PhillieMooDo wrote:Late to respond, but the partisan hackery from a few pages back was fucking amazing!

thephan wrote:

Squire wrote:

thephan wrote:Eagerly awaiting the fact check on these statements What Republicans say when asked why their tax bill benefits the rich most of all.

Look, I'm a Republican and most of those are non-answers or nonsense answers. I do think that the chart noted by the spokesperson for Isaakson is a fair defense of the equality of the rate cuts themselves in isolation. However the itemized deduction (e.g. the SALT cap) losses all pound the middle class and don't affect the poor or the very rich (who was phased out anyway). The estate tax repeal is just a bald-faced giveaway to the richest of the rich and is completely unjustifiable.

You really can't cut federal "income" taxes and NOT have it benefit disproportionately the upper class. Romney was right when he noted that 47% pay no federal income tax. The only way to affect a true lower/middle class tax cut is through payroll taxes but the politics behind that are even more difficult because that tax is directly tied to Social Security (notwithstanding the obvious notion that all dollars are fungible).

Well, I am an avowed independent who is on record for not minding paying my taxes. I view it as social contract. Same as I pay for all those people who had jobs but could not be bothered to save for a rainy day, like retirement. I cannot fault them because at some point it was trained into them. It was trained into me to expect to pay for them, and expect nothing in the bag when my train arrives at the station. Tangent aside, I would theoretically benefit from the tax plan, except that the SALT stuff likely levels me. There is not enough to understand at the moment, but as a basic premise I pay a lot of taxes on the state and especially the local level due to housing costs. Just backing the truck up to on AMT probably does not level the playing field there. I guess I could look at it as if the SALT exclusion crushes the housing market, then my taxes will go down (and I will be upside down).

I'd love a fair tax, or at leas a simplified tax, but what is in the air is going to create systematic problems long term.

What is needed is a realistic way to attack the deficit (last happened with Clinton if I recall), streamline the way businesses are taxed without giving them a free path, and assure that citizens are paying their fair share for the common good.

Squire wrote:

thephan wrote:

Squire wrote:

thephan wrote:Eagerly awaiting the fact check on these statements What Republicans say when asked why their tax bill benefits the rich most of all.

Look, I'm a Republican and most of those are non-answers or nonsense answers. I do think that the chart noted by the spokesperson for Isaakson is a fair defense of the equality of the rate cuts themselves in isolation. However the itemized deduction (e.g. the SALT cap) losses all pound the middle class and don't affect the poor or the very rich (who was phased out anyway). The estate tax repeal is just a bald-faced giveaway to the richest of the rich and is completely unjustifiable.

You really can't cut federal "income" taxes and NOT have it benefit disproportionately the upper class. Romney was right when he noted that 47% pay no federal income tax. The only way to affect a true lower/middle class tax cut is through payroll taxes but the politics behind that are even more difficult because that tax is directly tied to Social Security (notwithstanding the obvious notion that all dollars are fungible).

Well, I am an avowed independent who is on record for not minding paying my taxes. I view it as social contract. Same as I pay for all those people who had jobs but could not be bothered to save for a rainy day, like retirement. I cannot fault them because at some point it was trained into them. It was trained into me to expect to pay for them, and expect nothing in the bag when my train arrives at the station. Tangent aside, I would theoretically benefit from the tax plan, except that the SALT stuff likely levels me. There is not enough to understand at the moment, but as a basic premise I pay a lot of taxes on the state and especially the local level due to housing costs. Just backing the truck up to on AMT probably does not level the playing field there. I guess I could look at it as if the SALT exclusion crushes the housing market, then my taxes will go down (and I will be upside down).

I'd love a fair tax, or at leas a simplified tax, but what is in the air is going to create systematic problems long term.

What is needed is a realistic way to attack the deficit (last happened with Clinton if I recall), streamline the way businesses are taxed without giving them a free path, and assure that citizens are paying their fair share for the common good.

Me too. Frankly, I think I would have just left most of it alone and done something like this:

1. Reduce Corporate effective rate from 35% to 30%
2. One time repatriation reduced rate for offshore earnings brought back on shore at the rate of 20% for 2018 only.
3. Increase the standard deduction maybe 50%.
4. Eliminate the (ridiculous) carried interest loophole.
5. Possibly a short-term reduction in the employee side of the FICA.

Grotewold wrote:

Richard Rubin (WSJ) wrote:Sam Brownback is here in the Senate (outside GOP lunch) saying the Kansas tax plan worked, created jobs. "What we did actually worked."

Bucky wrote:

Squire wrote:

thephan wrote:

Squire wrote:

thephan wrote:Eagerly awaiting the fact check on these statements What Republicans say when asked why their tax bill benefits the rich most of all.

Look, I'm a Republican and most of those are non-answers or nonsense answers. I do think that the chart noted by the spokesperson for Isaakson is a fair defense of the equality of the rate cuts themselves in isolation. However the itemized deduction (e.g. the SALT cap) losses all pound the middle class and don't affect the poor or the very rich (who was phased out anyway). The estate tax repeal is just a bald-faced giveaway to the richest of the rich and is completely unjustifiable.

You really can't cut federal "income" taxes and NOT have it benefit disproportionately the upper class. Romney was right when he noted that 47% pay no federal income tax. The only way to affect a true lower/middle class tax cut is through payroll taxes but the politics behind that are even more difficult because that tax is directly tied to Social Security (notwithstanding the obvious notion that all dollars are fungible).

Well, I am an avowed independent who is on record for not minding paying my taxes. I view it as social contract. Same as I pay for all those people who had jobs but could not be bothered to save for a rainy day, like retirement. I cannot fault them because at some point it was trained into them. It was trained into me to expect to pay for them, and expect nothing in the bag when my train arrives at the station. Tangent aside, I would theoretically benefit from the tax plan, except that the SALT stuff likely levels me. There is not enough to understand at the moment, but as a basic premise I pay a lot of taxes on the state and especially the local level due to housing costs. Just backing the truck up to on AMT probably does not level the playing field there. I guess I could look at it as if the SALT exclusion crushes the housing market, then my taxes will go down (and I will be upside down).

I'd love a fair tax, or at leas a simplified tax, but what is in the air is going to create systematic problems long term.

What is needed is a realistic way to attack the deficit (last happened with Clinton if I recall), streamline the way businesses are taxed without giving them a free path, and assure that citizens are paying their fair share for the common good.

Me too. Frankly, I think I would have just left most of it alone and done something like this:

1. Reduce Corporate effective rate from 35% to 30%
2. One time repatriation reduced rate for offshore earnings brought back on shore at the rate of 20% for 2018 only.
3. Increase the standard deduction maybe 50%.
4. Eliminate the (ridiculous) carried interest loophole.
5. Possibly a short-term reduction in the employee side of the FICA.

the current corporate effective tax rate in the US is 27.1%

pacino wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

Richard Rubin (WSJ) wrote:Sam Brownback is here in the Senate (outside GOP lunch) saying the Kansas tax plan worked, created jobs. "What we did actually worked."

The most insane thing said all day

Donald Trump wrote:@Theresa_May, don’t focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom. We are doing just fine!

Donald Trump wrote:The House of Representatives seeks contempt citations(?) against the JusticeDepartment and the FBI for withholding key documents and an FBI witness which could shed light on surveillance of associates of Donald Trump. Big stuff. Deep State. Give this information NOW! @FoxNews

Donald Trump wrote:The only people who don’t like the Tax Cut Bill are the people that don’t understand it or the Obstructionist Democrats that know how really good it is and do not want the credit and success to go to the Republicans!

Again and again, Trump veered far past the guardrails of presidential behavior. But despite the now-routine condemnations, the president is acting emboldened, as if he were impervious to the uproar he causes.

If there are consequences for his actions, Trump does not seem to feel their burden personally. The Republican tax bill appears on track for passage, putting the president on the cusp of his first major legislative achievement. Trump himself remains the highest profile man accused of sexual improprieties to keep his job with no repercussions.

Trump has internalized the belief that he can largely operate with impunity, people close to him said. His political base cheers him on. Fellow Republican leaders largely stand by him. His staff scrambles to explain away his misbehavior — or even to laugh it off. And the White House disciplinarian, chief of staff John F. Kelly, has said it is not his job to control the president.

thephan wrote:

Again and again, Trump veered far past the guardrails of presidential behavior. But despite the now-routine condemnations, the president is acting emboldened, as if he were impervious to the uproar he causes.

If there are consequences for his actions, Trump does not seem to feel their burden personally. The Republican tax bill appears on track for passage, putting the president on the cusp of his first major legislative achievement. Trump himself remains the highest profile man accused of sexual improprieties to keep his job with no repercussions.

Trump has internalized the belief that he can largely operate with impunity, people close to him said. His political base cheers him on. Fellow Republican leaders largely stand by him. His staff scrambles to explain away his misbehavior — or even to laugh it off. And the White House disciplinarian, chief of staff John F. Kelly, has said it is not his job to control the president.

The Navajo war heroes Pocahontas incident was Monday, like less the 2.5 days ago. It’s going to be a long end to the year.

Senate candidate Roy Moore on Wednesday told churchgoers in Alabama the LGBT community is behind the multiple sexual misconduct allegations against him. In a sermon-like speech from the pulpit of the Magnolia Springs Baptist Church, Moore warned his supporters of a “conspiracy” against him concocted by forces seeking to derail his political career. All in one go, he then blamed “liberals, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders, and socialists” for the allegations against him. “They’re the Washington establishment... who don’t want to lose their power,” he said. Several women have come forward to accuse the Republican Senate candidate of pursuing them sexually when they were underage, with one accuser saying she was 14 at the time of the alleged incident. Moore has denied the claims and on Wednesday described them as “false” and “malicious” attacks.