The only logic is political. Practically all states have sales taxes, but a lot of states - mostly red states - don’t have income taxes. Sales taxes hit the poor hardest and the rich hardly at all. State income taxes are usually regressive too, but not nearly as much.
So Republicans don’t like state income taxes, and this measure basically punishes the people who live in (mostly blue) states that have them.
Here’s a libertarian commentator in a conservative magazine noting that people in blue states who are basically just keeping up with their neighbors are going to have to start paying more taxes.
Which states have “regressive” income taxes?
Try Google. I’m sure you can find a page that summarizes the differences between the income taxes of those states that have them.
I’d argue that 12% of the current Medicare & SS spending is not a “rounding error” using any generally accepted definition of the term. But it’s not just 12%, because that’s just how much Republicans increased the deficit. Last year, based on those numbers, we borrowed 41% of the combined Medicare & SS spending. This year, thanks to the tax cuts, we’re going to be on pace to borrow 51%. If those projections you posted are accurate, the situation is only going to get much, much worse.
The problem isn’t that $190B is a lot of money, it’s that it’s a step in the wrong direction. It’s a step in the wrong direction at a time when the right direction is obvious to anyone who cares to look, and it ultimately means that my children are going to have to suffer more than they otherwise would if the “adults” in the room weren’t being so goddamn irresponsible.
Do you even care?
I’m not interested in what Google has to say. I’m interested in what you have to say. But if your response is to NOT offer a cite, or even an example, I guess that tells me plenty.
Yes. Previously I wrote:
I’d prefer that the deficit were less (even better if we could make it zero). I think, on some level some Dems would too. The fundamental problem is that the federal government spends more than it collects and (speaking generally) the Dem’s solution is to collect more while the Rep’s solution is to spend less. Either could work, but what happens in reality is that we end up spending more and collecting less, because Republicans often don’t want to be seen as the ones cutting spending and Democrats often don’t want to be seen as the ones raising taxes.
Oh come off it, Obama tried like hell to get tax increases through and Republicans raked him through the fucking coals for it. Did you forget all of that?
I mean,look at how Republicans smear Obama for being a tax and spend Democrat.
The problem isn’t that Democrats don’t want to raise taxes – they clearly do, because it needs to be done and they’re the only ones willing to do it. The problem is that people keep voting Republicans into office despite Republicans presenting no feasible strategy for curbing the deficit. That should infuriate you if you have any concept that the future is going to exist.
Why, then, are you cheering this “tax reform” that collects less when Republican leadership shows no inclination toward cutting spending? Why aren’t you howling at the GOP to demonstrate fiscal discipline instead of buying off voters with short-term tax savings that undermine their children’s futures?
I don’t see that as being any more convincing than this:
“The problem isn’t that Republicans don’t want to cut spending – they clearly do, because it needs to be done and they’re the only ones willing to do it. The problem is that people keep voting Democrats into office despite Democrats presenting no feasible strategy for curbing the deficit.”
For the same reason that Dems applaud when their elected officials increase spending but fail to “pay for it” with sufficient revenue-raising measure to cover the costs.
We both have policy priorities we want to see realized, and don’t care sufficiently if the necessary downside (cutting spending in the case of R’s and raising taxes in the case of D’s) actually happens.
Neither side is willing to give up their preferred solution to see that government revenues and outlays meet.
Because you haven’t been paying attention? I’m sure a lot of low information voters would agree with you.
“they want to raise your taxes” and “they want to cut your SS/Medicare” are both potent political attacks. That’s a big part of what contributes to the dessert-but-no-vegetables behavior we get from Washington.
Everyone who disagrees with you must just not be paying attention, or be a low-information voter?
:rolleyes:
Who needs to “come off it” now?
Did I say anything of the sort? Everyone who disagrees with me on anything? Really?
How did the Democrats pay for their spending under Obama?
Regards,
Shodan
Yes. I guessed correctly.
By letting the Bush tax cuts expire. We were also still recovering from a recession – not raising taxes, or cutting taxes, during an economic recession is perfectly fine and consistent with liberal economic theory.
We never got to see what Democrats would have done in the later Obama years when the economy was better because Republicans took over congress and stonewalled every proposed attempt to raise taxes.
I’m rather surprised that nobody has brought up the “we need a balanced budget amendment!” farce.
The only spending that Republicans have any interest in cutting is Social Security and Medicare. They’ve been trying to kill SS for 80 years and trying to kill Medicare for 50 years. Ending these programs is Paul Ryan’s ultimate masturbatory fantasy.
If Republicans think they can cut spending, why don’t they? They control everything. Go ahead, point to specific spending that you’d eliminate. Before you shout “foreign aid!”, remember that it is a tiny portion of the budget. You’ve got defense spending and interest on the debt. Everything else is almost trivial.
False, but since you appear to be unwilling to retract your assertion even in the face of evidence to the contrary, it seems like a waste of time to offer it.
False, but explaining it to you does not interest me.
True. You got one right.
False. What makes you think I’m only getting $1000?
False. Where did you get the impression I wasn’t following it? I asked you for a cite, and was told “Try Google.” That declining to offer a cite for assertions pretty much ended the conversation.
No, no you did not.