So basically what you are saying is every President since Reagan (Republican and Democrat) generally kept his fiscal policies in place. The man is a legend!
A historic disaster is coming for the US from the tax bill
- Thread starter Craig234
- Start date
So basically what you are saying is every President since Reagan (Republican and Democrat) generally kept his fiscal policies in place. The man is a legend!
Why?
It got worse under GW Bush, better under Obama and too soon to tell under Trump.
cawacko
Well-known member
If you can stop technology and then China and India from growing we can go back to a time of less inequality. But in a globalized world this is reality.
On a more granular level you said you live in CA as do I. We as a state make our cost of living so prohibitive only the rich and poor can live here. Too hard for the middle class.
That's total BS about inequality not being feasible. It's totally feasible. It's simply the people who serve the rich being elected and setting the policies to create inequality. Nothing more.
Nothing about changes in the world economy, about globalization or anything but the corruption of our political system are an issue. CA has plenty of middle class.
My husband -- Mr. Apolitical Except When It Affects the Economy -- agrees with you on this. He thinks this tax scheme, even though it will benefit us personally, will be a disaster overall for younger people and for the deficit. He said that most economists agree that during good economic times, like now, the government should be focused on maintaining or even raising taxes slightly, cutting spending, and chopping the deficit as much as possible. Otherwise when an inevitable downturn rolls around, there won't be any funds for stimulus spending to curb it.
raise taxes?? We barely got to 3%.. I've seen GDP rates of 4-5% growth.
How about we heat up the economy, and increase our share of world's wealth
( India hit's 6% China hit's 8%)
Then we can pay for infrastructure improvements ( which generate more growth)and knock down our deficit
How about we heat up the economy, and increase our share of world's wealth
( India hit's 6% China hit's 8%)
Then we can pay for infrastructure improvements ( which generate more growth)and knock down our deficit
Yes, that's yet another reason the bill is terrible - I was looking more just at the direct huge harm.
Tax cuts on the RICH at the current levels DO NOT stimulate the economy much at all. Tax INCREASE on the rich and DECREASES on the poor will create far more stimulus.
it's the tax reform itself. also the Senate passed it version that (unincorporated)small business gets lower rates too.
Despite all the hype -
doubling the standard deduction means 2-3 more million American will pay no fed taxes AT ALL.
This is not just some trickle down BS. it's good solid reform ( simplification) that actually cuts loopholes for the rich.
I realize you are a Bernie supporter, and just want to soak the rich to pay for middle/low class uses, but it's not happening.
The proof will be GDP rates in the next 2 years.
Doubling the standard deduction is the phony tiny cut for the masses to hide the massive cuts for the rich and corporations. As was said - this bill is a 6 trillion dollar tax cut for the rich, a 4.5 trillion dollar tax cut for others, and 1.5 trillion of debt.
It IS trickle down BS - not the tiny things like the standard deduction increase - how much will that save total compared to the rest of the bill - and IT CUTS TAXES ON THE RICH BY TRILLIONS so quit the lies like 'closing loopholes' matter.
You sound like an idiot talking about 'soaking the rich'. They are skyrocketing their taking a bigger and bigger and bigger share of income while everyone else's income is flat.
Your song and dance about the GPD is the same lies told for decades. Why don't you go learn a little beyond the talking points propaganda the right-wing media feeds you and see it does not happen.
And the little growth that DOES happen all goes to the rich. This is yet another redistribution of wealth of trillions from the American people to the rich and nothing else but a little bit of window dressing as camouflage.
It IS trickle down BS - not the tiny things like the standard deduction increase - how much will that save total compared to the rest of the bill - and IT CUTS TAXES ON THE RICH BY TRILLIONS so quit the lies like 'closing loopholes' matter.
You sound like an idiot talking about 'soaking the rich'. They are skyrocketing their taking a bigger and bigger and bigger share of income while everyone else's income is flat.
Your song and dance about the GPD is the same lies told for decades. Why don't you go learn a little beyond the talking points propaganda the right-wing media feeds you and see it does not happen.
And the little growth that DOES happen all goes to the rich. This is yet another redistribution of wealth of trillions from the American people to the rich and nothing else but a little bit of window dressing as camouflage.
POLITICAL NARRATIVE: People in the 40s and 50s paid higher tax rates than we do today. The top marginal income tax rate was 91% compared to only 39.6% today!
REALITY: That rate was paid by very few people, only a few hundred by one estimate. It is not indicative of the overall tax rate structure in the 40s and 50s. A better measure would be the average marginal rates for everyone, including federal, state, and local income taxes plus the payroll tax. A paper from NBER found the following:
1910s: 2%
1920s: 4%
1930s: 4%
1940s: 20%
1950s: 25%
1960s: 27%
1970s: 33%
1980s: 39%
1990s: 38%
2000s: 37%
REALITY: That rate was paid by very few people, only a few hundred by one estimate. It is not indicative of the overall tax rate structure in the 40s and 50s. A better measure would be the average marginal rates for everyone, including federal, state, and local income taxes plus the payroll tax. A paper from NBER found the following:
1910s: 2%
1920s: 4%
1930s: 4%
1940s: 20%
1950s: 25%
1960s: 27%
1970s: 33%
1980s: 39%
1990s: 38%
2000s: 37%
ridiculous. GDP growth is the only way to attack the deficit, and fund the upcoming entitlments crunch.
Wages incease, good jobs are created -that's all part of a healthy economy.
It's how China came to be a world power, and India feeds it's coffers. Both have much higher GDP rate.
The Obama era GDP rates are job growth but little wealth growth.
Not that I'm attacking Obama's economy -but that has to be improved.
Get an annual GDP rate of 3% +and this is a bill that actually reduces debt while booming the economy
and all that goes with it
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
given the fact that the rich pay more than 6/10.5ths of the taxes doesn't that mean that we're getting a bigger share of the cuts than the rich are?.......
I'm going to try to help you a little with the ignorance. Let's see if you have ears.
1. Growth is not the 'only way to attack the deficit', but you're not entirely wrong - it's key to attacking the deficit. The mistake you make here is falling for the big lie that the way to increase growth is to redistribute EVEN MORE wealth to the rich. The opposite is the case. Excessive concentration of wealth HURTS the economy and HURTS growth in all kinds of ways in addition to its simple immorality and its incompatibility with democracy.
The money is idle when overly concentrated. It swells the pocketbooks of the wealthy and drives up the prices of the things they want - like companies. It drains the wealth from the engine of our economy - the consumer. Give another dollar to a billionaire and it usually does nothing to help the economy (even their mansions and private jets and yachts are only a sliver of their wealth). Give a dollar to a poor person and it's quickly SPENT, fueling the economy. Learn some basic economics.
Or hey, learn a little about economic history. Growth is almost always HIGHER under Democratic administrations and has grown MORE under the Democrats and with high tax rates, at the level where Kennedy put them. Once the Reagan ideology of trickle-down became policy all that's happened are huge deficits (with one brief interlude under Clinton's deficit-fighting budgets that initially raised taxes on the rich), and all economic growth going to the rich while Americans' incomes are flat for decades. That's it.
And that hurts growth. Every Republican prediction has been wrong. That their tax cuts would 'pay for themselves', they never have. That the economy would be destroyed under Clinton's budget - it did the opposite. That growth would explode with their cuts - it
hasn't.
Because it was never meant to. The real purpose has always been the obvious one: to give the rich more of your money. That's it and all the talk of jobs and growth and trickle-down and any other argument is a con job you fall for.
Another lie: after Clinton ACTUALLY balanced the budget without any Republican help after 12 years of Republicans TALKING about balancing the budget because it got votes but having record debt, Bush, the 'first MBA president', took over and promised in his first state of the union he'd not only continue the surpluses from Clinton, but that his tax cuts would pay off the debt within a decade. Of course, as always, the opposite happened and the deficit skyrocketed again.
Because that's the con. Give the American people's wealth to the rich, and say whatever con job lies about the benefits of doing it.
You have decades of history showing what these facts.
And you are too ignorant to not keep repeating the Republican propaganda lies.
Oh, by the way:
2. Other ways than growth to reduce debt include:
- Cutting the actual wasteful spending - mostly the military's bloated budget, more than all our allies combined, multiple times more than all or adversaries combined, almost as much as the other 95% of the planet combined.
- Investment by the government in growth-increasing investments in the American people. Put the stimulus into the people, not the rich and not the banks. Fund education, scientific research, infrastructure and other key programs.
Even when the government has totally WASTED its spending - building zer-value economic products like the weapons in WWII, simply employing that many people took the economy out of the Great Depression. Imagine if they built useful things.
Even when the economically useless activity of putting a man on the moon that cost up to 5% of the federal budget was done, simply the accidental results of scientific advances had enormous value (see below). Imagine if that were done for the goal of helping the country? THAT is how we get actual economic growth, NOT by simply making the rich richer so their companies are worth $100 billion instead of $25 billion.
Here are some of the benefits we just happened to get by putting a man on the moon:
1. CAT scanner: this cancer-detecting technology was first used to find imperfections in space components.
2. Computer microchip: modern microchips descend from integrated circuits used in the Apollo Guidance Computer.
3. Cordless tools: power drills and vacuum cleaners use technology designed to drill for moon samples.
4. Ear thermometer: a camera-like lens that detects infrared energy we feel as heat was originally used to monitor the birth of stars.
5. Freeze-dried food: this reduces food weight and increases shelf life without sacrificing nutritional value.
6. Insulation: home insulation uses reflective material that protects spacecraft from radiation.
7. Invisible braces: teeth-straightening is less embarrassing thanks to transparent ceramic brace brackets made from spacecraft materials.
8. Joystick: this computer gaming device was first used on the Apollo Lunar Rover.
9. Memory foam: created for aircraft seats to soften landing, this foam, which returns to its original shape, is found in mattresses and shock absorbing helmets.
10. Satellite television: technology used to fix errors in spacecraft signals helps reduce scrambled pictures and sound in satellite television signals.
11. Scratch resistant lenses: astronaut helmet visor coating makes our spectacles ten times more scratch resistant.
12. Shoe insoles: athletic shoe companies adapted space boot designs to lessen impact by adding spring and ventilation.
13. Smoke detector: Nasa invented the first adjustable smoke detector with sensitivity levels to prevent false alarms.
14. Swimsuit: Nasa used the same principles that reduce drag in space to help create the world’s fastest swimsuit for Speedo, rejected by some professionals for giving an unfair advantage.
15. Water filter: domestic versions borrow a technique Nasa pioneered to kill bacteria in water taken into space.
Ah, how much of this "response" did you actually write yourself? .....
evince
Truthmatters
and then the Republicans gamed the system by refusing to impliment the laws that existed idiot
the SEC under Cox REFUSED to impliment the Bank Broker rules for 8 fucking years after that bill passed
evince
Truthmatters
SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.
cawacko
Well-known member
You're working on some revisionist history there claiming Clinton balanced the budget with no Repubkican help. The Republicans controlled congress for six years prior to the balancing. It was the definition of a bi-partisan effort.
The three largest expenditures in the federal budget are S.S., Medicare and the military. Anyone who is serious about reducing the debt has to look at those areas first.