Tax Reform

[Ishmael]

Does the GOP plan eliminate them? I can't find any evidence it does.

Since the claim is that the price of goods will go down and/or wages will go up, surely you can provide some evidence of cases where that's happened.

Because those details have not been worked out yet. The plan as released is but a framework for the legislators to work within.

Like all tax plans the devil is going to be in the details. And if those details aren't eliminating a LOT of deductions I just may wind up against the plan myself.

What I'm NOT going to do is engage in a knee-jerk reaction based on a framework.

Ishmael

 

[Que]

How much less than zero should roughly half of Americans pay?

If paying your "fair share" of what politicians decide to spend is important, why should anyone paying zero get to vote at all in determining which politicians get to decide how much to tax, how much to spend, and on what?

Why is the IRS being used to directly collect money from one group of citizens and then "refund" it to another group of citizens?

Why is largesse from the government called a tax refund if the amount that you receive exceeds the amount that you pay?

I can't think of a single year that this country hasn't run a deficit. I can't think of a single time that any one on the left has objected to deficit spending if it comes from increases in spending. Why should they care if deficit increases are from a reduction in revenue? What's the difference?

The left (and increasingly those that claim to be on the right) consistently tells us that spending more than they take in is perfectly okay for the government and that the resultant inflation is good for everyone.

The real question for all those that deny that reductions in taxes increases GDP, what is it that money collected by the government and spent is claimed to stimulate the economy but simply letting individual citizens spend that exact same amount of money would have no such effect?

 

[adrina]

How much less than zero should roughly half of Americans pay?

If paying your "fair share" of what politicians decide to spend is important, why should anyone paying zero get to vote at all in determining which politicians get to decide how much to tax, how much to spend, and on what?

Why is the IRS being used to directly collect money from one group of citizens and then "refund" it to another group of citizens?

Why is largesse from the government called a tax refund if the amount that you receive exceeds the amount that you pay?

I can't think of a single year that this country hasn't run a deficit. I can't think of a single time that any one on the left has objected to deficit spending if it comes from increases in spending. Why should they care if deficit increases are from a reduction in revenue? What's the difference?

The left (and increasingly those that claim to be on the right) consistently tells us that spending more than they take in is perfectly okay for the government and that the resultant inflation is good for everyone.

The real question for all those that deny that reductions in taxes increases GDP, what is it that money collected by the government and spent is claimed to stimulate the economy but simply letting individual citizens spend that exact same amount of money would have no such effect?

Well if you support places like Walmart who have employment practices that need to be subsidized by the taxpayer then you're part of the problem. Or minimum wages where a person would need two full time jobs just to make ends meet.

Clinton handed Bush a budget surplus

http://origin.factcheck.org/Images/image/FederalDeficit(1).jpg

 

[adrina]

As an interesting historical perspective on deficits and US debt:

source

 

[jaF0]

We had that in 1986, and it's been downhill ever since.

If you're going to tax the churches you better be willing to tax ALL non-profits.

Ishmael

I would tax ALL amounts that do not go DIRECTLY to beneficiaries. That means all real property, employee pay and salaries, administrative costs, executive pay packages, etc.

'Charities' like the Red Cross would be in for a rude awakening.

 

[Ishmael]

Well if you support places like Walmart who have employment practices that need to be subsidized by the taxpayer then you're part of the problem. Or minimum wages where a person would need two full time jobs just to make ends meet.

Clinton handed Bush a budget surplus

http://origin.factcheck.org/Images/image/FederalDeficit(1).jpg

All of which has fuck all to do with today. Different economy.

And don't forget to give Clinton credit for the mortgage market melt down.

Ishmael

 

[BotanyBoy]

All of which has fuck all to do with today. Different economy.

And don't forget to give Clinton credit for the mortgage market melt down.

Ishmael

You've directly addressed the topic and are not agreeing with AdrinA!!!

*huff and puff about for a bit*

You just hate her because she's a woman!!!! Attacking poor little ol' her like that.

That's abuse!!!

 

[Hypoxia]

What do you plan to spend your tax return on?

Yourself, PP, ASPCA, St. Judes?

No returns for us. My partner and I live on a small retirement income: savings and social security. We're under the poverty line but suffer no loans so we're comfy. Luxuries (and some surgeries, while uninsured) were paid from rare inheritances. Thanks for dying, Mom!

We do get an ACA-mandated refund of supplement premium overpayments. The refund goes toward home insurance. When we were working and received returns, we put them in the next year's tax account. Only prudent, hey?

As for donations, we don't await returns, refunds, or dead relatives. We choose worthy recipients and give anonymously, mostly for disaster relief. A monstrous wildfire nearby a couple years back destroyed many homes including those of firefighters. We happily contributed to rebuilding funds.

Who do you donate to?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

All of which has fuck all to do with today. Different economy.

And don't forget to give Clinton credit for the mortgage market melt down.

Ishmael

ROFLMAO

 

[adrina]

All of which has fuck all to do with today. Different economy.

And don't forget to give Clinton credit for the mortgage market melt down.

Ishmael

I was just putting forth the information. He put forth a statement and I provided the answer.

Yes the buck stops at the president's desk - something Trump would do well to remember - but to ignore the Graham Bliley Leach Act and its insertion into a must-pass bill is foolish and one-dimensional at best.

 

[Que]

Well if you support places like Walmart who have employment practices that need to be subsidized by the taxpayer then you're part of the problem. Or minimum wages where a person would need two full time jobs just to make ends meet.

Clinton handed Bush a budget surplus

http://origin.factcheck.org/Images/image/FederalDeficit(1).jpg

That meme predates Facebook I thought you guys just parroted Facebook memes.

Every discredited campaign talking point of every Democratic campaign continues to be repeated like it's gospel.

Cllinton had a projected surplus. That projection was based on GDP which was based on the artificially inflated.com bubble. The bubble burst, as thwy all do, leaving that for Bush to clean up of course he never spent eight years blaming Clinton for it. That revenue never materialized.

And by the way that wasn't a Clinton budget that was the Newt Gingrich budget that Clinton reluctantly signed largely because they had the votes for a veto override if he didn't. Same with ending welfare as we know it.

 

[adrina]

That meme predates Facebook I thought you guys just parroted Facebook memes.

Every discredited campaign talking point of every Democratic campaign continues to be repeated like it's gospel.

Cllinton had a projected surplus. That projection was based on GDP which was based on the artificially inflated.com bubble. The bubble burst, as thwy all do, leaving that for Bush to clean up of course he never spent eight years blaming Clinton for it. That revenue never materialized.

And by the way that wasn't a Clinton budget that was the Newt Gingrich budget that Clinton reluctantly signed largely because they had the votes for a veto override if he didn't. Same with ending welfare as we know it.

It's off a fact check site. Take it up with them.

Of course, I understand how it's easy to assign all of the blame and give none of the credit.

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.

Asked and answered.

 

[Ishmael]

ROFLMAO

Roll and laugh all you want fuck nuts, but even the NY Times warned Clinton not to use the mortgage market to grow the economy in an editorial written on Dec. 23, 1992, a month before he was sworn in. The link is here on Lit. if you care to look for it.

The editorial laid out exactly what the consequences of extending credit to the credit unworthy would be, and by God they were right. Of course that was back when the NYT was worth more than something to line a dog carrier with.

Ishmael

 

[Adre]

Welcome to Lit, where experts argue about what occurred (or didn’t) 25 years ago. But, but, but...Clinton!

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Roll and laugh all you want fuck nuts, but even the NY Times warned Clinton not to use the mortgage market to grow the economy in an editorial written on Dec. 23, 1992, a month before he was sworn in. The link is here on Lit. if you care to look for it.

The editorial laid out exactly what the consequences of extending credit to the credit unworthy would be, and by God they were right. Of course that was back when the NYT was worth more than something to line a dog carrier with.

Ishmael

Yeah. Clinton invented derivatives and credit default swaps. Pass that spleef to the right and stop bogarting.

 

[Lorilei]

How exactly does one "spend a tax return"? Last time I saw one, you couldn't cash out a 1040 form.

 

[Que]

Yeah. Clinton invented derivatives and credit default swaps. Pass that spleef to the right and stop bogarting.

None of those items are going to go bad unless the underlying instruments go bad. The underlying instruments (sub-prime mortgages) were the problem.

 

[Sean]

None of those items are going to go bad unless the underlying instruments go bad. The underlying instruments (sub-prime mortgages) were the problem.

When those instruments are valued at roughly ten times the entire GDP of the planet, you have a problem. Every mortgage in America could have defaulted and it wouldn't have been nearly as bad as when people realised the derivatives scam was just that, a scam.

 

[Que]

When those instruments are valued at roughly ten times the entire GDP of the planet, you have a problem. Every mortgage in America could have defaulted and it wouldn't have been nearly as bad as when people realised the derivatives scam was just that, a scam.

You should probably warn the entire investment community about the fact that futures are bought and sold with actual money for things that the people who are buying and selling them don't yet own.

 

[Ishmael]

When those instruments are valued at roughly ten times the entire GDP of the planet, you have a problem. Every mortgage in America could have defaulted and it wouldn't have been nearly as bad as when people realised the derivatives scam was just that, a scam.

You're right, it was a scam. I was the S&L debacle of the 1980's replicated at the lowest common denominator, the individual buyer. 'White Water' on steroids. It worked just as the policy put in place wanted it to.

Ishmael

 

[doowdniw]

All I know is that I'm going to take the extra grand that Cohn couldn't guarantee, and go out and buy a new car! Or maybe remodel the kitchen instead. Livin' high on the hog!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The concept is fucking BEYOND comprehension.

They think all the CEO's out there are going to personally eat that cost so that they can get their "free" shit.

LMFAO.

Every single time this topic comes up, the stock answer is they'll just take it out of their profits. These drive-by "economists" have no clue to as what a profit margin is.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

None of those items are going to go bad unless the underlying instruments go bad. The underlying instruments (sub-prime mortgages) were the problem.

Thank you Mark Zandi and the model that you used that had nothing to do with the market and instruments that it was modeling...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Because those details have not been worked out yet. The plan as released is but a framework for the legislators to work within.

Like all tax plans the devil is going to be in the details. And if those details aren't eliminating a LOT of deductions I just may wind up against the plan myself.

What I'm NOT going to do is engage in a knee-jerk reaction based on a framework.

Ishmael

You're using the language of the Left. Those are not loopholes, they are political carveouts all aimed at some greater good or economic stimulus and both teams have their carve outs and both teams are only fighting to have "Igor's" carveouts milled...

Using the term loophole just helps the Democrats frame the argument that they are not "Igor."

Because you know, loopholes are only for the rich whereas carveouts for the poor are economic relief and spending stimulus.

 

[Ishmael]

You're using the language of the Left. Those are not loopholes, they are political carveouts all aimed at some greater good or economic stimulus and both teams have their carve outs and both teams are only fighting to have "Igor's" carveouts milled...

Using the term loophole just helps the Democrats frame the argument that they are not "Igor."

Because you know, loopholes are only for the rich whereas carveouts for the poor are economic relief and spending stimulus.

No, I'm just patiently waiting. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Ishmael