what i find hilarious. is that the corp tax cut is like an ongoing saving. yet the powers that be think a 1k bonus is more than enough. lol
local taxes are subsidized, because thats essentially double taxation imo. look at munis, even those aint double taxed.
biggest issue is really social security and medicare. people are living far longer than they are productive, and the cost to keep them alive as they age also increases. shouldnt we keep mc = to mr.
because over 80% of US states have state income tax, and this was designed seemingly specifically to target NJ/CT/NY/CA all of which already pay more than they get from the government and shockingly dont vote republican. So the Koch brothers can get a tax break they decided to raise taxes on NJ/CT/NY/CA, and its still not paid for. They will then need to cut programs those people in those red states (and all others) rely on. They may see their check go up and be happy today, but when they see the program cuts the average person sure as hell isnt going to support the plan, and that is precisely what this tax bill is.
dont disagree at all - which is why we need a completely new healthcare system to take over the health insurance system that doesnt work. Countries with socialized medicine have a higher standard of care for the average person at a lower cost. People can argue this and that about us carrying the weight and how it wouldnt work in our country but none its as much conjecture as my thoughts here.
There is strong pushback among the Christian Right from having to pay a dime over what it costs to insure just themselves. Remember, the teachings of Jesus only apply insofar as it relates to banning gays from marrying. Helping the greater good? Lolz.
^Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing, but how does that fit into the TCJA?
Read the previous post?
People don’t think they’ll get a cut because they instinctively don’t believe a word that comes out of Trump’s mouth. The supposed middle class cuts in this plan are truly nominal and are basically just there to win an argument. Is a family of four really going to realize an additional $400 in tax savings over the course of the year.
Crazy how people don’t believe the Republicans will treat all classes of people fairly, sad!
I think people are wary of the plan, since it’s obvious that more benefits, in dollar terms, will accrue to wealthy people. As Mnuch said, it’s really hard to cut taxes and not benefit people in this category, who pay most of the taxes to begin with. However, there’s a good chance that people will overlook that when they experience some tax savings themselves.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this; The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from every body’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
my man igorr. this is a great allegory!! great rassian insight!
we need to upp exit tax laws, to the point that estate tax is a joke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nusCDQIQ494
only way out now is in a box
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/24/deficit-could-rise-billions-if-states-work-around-trump-tax-law.html
not 100% on target with where they shuffle it but the tax arb call was correct & seemed pretty obvious.
The verdict is in
Was there ever any doubt?
the republicans did argue that the lower corporate tax rate would boost economic growth to the point that tax revenues would grow lol. might be a long con.
I’ve said it many many times before–corporations do not pay income taxes. People pay income taxes.
Sure, a corporation files a tax return and writes a check. But the true incidence of the tax does not lie on the corporation–it lies on the people. The tax burden falls on the corporation’s shareholders, customers, employees, or vendors–all of which are people.
The only reason why I don’t support a 0% tax rate on corporations is because if we did, everybody in the US would self-incorporate and illegally siphon money from their corporation to pay living expenses.