Democrats' rationale for hating tax bill

26 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tom C
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 33 sec ago
Joined: 01/03/2006 - 6:00pm
Democrats' rationale for hating tax bill

It's unfair! It's a travesty! Opposing it is a "moral mandate"! "The worst display of plundering and pigs at a trough ..." Lawrence O'Donnell

It's the worst bill EVER! (Pelosi)

Dems are trying to avoid paying for not supporting this bill in 2018.

And their supporters are drinking deeply of the Koolaid, and parroting the bumper-sticker slogans.

What other robotic tax-bill-hate have you heard from your Democrat friends?

Al Amoling
Offline
Last seen: 46 min 37 sec ago
Joined: 07/07/2004 - 12:01am
The one that I like is that

The one that I like is that 83% of the reduction goes to the 1%ers.

Tom C
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 33 sec ago
Joined: 01/03/2006 - 6:00pm
We, that's absurd, of course.

Well, that's absurd, of course. But it makes sense that those that pay more taxes will get more savings.

An exaggerated, simplistic example: 10 people pay tax. 9 pay $1000 each, and the tenth pays $10,000.

The 9 get a $500 decrease in their tax. The tenth gets a $1000 decrease.

Lefties: "This is unfair! The rich got DOUBLE the tax savings of the poor!"

What else you got?

Al Amoling
Offline
Last seen: 46 min 37 sec ago
Joined: 07/07/2004 - 12:01am
Well if you insist they hid

Well if you insist they hid the fact that BIG oil cans now drill in ANWAR. I've got more if you need them

Mainelion
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 48 min ago
Joined: 08/11/2005 - 12:01am
Apparently they didn't do a

Apparently they didn't do a very good job of hiding it.

JackStrawFromWichita
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 31 min ago
Joined: 02/05/2014 - 6:17pm
The problem here is that wage

The problem here is that wage earners (W-2 income) and most retirees except the very affluent aren’t getting much while a very small subset of the best off are getting a lot.

Say, everyone is getting a 10% cut. So the $1,000,000 income household gets $100,000, the $100,000 household $10,000 and the $30,000 household $3,000.

Is $100,000 more than $10,000 which is more than $3,000? Sure., but unlike Tom C’s idiotic example they all get a 10% cut which is fine with me.

But that’s not what’s happening here. The top are getting higher % cuts and more income.

Take pass-throughs (partnerships, s-corps and to be included here sole-proprietors, rental income and dividends on REITS). The top earners currently have a 39.6 % tax rate. Reduce their income by 20% and then apply it to the new 37% tax rate and the rate is down to 29.6%. That’s a 25.25% reduction. I’ll challenge anyone here to provide me with an example of a wage earner or a retiree not having a lot of pass-through getting a rate reduction like that.

The increased income from cutting the corporate tax rate is primarily going to go to the owners of the corporations (public and private) in the form of higher dividends and stock repurchases.

Oh, and repatriation of income held offshore by corporations? There was a repatriation holiday in 2004, 94% went to dividends and stock repurchases.

Plus it’s disgusting to see the likes of Trump & family or Bob corker lining their pockets because of their political positions and then blatantly lying about how they aren’t. Drain the swamp, Yes!

This is also 180 degrees off from Trumps populist campaign rhetoric which enough fools believed in a few key states to give him an Electoral College victory. I doubt few of those fools have much income besides W-2 income nor even know such types of income exist. Steve Bannon, for what he’s worth, wanted to raise the top rate from 39.6% to 44%...

Watcher
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 03/23/2008 - 12:32pm
It was Congress who wrote and

It was Congress who wrote and passed the bill...not Trump. He pushed it hard because the dim wits in Congress would have done nothing if not kicked in the posterior by Trump. He gets the credit for that. Besides, it was so much better than anything offered by the Liberal/Swine in Congress....oh yeah, that's right...they proposed zero, nada, zilch, nuttin. The Liberal/Swine and "Ears" Obozo did add trillions to our debt over the last 8 years.

Roger S
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 11/13/2003 - 1:01am
"The top are getting higher %

"The top are getting higher % cuts and more income."

That is actually a lie. This analysis from Cato shows that the lower income groups receive by far the largest income tax cut by percentage.
https://www.cato.org/blog/final-tax-bill-biggest-cuts-middle

Of course the top receive more dollars but the fact is the tax code was just made more progressive and the top will pay an even higher portion of the total tax burden.

Matt
Offline
Last seen: 39 min 38 sec ago
Joined: 01/21/2008 - 6:21pm
Roger S’s last paragraph I’d

Roger S’s last paragraph is the biggest crock of shit I’ve ever read on AMG.

Fidley
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 10/05/2014 - 8:58am
Actually, the 19.5M acres of

Actually, the 19.5M acres of ANWR designated as protected wilderness is still intact. This bill opens 2K acres in the 1002 area, so-called, that has always been set aside for eventual gas and oil leases since ANWR was first established.

As usual, hysteria and sophistry rein supreme over fact.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 46 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Of course Smegma's II

Of course Smegma's II knowledge of shit comes from introspection of oneself !

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Taxes are supposed to pay for

Taxes are supposed to pay for the defense and welfare of the States. If you don't believe me, read the Constitution which has now become merely a historic document with no teeth, due to your politicians emasculation. It matters little who gets the better of the tax break because the spending on things the government was never authorized to do will continue and grow because our population of non-working consumers continues to increase unabated. The consequences of this repeated nonsense are already well in evidence with the number of homeless and undernourished growing daily.

johnw
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 days ago
Joined: 03/11/2009 - 10:06am
democratic rationale.....lol.

democratic rationale.....lol........Armageddon....... children dying in the streets...... dogs sleeping with cats!!~!!

Watcher
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 03/23/2008 - 12:32pm
Democratic Rationale...

Democratic Rationale....OXYMORON

Roger S
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 11/13/2003 - 1:01am
I'm honored to have written

I'm honored to have written the biggest crock of shit but there's nothing there that can be factually disputed.

Can you dispute that a person who earns $1 million who gets a 6 percent tax cut will save more money in taxes than a person who earns $45,000 who gets a 56 percent tax cut?

Can you dispute that the US had the most progressive tax code in the developed world? The OECD disagrees with you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/05/americas-taxes-ar...

Can you dispute that a tax bill that gives the largest tax cut of 56 percent for those making $40,000 to $50,000 down to 6 percent for those making over $1 million has made the tax code more progressive?

JackStrawFromWichita
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 31 min ago
Joined: 02/05/2014 - 6:17pm
Roger S,

Roger S,

I’m, not sure where that highest 56.3 % for the $40,000 to $50,000 range reduction come from comes from?

An individual at $45,000 using the 2017 tax brackets:
$45,000-$6,350 (standard deduction)-$4,050(1 exemption) =$34,600.
Tax using 2017 tax brackets=$4,714.

An individual at $45,000 using the new 2018 tax brackets:
$45,000-$12,000 (standard deduction)-$0(exemption)=$33,000
Tax using new 2018 tax brackets=$3,770.

Reduction=20.0%

A joint at $45,000 using the 2017 tax brackets:
$45,000-$12,700 (standard deduction)-$8,100(2 exemptions) =$24,200.
Tax using 2017 tax brackets=$2,678

A joint at $45,000 using the new 2018 tax brackets:
$45,000-$24,000 (standard deduction)-$0 (exemptions)=$21,000
Tax using new 2018 tax brackets=$2,139

Reduction=20.1%.

That’s the simplest example. If they have dependents they lose the extra exemption(s) for them but if they are children under 17 they get a higher child tax credit or if they are over 16 a $500 credit giving them a higher reduction.
If they could itemized their deductions under the old rules but can’t under the new rules then the tax reduction is lower.

If you want to push your agenda I can come up with a 100% reduction (from $1 to $0)…

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 47 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
It's worth noting that there

It's worth noting that there are a ton of tax breaks for real estate investors/developers... even Corker subtly suggested that it was a bit "generous" and would have to be "revisited" in the future.

In any other universe where a real estate developer becomes president and then immediately cuts taxes on himself, we would call that corruption.

What would AMGers be saying if Clinton won and immediately passed a law handing out money to anyone that donated to the Clinton Global Initiative?

johnw
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 days ago
Joined: 03/11/2009 - 10:06am
AC...talk to us about the

AC...talk to us about the status of the Clinton foundation..... after hilarity lost all of the air went out of it.....

Watcher
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 03/23/2008 - 12:32pm
Ben Shapiro gives a synopsis

Ben Shapiro gives a synopsis of the benefits and non-benefits of the tax law. He is strongly in favor of it and the down side is minimal. BTW, he is no Trumpster...

Ben's View

Economike
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 11/28/2006 - 9:09am
Thank you, Roger S.

Thank you, Roger S. Excellent point.

It's my ambition to to post the biggest crock of shit on AMG, but I gladly check my ambition in this thread.

Is Matt's level of outrage some sort of contrarian indicator?

You're right, of course. If we start with the world's most progressive tax regime, any simple rate reduction looks like a giveaway to "the rich."

Economike
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 11/28/2006 - 9:09am
As it happened once upon time

As it happened once upon time, anon, Clinton won and immediately handed out favors to anyone that donated to the Clinton Foundation. I would call that corruption. This scam lasted from 1992 until 2016.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 46 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
I believe it should be

I believe it should be required that all progressive types posting on this tax thread
should first declare they have a desire to be poor.

Then declare how they wish to get poor.
First suggestion would be to pay more taxes than you have to.

Noone has to pay any reduced tax amount.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 47 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
"As it happened once upon

"As it happened once upon time, anon, Clinton won and immediately handed out favors to anyone that donated to the Clinton Foundation. I would call that corruption. This scam lasted from 1992 until 2016."

So because Clinton's did it, it's ok to do it now? If Hilary Clinton jumped off a bridge... never mind.

Economike
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 11/28/2006 - 9:09am
anon -

anon -

Of course, the Clinton regime's corruption doesn't justify anyone else's.

Rather, my point is "If anyone denounces Trump's putative corruption, it's fair to inquire whether one is really upset at the corruption or at Trump."

So, enquiring minds want to know, does the Trump tax bill benefit Trump in some particular way or is this allegation fake news?

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 46 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
So because Clinton's did it,

So because Clinton's did it, it's ok to do it now? If Hilary Clinton jumped off a bridge... never mind.

If Hillary Clinton jumped off a bridge, I'd immediately send a check for $1,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative. And after it bounced, I'd restore the balance in my checking account.

johnw
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 days ago
Joined: 03/11/2009 - 10:06am
There will not be a single

There will not be a single rich liberal politician,business person,,celebrity or member of the lucky sperm club that will voluntarily pay the old tax rates.....The proof is in the puddin,,,.. they are alll hypocrites.
Hell there won’t be a single Trump hater anywhere that won’t accept the cut in their taxes .........

Log in to post comments