Harley Davidson shutting down US factory, moving jobs to Bangkok ................

[Superfreak]

I'm on the left and I definitely believe in tax cuts -- but only for the middle class (let's say combined annual income of $150K/year and less), and low-income ppl as well. If you want to fire up the engine that powers the economy -- spending -- then you make sure those most likely to spend it have it to use. Giving tax cuts to the rich is like cutting your car's gas line. They just bank it away and in some cases off-shore it away.

It is pretty hard to cut federal income taxes on those that do not pay federal income taxes. The bottom 47% effectively pay 0% Federal income taxes.

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

My point in this thread has nothing to do with Trump. I've said that probably a dozen times in the thread.

I responded to Burbon's post below:

""Well look at the Good News ... those Dumb Fucks at Harley Davidson who Voted for Trump will get their Big Tax Break next year wit Unemployment Checks


Fucking Suckers ...""


I asked what would be different if Hillary was President. That's not deflection it's a question based on his comment. HD made the decision to close their plant in 2015. Whoever is President today would have no bearing on that decision when it was made. I'm just trying to understand if it was stupid to vote for Trump what could Hillary have done about it. That's not a defense of Trump. I'm trying to understand someone today could have affected a decision made three years ago.

Yeah, well, your point is almost completely moot. Very few people based their voting decision on what would happen to this Harley plant. My biggest reasons for voting against Trump were I didn't want nuclear war, and that we need to do everything possible to reverse climate change. Whether or not a Harley plant offshores the jobs of their workers was not even on my radar as a metric. Personally, I saw Hillary as far more responsible and trustworthy than Trump. She was not my first choice, but rarely do we get to vote for that because we don't have Instant Runoff Voting like we should.

I believe in science.

The news is real.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Superfreak,

If you bothered reading, you would know that HD decided on this move back in 2015 when Obama was still President. Thus, it had NOTHING to do with the tax reform bill as the OP pretended.

Oh. I see.

OK, Got it.

A done deal is a done deal.

But wait a minute.

When did a done deal ever mean anything to Trump?

#Iran.

[cawacko]

It is pretty hard to cut federal income taxes on those that do not pay federal income taxes. The bottom 47% effectively pay 0% Federal income taxes.

Technically they pay FICA taxes but if you eliminate that then S.S. and Medicare become strictly a welfare program for them. But you're right, on the federal level you can't cut income taxes for those who don't pay them.

What's interesting to me at least is the mindset that savings are bad, all money must be spent. It's like where does capital come from? Where do V.C.'s get money they invest in new businesses? How do banks get money to give loans? It's as if that whole side of the equation doesn't exist.

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



Yeah, well, your point is almost completely moot. Very few people based their voting decision on what would happen to this Harley plant. My biggest reasons for voting against Trump were I didn't want nuclear war, and that we need to do everything possible to reverse climate change. Whether or not a Harley plant offshores the jobs of their workers was not even on my radar as a metric. Personally, I saw Hillary as far more responsible and trustworthy than Trump. She was not my first choice, but rarely do we get to vote for that because we don't have Instant Runoff Voting like we should.

I believe in science.

The news is real.

I'm not talking about why people should vote for Trump or Hillary. I wasn't talking about Trump at all. My comment regarding Hillary was a response to Bourbon's comment.

Again, this whole conservation/thread is so diluted and its because the rawstory is dishonest.

[cawacko]

Hello Superfreak,



Oh. I see.

OK, Got it.

A done deal is a done deal.

But wait a minute.

When did a done deal ever mean anything to Trump?

#Iran.

Dude, Harley Davidson is a business. They made the decision to close the plant in 2015.

[TTQ64]

I'm on the left and I definitely believe in tax cuts -- but only for the middle class (let's say combined annual income of $150K/year and less), and low-income ppl as well. If you want to fire up the engine that powers the economy -- spending -- then you make sure those most likely to spend it have it to use. Giving tax cuts to the rich is like cutting your car's gas line. They just bank it away and in some cases off-shore it away.

We'll agree to disagree.

Taxes are what generates revenue for the spending to occur and that's what were suppose to do spend it for the people. I'm not paying taxers for the government to save it. We don't need tax cuts we need wage increase. That will also help those most likely to spend it.

I agree that we do need to tax the hell out of the wealthy and corporations

[TTQ64]

It is pretty hard to cut federal income taxes on those that do not pay federal income taxes. The bottom 47% effectively pay 0% Federal income taxes.

Ignorant lies.

[Legion]

Ignorant lies.

So you say.

[Legion]

Taxes are what generates revenue for the spending to occur and that's what were suppose to do spend it for the people. I'm not paying taxers for the government to save it. We don't need tax cuts we need wage increase. That will also help those most likely to spend it. I agree that we do need to tax the hell out of the wealthy and corporations

Tell your favorite DEMOCRAT candidates to run on that in the midterms.

[ThatOwlWoman]

It is pretty hard to cut federal income taxes on those that do not pay federal income taxes. The bottom 47% effectively pay 0% Federal income taxes.

To some extent this is true, in general. But like everything it depends -- single, married, head of household, any dependents, etc.

[Rat Robbersson]

To some extent this is true, in general. But like everything it depends -- single, married, head of household, any dependents, etc.

The bottom 47% make about .01% of what the chosen richest 1% do which is 99%. How are we going to make the .01 pay more in taxes? I guess put them in a coma and harvest their body organs, I suppose. Maybe drain them of their blood for payment. Cut their snap and health care and social programs? Oh wait, they already did that.

[Rat Robbersson]

The republicans social programs are exactly like dr. mengel's nazi eugenics program. Nazi's programs sound bites: unworthy of life, dirt people, filthy jews, cleanse the gene pool, kill the gypsies, purge the liberals and intellectuals, burn the books; today germany, tomorrow the world (make germany great again).

​sounds like drump to me.

[ThatOwlWoman]

The republicans social programs are exactly like dr. mengel's nazi eugenics program. Nazi's programs sound bites: unworthy of life, dirt people, filthy jews, cleanse the gene pool, kill the gypsies, purge the liberals and intellectuals, burn the books; today germany, tomorrow the world (make germany great again).

​sounds like drump to me.

Sounds just like Der Gropingfuehrer.

[Superfreak]

To some extent this is true, in general. But like everything it depends -- single, married, head of household, any dependents, etc.

No, it doesn't. Regardless of filing status, they still fall into a certain income bracket. the bottom 47% don't pay that.

What should be done in my opinion:

1) Raise capital gains tax rates to the same as ordinary income rates and eliminate interest carry provisions.
2) Create donut hole on SS taxation. Tax it up to the $128k, then reinstate a 2% SS tax on any income above $500k. That would resolve SS issues.
3) Raise standard deduction to $30k per adult, then eliminate the bulk of deductions and loopholes used in the current tax code by the wealthy.

To be clear, the above doesn't really alter the situations of the lower income as they don't currently pay Federal income taxes, but it would help the middle income families and force more taxation on the wealthy.