re: Millionaire releases tax return as illustration

quote:

---

Irrelevant to the discussion

---

ok

quote:

---

It is like 1-2% rate cut for most and a 15% rate cute for the wealthy.

---

It’s hard to have “legit discussion” with someone who pulls numbers out of their arse

Any cut will favor the rich disproportionately because they already pay a shite ton of taxes.

quote:

---

Congress could have said 5-10% cut for everyone

---

good luck with that. Do you really think it’s that simple?

quote:

---

Most people will get about a 2% cut for a couple of years, then pay it back with a 5% increase starting in a few short years.

---

We’ve been over this before a lot of speculation in that statement.

You along with the Dems are against tax cuts completely which is fine. If that’s what you think then that’s what you think. But yall try to hide behind the “rich get too much of a benefit” argument when we all know it’s bullshite.

quote:

---

You along with the Dems are against tax cuts completely which is fine. If that’s what you think then that’s what you think. But yall try to hide behind the “rich get too much of a benefit” argument when we all know it’s bullshite.

---

I can tell you view everything through a political lense which will make a discussion difficult. But I'll try.

How much money do you make range wise (I'm between 100-200k in salary for a broad range as an example)?

Given what you make, do you think you will keep more or less of your money over the next 5-10 years?

If it is more, who will make up for the 1-2 trillion piled on the debt with this tax cut?

Do you think our current deficit spending is sustainable?

I've answered all of the above in this thread already. It seems you support this tax cut, so convince me as to why.

Again, I know you may be a staunch republican that just supports whatever, but I'm not a Republican or Democrat so answer the questions like I have and make your points.

Oh yeah, leave the lil faces, name calling, "pulling out of your arse comments and the like out of your responses. That kind of crap is for the poliboard halfwits and has no place here.

quote:

---

Ive studied this shite for the past couple months. I’m good. 

---

While no doubt impressive to your peers, I have a master's in taxation, over a decade with the big 4 in tax, 4 years in an international tax law firm and national advisory and accounting firm experience for several more years. The people who write these laws I have both worked with and interviewed for positions in private practice with a law firm.

So please step up the substance of your responses and make your points.

quote:

---

While no doubt impressive to your peers, I have a master's in taxation, over a decade with the big 4 in tax, 4 years in an international tax law firm and national advisory and accounting firm experience for several more years. The people who write these laws I have both worked with and interviewed for positions in private practice with a law firm.

---

I’ll come to you with questions about the old law then.

quote:

---

By your response, I think you know the answer here. And i think you know any and every economist worth their salt has already laughed this ridiculous idea out of the building.

---

No one knows the answer

quote:

---

And if the answer to both is no, who do you think will end up paying for these cuts with tax hikes in the near future?

---

The only way this argument is even relevant is if you think the current debt trajectory (without tax cuts) is sustainable which I don’t think is the case.

quote:

---

No one knows the answer 

---

I believe everyone educated on the topic is of the same opinion. Namely, growth will not come close to offsetting the reduced revenue just like it has not come close every single other time it has been tried without exception.

In fact it makes absolutely no sense to think it will. Do you think corps are going to increase salaries with the additional funds when they are already sitting on record amounts of cash? shite no, that is laughable and CEOs have already said they won't be.

quote:

---

The only way this argument is even relevant is if you think the current debt trajectory (without tax cuts) is sustainable which I don’t think is the case.

---

I don't understand what you are saying here. It is only relevant who is going to have to pay down the debt if the debt is sustainable?

Huh?

Are you saying it is already so unsustainable, the entire system is going to crash and so it should just be made worse to crash sooner?

Ok, I follow now.

I do think the current debt trajectory is unsustainable due to the rising costs of Medicare, Medicaid and social security.

It isn't critically unsustainable right now though. The tipping points seems to be somewhere around when the debt reaches around 130% of GDP and right now it is at 105%. This cut will obviously move us closer to unsustainability.

It will have to be paid back with interest.

It is a dumb tax cut and the republicans voting for it know it. The problem is they promised it and they never expected to be in power so they thought it could just be an empty promise for the uninformed. Just like their promises of a better healthcare plan they never had to begin with and thought would just be empty rhetoric for votes. Maybe, unfortunately for the GOP their plan worked too well and the fooled too many and now the bill has come due.

Does the tax bill repeal the individual mandate for the ACA? If it does I don't know how republicans are going to be able to survive that in 2018, it's going to be hard enough as it is with Trump being as unpopular as he is. I read that they were considering pushing the repeal to 2019 which is obviously a ploy to try and save the midterms, but even the dumbest of the poor whitetrash that I know have drawn a line in the sand over any perceived action that would destabilize or threaten their entitlement.

quote:

---

I missed this earlier. No they absolutely are not. They're temporary so that the bill can be passed using reconciiation. I'm not sure if this is dishonesty or ignorance.

---

That’s why there are temporary measures in the bill. I was saying why they chose to make the individual cuts temporary instead of the corporate cuts

TnM was trying to claim they did it to screw over the middle class in a few years

Republicans would rather have the whole thing permanent but they can’t

No, I never said that was the reason.

The reason is first and primarily reconciliation.

Once they determined to go the reconciliation route and exclude the Dems from the process, they had a choice, lower the corporate rates to 25 instead of 21% (This would add an estimated 400 billion less to the debt), make the corporate cuts temporary, or make the middle class cuts temporary.

Two things there. One, who has the lobbyists that line their pockets? Corporations. Two, (and this is the talking point excuse) business need stability in laws for long term planning. This is true, but a red herring in this case as it is a simple case of math using a rate of 25%, or 21% or 35% that can be planned for fine.

As an aside, this partisan abomination of a bill could have been a bipartisan bill that could have avoided reconciliation. The Dems had 3 primary demands:

1. Corp rate of 25% instead of 21% (good idea IMO, 400-500 billion less added to the debt and 21% is too low, hell 25% is too low as we are perfectly competitive at 35% considering the actual rate corps pay, the effective rate is exactly in the middle of OECD countries).

2. Leave the individual mandate alone (also a good idea IMO).

3. Leave the top individual rate of 39.6 alone. Also a good idea IMO.

Not involving the Dems was a mistake IMO. Not only were their demands much better for the debt and deficit than the Republican plan, but now the GOP will fully own this bill and the results.