When was the last time the Republicans proposed a tax plan that was both fiscally responsible and did not disproportionately favored higher income earners? Any time these fuckers propose tax reform you can be sure it’ll put even more pressure on our budget and favor the rich. That is their strategy: bloat the budget and then create an emergency choice between cutting the military or cutting benefits. No analysis required. The middle class is going to get screwed but by the time they find out, they’ll have fewer benefits for their tax dollars, we’ll be fighting w or 4 wars simultaneously, and the rich will throw critics in jail and conscript their offspring.
Let’s be clear, though: this bill may favor the super-rich, but I’m a high income earner it certainly doesn’t favor me. And discussion among my peers the last couple days shows none of them is happy about it.
Well, is that because you’ll pay more, or because you’re not getting as much as you thought? Or something else?
I live in a high tax state (CA), I pay well over $10K in property taxes, and I don’t have any dependents I can claim. I’ll get some relief from the newer, lower tax brackets but not enough to offset the other stuff. And on top of that, I’m probably facing a huge increase in my health insurance premiums next year. Ugh.
I have been wondering about this: if Republicans wanted a middle class tax cut, why not do the easiest thing? Right now 40% of Americans pay no income tax. Just adjust the exemptions so that 45, 50, or even 60 percent of Americans pay no income tax.
A higher exemption would of course have some impact on higher earners, but they would have their tax savings capped at whatever additional amount the exemption would be. (Eg, a family with $100,000 in income would receive a benefit of, say, $7,000 due to higher exemptions, and Warren Buffett would receive a benefit of exactly $7,000 because of the increased exemption.)
I would still oppose such a plan because driving up deficits is stupid. But at least one could claim it is actually a tax cut aimed at non-billionaires.
Well, that wouldn’t create any jobs, duh!!! They don’t call it the Tax and Jobs Act fear nuthin’!
In order to create jobs, you need to cut taxes on billionaires. I read that on the internet, comrade, so it must be true!
Your suggestion was for him to have moved earlier. You made that suggestion. It is you that is saying that if you cannot afford to live in New York, then you should move. I am not JAQing off, thank you very much. You said that he should have left, I was asking if that is the case for everyone who is not rich, or who exactly it applies to.
Sure, no one has ever been underwater on their mortgage before. How farfetched. Can’t believe I fell for that. No one in the history of ever has ever been stuck in a home that they couldn’t sell.
Okay, so are you saying the Mcdonald’s in New York City do not need employees? If not, where are these employees supposed to live? And there are plenty places other than McDonalds to work too, hundreds, actually, everything in between McDonald’s and Wall Street Hedge funds. You have bank tellers, and store clerks, and street sweepers, and construction workers, plumbers… I could go on. New york needs people to work the jobs. Those employees need somewhere to live. This tax bill makes it harder for people to live near where those jobs are.
Not sure what the point of your attack here is, nor the reason for your rather unjustified animosity. The point is is that there are higher costs of living to live in places like New York than in Tennessee. This tax bill increases those costs of living. This will discourage non-rich people to live in areas like New York. If that is something that we do wish to discourage, then fine, but at least make that argument, rather than whatever that passive-aggressive post was.
I was a big fan of the reduction of the 7.65% FICA and Medicare tax that was temporary after 2009. Immediate targeted tax reduction for everyone who worked, and did not disproportionatley benefit high earners.
You don’t have to wait. They already consider the $13.6 billion for children’s healthcare impossible to pay for.
The other one you can take to the bank is “the government can’t create jobs.” It just can’t. That’s why the GOP is cutting taxes on billionaires instead of investing in an infrastructure program- the latter would not create one. singe. job.
Nope, the problem is the size of the government. The smaller the government, the more jobs there are. And everybody’s problems boil down to Big Government. So you see, to solve people’s problems and to keep people employed (4% unemployment isn’t cutting it), we need to shrink government, and that means tax cuts for the wealthy.
Any questions?
Lots, and lots of questions. So many questions you’ve entered Poe’s Law territory.
Also a “citations needed” for the bolded just in case you’re serious.
They realized that robots would end up fixing all the bridges and so they decided to do the smart thing and do the tax bill which will create one HELL of a singe job.
I’ll refer you to any bona fide right-wing media outlet. Any source that disagrees is “lame-stream media” if not outright “fake news”, and cannot be trusted.
Lol one of these things is not like the other.
Lol. +1. Doubleplusgood even.
Yes, they would never try to do something like that.
Here comes the drip drip drip on the revenue side…
***House Republicans on Friday quietly made changes to their far-reaching tax overhaul: Now its tax cuts would be less generous for many Americans.
A day after the GOP unveiled its plan promising middle-class relief, the House’s top tax-writer, Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, released a revised version of the bill that would impose a new, lower-inflation “chained CPI” adjustment for tax brackets immediately instead of in 2023. That means more income would be taxed at higher rates over time — and less generous tax cuts for individuals and families.
The change, posted on the website of the Ways and Means Committee, reduces the value of the tax cuts for ordinary Americans by $89 billion over 10 years compared with the legislation released with fanfare Thursday.
As wages rise, middle-class taxpayers would have more of their income taxed at the 25 percent rate instead of at 12 percent, for instance.***
Before someone jumps on that last sentence and says “of course they will,” what it means is that as AVERAGE wages rise, the brackets will move. Not that if YOUR wages rise you’ll naturally end up in a higher bracket.
Where’s all the cutting? It was going to be the Cut Cut Cut Act and they ruined it!
Really, there is no need for a tax cut right now. There is no need to stimulate an economy at virtual full employment. Even if there was merit to trickle down, this tax cut is a solution in search of a problem.
(e) UNBORN CHILDREN ALLOWED AS ACCOUNT
BENEFICIARIES.—Section 529(e) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(6) TREATMENT OF UNBORN CHILDREN.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Nothing shall prevent an unborn child from being treated as a designated beneficiary or an individual under this section.
‘‘(B) UNBORN CHILD.—For purposes of this paragraph—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero.
‘‘(ii) CHILD IN UTERO.—The term ‘child in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.’’
So don’t even think about cheating by sticking something other than a member of homo sapiens in there.
This is the part I don’t understand. Trump is patting himself on the back sooooo hard about how awesome everything is now that he’s taken the helm: Stock market through the roof, corporations cheering as they hurry to move back to the USofgoddamnA, unemployment at an all time low (real-numbers…not those phony Obama ones), and new jobs being produced at never, ever seen in history numbers. Yet, with all this America being Great Again, we need to cut taxes to create jobs? WTF? Something in this equation isn’t right.
Oh yeah, it’s just to make the rich, richer. DUH! And his sycophants lap it up.