
3. Corrupt local leadership, particularly in black cities
4. Lack of interest in high-demand/well-paying jobs such as engineering and medicine, particularly among blacks

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Honestly, what do you propose as a solution? The elderly are an issue because we cant just leave them to die without help. If you have ever had grandparents in your family who needed money and healthcare to stay alive, you will know that it is also a huge burden on families.

Then let families shoulder that burden. If the luxury of social security and medicare putting grandma out of sight, out of mind is so wonderful, they should pay for it. If grandparents are so terrible that their own children would let them die, that's the fault of the grandparents. The elderly are the last group in America that deserves to be supported by government money.

 

[Dak]

Our system is built for white, upper middle to higher class people. Those born into poverty stay there usually. There's a reason why the black/brown unemployment rate is significantly higher than that of white people and it isn't because those people are just lazier.

https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS Report - Welfare Spending The Largest Item In The Federal Budget.pdf

The results are staggering. CRS identified 83 overlapping federal welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these 80-plus federal welfare programs amounts to roughly $1.03 trillion. Importantly, these figures solely refer to means-tested welfare benefits. They exclude entitlement programs to which people contribute (e.g., Social Security and Medicare).

You and Ein man. "The system is rigged". Well if this is what a rigged system against the poor looks like, then we know where we need to start cutting.

Edit: I'd actually start with the Fed first, but that's a cow so sacred it's unfathomable.

 

[Einherjar86]

https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS Report - Welfare Spending The Largest Item In The Federal Budget.pdf

You and Ein man. "The system is rigged". Well if this is what a rigged system against the poor looks like, then we know where we need to start cutting.

Edit: I'd actually start with the Fed first, but that's a cow so sacred it's unfathomable.

You just linked a report from Jeff Sessions. You're seriously a Trump acolyte, just licking away at that man's faux-golden asshole.

You should read follow-ups on that report. But I doubt any of them would mean anything to you, since they were conducted by the crooked media.