Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase

Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (Full Version)

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

Message

Musicmystery -> Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/19/2017 12:37:42 PM)
Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation (basically the Congressional Budget Office for tax policy) is out with a fresh distributional analysis of the Senate version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and the news is great if you happen to earn more than $500,000 or so per year. For those of more modest means, however, the news is not so good. By 2027, after most of the individual cuts in the bill expire (and the corporate cuts remain), households earning between $75,000 and $100,000 will see, on average, no tax cut. And households earning less than $75,000 per year will see, on average, a tax increase. For context, the median household income in the United States is $55,000. Per the JCT’s tables, about 65 percent of households fall into the categories that are expecting tax increases, while about 24 percent are in the privileged group that will have its taxes cut. This analysis does leave out a few things — including the repeal of the estate tax (good for rich people) and the impact of increased insurance premiums flowing from the repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate (bad for the poor and the middle class). But overall, the shape is clear — most people are paying higher taxes, and the rich are paying less. https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2017/11/16/16665958/jct-analysis-senate-gop-tax-plan

bounty44 -> RE: Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/19/2017 2:37:53 PM)
as I said in another thread, the primary source is more worth looking at than the article that reports it: https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5040

Musicmystery -> RE: Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/19/2017 2:41:43 PM)
And yet, changes the facts in evidence not at all.

MrRodgers -> RE: Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/19/2017 4:43:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 as I said in another thread, the primary source is more worth looking at than the article that reports it: https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5040 .....and it backs up pretty much what MM posted.

servantforuse -> RE: Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/19/2017 5:11:12 PM)
There is no bill yet. Lets see what the final bill is. Then we can have a discussion about it. Remember Nancy Pelosi. " We have to pass the bill to see what is in the bill".

MasterDrakk -> RE: Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/19/2017 7:00:51 PM)
Remember Trump, I will show my tax returns. Remember Reagan, facts are stupid things. Remember Palin, I can see Russia from my house.

MrRodgers -> RE: Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/19/2017 9:40:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse There is no bill yet. Lets see what the final bill is. Then we can have a discussion about it. Remember Nancy Pelosi. " We have to pass the bill to see what is in the bill". The house has passed a bill and in its form likely not enough repubs to pass it in the senate. Small businesses pay more than corp. America is one problem. Obviously the repubs don't much care about the majority of people seeing their taxes go up in 2-3 years, with their obsession with reducing corp. taxes which remain. And a corp. tax structure that will offer no incentive for [them] to bring their offshore money home.

bounty44 -> RE: Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/20/2017 4:31:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk Remember Trump, I will show my tax returns. Remember Reagan, facts are stupid things. Remember Palin, I can see Russia from my house. considering youve been told numerous times mnottertroll that sarah palin never said that, and that Reagan misspoke, that people are allowed to change their minds about things and that ultimately, trumps tax returns are nobody's business but his own and the IRS'---really good non sequitur. nancy Pelosi's famous statement has absolutely nothing to do with the point the poster above you made. even minus the felchgobbles, the fool is still evident. or maybe its dementia?

bounty44 -> RE: Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/20/2017 4:34:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse There is no bill yet. Lets see what the final bill is. Then we can have a discussion about it. Remember Nancy Pelosi. " We have to pass the bill to see what is in the bill". there is something to be said about that, but at the same time, its interesting to note how the %'s change from year to year and between income levels. im curious to know the thinking/reasoning behind that.

Musicmystery -> RE: Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/20/2017 8:11:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse There is no bill yet. Lets see what the final bill is. Then we can have a discussion about it. Remember Nancy Pelosi. " We have to pass the bill to see what is in the bill". Even better, let’s not pass it. It’s crap.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/20/2017 8:36:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk Remember Trump, I will show my tax returns. Remember Reagan, facts are stupid things. Remember Palin, I can see Russia from my house. Except Palin didn't actually say that.....

DaddySatyr -> RE: Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/20/2017 8:58:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Except Palin didn't actually say that..... ... and President Trump e-mailed his tax returns to Shrillary Peace, Michael

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/20/2017 9:34:52 AM)
Well duh, it is a Republican plan, what did you expect?

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/20/2017 9:36:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk Remember Trump, I will show my tax returns. Remember Reagan, facts are stupid things. Remember Palin, I can see Russia from my house. Remember Johnson, Guam might tip over.

heavyblinker -> RE: Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/20/2017 9:49:19 AM)
Well, considering that these are the same policies that caused the economic despair that at least partially helped Trump get elected in the first place, you can't really blame him. Maybe if he keeps pushing the moronic Trump voters lower and lower into the senseless depths of poverty and class division, they will keep choosing pathological liar/wannabe despots for president. Don Jr. 2024!

Edwird -> RE: Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/20/2017 10:27:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 as I said in another thread, the primary source is more worth looking at than the article that reports it: https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5040 I see your point. The primary source is not townhall. Questionable.

MrRodgers -> RE: Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/20/2017 11:50:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk Remember Trump, I will show my tax returns. Remember Reagan, facts are stupid things. Remember Palin, I can see Russia from my house. Except Palin didn't actually say that..... As for insight into how to deal with Russia. Palin: You can see Russia from land in Alaska. HERE Actually...no difference, as geography of any kind does not give her or anybody 'insight' into how to deal with Russia. In the Reagan tradition: Trees cause pollution and ketchup is a vegetable.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/20/2017 1:39:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk Remember Trump, I will show my tax returns. Remember Reagan, facts are stupid things. Remember Palin, I can see Russia from my house. Except Palin didn't actually say that..... As for insight into how to deal with Russia. Palin: You can see Russia from land in Alaska. HERE Actually...no difference, as geography of any kind does not give her or anybody 'insight' into how to deal with Russia. In the Reagan tradition: Trees cause pollution and ketchup is a vegetable. https://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/russia.asp quote: As to the question of whether one can actually see Russia from Alaska, Governor Palin was correct: such a view is possible from more than one site in that state. A Slate article on the topic noted that: quote: In the middle of the Bering Strait are two small, sparsely populated islands: Big Diomede, which sits in Russian territory, and Little Diomede, which is part of the United States. At their closest, these two islands are a little less than two and a half miles apart, which means that, on a clear day, you can definitely see one from the other. Also, a 1988 New York Times article reported that: quote: To the Russian mainland from St. Lawrence Island, a bleak ice-bound expanse the size of Long Island out in the middle of the Bering Sea, the distance is 37 miles. From high ground there or from the Air Force facility at Tin City atop Cape Prince of Wales, the westernmost edge of mainland North America, on a clear day you can see Siberia with the naked eye. More hyperpartisan bullshit. But, why would you stray from your MO?

MasterDrakk -> RE: Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/20/2017 2:25:02 PM)
how is it partisan bullshit to say that seeing Russia does not give you insight into Russia. Sounds like partisan bullshit to claim it is partisan bullshit.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Under $100,000, no cut; under $75,000, tax increase (11/20/2017 2:36:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk how is it partisan bullshit to say that seeing Russia does not give you insight into Russia. Sounds like partisan bullshit to claim it is partisan bullshit. He's ridiculing Palin for saying that you can see Russia from Alaska. When, in fact, you can see Russia from some parts of Alaska. I do not argue that Palin's response was incredibly stupid.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875