Americans Paid $90 Billion MORE In Taxes After Republican Tax Cut

[Earl]

NYT's

"Face It: You (Probably) Got a Tax Cut

Studies consistently find that the 2017 law cut taxes for most Americans. Most of them don’t buy it.
Ben CasselmanJim Tankersley

By Ben Casselman and Jim Tankersley

April 14, 2019

If you’re an American taxpayer, you probably got a tax cut last year. And there’s a good chance you don’t believe it.

Ever since President Trump signed the Republican-sponsored tax bill in December 2017, independent analyses have consistently found that a large majority of Americans would owe less because of the law. Preliminary data based on tax filings has shown the same."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/b...e-tax-cut.html

[LV426]

When a government agency will get more funding because they have more clientele their agency benefits. They get more money because they supervise more people and their agency can afford to give raises--not "profits" but more money in salary and bonuses so it is very much in their interest.

So...people get raises because they do their jobs well, in this case, getting raises because they successfully deliver health care to people at low cost.

So...you don't think they should do that?

[LV426]

For example, I gave one example of waste as the reconstruction projects in Iraq and Afghanistan. The IG had been on C-SPAN discussing this problem. When asked why would military personnel pay contractors who did not build the project, finish the job, or do decent work he said he asked those people the same question. The officers told him that they were evaluated based on how many contracts they issued with no regard to quality. That means that military person is getting bonuses, raises, and promotions without regard to the work done. That is fraud by the private contractor and unproductive conduct by the military. Too many government programs operate in this manner--so there is an incentive to spend money.

OK, but health care is way different than the military, so I don't know why you're changing the subject here.

BTW - everyone in the military gets health care for free.

[LV426]

What makes you think any "free college" program would be limited to public schools?

Because that's the proposal from Sanders and Warren.

[Getin the ring]

NYT's

"Face It: You (Probably) Got a Tax Cut

Studies consistently find that the 2017 law cut taxes for most Americans. Most of them don’t buy it.
Ben CasselmanJim Tankersley

By Ben Casselman and Jim Tankersley

April 14, 2019

If you’re an American taxpayer, you probably got a tax cut last year. And there’s a good chance you don’t believe it.

Ever since President Trump signed the Republican-sponsored tax bill in December 2017, independent analyses have consistently found that a large majority of Americans would owe less because of the law. Preliminary data based on tax filings has shown the same."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/b...e-tax-cut.html

Shhh, don't tell LVnutbags

he thinks that everyone getting a tax cut and the government taking in more revenue is a BAD thing.
Pleased don't disrupt his miserable existence

[LV426]

Federal loans and Pell Grants go to private and private for-profit colleges including technical and vocational schools. I don't know if it is still true, but at one time the largest group receiving federal loans and grants were attending for cosmetology.

OK, but again, you're changing the subject. How are you making the leap from "free public colleges" to "free private colleges"? None of the proposals for free public colleges have anything to do with private universities. Do you know the proposals? Of course not, because you're fucking lazy and entitled. Here's Sanders. As you can see, literally the first line says: "Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities".

Charter schools are operated with public money and are not private (although it probably varies by state).

Wrong. Every charter school is privately run with public money. That's the point of them. To siphon off public money to give to schools that are operated for a profit, and who have an agenda be it religious or Conservative.

Charter schools are not applicable because they are not higher education institutions.

You brought up charter schools. Is this not you, or did someone else hack your account:

Right, we would have even a bigger mess and 500 new colleges pop up ready to take government money. "Come to my college. You get straight A's and never have to study. We will even pay you $1,000 to enroll because they government is going to pay for everything." That is already happening today with charter schools and for-profit private colleges. The online schools make it even easier to do nothing for your courses.

So if Charter schools had nothing to do with it, why did you bring them up?

Again, I seriously doubt any program would leave out private colleges.

Well you think that because you're a lazy fucking piece of shit.

Here's Sanders' free college plan. What is literally the first sentence? How many times does his plan mention private schools? Be honest, now. Don't do that shitty Flash thing and lie your ass off in bad faith.

[LV426]

Not true. The "money" I was talking about was government spending that serves no useful purpose for which I have given several examples. That does not include most Pell grants funds since they do benefit many students (although less than half graduate). However, the other spending and students receiving Pell grants that make no effort pass classes do provide zero return to society.

But you don't know who those people are, and you can never know! You insist it's true, but provide nothing but anecdotes that you also refuse to verify. So you say government spending that serves no useful purpose, but the definition of "useful purpose" is subjective and ever-changing. You are trying to establish your own shitty judgment as the standard, but no one gave you that entitlement. Everything you're saying here is filtered through the prism of your bias, which we all know is against the institutions of government. So there is no bar that government can meet that will satisfy you because of the fake personal standards you set and then adjust depending on how your argument is faring at any given time.

I think Pell Grants and many other spending programs could be done more efficiently and cheaply by changing the way they operate.

Right...it's always the same story from people like you; you think you can do it better, so you end up voting for people who share your point of view, only to find out that they don't, can't, and/or won't "do it better" because like you, they have an inherent bias against the government that prods them to view it negatively in any circumstance because government is merely a reflection of all of us, and you hate society because it won't indulge your unearned entitlement. Like for instance, setting a standard of "wasteful" that is neither a standard, nor something that you set. It's a bar you move continually in order to post-hoc your argument into better shape. That's why everything you say is always vague and ambiguous. You leave yourself room to wiggle within the parameters. Total bad faith.

Too many government spending programs reward the agencies for spending more

What do you even mean here? How are agencies "rewarded" for spending more? What is the reward? They're not operated for profit, so what are you even talking about? Should people not be rewarded for doing their jobs effectively? Should those people not be paid at all?

Too many government spending programs reward the agencies for spending more so there is little incentive to turn away students who have been making F's in every class for a year.

Again with these random, weird, vague, imaginary circumstances you're conjuring on the spot! How do these agencies get "rewarded"? What are you even talking about? This is incoherent babble.

There are requirements that students maintain certain averages, but there are always loopholes which allow them to enroll.

So Pell Grant students have to keep their grades up. The "loophole to enrollment" has nothing to do with the requirements to maintain averages...how are the two connected? You should have used a semicolon in that sentence because as it is currently written, it is incoherent.

Your idea of free college could to some extend be accomplished by allowing eligible students to attend free when classes had empty spaces. At most non-selective schools many courses are canceled every semester because they don't get minimum enrollment and many other classes are small. Since these instructors have already been paid it costs the college nothing more to have students use those empty seats. Whether they also get money from the state for these students could be debated.

Why do those schools have empty spaces in the first place? Because students can't afford the costs. So if public colleges were free, just like public schools, then enrollment would increase and enrollment at private schools would decrease.

[LV426]

What makes you think any "free college" program would be limited to public schools?

Because that is literally the proposal.

Again, I seriously doubt any program would leave out private colleges.

OK so here's your bias coming through; you naturally assume that, because you're dishonest in your own life, everyone else is dishonest too. Bernie Sanders' free public college proposal makes no mention of private schools, and why would it? It's a free public college plan. Same with Warren's.

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has revealed a new higher-education platform that aims to eliminate tuition for two and four-year public colleges and cancel student loan debt for millions of Americans, the senator from Massachusetts announced Monday morning.

So you are either operating in bad faith by disregarding the platforms of Sanders and Warren, or you're just plain ignorant.

So which is it?

[LV426]

Shhh, don't tell LVnutbags
he thinks that everyone getting a tax cut and the government taking in more revenue is a BAD thing.
Pleased don't disrupt his miserable existence

If the tax cut "lets people keep more of what they earn", how come consumer debt is at an all-time record high?

The average American has $38,000 in debt — a quarter of which comes directly from credit card charges. In December 2018, consumer debt overall hit a record high $4 trillion.

Your shitty tax cut went into effect January 2nd, 2018.

So after 12 months of a tax cut that "let you keep more of what you earn", most people are deeper in debt.

So your tax cut didn't let people keep more of what they earned...instead, they went into more debt.

Personal savings also dropped, so quite literally, people aren't "keeping more of what they earn".

[Flash]

Because that is literally the proposal.

OK so here's your bias coming through; you naturally assume that, because you're dishonest in your own life, everyone else is dishonest too. Bernie Sanders' free public college proposal makes no mention of private schools, and why would it? It's a free public college plan. Same with Warren's.

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has revealed a new higher-education platform that aims to eliminate tuition for two and four-year public colleges and cancel student loan debt for millions of Americans, the senator from Massachusetts announced Monday morning.

So you are either operating in bad faith by disregarding the platforms of Sanders and Warren, or you're just plain ignorant.

So which is it?

Because I am not so naive as to think Sanders or Warren would get a program passed without many changes as it weaves through Congress. Members who represent Harvard, Standford, University of Chicago, Yale, Princeton, historically black colleges and the many other private colleges around the country are not going to support a program that does not include their schools.

Private colleges outnumber public (1,687 vs. 1,626). And then Republicans are going to want the 900 private for-profit colleges included. To only give free college to the public schools while the more numerous private school students have to pay for their education will generate strong opposition, takes away the choice of students in what school to attend if they want free college and will put many smaller private colleges out of business because students will desert them.

To include both private and public you have doubled the cost.

So, it is neither "bad faith" or ignorance on my part but obviously your lack of knowledge in following how Congress works that explains it.

Such a program would be unlikely to pass even if Sanders or Warren becomes president but the chance of either of them winning is very low.

[Flash]

If the tax cut "lets people keep more of what they earn", how come consumer debt is at an all-time record high?

The average American has $38,000 in debt — a quarter of which comes directly from credit card charges. In December 2018, consumer debt overall hit a record high $4 trillion.

Your shitty tax cut went into effect January 2nd, 2018.

So after 12 months of a tax cut that "let you keep more of what you earn", most people are deeper in debt.

So your tax cut didn't let people keep more of what they earned...instead, they went into more debt.

Personal savings also dropped, so quite literally, people aren't "keeping more of what they earn".

Then why has consumer spending and disposable personal income both continued to increase?

I know people who if they have more disposable income go out and buy a new car which also increases their debt.

[LV426]

Then why has consumer spending and disposable personal income both continued to increase?

So it was increasing before the tax cut if it's "continuing" to increase, so the tax cut did...what?

[LV426]

I know people who if they have more disposable income go out and buy a new car which also increases their debt.

People aren't going into debt because they're buying new cars (auto sales ain't that great).

They're going into debt because of health care and education costs.

Auto loans aren't even the top 3 when it comes to most common debt; that's credit card debt, student loan debt, and medical debt.

Two of those three forms of debt can be eased by single payer and free public college. The third can be eased by higher wages.

[LV426]

Because I am not so naive as to think Sanders or Warren would get a program passed without many changes as it weaves through Congress.

No, you're biased.

This is also the reason why we can't vote for Republicans or corporate-backed Democrats.

But it's hard to see how a free public college proposal would include private schools.

[LV426]

Because I am not so naive as to think Sanders or Warren would get a program passed without many changes as it weaves through Congress. Members who represent Harvard, Standford, University of Chicago, Yale, Princeton, historically black colleges and the many other private colleges around the country are not going to support a program that does not include their schools.

So this is a very cynical, John Delaney-approach to governance; the game of "well it doesn't matter because it'll never happen anyway" is a nice trick to avoid discussing the actual program as it is proposed. You don't seem to want to do that, choosing instead to make a bad faith prediction, based on your shit judgment and inherent bias. The reason you won't address the actual proposal is because you know if it did go through as proposed, it would work and make sense. Thus, undermining your inherent bias and causing you to be embarrassed. So that's why you almost never have a good faith discussion around anything; you've cast yourself as a contrarian when you're really just lazy and scared.