RE: New GOP Tax Plan

RE: New GOP Tax Plan (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MasterDrakk -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/15/2017 5:47:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk i will take your lack of causality correlation and citation as a very firm no, there is no proof whatsoever of any of the mad theory that the tax reductions have ever worked to build revenues, but it is some useless bollocks that you love to repeat. Your unsubstantiated opinion has been cited as unsubstantiated opinion by none other than yourself. I guess we're both in the same boat then. You're full of shit. I'm full of shit. Be well. and you.

AtUrCervix -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/15/2017 2:37:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk the tax plan is a shit sandwich. Simply your (unsubstantiated) opinion. And the CBO's opinion as well, but what do they know... Please cite. (Because...if you can't cite....no one is actually capable of doing their own homework anymore).

AtUrCervix -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/15/2017 2:39:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk you made the extraordinary claim. you cite. I gave you the first proof, in that the tax cuts did not continue producing revenue, as they would have if that was the effect, since the taxes are the same. No....YOU Cite!! (NO!!! YOU cite!!!). NOOOOO YOU CITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Here's a thought: EVERYONE.....get the fuck OVER yourselves).

DesideriScuri -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/15/2017 2:57:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk you made the extraordinary claim. you cite. I gave you the first proof, in that the tax cuts did not continue producing revenue, as they would have if that was the effect, since the taxes are the same. No....YOU Cite!! (NO!!! YOU cite!!!). NOOOOO YOU CITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Here's a thought: EVERYONE.....get the fuck OVER yourselves). Should no one have to substantiate their own assertions?

AtUrCervix -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/16/2017 2:06:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk you made the extraordinary claim. you cite. I gave you the first proof, in that the tax cuts did not continue producing revenue, as they would have if that was the effect, since the taxes are the same. No....YOU Cite!! (NO!!! YOU cite!!!). NOOOOO YOU CITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Here's a thought: EVERYONE.....get the fuck OVER yourselves). Should no one have to substantiate their own assertions? It seems that anytime someone disagrees with someone's opinion, they've suddenly lost the ability to do their own homework. Everyone wants a blue ribbon for showing up.

DesideriScuri -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/16/2017 4:31:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk you made the extraordinary claim. you cite. I gave you the first proof, in that the tax cuts did not continue producing revenue, as they would have if that was the effect, since the taxes are the same. No....YOU Cite!! (NO!!! YOU cite!!!). NOOOOO YOU CITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Here's a thought: EVERYONE.....get the fuck OVER yourselves). Should no one have to substantiate their own assertions? It seems that anytime someone disagrees with someone's opinion, they've suddenly lost the ability to do their own homework. Everyone wants a blue ribbon for showing up. That didn't answer the question. Should no one have to substantiate their own assertions?

bounty44 -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/16/2017 5:44:20 AM)
have posted this before. worth sharing again: "to your earlier point about "you made the claim, you back it up"---we're a curious mix here of academia and casual conversation. "in the former the general rule is, when in doubt, reference. "you don't have to reference the sky being blue. you do have to reference a quote that gives support to your thesis. however theres plenty of fuzzy middle ground. "in the latter, if youre hanging out in a bar somewhere talking with someone, you just accept certain things as fact/that the person in question is speaking truthfully, especially if the thing is easily verifiable. "if the point is esoteric, or outlandish, you might say "where did you get that from?" if its within the easy realm of plausibility, you can more or less accept it on its face with a little bit of skepticism and check on it later. "the moving back and forth between the academic and casual creates tension---we don't have a standard set of rules when it comes to supporting statements---and that is heightened all the more so when it comes to the left/right political divide, personality conflicts and the desire to make the other side look bad, or stupid, or whatever. "but the short of it is, the alternative reading to your "you made the claim" could very easily be "yeah, i'll be gracious (without even belaboring the point) and take the two seconds to look it up." the other alternative is to be boorish. "

DesideriScuri -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/16/2017 6:30:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 have posted this before. worth sharing again: "to your earlier point about "you made the claim, you back it up"---we're a curious mix here of academia and casual conversation. "in the former the general rule is, when in doubt, reference. "you don't have to reference the sky being blue. you do have to reference a quote that gives support to your thesis. however theres plenty of fuzzy middle ground. "in the latter, if youre hanging out in a bar somewhere talking with someone, you just accept certain things as fact/that the person in question is speaking truthfully, especially if the thing is easily verifiable. "if the point is esoteric, or outlandish, you might say "where did you get that from?" if its within the easy realm of plausibility, you can more or less accept it on its face with a little bit of skepticism and check on it later. "the moving back and forth between the academic and casual creates tension---we don't have a standard set of rules when it comes to supporting statements---and that is heightened all the more so when it comes to the left/right political divide, personality conflicts and the desire to make the other side look bad, or stupid, or whatever. "but the short of it is, the alternative reading to your "you made the claim" could very easily be "yeah, i'll be gracious (without even belaboring the point) and take the two seconds to look it up." the other alternative is to be boorish. " A great "discussion" tactic, then, would be to continually make claims that may or may not be true and let your opposition take the time and energy to debunk your claim. Wtf kind of discussion would that lead to? Eventually, you'll end up with worthless discussions because it won't be worth it to anyone who wants to use actual facts and info rather because he/she will end up doing all the research to discredit those who don't give a fuck, and not have the time to make his/her own arguments. The better, imo, answer is to have others cite their own assertions when called into question. For instance, I believe it was stef that claimed the CBO called the tax reform plan a "shit sandwich" (it may not have been sandwich and another form of the word 'shit' may have been used). The CBO is pretty impartial (I don't always agree with some of the scoring results, but those times are pretty fairly divided between when the results support or don't support my values and beliefs) and can be played. Nowhere will they find the CBO calling anything a "shit sandwich" or any other derivative thereof. The CBO is a scoring group and does not comment on whether or not the legislation is good or bad. It simply states what this legislation will do to revenues, spending, and/or debt. Any other claims are opinion and analysis by someone not the CBO. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53312

bounty44 -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/16/2017 7:06:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The better, imo, answer is to have others cite their own assertions when called into question... desi, I don't disagree with you. im just pointing out how it is we end up wrangling over the issue of referencing, we're a mix between "academic" and "bar room" and we're likely not to get consensus on the matter. I was a college faculty, when I produced written works, they were substantiated. when I would read written works, I look for substantiation. when I taught students, that was one of the criteria. the "body of knowledge" was a common theme in all my classes. yet at the same time, in conversation with friends, peers and students over certain matters, "grace" is given that I know what im saying to be true. we simply cant reference everything. however here, given how relatively easy it is, I strongly lean towards "when in doubt, reference" and when politely asked, I think the request should be honored. and the referencing should be sharp as well---ive seen way too many versions of "www.theinternet"

AtUrCervix -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/16/2017 2:55:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk you made the extraordinary claim. you cite. I gave you the first proof, in that the tax cuts did not continue producing revenue, as they would have if that was the effect, since the taxes are the same. No....YOU Cite!! (NO!!! YOU cite!!!). NOOOOO YOU CITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Here's a thought: EVERYONE.....get the fuck OVER yourselves). Should no one have to substantiate their own assertions? It seems that anytime someone disagrees with someone's opinion, they've suddenly lost the ability to do their own homework. Everyone wants a blue ribbon for showing up. That didn't answer the question. Should no one have to substantiate their own assertions? I suppose they should Desi. It just gets tiresome sometimes.

DesideriScuri -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/16/2017 3:54:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix I suppose they should Desi. It just gets tiresome sometimes. I agree. It's also tiresome to have to debunk other people's assertions while trying to make sure you can support your own.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/16/2017 5:22:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 OMG!!! I was skeptical... The Bush tax cut created the 15% bracket (allowed us all to slide some income into that bracket). Obama kept the Bush tax bracket (except the top end) AND lowered the FICA deduction to 4.2% (from 6.2%) for a few years. Thanks Obama! But THIS!!! 12% up to 45k for single. $90k for married 25% goes up to $200k for single and $260 for married I love keeping my income in 12% and 25%.... I calculated my taxes under this... I save just over $6k / yr!!!! I have NO idea what this does to the deficit (No CBO score yet)... Probably quadruple it From a PURELY selfish standpoint.... Go GOP Tax plan! ok... Back to the original topic... 1 really bad thing about this plan is they get rid of exemptions... For people with kids.... Not too good :( They made a big deal of increasing the child tax credit to $1600 per child. (Which is great if you under the income threshold) THEN I saw this little detail. They are more than DOUBLING the income threshold for the Child Tax Credit to $230k!!!!! Also... as your kids reach 17 and up and are still living at home... They added an extra $300 per kid credit. Go House GOP!!!! I hope the Senate takes up the House bill :)

Lucylastic -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/17/2017 10:33:20 AM)
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/besides-killing-aca-mandate-gop-tax-bill-triggers-25-billion-cut-to-medicare Two weeks after its introduction and following zero hearings, the House of Representatives passed an approximately $1.5 trillion dollar tax cut on Thursday. Most of the focus has been on the bill’s tax benefits for the wealthy and corporations, but some lawmakers are sounding the alarm that passage of the bill will also trigger an estimated $25 billion cut to Medicare. With the Senate expected to take up its own bill after the Thanksgiving recess, Democrats struggling to mount an opposition to the bill see an opening in its controversial health care impacts—including the Medicare cuts, the repeal of Obamacare’s individual mandate, and the elimination of the medical expenses deduction in the House bill. The Medicare cut—announced by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday—can only be waived by a majority of the House and a 60-vote supermajority of the Senate. Thanks to laws created by the Tea Party’s infamous 2010 sequester showdown over government spending, automatic cuts spring into action anytime Congress passes a bill that balloons the federal deficit, as the tax bill would. The approximately $136 billion in cuts spurred by the GOP tax bill would hit a number of government programs—including farm subsidies and the Border Patrol—but would cut most deeply into Medicare. Medicaid, Social Security, and food stamps are protected. These cuts would violate President Trump’s repeated campaign promises not to touch Medicare and other social safety net programs. But for House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and other lawmakers who have for decades longed for an opportunity to cut to Medicare and other federal benefits, the cuts would be a feature rather than a bug. The CBO’s announcement this week has also raised the hackles of the influential AARP, who wrote to Congress on behalf of their 38 million members in opposition to the bill. “The large increase in the deficit will inevitably lead to calls for greater spending cuts, which are likely to include dramatic cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other critical programs serving older Americans,” they warned. “The Congressional Budget Office has now published a letter stating that unless Congress takes action, H.R. 1 will result in automatic federal funding cuts of $136 billion in fiscal year 2018, $25 billion of which must come from Medicare.” Congress could avoid these cuts by waiving the so-called “pay-as-you-go” rules, but it’s unclear whether Republicans or Democrats would see that as being in their political interest. Senators from both parties would have to support the waiver to see it pass the upper chamber. Republicans who regularly rail against runaway government spending may not want to vote against the cuts, and Democrats have suggested they have little interest in bailing out Republicans’ deficit-busting tax bill. Yet some, including Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), are already sounding the alarm. In a letter to the House Freedom Caucus on Thursday, he demanded to know if they would vote to waive the budget rules if the tax bill became law. “This sequestration under Statutory PAYGO would harm Americans across the country,” he said. “Seniors on Medicare might have fewer choices for health care providers. Farmers would suddenly lose the safety net provided by price support programs that help farms stay in business when prices are low. Rural investment would decline due to a loss of support for agricultural research and business loans in rural areas. Meals on Wheels would no longer receive funding from the Social Services Block Grant. People with disabilities would lose the support provided by vocational rehabilitation grants that help them stay in the workforce. And there would be huge disruptions of travel and trade into the United States due to sequestration cuts within Citizenship and Immigration Services and Customs and Border Protection.

sloguy02246 -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/18/2017 4:43:46 AM)
FR - Some other things in the new tax bill as reported recently: Alimony - Currently the one paying it can deduct it from taxable income and the one receiving it must declare it as taxable income. Under the proposed tax bill, the payer can no longer deduct it and the receiver no longer must declare it as income. The one-time $250,000 ($500,000 for married couples) capital gains exclusion when selling your home: Currently you must have used the house as your principal residence for at least 2 of the 5 years immediately prior to the sale. Under the proposed tax bill, the residency requirement will require living in the house for 8 of the prior 10 years.

Lucylastic -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/18/2017 5:00:24 AM)
anyone surprised?

Lucylastic -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/18/2017 5:10:46 AM)
how many of you qualify for the tax cut for private jets????

DesideriScuri -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/18/2017 7:01:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/besides-killing-aca-mandate-gop-tax-bill-triggers-25-billion-cut-to-medicare Two weeks after its introduction and following zero hearings, the House of Representatives passed an approximately $1.5 trillion dollar tax cut on Thursday. Most of the focus has been on the bill’s tax benefits for the wealthy and corporations, but some lawmakers are sounding the alarm that passage of the bill will also trigger an estimated $25 billion cut to Medicare. Medicare cuts are capped at 4%. Under PAYGO, cuts are to be uniform across all non-exempt direct spending programs (NEDSP's), unless the cuts exceed 4%. Medicare would see a 4% cut and the rest of the NEDSP's would see their uniform % cuts rise to compensate. Under sequestration rules, cuts are to be split equally into two distinct categories: defense and non-defense. If the $136B is allowed to go through, that means $68B reductions each in defense spending and non-defense spending. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sends a report to "the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions" for each fiscal year, that details sequestration and it's effects. Here is the one from May 2017 (in re. FY2018). In this report, the sequestration has been triggered by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA or BCA), and not PAYGO. The main difference is that under BCA, Medicare cuts are capped at 2% while under PAYGO, those cuts are capped at 4%. Other than that, sequestration rules are the same. Thus, $68B will be cut from defense spending (FY2018 Defense spending has been proposed to be $652B (Table S-3)) while Medicare spending has been proposed to be $585B. Now, that Medicare figure doesn't line up with what the CBO just reported, so some numbers have changed from July 2017's mid-year report.

DesideriScuri -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/18/2017 7:05:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: sloguy02246 FR - Some other things in the new tax bill as reported recently: Alimony - Currently the one paying it can deduct it from taxable income and the one receiving it must declare it as taxable income. Under the proposed tax bill, the payer can no longer deduct it and the receiver no longer must declare it as income. The one-time $250,000 ($500,000 for married couples) capital gains exclusion when selling your home: Currently you must have used the house as your principal residence for at least 2 of the 5 years immediately prior to the sale. Under the proposed tax bill, the residency requirement will require living in the house for 8 of the prior 10 years. anyone surprised? Are you objecting to sloguy's mentioning of these two things, or to one or both of the things sloguy brought up? If it's the latter, which one do you have a problem with?

DesideriScuri -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/18/2017 7:11:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic how many of you qualify for the tax cut for private jets???? To see the details beyond the hyperventilating rhetoric: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-17/this-business-tax-problem-is-disrupting-the-gop-s-overhaul-push

MasterDrakk -> RE: New GOP Tax Plan (11/18/2017 8:11:44 AM)
the details behind the hyperventilating rhetoric are that borrowing 2.3 Trillion more from China wont sit right with Rand Paul, nor will McCain vote for it, so ....how many republican senators are retiring?

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625