[Hindsite]

Please acknowledge that you were wrong about the high tax states. A man would do that.

If you will explain how and why I am wrong about the high tax states, I will consider it.

[Drlee]

I did explain it in detail. I am willing to accept that it is over your head. You are welcome to claim that you are not capable of understanding your error. Read my post again and decide.

[jimjam]

About his money grab for the rich folks Donald sez: "No, I don't benefit. I don't benefit. In fact, very very strongly, as you see, I think there's very little benefit for people of wealth."


Wouldn't it be cool if Donald's nose grew every time he told a lie

[Stormsmith]

At last, something good for the environment....a continuously expanding bird perch.

[Hindsite]

I did explain it in detail. I am willing to accept that it is over your head. You are welcome to claim that you are not capable of understanding your error. Read my post again and decide.

If you are referring to your link to those graphs, then I don't even know how I can trust them. I agree with the writer that the southern states have a lot of poor blacks that ride the welfare system and medicaid. So they may need more return from the federal system than other states.

However, the individual taxpayers don't deduct large amounts from their federal tax liability because of high state taxes like those living in the high tax states. So setting a limit on how much they can deduct of their state taxes from the federal income tax return seems like a good idea to me.

[Rancid]

I need to become rich fast so I can benefit from this shit.

[Zagadka]

Good, more poor people should just be rich. It'd solve all of their problems. But they're too lazy. Good for you for turning things around, Rancid!

[Hindsite]

I need to become rich fast so I can benefit from this shit.

Wait until next year, because the tax cut will be for 2018. Then you can win the lottery.

[Godstud]

Why the GOP Tax Bill Is So Unpopular
The public seems to be against the plan precisely because they know what’s in it.
President Donald Trump says he doesn’t want to cut taxes on the rich. His Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he doesn’t want to cut taxes on the rich. The Democratic Party says they don’t want to cut taxes on the rich. Americans say they don’t want to cut taxes on the rich.

The House and Senate Republican tax bills are taking a different approach: They are cutting taxes on the rich—significantly. Their plans would slash the corporate tax rate by almost half, cut taxes on pass-through income for smaller businesses, eliminate the Alternate Minimum Tax, and erode the estate tax, all of which disproportionately help rich families. This comes at a time when post-tax corporate profits as a share of GDP have hovered at a record-high level for the last seven years, and the top 1 percent's share of total income is higher than any time in the second half of the 20th century.

Nearly 50 percent of the benefits of the Senate tax cut would go to the top 5 percent of household earners in the first year of the law, according to the Tax Policy Center.By 2027, 98 percent of multimillionaires would still get a tax cut, compared to just 27 percent of households making less than $75,000.It’s no wonder then that the GOP tax bills are now among the least popular pieces of major legislation in modern history, with the public rejecting it by a two-to-one margin. Other than Republicans, all party, gender, education, age and racial groups disapprove of the bill.

In an almost eerie way, the unpopularity of the bill is an almost perfect reflection of its distributional effects. In a recent Quinnipiac poll, about 60 percent of respondents said that the wealthy would benefit the most from tax cuts compared to just 6 percent of the poor. In fact, TPC analysis finds that about 60 percent of the tax benefits of the House and Senate bills would go to the top quintile, while the poorest 20 percent would receive about 6 percent.

There is no parliamentary rule requiring that major tax legislation must be a means of enriching the already affluent. Lawmakers could increase take-home pay for non-rich families immediately with a payroll tax cut. They could expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and permanently extend a larger Child Tax Credit that grows faster than inflation. They could permanently increase the "refundability" of tax credits to help lower-income families.

But they’re not doing any of that. They’re cutting taxes for the rich. And there are two reasons why.

The first is that Republican politicians, whose campaigns are often financed by wealthy conservative donors like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch family, are worried that a failure to cut taxes on corporations will have a detrimental effect on contributions from the party’s corporate-libertarian wing. “My donors are basically saying, 'Get it done or don't ever call me again,'" Representative Chris Collins, a New York Republican, told The Hill. The “financial contributions will stop" if the GOP fails to deliver corporate tax cuts, Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, told NBC News. "The donor class … has concluded that the inaction of this administration and Congress is totally unacceptable,” Josh Holmes, the former chief of staff to Senator Mitch McConnell, told CNN. “(Donors) would be mortified if we didn’t live up to what we’ve committed to on tax reform,” Steven Law, the head of Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC, told the New York Post.

There are so many quotes from Republican politicians foretelling donor retribution that it’s tempting to say the party’s legislative problems are simply the result of a plutocratic donor class demanding laws that are out of step with the American public. Indeed, even Republican voters don’t stand behind them. In a 2015 Pew survey, more than half of Republican voters said they were bothered by corporations not paying enough taxes.

But there is another reason why the Republican tax bills, like the party’s “repeal and replace” bills, have faced such massive national unpopularity. Spurred by a donor class that is seeking radical changes to the budget, the party has already rejected the moderate conservative solutions to healthcare and corporate tax policy. As The Atlantic’s David Frum wrote this week, “the broad outline of tax reform seems obvious: Lower corporate rates to somewhere between 25 and 30 percent, the developed-world norm [and] tighten collection so that the rate is actually paid.” But that very idea has already been proposed by President Barack Obama in 2012. Republicans immediately rejected it, just as they rebuffed the president’s inclusion of ideas hatched at the conservative Heritage Foundation in the Affordable Care Act.Since the Republican Party has already rejected the reasonable conservative frameworks for health care and corporate tax policy, all that it’s left with is the land of the unreasonable.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ar/546668/

[Beren]

I just realised Hindsight has changed his profile picture. Poor Einstein.

Anyways, the Republicans just do the same tax-wise as they've been doing since Reagan, so the same results or consequences can be expected too.

[Hindsite]

I just realised Hindsight has changed his profile picture. Poor Einstein.

Anyways, the Republicans just do the same tax-wise as they've been doing since Reagan, so the same results or consequences can be expected too.

Well, it goes along with my signature and I do have another son that is a genius and still alive. But getting back to the House Tax bill, it will be real good for me, because I don't live in those high state tax states. I estimate it will save me around $2,000 a year on my federal taxes. Perhaps if this tax plan goes through those high tax states will have to lower their state taxes too.

In New York, where New York City and state revenues are heavily reliant on just a handful of wealthy tax filers, budget watchdogs fear federal tax changes could trigger the flight of those residents. And in New Jersey, plans for a new millionaire's tax, one of incoming Gov. Phil Murphy's biggest campaign promises, are already being reined in as the Democratic-led New Jersey Senate waits on the outcome of any federal tax plan.


"We're going to have to re-evaluate everything" if a federal bill repealing the state and local tax deduction becomes law, New Jersey Senate President Steve Sweeney said Wednesday in Atlantic City. Just days before, Sweeney had said he would make passage of a millionaires tax his chief priority in the new administration. "I'm just saying that what's happening in Washington is concerning the hell out of me,” he added.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/ ... ats-247678

[Drlee]

The picture does not go along with your sig. Because it is your sig. You would not agree with Einstein's view of God. It is the absolute opposite of yours.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
(Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930)

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
(Albert Einstein, Obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)

I don't think you will understand what this means but suffice it to say that even for so obvious a troll like yourself, putting Einsteins picture on your avatar will get you more pity than credit.

[Hindsite]

The picture does not go along with your sig. Because it is your sig. You would not agree with Einstein's view of God. It is the absolute opposite of yours.

I don't think you will understand what this means but suffice it to say that even for so obvious a troll like yourself, putting Einsteins picture on your avatar will get you more pity than credit.

It doesn't matter what I don't understand about what you wrote, because I did find this saying attributed to Albert Einstein on the web. Praise the Lord.

[Zagadka]

Yea, but you now idolizing a lecherous anti-creation scientist by way of lying about a quote from him is still hilarious.

[Hindsite]

Yea, but you now idolizing a lecherous anti-creation scientist by way of lying about a quote from him is still hilarious.

Okay, laugh then, it will be good for you. Praise the Lord.

[The Immortal Goon]

Senate GOP tax bill hurts the poor more than originally thought, CBO finds

The Senate Republican tax plan gives substantial tax cuts and benefits to Americans earning more than $100,000 a year, while the nation’s poorest would be worse off, according to a report released Sunday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Republicans are aiming to have the full Senate vote on the tax plan as early as this week, but the new CBO analysis showing large, harmful effects on the poor may complicate those plans. The CBO also said the bill would add $1.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, a potential problem for Republican lawmakers worried about America’s growing debt.

Democrats have repeatedly slammed the bill as a giveaway to the rich at the expense of the poor. In addition to lowering taxes for businesses and many individuals, the Senate bill also makes a major change to health insurance that the CBO projects would have a harsh impact on lower-income families.

By 2019, Americans earning less than $30,000 a year would be worse off under the Senate bill, CBO found. By 2021, Americans earning $40,000 or less would be net losers, and by 2027, most people earning less than $75,000 a year would be worse off. On the flip side, millionaires and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 would be big beneficiaries, according to the CBO’s calculations. (In the CBO table below, negative signs mean people in those income brackets pay less in taxes).

The main reason the poor get hit so hard in the Senate GOP bill is because the poor would receive less government aid for health care.

The Senate Republican tax bill eliminates the requirement that almost all Americans purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty. The CBO has calculated that health insurance premiums would rise if this bill becomes law, leading 4 million Americans to lose health insurance by 2019 and 13 million to lose insurance by 2027.

Many of the people who are likely to drop health insurance have low or moderate incomes. If they drop health insurance, they will no longer receive some tax credits and subsidies from the government. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), the other official nonpartisan group that analyzes tax bills, put out a similar report showing how lower-income families are hurt by the loss of the health-care tax credits. But the CBO goes a step further than the JCT. The CBO also calculates what would happen to Medicaid, Medicare and the Basic Health Program if the Senate GOP plan became law. The CBO is showing even worse impacts on poor families than the JCT did.

Republicans, including Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), have argued that their bill helps Americans across the income spectrum. They say the JCT and CBO analyses are misleading because buying health insurance is a choice. If an individual or family no longer wants to do it, then that is their decision. They also argue that lower-income families are not losing any money in their wallets.

The CBO and JCT analyses make it seem as if a family is actually getting money taken away from them, but in reality, most of these families making under $30,000 don’t pay any income tax. The credits and subsidies they received to help them buy health insurance were typically sent directly from the government to the insurance company. So these families are unlikely to see any changes to their tax bills.

But Democrats and advocates for the poor say these lower-income Americans are going to be worse off if they no longer have health insurance.

Senate Republicans asked the JCT to calculate what happens to families across the income spectrum if only the tax impacts of the Senate bill are taken into account (so assuming zero impacts from the individual mandate repeal). The JCT sent the table below to Senate Republicans. It shows that all income groups — including people earning less than $30,000 — receive a tax cut.

But that changes in 2027 because the Senate GOP bill currently allows the individual tax cuts to expire in 2026. In 2027, people earning less than $75,000 would end up paying more, according to the JCT. Republicans say Congress will likely extend those cuts, but that counts on future lawmakers taking action.

To the surprise of nobody...

[Drlee]

No surprise at all. They took the bribes and now their wealthy donors want their money back. That or a few scalps. It will still pass. The republicans will just lie about it. We are a party that has lost even the tint of integrity.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

"Patriotism is flag-waving in one hand, and pick-pocketing in the other."
- Cary Grant, Notorious

It should surprise no one that US government isn't trying to pretend it's not a country club accounting office (that's how you use apostrophes, @mikema63 !!) by giving almost everything to the rich while widening the gap of inequality and poverty at the same time.

[mikema63]

I' do'nt get what your' gettin' at.

[Beren]

I wonder if the surprise element still occurs here. I mean, in what shape do people think Trump will leave the USA, especially if reelected?