[Doug64]

It is estimated that Donald will reap an additional $11,000,000 per year. Near as I can determine I will reap an additional $.06 per year. Oh! I am so happy and grateful .

Did you use the Tax Plan Calculator to figure that out?

[Hindsite]

Did you use the Tax Plan Calculator to figure that out?

According to this calculator I will save $836.

Can I ask you a really easy question?

Can you tell me how someone becomes a billionaire by spending money rather than saving it?

By investing and earning more money.

[Zagadka]

What about the one for when a decade passes? Or the one comparing your savings to a billionaire's?

[Drlee]

What about the one for when a decade passes? Or the one comparing your savings to a billionaire's?

Hindsite knows that the democrats will fix the problems when they recover the House, Senate and Presidency in 2020.

Maybe in 2018 if the republicans keep fucking up. Trump would not dare to veto anything with the power to indite him and his family in the hands of the democrats.

[Hindsite]

Hindsite knows that the democrats will fix the problems when they recover the House, Senate and Presidency in 2020.

The Democrats always try to fix things that do not need fixing.

[Drlee]

The Democrats always try to fix things that do not need fixing.

You mean like the military retirement you draw? Approved first under a democrat and reduced to 20 years under a democrat? Or are you talking about the social security you draw? Enacted under a democrat. Wait. Maybe you believe it is the Medicare program which provides the bulk of your nearly free health care enacted under another democrat.

Are those the things that didn't need fixing that they fixed?

[Doug64]

What about the one for when a decade passes? Or the one comparing your savings to a billionaire's?

The expiration date was included to avoid the possibility of a filibuster, I seriously doubt that the Democrats will fight hammer-and-tongs to prevent the cuts from being made permanent.

As for comparing my savings to a billionaire’s, I try to keep envy from being one of my primary motivators. Besides, before the tax cut that billionaire was paying significantly more than me both in actual payment and as a percentage of income, and now that’s still true. If anything, Congress should pass a tax reform measure to have both of us paying the same percentage and receiving the same personal and dependent exemptions. That would be a truly fair tax law, where we are all treated the same. "Do not twist justice in legal matters by favoring the poor or being partial to the rich and powerful. Always judge people fairly.” That is as important in creating law as in enforcing it.

They would. Do you think they are going to have the money for health care? Sure. All hotel maids are just rolling in dough.

Appreciate that a job without health insurance is better than no job without health insurance? I’m sure they will.

I agree. That is why most developed nations do not require it.

Good Lord.

And most developed nations tax their middle classes much more heavily than we do, don’t have our level of military expenditure, and are still running substantial deficits.

Hindsite knows that the democrats will fix the problems when they recover the House, Senate and Presidency in 2020.

Maybe in 2018 if the republicans keep fucking up. Trump would not dare to veto anything with the power to indite him and his family in the hands of the democrats.

Democrats have already badly hurt their chances of winning Congress in 2018 with their opposition to this tax cut, if they keep up their reflexive opposition to everything Trump and the Republicans attempt for the next two years (and our Daily Prophets keep up their harping on non-stories in the hope that something sticks) they’re going to end up helping Trump win again in 2020. And I hadn’t thought that would be possible.

[Godstud]

And most developed nations tax their middle classes much more heavily than we do, don’t have our level of military expenditure, and are still running substantial deficits.

And have better quality of life, better healthcare, better education, and don't require the level of military expenditure because they don't have imperialist foreign policies.

[Drlee]

The expiration date was included to avoid the possibility of a filibuster, I seriously doubt that the Democrats will fight hammer-and-tongs to prevent the cuts from being made permanent.

Thank GOD for that.

As for comparing my savings to a billionaire’s, I try to keep envy from being one of my primary motivators. Besides, before the tax cut that billionaire was paying significantly more than me both in actual payment and as a percentage of income, and now that’s still true. If anything, Congress should pass a tax reform measure to have both of us paying the same percentage and receiving the same personal and dependent exemptions. That would be a truly fair tax law, where we are all treated the same. "Do not twist justice in legal matters by favoring the poor or being partial to the rich and powerful. Always judge people fairly.” That is as important in creating law as in enforcing it.

I'll buy this. But it is a myth. It is not necessarily true that the rich pay more than the poor as a percentage of income. Google any one of about a million articles. Then consider all taxes on pays, not just federal income tax, and see what you come up with.

For example:

A person earning 2 million a year pays, on average about 25% in taxes. So do I. Why? Because about 80% of my income is subject to self employment tax (16%) in addition to federal income tax, and for the rich person this is about 5%. Do try to keep up.

Appreciate that a job without health insurance is better than no job without health insurance? I’m sure they will.

Spoken like a selfish bastard with no care for others.

And most developed nations tax their middle classes much more heavily than we do, don’t have our level of military expenditure, and are still running substantial deficits.

Gee. You think that makes sense? The US spends 20% of GDP on health care and we suck compared to any of them. For the record, 7 of the G20 nations tax less than we do and provide universal health care. And their social safety nets for other stuff are much better.

Democrats have already badly hurt their chances of winning Congress in 2018 with their opposition to this tax cut, if they keep up their reflexive opposition to everything Trump and the Republicans attempt for the next two years (and our Daily Prophets keep up their harping on non-stories in the hope that something sticks) they’re going to end up helping Trump win again in 2020. And I hadn’t thought that would be possible.

Give me a break. Utah is getting to you. Even the Salt Lake Tribune just slammed Hatch today for his support of the tax cuts. Romney is probably going to replace him. (A good thing because Hatch is as corrupt as they make.) Alabama went to the democrats. Bright Red Virginia lost control of its state legislature to the democrats in a clean sweep.

And you have a lot of nerve mentioning other countries budgets when your house, senate and president just passed the largest deficit spending bill in the history of the nation with no plan to ameliorate it without dramatic cuts to Social Security, Medicare and/or the military. I find it laughable that I am accused of being a non-conservative while being just about the only poster here who demands a balanced budget.

You are not a conservative if you support this bill. It is nothing more than an transfer of funds from the middle class to the wealthy. It is big spending and passing the bill to our children. The republicans do not even deny it. Try a little intellectual integrity for a change.

[skinster]

Trump told friends at Mar-a-Lago 'you all just got a lot richer' after tax bill passed
President Trump reportedly told friends at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida just hours after he signed the GOP tax bill that they all just got wealthier.

"You all just got a lot richer," Trump said Friday at a dinner at Mar-a-Lago, two friends at a table near the president told CBS News.

Late last week, Trump signed the sweeping Republican tax bill into law, marking his first major legislative accomplishment since winning the White House.

He spoke at length during the signing, thanking Republicans in Congress for getting the legislation to his desk and predicting it would help the economy.

"It's going to be a tremendous thing for the American people. It's going to be fantastic for the economy," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

"It's going to keep companies from leaving our shores and opening up in other countries."

Trump and congressional Republicans have been pushing tax reform for several months. Trump has pitched the tax-reform plan as a boon to the middle class.

Democrats, though, have argued that the largest benefits will go to wealthy Americans like the president.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... cher-after

[blackjack21]

This Tax bill is not popular with anyone who knows anything about it, and isn't rich.

Honestly? You are not an American, and you don't pay taxes here. How the hell does an expat Canadian living under a military junta in Thailand purport to be an expert on US tax law? It's one of the most complex subjects in this country. Most Americans don't even know what is in it a this point.

What makes it unpopular with Democrats is that it does away with deductions for state and local taxes, so called SALT. That means that individuals in high tax states like California, New York and Illinois won't get much of a break compared to lower tax states like Wyoming or Florida. In other words, it rewards red states much more than blue states for the purposes of the individual income tax. So for me, a Californian, it won't help me as much as if I lived in a low tax state, if at all.

However, the main purpose of the tax plan is to repatriate corporate money from overseas back to the United States to spike gross investment as a percentage of GDP. Most people do not understand that. Most tax cuts are designed to stimulate aggregate demand. This tax cut is largely based upon stimulating gross investment. One of the great things Reagan did wasn't just to lower the top rate to 28%, but he also had an investment tax credit that led to a significant investment boom.

Quite the opposite will happen.

Many corporations have announced they will provide bonuses to their employees.

Here’s a List of Companies Giving Worker Bonuses After Tax Reform

AT&T
Boeing
Wells Fargo
Fifth Third Bankcorp
Washington Federal
Sinclair
Comcast

As fiscal years are different with big corporations, we'll see that sort of thing getting announced as corporations clock in to their next fiscal year. If anything, it's a big PR win for Trump.

[Stormsmith]

And most developed nations tax their middle classes much more heavily than we do, don’t have our level of military expenditure, and are still running substantial deficits.

And have better quality of life, better healthcare, better education, and don't require the level of military expenditure because they don't have imperialist foreign policies.

This. And the better education is what helps raise the lifestyle and wages of the next generation. Another plus is we regulate. People could not get mortgates they couldn't afford, so no one lost or loses their homes for health reasons or because banks were buggering about. Families kept their homes, their wealth so the next generation could inherit that, too

[Finfinder]

Yes. I am sure that people who have lost their health care because of this bill and are trying to figure out how to pay for their daughter to go to the doctor will be deeply comforted by the construction of an upscale Las Vegas hotel and gambling casino named after a 1500 room French Palace.

The vote has already been taken by the thousands, who never got their $2000 and had their insurance canceled or premiums spiked because of the Obamacare bill.

[Crantag]

However, the main purpose of the tax plan is to repatriate corporate money from overseas back to the United States to spike gross investment as a percentage of GDP. Most people do not understand that. Most tax cuts are designed to stimulate aggregate demand. This tax cut is largely based upon stimulating gross investment. One of the great things Reagan did wasn't just to lower the top rate to 28%, but he also had an investment tax credit that led to a significant investment boom.

There is a precise term for this: supply-side economics.

It is good that you recognize that is what this bill is about (giving money to 'supplyers'). Supply-side economics is based on Say's Law, which states production creates it's own demand. It's nothing but an ideological justification for giving public money to the rich, and doesn't work. If there is no corresponding stimulation to demand, how is giving money to producers going to have the supposed intended effect? In reality, the extra money is likely to flow to the financial markets. There are a number of major companies which already earn comparable amounts on financial returns on assets than they do from operations.

The stock market is in an epic bubble. When I look at the real estate markets around me, all I see is bubbles. Better buckle up. Myself, I'm going to China; I'll try to hold on to as many Chinese Yuan as I can in the coming years.

This. And the better education is what helps raise the lifestyle and wages of the next generation. Another plus is we regulate. People could not get mortgates they couldn't afford, so no one lost or loses their homes for health reasons or because banks were buggering about. Families kept their homes, their wealth so the next generation could inherit that, too

Effective public spending on healthcare and education tend to stimulate the economy, and much for the same reason that 'supply-side economics' fails to (and is an utter crock of made up shit). If people are paying less for healthcare (or are able to live without the spectre of bankrupcy due to a medical mishap), they get to keep, and therefore spend, more of the money they earn, which stimulates demand. Healthcare spending is a conduit for achieving this end, as well as a lot of other things (related both to economics and general well being of people).

[skinster]

The Truth About Power and Capitalism: A Socialist Response to the Tax Bill
In response to the passage of the GOP tax bill, many voices are now offering variations on the theme of "speak truth to power." It's true enough that tax overhaul, coming after 30 years of widening inequality, widens it further. It is likewise yet another exercise in trickle-down economics, the policy promise that direct economic help to corporations and the rich will eventually lift up the rest of us. The GOP and Trump conveniently disregard the countless economists who have shown that trickle-down is a false promise.

However, the limitation of "speaking truth to power" is and always was that it risks leaving us with the truth and them with the power. In today's world, the GOP, Trump and the corporate leaders who sustain them have the power to treat truths as so much "fake news" or simply to ignore them as they push their agendas. For the truth to become socially effective, it needs an alliance with an oppositional power able and willing to contest the ruling power.

In the US, until the 1970s, when truth meant advocating for a form of capitalism with a human face -- regulated markets, safety nets, progressive taxation, generous public services -- it could be allied chiefly to the Democratic Party and contest against the GOP. Likewise, for those who defined truth as advocating for a laissez-faire form of capitalism -- deregulation, privatization, a reduced public sector -- they could and did ally chiefly with the GOP and contest against the Democrats. But those connections between truth and power have changed since the 1970s, when moderate laissez-faire economics (neoliberalism) captured the Democratic Party and an extreme laissez-faire ideology captured the Republican Party.

Another way to describe what has happened since the 1970s is that the central economic contest stopped being between Keynesian and neoclassical economics -- between more and less government intervention in the economy. The central political contest used to be between left and right supporters of alternative forms of capitalism.

Now, in a capitalism where Democrats like Clinton boast of having ended the welfare safety net "as we know it," more or less minimal government support of the mass of the people has become accepted policy for both major parties. As Nancy Pelosi said in response to a student's question about socialism during the 2016 presidential election, "we are all capitalists." She was referring to both major political parties. Her words marked an unconscious recognition that capitalism itself -- not its alternative forms -- is now the power being contested. Nor could she imagine that the student's question was itself the speaking of a new truth to the power of capitalism as such.

The Democrats as a party currently do little more than speak their truth to GOP power. They do not act as or collaborate with or try to build a real social opposition. As far as the party goes, there are no demonstrations, no mass mobilizations: The Democrats vote and lose and make weak speeches to ever-smaller audiences. Democrats seem to fear losing major donations and donors were they to mount real opposition. The primary loyalty of major donors is to the capitalist system that undergirds their social position. This or that form of capitalism is of much less importance. The GOP gets this, too. Both parties now pander to the same donors; they have become, more than before, two wings of a party unified in its devotion to capitalism.

The GOP and Trump grasped this in putting forth the tax bill. Its tax cuts promise even more to capitalist corporations and those they enrich (major shareholders and top executives) than the traditional Republican and Democratic leaders would have dared to advocate even a couple of years ago. In response, the Democratic Party limited its opposition to speaking some truth to power. It avoided mass mobilizations whose demands might begin to include anti-capitalism, even in its most modest Sanders form.

What neither party grasps is that, as their theoretical and practical differences over forms of capitalism shrank, the system itself became again the issue. An entire generation grew up amid the oscillation between GOP and Democratic administrations and Congresses since the 1970s. That generation watched and learned as both major parties supported and sustained capitalism, speaking and acting as though no other system existed or was worth considering. That same generation has acutely experienced capitalism's flaws and failures: poor job opportunities, school debt, grotesque inequality, and so on. It has done so without the Cold War context of a lopsided celebration of capitalism and over-the-top demonization of its critics. Especially since the crash of 2008, that generation has shown a greater consciousness of the potential power of alternative systems, and has come to question, challenge and shift its loyalties away from capitalism.

The politically self-absorbed disregard of the major parties, combined with the ascendance of remarkably repulsive leaders like Trump, Ryan, McConnell, Pelosi and Schumer (not to mention many, many others at lower levels) only further alienates the young. The truths of younger generations, now spoken ever louder to power, are also wakening to the need for an alliance with a socially effective power to contest against both the GOP and the Dems.

We live in a time rich with ironies. After 1989 and the implosion of the USSR, a kind of capitalist triumphalism hailed the "end" of the capitalism versus socialism theme that so dominated the 20th century. Capitalism, we were told, had "won." A generation later, capitalism finds itself in deepening difficulties: economic, political and ideological. Socialisms of various kinds have re-emerged as alternatives to an increasingly contested capitalism.

In this new era, what does "socialism" mean? There remain, of course, the remnants of what socialism meant in the 20th century. Those faithful to that socialism still view it as a state-focused economic system. In it, state ownership of means of production (rather than capitalism's private ownership) partners with state-planned distribution of resources and products (rather than capitalism's markets). Socialists of this variety continue to see their version as the only viable alternative to capitalism and its eventual successor.

However, other kinds of socialism are increasingly challenging those remnants among the critics of capitalism. Many of these reflect socialist self-criticisms constructed around key history-based questions: "Why did the USSR implode?" "Why have the People's Republic of China and other 'socialist' economies opened increasingly to private capitalist enterprises?" "How did the statism of socialist economies contribute to undemocratic political and cultural systems?"

Meanwhile, new and different socialisms have emerged. There are libertarian or anarchically inflected socialisms that stress local, decentralized, non- or anti-statist variations with or without market institutions linking enterprises and individuals to one another. Democratic socialisms -- some old and some new -- have also emerged, stressing the necessary co-existence of democratic political institutions with socialist economies interpreted in either libertarian or else strictly-limited statist variants.

Then there is a socialism whose approach is to refocus priorities on the micro-level -- the enterprise -- rather than the macro-level -- the state. In this version, the emphasis is on the radical reorganization of the enterprise, away from the hierarchical capitalist to the democratic cooperative. In the latter, workers become their own collective employer as the division between employee and employer dissolves. Workers' democratic decisions then govern what gets produced with which technology, where and when; their democratic decisions also govern the use made of the profits they collectively produced. Such a socialism leaves open the question of whether such democratized enterprises will co-exist with markets or state planning. The general presumption is that the democratized enterprises will erect and adjust their distributional system to reinforce the cooperative structure of their enterprises, much as capitalist enterprises structured markets to reinforce theirs.

In the ongoing process of transition from capitalism to the next system, capitalism's critics are extending and deepening the truths they speak. They are increasingly directing those truths to the power of capitalism as expressed in the policies and politics of both Republicans and Democrats. They are looking and working for an alliance with real, organized oppositional political power, even as they are building it themselves. They want a powerful partner for their truth.

This is one place we can find hope, even in the wake of the devastating tax bill's passage. Here, there is real hope for real change.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/4 ... e-tax-bill

[Stormsmith]

Fin,

With respect, it has been because people want and need health care we've witness people in droves protesting the proposed elimination of HC

Crantag wrote:
Effective public spending on healthcare and education tend to stimulate the economy, and much for the same reason that 'supply-side economics' fails to (and is an utter crock of made up shit). If people are paying less for healthcare (or are able to live without the spectre of bankrupcy due to a medical mishap), they get to keep, and therefore spend, more of the money they earn, which stimulates demand. Healthcare spending is a conduit for achieving this end, as well as a lot of other things (related both to economics and general well being of people).

Agreed. If you consider about 1 in 4 people get cancer alone, never mind heart issues etc, between your parents and in laws odds are some is going to lose their home. Speaking for myself, I'm glad to know that won't happen to hubby and me. I'd rather think ofor our nieces and nephews got a helping hand that some doctor who is already rich.

On an ongoing basis, paying 1/2 of what America pays means we can spend where we like or save/invest where we like. The money isn't concentrated in hmo's

[Doug64]

And have better quality of life, better healthcare, better education, and don't require the level of military expenditure because they don't have imperialist foreign policies.

In England, currently a man that reaches 65 will on average live another 18.8 years, in Wales it’s 18.2. In the US it’s 19.3. For women in England it’s 21.2, in Wales it’s 20.6. In the US it’s 21.6. I’ll agree that much of US K-12 education is horrible, but the Democrats have been fighting any education reform that doesn’t involve throwing more money at only public schools — especially any reform that gives parents more of a say in their children’s education including teaching them themselves. And when it comes to “imperialist foreign policies,” I’m sure if the US pulled all of their military back to our own territory and reduced it to levels suitable for defense of our own territory and coastal waters, the rest of the world wouldn’t increase its military spending at all.

Give me a break. Utah is getting to you. Even the Salt Lake Tribune just slammed Hatch today for his support of the tax cuts.

For those that don’t know Utah, The Salt Lake Tribune is essentially the Democratic Party house organ for that state.

As for the rest of Drlee’s post, there’s no point in debating with someone that’s decided I’m a “selfish bastard” and so won’t take anything I say seriously.

[Godstud]

How the hell does an expat Canadian living under a military junta in Thailand purport to be an expert on US tax law?

How does a snot-nosed troll who brags about his GPA, and lives in their mom's basement, know fucking anything about anything?

Again, you don't need to live somewhere to learn about it. If you have some REAL questions, ask, otherwise take your childish deflections elsewhere, crybaby. What I am saying is not wrong, and you know it. You're talking about the irrelevant to deflect from the reality.

What would you know anyways, since there's no evidence that you're even American. You're probably a Russian troll, as well as being a person who has no real argument so you discuss the inconsequential to draw attention away from your lack of argument.

This is what I know, @blackjack21 and MUCH MUCH smarter people than you agree.

CBO: Senate Tax Bill Is Even Worse For Low-Income People Than Thought
According to the estimates, anyone making less than $30,000 a year would feel the pinch starting in 2019, with the greatest "savings" to the government (again, a combination of either increases in payments or decreases in money spent on a group in services) coming from those who make less than $10,000 a year.

By 2020, everyone making $40,000 or less a year would also be contributing to lowering the deficit by paying more in taxes and/or receiving less in services, creating a net savings for the federal government. In that year, the groups making between $10,000 and $20,000 and between $20,000 and $30,000 would each be contributing double what the under-$10,000 group did in savings.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherma ... 07142d503c


USA is #31 in life expectancy. So much for great medical care.

[skinster]

[Godstud]

Yeah, nothing Trump is going to benefit from...

Americans supporting Trump fall into 2 categories:
1) Rich people
2) Fucking idiots