Corrected title: Now the GOP has accomplished massive tax reform

[Bitek]

Oh I see. Redistribution. In other words, trickle down doesnt work in a free economy, but it WOULD work coming from the government. Gotcha. Heres a tip for you: if trickle doesnt work in a capitalistic sense (which it doesnt) it sure as hell wont work with the government in charge of it.

And Im not sure I, personally, would want to live in a society where the primary benefit of being a citizen is to receive a government "perk". Goes against everything I stand for. And for the love of all that is good, dont interprete that to mean I want to cut help to those who need it. Im not saying that at all.

Then perhaps what we can agree on is that the current wealth distribution in America is not reflective of the actual value people create with their labor.

Ie, do you see this graph and agree that 5% (and mostly 1%) do most of the work /value creation in America? Does this look correct that 80% of the population does very little work, and is responsible for only 7% of the value creation?

Or does it look like an enormous # of people are not being fairly compensated for their labor?

To support the tax bill, I would think you would have to see the graph and think "Clearly the problem is that the rich are not rich enough. Let's take out a national loan and give nearly all to them!" That's what we just did. Again.

 

[dank69]

Sorry, don't get more upset than you seem to already be, but I'm not in the mood to talk to children. Go cuss at someone else who might respond to that kind of thing.

Haha, that's exactly why I cuss so much. To smoke out snowflakes like you who need safe spaces because the bad man said some naughty words. It's also fun to see who uses it as an excuse to avoid answering uncomfortable questions that make it crystal clear how stupid their prior posts were. Run along little snowflake. Put me on ignore if you have to.

 

[dank69]

Can you explain how exactly if we were to enact say. a 50% income tax on the wealthiest of Americans, how that will prevent down sizing, right sizing, offshoring, and automating? Im genuinely curious.

Typically, faced with the choice between giving cash to the IRS or reinvesting to start new businesses or grow existing ones, corporations will choose reinvesting every time.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, there are two sides to this. The first, which is your argument, is that without the mandate, the poor will have to make a choice to eat and power their homes and buy medication or buy health insurance...and because of that they will forego insurance (I *think* thats your argument). The other side is that those who would benefit least by health insurance (late teens/twenty-somethings who rarely need it). Now, they wont have to buy it.

Now, another part to this (I only post as it directly related to repealing the mandate, not making a case for or against Obamacare) is that millions simply pay the penalty instead of buying insurance. The interesting thing here is (expectedly) the poor pay the penalty vs buying insurance due to cost of insurance. BUT!!! and this is very important...PER THIS ARTICLE:

Sooo....Im not entirely certain the removal of the exemption is as drastically bad as some say it is.

History pretty clearly shows otherwise. Washington State once had community rating, guaranteed issue, and an individual mandate. Then republicans got into office and removed the individual mandate. Sound familiar? Within a few years prices spiraled out of control and literally every single individual insurance issuer pulled out of the state. So yeah, not only will it send prices way up it will potentially make it so even if you want insurance you can’t buy it. That’s how bad this bill is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...6/gJQAosKghV_blog.html?utm_term=.288a899ed8b1

After reading that does this still sound like a smart idea? And remember, we’re now arguing over whether or not the tax increase on the poor is that large and how many will lose their health insurance due to individual insurance markets being ranked. This was supposed to be a TAX CUT! How horribly do you have to design something where your tax cut actually INCREASES taxes on the poor and destroys insurance markets?

Well, all we can do is go on what is CURRENTLY being considered. And as of now, Democrats generally are not pushing for repeal. And, as Obama did by making the Bush cuts permanent (which also benefited the rich), a future Dem majority may do the same. All we can do is speculate.

I would go along with your propsal at first blush...

I would never suggest an equal tax cut for everyone; however, again as I have no problem with people being rich (and they DO pay the majoprity of tax revenue) I have no issue giving the highest tax brackets a tax cut (as Ive said before).

I’m sure you know I have no problem with people being rich either, and my proposal would give the highest brackets a tax cut! They just wouldn’t get extra special tax cuts on top of what everyone else got.

Regardless, the point is that if Republicans actually wanted to cut taxes for everyone equally they could have, easily. They didn’t do this because their primary goal was to increase the share of national income going to the wealthy. I would just like to dispense with the idea that Republicans were really trying to cut taxes for everyone and just couldn’t help but cut taxes for the rich. They could have, they didn’t want to.

And Im not sure why you keep saying the middle class isnt getting a tax cut when clearly they are?

In exchange for a permanent tax increase. To me a temporary tax cut followed by a permanent tax increase isn’t a tax cut.

This is back to the CPI discussion...it was Moynihan's idea to move to chained CPI and reduce SS payouts. I was just noting the irony in it.

Well, I fall on the side of "we need to reduce spending, not necessarily increase income" camp. So on this we'll have to agree to disagree.

Well this bill doesn’t do that either and if fiscal responsibility is the goal shouldn’t you reduce spending before reducing income? Isn’t this the LEAST fiscally responsible bill to pass?

 

[blackangst1]

Wealth transfer meaning income and savings from one group (think tax brackets, class or income quintiles) being transferred to another group in the long run. Sorry you didn't know that, your education system probably failed you. Better cut public education amirite?
Can you answer the question? Why should taxes for the rich and big corps be cut? You said you didn't believe in trickle down economics yet you seem very adamant in supporting these tax cuts and you haven't given us an actual answer as to why. So please tell us.

Ive answered this.

Uhhh ok... I'm sorry you're not capable of reading sarcasm but I don't see how going off on a completely unrelated tangent about communism relates to you not understanding your own position.

And I responded with sarcasm Notice the /eye roll?

So you DO support a form of corporate welfare.
So what you're telling us is:

1) We need tax cuts that transfers money upwards to corps and the rich
2) We should cut safety nets in order to finance these tax cuts (ie poor people pay out of pocket) and
3) You apparently don't believe in corporate welfare and you don't want to "cut" help for "those who need it" (but you're fine giving more money to the people who don't, lol)

I'll let you figure out what you're doing wrong here. Come back when you understand your own stance.

You understand there are MANY types of corporate welfare, right? And I disagree with one, why must I disagree with all? That makes zero sense at all.

I never said ANYTHING about cutting safety nets. Dont put words into my mouth.

 

[blackangst1]

Because that's how they get guys like you to support it?

.

Youre exactly right. If this bill ONLY benefited the rich, I wouldnt like it. But it doesnt.

We cant always get everything we want. Earlier in the thread the discussion of the new pass through provision was discussed, and that was a bitter pill for me to swallow. But, as it is, it DOES benefit small business owners and entrepreneurs, as well as the rich. Sometimes concessions have to be made.

 

[fskimospy]

Youre exactly right. If this bill ONLY benefited the rich, I wouldnt like it. But it doesnt.

Approximately 83% of the benefits go to the top 1% of households. How badly skewed would it have to be before you stopped supporting it?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publ...is-conference-agreement-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act

 

[snoopy7548]

I'm no tax or policy expert, but I feel like forcing the richest of the rich to invest part of their wealth, which they likely accumulated with the sweat and tears of low-wage workers and tax incentives/breaks, back into the country that allowed them to prosper is the only reasonable move for a society. Force them to invest in the country's infrastructure and healthcare. Maybe even *gasp* help to support a basic income and social programs.

 

[blackangst1]

This is actually an entirely different debate.

You can very well say "fine, let's cut $1T out of the budget to reduce the deficit" but that's not actually a justification of why these cuts needed to be structured in the way they are.

Say, let's cut Medicare in half.. Boom. $0.5 trillion off the books each year.

Explain why that saved money should be shoveled into tax cuts for the wealthy.

We just threw a bunch of elderly sick people in the streets, why is it we're giving Trump more money?

Who needs the cash? At least give the cuts to the sick and elderly that need to go buy medicine now since they lost their coverage.

Seriously. The F kinda priorities is that?

Given your scenario? Pretty fucked up
I would never EVER suggest cutting Medicare by half. Ever. So your point is moot.

 

[snoopy7548]

Given your scenario? Pretty fucked up
I would never EVER suggest cutting Medicare by half. Ever. So your point is moot.

Hasn't there already been hints by the GOP about cutting Medicare and SS in order to reduce the increased deficit caused by their tax bill, or was that just liberal hysteria?

 

[greatnoob]

Ive answered this.




And I responded with sarcasm Notice the /eye roll?





You understand there are MANY types of corporate welfare, right? And I disagree with one, why must I disagree with all? That makes zero sense at all.

I never said ANYTHING about cutting safety nets. Dont pout words into my mouth.

You haven't answered it at all and it's obvious why. Not only do you not know what you're talking about but you're stupid enough to convince yourself to support such a position in the first place. You've contradicted yourself multiple times and you haven't even bothered to correct yourself, instead trying to obfuscate your lack of knowledge by throwing the typical Trumptard "but communism" trite out of the blue and passing it off as a joke when called out on it.

Go ahead and explain to us how you don't support corporate welfare and how you don't want to cut social services for the poor whilst supporting a tax bill that transfers wealth from the poor to the rich and reduces the corporate tax rate by a massive margin whilst advocating for cuts to social services as a means to finance these cuts. You've yet to answer my question: why do you support such a tax policy at a time where the economy is not in a recession? You said you don't agree with trickle down economics but you haven't explained why you support these tax cuts (which again transfer wealth from the poor to the rich). Please tell us because I'm incredibly interested in the number of mental backflips and wrong assumptions you'll make trying to answer it.

 

[blackangst1]

Typically, faced with the choice between giving cash to the IRS or reinvesting to start new businesses or grow existing ones, corporations will choose reinvesting every time.

So using that logic, the more money a company has, for instance from cut taxes, the more it will reinvest?

Thanks for agreeing with me

 

[greatnoob]

Given your scenario? Pretty fucked up
I would never EVER suggest cutting Medicare by half. Ever. So your point is moot.

You said we should reduce spending in order to finance these tax cuts. Want to do that? Then what do you cut to make that happen? Ponder on that for a while and then answer it so you don't come off sounding dumber than you do now. Have a gander at the diagram he posted and take note of % spent / GDP as a hint.

 

[fskimospy]

So using that logic, the more money a company has, for instance from cut taxes, the more it will reinvest?

Thanks for agreeing with me

I don't think that's what he's saying. It's another reason this bill is so bad, as it's not expected to spur much investment. Generally what these companies will do with increased after tax profits is pay them out in dividends or share buybacks. This is one of the primary ways this bill transfers money to the rich. I mean take a step back and think about it. Companies are already sitting on record piles of cash and corporate profits are at some of the highest levels ever. Why would increasing those profits still further spur them to make investments they couldn't already be making?

 

[dphantom]

You said we should reduce spending in order to finance these tax cuts. Want to do that? Then what do you cut to make that happen? Ponder on that for a while and then answer it so you don't come off sounding dumber than you do now. Have a gander at the diagram he posted and take note of % spent / GDP as a hint.

One rarely wins an argument by insulting and denigrating your opponent.

 

[dphantom]

I don't think that's what he's saying. It's another reason this bill is so bad, as it's not expected to spur much investment. Generally what these companies will do with increased after tax profits is pay them out in dividends or share buybacks. This is one of the primary ways this bill transfers money to the rich. I mean take a step back and think about it. Companies are already sitting on record piles of cash and corporate profits are at some of the highest levels ever. Why would increasing those profits still further spur them to make investments they couldn't already be making?

You do realize those dividends and stock buybacks do have a positive effect on millions of middle class Americans such as myself. Those dividends and potentially increased stock value will directly help me and my wife with our retirement - two very middle class Americans.

 

[greatnoob]

You do realize those dividends and stock buybacks do have a positive effect on millions of middle class Americans such as myself. Those dividends and potentially increased stock value will directly help me and my wife with our retirement - two very middle class Americans.

The only thing this tax cut does in the short run is induce inflationary pressure (because there are poor Trumptards dumb enough to think they're now rich) which at best negates however many nominal pennies said people will be earning and leaves them no worse off (unlikely) and at worst increases their cost of living.

 

[fskimospy]

You do realize those dividends and stock buybacks do have a positive effect on millions of middle class Americans such as myself. Those dividends and potentially increased stock value will directly help me and my wife with our retirement - two very middle class Americans.

84% of stock value is owned by the top 10% of the population. Sure it helps you a little bit, but it helps the rich much, MUCH more.

http://time.com/money/5054009/stock-ownership-10-percent-richest/

Like I said, this is a pretty transparent way for Republicans to transfer national income to the rich.

 

[dank69]

So using that logic, the more money a company has, for instance from cut taxes, the more it will reinvest?

Thanks for agreeing with me

This is why I called you a stupid fucking asshole. That is literally the opposite of what I am saying. That's how stupid you are. I said they would choose to invest rather than pay taxes. If the choice is between pay taxes or invest, they choose invest. If the choice is between invest or keep the money, they'll keep the money. Now shove your ignorant arrogance straight up your ass.

 

[blackangst1]

History pretty clearly shows otherwise. Washington State once had community rating, guaranteed issue, and an individual mandate. Then republicans got into office and removed the individual mandate. Sound familiar? Within a few years prices spiraled out of control and literally every single individual insurance issuer pulled out of the state. So yeah, not only will it send prices way up it will potentially make it so even if you want insurance you can’t buy it. That’s how bad this bill is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...6/gJQAosKghV_blog.html?utm_term=.288a899ed8b1

After reading that does this still sound like a smart idea? And remember, we’re now arguing over whether or not the tax increase on the poor is that large and how many will lose their health insurance due to individual insurance markets being ranked. This was supposed to be a TAX CUT! How horribly do you have to design something where your tax cut actually INCREASES taxes on the poor and destroys insurance markets?

Its interesting you include an article about how bad WA state's health insurance is, given Im from there, and have family still there. I know WA state poloitics VERY well. I can tell you, this information provided in your link is over 15 years old, and WA state has changed the way they do business (insurance-wise). The state is plumb full of insurance options for the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. Here's a good link for you if youre interested https://www.kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/the-washington-state-health-care-landscape/

My brother is part of WA states Apple program, and is also on Medicaid. He pays zero for it, and despite having one chronic disease and at risk for another, was accepted because although WA state dropped their mandate provision, they kept their pre-existing coverage provision, which basically says we'll take you no matter what.

Also, WA state is right at the national average for total uninsured (see my link). So the loss of the mandate did not hurt them, at all.

I’m sure you know I have no problem with people being rich either, and my proposal would give the highest brackets a tax cut! They just wouldn’t get extra special tax cuts on top of what everyone else got.

Regardless, the point is that if Republicans actually wanted to cut taxes for everyone equally they could have, easily. They didn’t do this because their primary goal was to increase the share of national income going to the wealthy. I would just like to dispense with the idea that Republicans were really trying to cut taxes for everyone and just couldn’t help but cut taxes for the rich. They could have, they didn’t want to.

And with this, I agree with you. Maybe it was the way you phrased it? But as I said in a previous post, I wouldnt scrap the whole bill because its not perfect. Again...its not JUST the rich that got a tax cut. The middle class did too. The unfortunate thing is it slightly raised taxes for the lower income bracket, AFTER the ten years are up. And, as we've discussed already, who knows what will happen in 10 years.

In exchange for a permanent tax increase. To me a temporary tax cut followed by a permanent tax increase isn’t a tax cut.

Well this bill doesn’t do that either and if fiscal responsibility is the goal shouldn’t you reduce spending before reducing income? Isn’t this the LEAST fiscally responsible bill to pass?

Nope it doesnt. And although I agree spending should be reduced first, historically that doesnt happen. The government in general doesnt like to give back something its already taken.

 

[blackangst1]

This is why I called you a stupid fucking asshole. That is literally the opposite of what I am saying. That's how stupid you are. I said they would choose to invest rather than pay taxes. If the choice is between pay taxes or invest, they choose invest. If the choice is between invest or keep the money, they'll keep the money. Now shove your ignorant arrogance straight up your ass.

AHA! So now you throw in the "or keep the money" part. Your original post didnt say that. LOL

 

[blackangst1]

84% of stock value is owned by the top 10% of the population. Sure it helps you a little bit, but it helps the rich much, MUCH more.

http://time.com/money/5054009/stock-ownership-10-percent-richest/

Like I said, this is a pretty transparent way for Republicans to transfer national income to the rich.

And this is another mindset I dont agree with. Viewing private money as possible income. Its kind of like private investers who sit around and say "Where are there large pools of money we can get our hands on? Oh I know....subprime mortgages! Yeah! Lets create insurance on them and resell them for profit!". Progressives typically have the same mindset of the rich. But of course they use touchy-feely words like "it helps the poor"...."it helps the country that made them rich"..."it helps <inset favorite thing here>". What they mean is, "Oh shit look at all that money theyve got! We need to get some!"

So you call it transfer national income to the rich, I call it the rich keeping more of what they made.

 

[dank69]

AHA! So now you throw in the "or keep the money" part. Your original post didnt say that. LOL

Sorry I will use crayons from now on when dealing with you.

 

[fskimospy]

Its interesting you include an article about how bad WA state's health insurance is, given Im from there, and have family still there. I know WA state poloitics VERY well. I can tell you, this information provided in your link is over 15 years old, and WA state has changed the way they do business (insurance-wise). The state is plumb full of insurance options for the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. Here's a good link for you if youre interested https://www.kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/the-washington-state-health-care-landscape/

My brother is part of WA states Apple program, and is also on Medicaid. He pays zero for it, and despite having one chronic disease and at risk for another, was accepted because although WA state dropped their mandate provision, they kept their pre-existing coverage provision, which basically says we'll take you no matter what.

Also, WA state is right at the national average for total uninsured (see my link). So the loss of the mandate did not hurt them, at all.

Yes, they changed things because the loss of mandate destroyed their insurance industry!!! As for their standing right now, they are currently operating under an insurance model that includes an individual mandate. (ie: the ACA) This is just further proving my point. Come on man, you can't make the argument that because a mandate was re-introduced after their choice to remove it collapsed their individual insurance market that removing the mandate didn't hurt them. It literally destroyed it.

With that example in mind, doesn't removing the individual mandate seem like a catastrophically bad idea?

And with this, I agree with you. Maybe it was the way you phrased it? But as I said in a previous post, I wouldnt scrap the whole bill because its not perfect. Again...its not JUST the rich that got a tax cut. The middle class did too. The unfortunate thing is it slightly raised taxes for the lower income bracket, AFTER the ten years are up. And, as we've discussed already, who knows what will happen in 10 years.

Don't forget it will also mean higher taxes for the middle class in perpetuity. And yes, the middle class did get a (temporary) tax cut, it was just that the top 1% of individuals got 83% of the tax cuts and the other 99% of people got 17% of them. You mentioned earlier that if this tax cut was entirely for the rich you would oppose it. What would the skew have to be for you to reach that tipping point? I mean isn't 83% pretty horrible?

Nope it doesnt. And although I agree spending should be reduced first, historically that doesnt happen. The government in general doesnt like to give back something its already taken.

So in other words you think cutting taxes is more important than fiscal responsibility?

 

[fskimospy]

And this is another mindset I dont agree with. Viewing private money as possible income. Its kind of like private investers who sit around and say "Where are there large pools of money we can get our hands on? Oh I know....subprime mortgages! Yeah! Lets create insurance on them and resell them for profit!". Progressives typically have the same mindset of the rich. But of course they use touchy-feely words like "it helps the poor"...."it helps the country that made them rich"..."it helps <inset favorite thing here>". What they mean is, "Oh shit look at all that money theyve got! We need to get some!"

So you call it transfer national income to the rich, I call it the rich keeping more of what they made.

But we already agreed that the rich aren't just taking home what 'they made', they are taking home what other people made as well. If they had really made all they are taking home that means all productivity increases over the last 3 decades are due to the top 1% of people and you already said that wasn't the case.

I think people should be compensated relative to the value they bring to society. That's what a free market is all about. Right now that's not happening however, and we basically have a situation where a small fraction of the country is capturing the gains from everyone else's work. It's best to correct for those market failures through public policy.