Posted on 11/19/2017 1:20:05 PM PST by Mariner
Wage stagnation is what is keeping people from being able to afford a home.
Any raises are immediately lost due to higher health insurance premiums and deductibles.
This bill reduces taxes on corporations ( a good thing), but shifts that tax liability to middle and upper middle class families that were already ACTUALLY paying taxes instead of cutting spending or increasing the tax base to get at the underground economy.
The people writing this bill are greedy crooked degenerate scumbags, this is grand larceny, masquerading as tax cuts.
This is Obamacare all over again, this time it’s the Republicans that are telling the middle class they are getting a tax cut instead of the democrats promising lower premiums and you can keep your doctor.
And the GOP doesn’t give a good goddamn if it costs them the majority, (and it most definitely will), because it’s all about getting the tax man off THEIR back, and getting the SUCKERS to pony up even more.
That is their mission, they are all in.
24,000 sounds better to me since I am retired might not be if your still hitting a lick at something
Actually the bill is counting on increased GDP to recoup the $ that are being pared from the business tax. There is a $1.6 trillion gap which will be recouped by a 1.6% increase in GDP.
The middle class will not be paying more tax under this bill. A few upper middle class may but more will have lower tax bills. I do not share your opinion about the bill, I prefer the Senate version but we will see what we get in the end.
“Single adults are now a majority.”
This is an untrue statement though it is being pushed by the pop type liberal magazines. According to the census more like 31% of people were single in 2016 and only about 12% had never had children by age 40.
Always question blanket statements.
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2017/single-americans-week.html
Correct, the upper middle class will be paying more,
Jonathan Gruber has nothing on you.
This bill is supposedly revenue neutral, hoping for a specific increase in GDP to make up for a 1.6 trillion dollar gap is crazier than the horsecrap they were peddling about the health care exchanges being viable.
Total tax receipts from all sources will be about 3 trillion in 2017, you believe they would pass a bill that would cut revenue in half based on the assumption that an increase in GDP that might never happen is going to make up the difference?
Not buying it, this is malarkey.
The bill is not revenue neutral and is not planned to be. Listen to this excellent interview by Toomey, almost none of his never Trump persona was showing. He isn’t a favorite of mine but there is lots of good information.
Sen. Toomey discusses tax reform on Bloomberg 11-10-17
https://youtu.be/L-bT-CCmkj4
You may also want to check the charts I posted earlier. Upper middle taxpayers have a lot to like, as do middle and poorer families.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3606273/posts?page=84#84
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3606273/posts?page=108#108
We don’t know each other well but I’m going to give you one free pass for insulting and attacking me rather than examining facts.
And this is relevant to our discussion how?
For example, in the first ten months of fiscal 2015, the Treasury collected $272,904,380,000 (in constant 2017 dollars) in corporate income taxes. In the first ten months of fiscal 2017, the Treasury collected only $232,294,000,000 corporate income taxes._CNS News
That article that I posted a link to shows corporations paying about 273 billion in corporate tax in the first teen months of fiscal 2017, while individuals paid about 1.3 trillion in individual income tax and a trillion in social security and other payroll taxes.
Do the math and it looks like corporations are doing a lot better than us working stiffs.
I will check out your links and see what they are saying, thanks for the info.
>> Let’s eliminate: 1, 2, 3...
So now, it’s just about you?
It’s used in SciFi too
I’m sorry I don’t see the world the way you do. Its not an apples to apples comparison. Corporate taxes need to be low so that the companies have an incentive to stay in the USA rather than continue the corporate off shore flight that has hollowed our our industrial base and turned so many cities into dust-bowls.
It is really irrelevant if you are angry at the corporations for doing well. #1 That is their job and their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. #2 Most of the big corporations already have footprints overseas and can easily leave & shelter their profits from taxation. #3 The only leverage you have is to make America the place that it makes the most sense for them to invest and manufacture in.
Trump’s entire pitch has been exactly that. Stack the deck with carrots, deregulation, lower taxes, repatriation at low rates and other economic incentives. Throw in a few sticks such as tariffs to sell here if you manufacture abroad
The plan is to get the companies committed here because of favorable conditions and hold down migration & H2 visa so that the companies hire American, expanding our job markets and lowering unemployment. Then the decreasing pool of unemployed and lack of immigration will drive wages higher.
If the corporate taxes are not lowered business tax revenue will continue to fall as they flee and our economy will further weaken.
You are very welcome.
I don’t disagree with any of your points, don’t hate corporations and understand the tax rates need to be reduced, for all of the reasons you cite
Congress can do that without screwing around with the middle class, but they are too lazy to be innovative, and we have no lobbyists looking out for our interests.
If Trump signs a bill that raises taxes on families making 150-200K, he can kiss the majority goodbye.
“You’re not “subsidizing” anyone, you fool. These people just get to keep a little more of what they earned, you socialist cretin. “
That’s been the entire point of my postings on this subject over the last two months.
To demonstrate the error of “subsidizing” assertions, especially as they pertain to the SALT deductions.
However, SALT was far more effective at stirring hatred for anyone in a blue state, and also for those who are high earners and itemize from any state.
So I turned the tables and and attacked the “subsidy” afforded marriage and children, which you correct asset does not exist.
And the same applies to the “subsidy” for liberal blue states known as SALT.
Got it. Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.