evince
Truthmatters
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...illions/ar-AAuwAys?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
but the rich do great
but the rich do great
GOP taxplan:half of middle calls pay more
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
signalmankenneth
Verified User
But here's the problem:
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9617891/overall.jpg)
In other words, this proposal doesn’t break even.
But it's not like the federal government stops paying for things. Rather, it just goes into debt. The country has to borrow that $1.5 trillion to continue to pay for things.
If this change costs us an additional $1.5 trillion, who gets that money?
The best way to think about this is that Republicans want to spend $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years to lower taxes — and they want to give it back to the people.
So who gets it?
The Tax Policy Center analyzed the Republican tax reform framework, which is an earlier draft of the actual bill, and found that the poorest 20 percent of Americans would get about $60 of that money next year.
And if you’re richer? Take a look:
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9619677/chart.jpg)
In addition, an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that in 10 years, the after change in after-tax income would greatly benefit wealthier people and would reduce after-tax income for some people near the bottom.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9619679/chart2.jpg)
If they want to pass a bill like this one, Republicans have a big hurdle they need to overcome
There is a rule in the Senate called the "Byrd Rule." It says that if you want to increase the deficit after 10 years, you need at least 60 of the 100 votes in the Senate.
But Republicans only have 53 seats in the Senate, and some GOP senators have hinted they won't vote for this bill.
So if they want to pass this bill, they have a few options.
Or they could just change these rules and say they can increase the deficit beyond 10 years.
So what’s the trade-off here?
If we're very generous and assume that Republicans truly believe cutting taxes for the wealthy will grow the economy a huge amount, then we're back to the traditional conservative argument of trickle-down economics — the idea that the rich will grow the amount of cereal for everyone, so everyone can get more cereal.
But if we get beyond that, we get to the sobering truth that this tax bill is a moral proposition. It's saying that rich people are paying too much in taxes, that they've been paying too much for a long time, and that it's now time to give money back to them by incurring an additional $1.5 trillion in debt over the next 10 years.
Yes, this bill "simplifies" the tax code, and yes, this bill cuts taxes for most people, especially the very wealthy. But in the details, it conveys a clear belief about what fairness should look like in America.
By Vox
In other words, this proposal doesn’t break even.
But it's not like the federal government stops paying for things. Rather, it just goes into debt. The country has to borrow that $1.5 trillion to continue to pay for things.
If this change costs us an additional $1.5 trillion, who gets that money?
The best way to think about this is that Republicans want to spend $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years to lower taxes — and they want to give it back to the people.
So who gets it?
The Tax Policy Center analyzed the Republican tax reform framework, which is an earlier draft of the actual bill, and found that the poorest 20 percent of Americans would get about $60 of that money next year.
And if you’re richer? Take a look:
In addition, an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that in 10 years, the after change in after-tax income would greatly benefit wealthier people and would reduce after-tax income for some people near the bottom.
There is a rule in the Senate called the "Byrd Rule." It says that if you want to increase the deficit after 10 years, you need at least 60 of the 100 votes in the Senate.
But Republicans only have 53 seats in the Senate, and some GOP senators have hinted they won't vote for this bill.
So if they want to pass this bill, they have a few options.
- They could write the bill so these changes expire after 10 years. This is what George W. Bush did in 2001, which is why his tax cuts had an expiration date.
- Or they could argue that these tax cuts will grow the economy so much that it won't actually increase the deficit in 10 years.
Or they could just change these rules and say they can increase the deficit beyond 10 years.
So what’s the trade-off here?
If we're very generous and assume that Republicans truly believe cutting taxes for the wealthy will grow the economy a huge amount, then we're back to the traditional conservative argument of trickle-down economics — the idea that the rich will grow the amount of cereal for everyone, so everyone can get more cereal.
But if we get beyond that, we get to the sobering truth that this tax bill is a moral proposition. It's saying that rich people are paying too much in taxes, that they've been paying too much for a long time, and that it's now time to give money back to them by incurring an additional $1.5 trillion in debt over the next 10 years.
Yes, this bill "simplifies" the tax code, and yes, this bill cuts taxes for most people, especially the very wealthy. But in the details, it conveys a clear belief about what fairness should look like in America.
By Vox
evince
Truthmatters
the wealthy cashed in on the crash
if they were going to hire more that would have happened already huh.
the lies that back this crap are so transparent
the corporate media pretends its not clear
and then the republicans pretend foxes out right lies are the truth.
Kill lying news
and force news to honor truth.
we need a fairness act for the media
if they were going to hire more that would have happened already huh.
the lies that back this crap are so transparent
the corporate media pretends its not clear
and then the republicans pretend foxes out right lies are the truth.
Kill lying news
and force news to honor truth.
we need a fairness act for the media
Getin the ring
Verified User
1.5 trillion over ten years, why do liberals always leave that part out.
and the tax cuts are going to the middle class, so stop with the rich getting the tax cuts non-sense
and the tax cuts are going to the middle class, so stop with the rich getting the tax cuts non-sense
floridafan
Verified User
What tax cuts are going to the middle class? Corporations get big savings, the wealthy get big savings, the middle class gets a few drops and our debt increases by 1.5 trillion, and who knows it could be a lot more. Isn't this the time you tell us that the deficit will pay for itself through increased economic activity?
evince
Truthmatters
just lying on the internets doesnt make it so shitlick
half of the middle class will see a raise in their taxes
Half the people in this country that benefit from living in society pay nothing in income taxes and haven't for a long time. When are they going to start paying their fair share?
evince
Truthmatters
and then for the umteenth time that lie will never pan out like they claim.
when will the republican voters get real
According to Obama, unemployment went down. That would mean someone had to hire. Are you saying he lied?
Sales tax is a State tax and some states don't have a sales tax. Thanks for admitting people in those states aren't paying a fair share.
I thought living in a society meant contributing to society? Guess not if it's people you think should benefit but not contribute.
I don't have a problem is they don't contribute on the national level as long as they don't benefit from programs funded by taxes at that level. That means no more social welfare since recipients don't pay into the pot which funds them. Good job and thanks for your support.
Why does a family of four making damn near $50,000 not pay a dime of federal income taxes?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
people earning $52k or less will save 100%....even higher if they have children...how do you propose increasing 100%?.......
Even WaPo called bullshit on your DNC talking point you lying cunt:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...orking-class-families/?utm_term=.e6af8f879723
Wrong again pal, tax cuts don't decrease tax revenue, that's yet another debunked leftist talking point:
It's liberal non-discretionary spending on the ever expanding welfare state which increases our debt not tax cuts!
Wrong again pal, tax cuts don't decrease tax revenue, that's yet another debunked leftist talking point:
It's liberal non-discretionary spending on the ever expanding welfare state which increases our debt not tax cuts!
The left thinks if they stick their fingers in their ears related to revenue increases with tax cuts, it really doesn't happen the way you presented.
Everyone pays sales tax so no if you're only paying sales tax then you aren't paying your share you stupid bitch.
floridafan
Verified User
Wrong again pal, tax cuts don't decrease tax revenue, that's yet another debunked leftist talking point:
It's liberal non-discretionary spending on the ever expanding welfare state which increases our debt not tax cuts!
Just how can they not decrease revenue, you bring in less money. Very simple!