https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/8c230acdaa3d3407302e570c87db27ee4ac062cf/c=0-80-3690-2855&r=x483&c=640x480/local/-/media/2017/12/22/Phoenix/Phoenix/636495271070524590-Benson-Santa-Tax-Cuts-12-22-17.jpg



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2017 12:19PM by steve benson.

Most excellent.

Man, those greedy dotards screwed over their voters bigly.


(Bending over) Thank you, Senator, may I have another?



Wealth buys elections. Voters are manipulated by all the commercials and fake promises. Somehow voters think they are winning when they get a Tweet they like. Why don't we all just let the richest guy be in charge and be done with it already. Sheesh. Maybe no one thinks a French Revolution is possible anymore and maybe they are right. Discouraged and Disgusted in Alabama.

That cartoon nails my feelings right now. These cartoons are important to help people see the big picture.

that Trump has filed Chapter 11 six times.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-first-presidential-debate/fact-check-has-trump-declared-bankruptcy-four-or-six-times/?utm_term=.5d57d03eb88

The breaks that will LAST are only for the Corporations. This was also a sneaky backdoor way to end health care for MANY. Social Security is seen as a soft target. When you talk to those that are over 70 their first concern is how they are going to pay for medical. These are people that worked HARD all their lives. Paid off their houses, bought what they could afford and did without. Skipping needed medication in December because the money ran out. But gee, that is OK right? As long as it keeps those political donors happy right?

Now the cap on military spending is gone. We all know what that will mean. I feel I should apologize to my grandkids because that is about all I can do about it.

The economy doesn't just "turn around" on a dime. It is built on the foundation laid at least 2 years in the past. Realtors are already talking about the bubble bursting as are others in "front line" professions.

Ain't that the truth!

Spot on as usual.

Trickle down...the pc way to say crumbs from the table.

I thought everybody in France was rich.

I have been trickled down upon by Reagan, and it was most unpleasant, I assure you.

Predictably, every "Progressive" hews to the standard boiler plate that Trump is here to serve his rich, Republican billionaire overlords. These are the same voices that said his election would result in a stock market crash and zeroed-out GDP. How are your trust funds doing, oh ye privileged Progressives? Pretty good these last thirteen months?

That pot boiled dry some time ago.

By and large, the middle class and the lower rungs of the upper-middle class will benefit the most, with a 3%-4% decrease, and a doubling of the standard exemption. They'll also find it simpler, as fewer of them will want to itemize. Upper-tiers get hurt most. Their 2.4% drop looks like a lot but they've been hauling most of the tax revenues previously. They loose deductions for monster mortgage interest and the
hefty checks they've been writing to Blue State coffers. "Elections have consequences," as Obama once opined. :-|

The big thing is business taxes. US Corporations have been penalized with higher taxes, which has spurred them to (1) move production off shore and (2) park trillions in cash overseas. Hopefully, this will result in increased Stateside production and job creation, but we shall see if the Law of Unintended Consequences kicks in.

Fun Fact: When Millenials and college students were presented Trump's tax plan but misinformed it was Bernie Sanders, they loved it, calling it "compassionate," "just," and "common sense"--until they were told the truth. They they found problems.

Here is an excellent, impartial rundown of the new tax laws. Put your lame ideology aside and give it a careful read. A bit of study and action BEFORE JANUARY 1 might save you some money. Even liberals hate spending money unnecessarily!

https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968

. . . not a Republican-gospel loyalist like yourself. (The Dems get just as loud with their howls when I go after their sacred cows).

Talk about "lame." As Rudolph would say, "Buck up and take it."

Besides, as my racist, John Birch-1ovin' Mormon "prophet, seer and revelator" grandpa, Ezra Taft Benson, told me, the third-party presidential platform of Alabama's racist governor, George Wallace, was more in line with the principles of the Founders than the official platforms of either the Republicans or the Democrats. (In fact, Wallace asked ETB to be his vice-presidentusl running mate in 1968. LDS president David O. McKay intervened and said no).

Grandpa Benson also told me that US president Dwight Eisenhower (a Republican) was either a Soviet dupe or an agent of the Kremlin. (My grandpa was Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture for eight years and complained to me that Ike never listened to him about the Communist threat).

He further said that one couldn't be a good Mormon and a Democrat.

So there. Repent and follow the Mormon Republican "prophet, seer and "revelator" ETB.

-----


That duly noted, I suspect that this "5%-er" dude is a troll. A comprehensive RfM site history search for all authors, all dates, all postings and all messages shows no previous presence here for this one-hit wonder hit-and-runner:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/search.php?2,search=,author=5%25-er,page=1,match_type=ALL,match_dates=0,match_forum=ALL,match_threads=0

Busted!



Edited 14 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2017 11:04PM by steve benson.

So, I'm somewhere between the top 5% and 10%. Big deal. As Mark Twain said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Yes, Steve, you may register yourself as an "Independent," but any objective person would classify the overwhelming majority of your cartoons and remarks as politically left of center, even if you do, once in a while, skew the Democrats. "Even a broken clock...," as they say.

And your patrimony may be wacko-right-of-center, but that's not the issue here; neither does it validate your knee-jerk hostility to Trump's tax bill, which you have not addressed. Before responding, I urge you to look at my link above and give it a fresh, objective reading. The middle class gains the most, percentage-wise, although the highly affluent will gain more in real dollars, simply because even a small percentage gain is proportionately larger. Hence the reflexive cry, "Tax cuts for the rich."

According to the CBO, the 81st-100th income percentiles pay 70% of federal taxes. (That's me and, I expect, you.) So much for equal treatment before the law! And, as I said in my post above, the highly affluent lose some of their generous deductions, while middle-class tax payers gain a few, such as an increase in the medical exclusion.

Oh, well, Steve. Never let a few inconvenient facts contradict your ideology and chic class consciousness. Incidentally, regarding my being a "Republican-gospel loyalist," please note that I do have some misgivings about whether the reduced business tax will repatriate capital as predicted; on that I am guardedly optimistic.

I'm posting anonymously because we have agreed on various non-political threads, and I don't want to jeopardize that. For that matter, I'm surprised that this highly political thread has not been deleted! Oh, well...

Link: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1428713,1428713#msg-1428713

Ever thought about trying to tie your political postings to recovery from Mormonism?

Didn't think so.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2017 12:02AM by steve benson.

who relentlessly promoted his right-wing, John Birch-lovin' agenda and who had a so-called "biographer" carrying his water for him.

Just another example of how "azsfeve" ignores the Mormon context in order to promote his own ideological agenda:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2057846,2057846

. . . do you have any examples of serious people claiming that Trump's election would cause a stockmarket crash and the "zeroing out" of GDP, whatever that means?

Given that that is the premise of your rant and all.

I read your citation--you know, the article you would have us believe supports your rant.

You are in fact another moron who doesn't read what he cites. The meat in the article is the bottom third, "How It Affects You," which is devastating. You should read it sometime. You'd learn a lot.

And you'd probably stop posting puerile garbage on this bulletin board.

How It Affects You

The tax plan helps businesses more than individuals. Business tax cuts are permanent, while the individual cuts expire in 2025.

Among individuals, it would help higher income families the most. Everyone gets a tax cut in 2019. But in 2021, taxes will increase on those making $30,000 or less. The lower tax rate won't make up for the deductions and credits they lose. By 2023, costs will rise on everyone who makes less than $40,000 a year.

The Act makes the U.S. progressive income tax more regressive. The Tax Policy Center found that taxpayers earning in the top 1 percent would receive a larger percent tax cut than those in lower income levels.

By 2027, those in the lowest 20 percent would pay higher taxes. That's because the tax cuts expire in 2025.

The increase in the standard deduction would benefit 6 million taxpayers. That's 47.5 percent of all tax filers, according to Evercore ISI. But for many income brackets, that won't offset lost deductions..

The Act increases the deficit by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. The Joint Committee on Taxation says it will increase growth by 0.7 percent annually, reducing some of the revenue loss from the tax cuts.

The Tax Foundation said it will add almost $448 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. The tax cuts themselves would cost $1.47 billion. But that's offset by $700 billion in growth and savings from eliminating the ACA mandate. The plan would boost GDP by 1.7 percent a year. It would create 339,000 jobs and add 1.5 percent to wages.

The U.S. Treasury reported that the bill would bring in $1.8 trillion in new revenue. It projected economic growth of 2.9 percent a year on average. The CBO estimates just 1.9 percent growth. The Treasury report also assumes the rest of Trump's plans will be implemented. These include infrastructure spending, deregulation, and welfare reform.

Budget-conscious Republicans have done an about-face. The party fought hard to pass sequestration. In 2011, some members even threatened to default on the debt rather than add to it. Now they say that the tax cuts would boost the economy so much that the additional revenues would offset the tax cuts. They ignore the reasons why Reaganomics would not work today.

The impact on the $20 trillion national debt will eventually be higher than projected. Congressional leaders admit that a future Congress will probably extend the tax cuts that expire in 2025.

Increase in sovereign debt dampens economic growth in the long run. Investors see it as a tax increase on future generations. That's especially true if the ratio of debt to gross domestic product is near 77 percent. That's the tipping point, according to a study by the World Bank. It found that every percentage point of debt above this level costs the country 1.7 percent in growth.

Supply-side economics is the theory that says tax cuts increase growth. The U.S. Treasury Department analyzed the impact of the Bush tax cuts. It found that they provided a short-term boost in an economy that was already weak. But the economy in 2017 is strong.

Also, supply-side economics worked during the Reagan administration because the highest tax rate was 70 percent. According to the Laffer Curve, that's in the prohibitive range. The range occurs at tax levels so high that cuts boost growth enough to offset revenue loss. But trickle-down economics no longer works because the 2017 tax rates are half what they were in the 1980s.

Many large corporations confirmed they won't use the tax cuts to create jobs. Corporations are sitting on a record $2.3 trillion in cash reserves, double the level in 2001. The CEOs of Cisco, Pfizer, and Coca-Cola would instead use the extra cash to pay dividends to shareholders. The CEO of Amgen will use the proceeds to buy back shares of stock. In effect, the corporate tax cuts will boost stock prices, but won't create jobs.

The most significant tax cuts should go to the middle class who are more likely to spend every dollar they get. The wealthy use tax cuts to save or invest. It helps the stock market but doesn't drive demand. Once demand is there, then businesses create jobs to meet it. Middle-class tax cuts create more jobs. But the best unemployment solution is government spending to build infrastructure and directly create jobs.

The Act could help immigrants who were protected by Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. One of Trump's immigration policies is to end the program in March 2018. Senator Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., got Senate leaders to agree to make the program permanent in exchange for his vote.

Yup. Thanks.

Taxes down for a year or two or three, then up for most Americans and particularly the poorer ones. Job effect minimal, as corporate CEOs have warned, much larger national debt and depressive effect on long-run GDP.

Mr 5-9%, you can't make this stuff up. Or, well, you can make it up; but if you do so, you shouldn't cite articles that contradict what you just made up.

I was wondering the same thing. I'm not a Trump fan, but I didn't hear many people say that the stock market wouldn't like Trump! Of course businesses would like an administration that favors rich big business. I would have been surprised if the stock market didn't soar with corporations owning this administration and buying elections.

As a long term investor, I've made a tidy sum in the stock market this year. I'm not greedy and not thrilled that stock holders are getting richer and CEOs take millions with golden parachutes so they can retire with even more when their corporation screws up.

So the average person might have a bit more in their 401k. Remember corporations are not interested in offering pensions and next on the chopping block is possibly social security. A lot of people need basics, and have no hope of retiring, let alone sending their kids to college or surviving a million dollar illness.

All this is causing a disparity making it even harder for the lower class and middle class. Coupled with struggling to get medical coverage it's even harder.

I would and should pay more taxes to help trickle down, not less. It's a better way than giving to charitable organizations, IMO.

The cartoon is spot on. Giving a middle class maybe a thousand dollars (temporary!) break on taxes compared to what the rich got is appalling.

It is indeed simple.

If you assume fair valuation of companies, with share prices reflecting fundamentals, then slash the taxes corporations will pay, the after-tax income of the companies goes way up. That means the firms are worth more and their stock prices are too low.

What we have seen from before the election until now is that markets correctly discounted the probability that Trump would shift an immense amount of wealth to them through lower taxes. He might also press the Fed to keep interest rates low, which would cut the cost of capital to corporations as well. The import is that asset prices must appreciate significantly. That effect occurs whether or not the specifics of the tax cut make structural sense.

My objections to the massive appreciation are 1) the budget deficit will get bigger and the debt larger, meaning that our descendants are further burdened with our excess spending; and 2) higher stock prices benefit people in exact relation to how much they already have. So rich people with big portfolios are going to reap most of the gains of corporate tax "reform" and poor people will garner little. The distribution of wealth in the country, already at Third World levels, will continue worsening.

At some point you have to ask what value there is to democracy. Democracies empirically flourish in middle-class societies but the US middle class is eroding. I, for one, consider that tragic.

Please give citation for your "fun fact" -- or it remains just a fun urban legend.

Wow -- from Mormonism to Trumpsterism, one of the great steps down you could have taken.

I'll set aside that Trump has been proved to lie more often than Joseph Smith, although there's that.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?mtrref=www.bing.com&gwh=027779A1F75606D09FF17D0A8ABB5467&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/donald-trump-lies-liar-effect-brain-214658

But the issue here is tithing -- and how eager you are to pay it. Some things never change, do they. Oh wait. The issue here is taxes and how eager you are to pay them -- to people who deliver you no services in return. But then -- as I said -- tithing -- all over again.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/26/senate-gop-tax-bill-hurts-the-poor-more-than-originally-thought-cbo-finds/?utm_term=.1859bb3e5bc8

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/20/trump-tax-bill-savings-analysis

But be my guest. Believe in Trump -- why not? It is not one jot sillier than believing in the Book of Mormon, and presumably you've done THAT. Pay your good money to international corporations -- ya' know -- like paying tithing to Mormon Inc., and you've done that, right? Please go on admiring a man who has been found to be a compulsive liar -- because -- that's your pattern, right?

Good luck with your life. Real change is hard, no?

Besides, pandering to the rich as pandering does.

E-mails from the crazies begin in 3...2...1...

For this thread, I'll stick with my second nom-de-plum, "9%-er," for the sake of anonymity and consistency. (Or is that, "nom-de-guerre?") I was not alert to the resttriction of multiple usernames, and for that, I apologize. I was thinking in terms of people who post, "anon-4-this" and the like.

I'm sorry this has thread has become laced with such hostility. I've rarely addressed you personally, under my usual (or any other) username, but I have enjoyed and learned from many of your non-political posts. The political ones I usually avoid, but somehow this one was like the waving cape in front of my horns.

Rather than being a "cowardly masquerading troll," I simply do not want to jeopardize positive discourse elsewhere. I hold that Trump's tax act has merit that is overlooked because of reflexive condemnation, ad hominems, and hostile rhetoric.

Lot's Wife, what the article overlooks is that individual tax law is, by previous legislation, always sunsetted, and can be enacted for a maximum of 7 years. And yes, the Trump tax act benefits business more than individuals: even the liberal Brookings Institute acknowledges that US corporations are (were) disadvantaged by our high corporate tax rate. This helps to level the field, in spite of cries that "corporations are not paying their fair share."

Their fair share never seems enough.

Then there's the question of "trickle down." This site is damning, to be sure, but not completely: it acknowledges some effect. I think it minimizes it. Example: Rhode Island eliminated its luxury tax on pleasure boats, and the yacht industry there is booming, so much so that John Kerry (who had his yacht, the Isabella, built in New Zealand--cheaper) moored in Nantucket (Massachusetts) but registered (and not taxed) in Rhode Island. Economic activity grew following the Kennedy, Regan, and Busy II tax cuts, even if economists slice and dice the data.

Remember, government can only re-allocate moneys (taking out a hefty service charge). Only business creates authentic wealth--and jobs. Over the long haul, government has to either tax more, borrow more, or devour the producers.

This is a good post, one that invites positive discussion.

I do not believe that individual taxes are always sunsetted. In fact, that would mean that the law just enacted would go away in seven years altogether--that taxes would go to zero. What we see, however, is that in seven years the tax cuts go away and the tax rates go up. So what we have is a law whose provisions go far beyond the seven-year limit you suggest.

Also taxes on individuals--especially the poor and middle class--will go up not in seven years but in 1-3 years. The 7-year hike is much more dramatic and its incidence is skewed towards the poor. So over any time horizon taxes on the less fortunate are going up.

Regarding overall taxes, countries should pay for what they consume. If they want to cut their expenditures and their taxes, maintaining balance, that's fine. But this country (and many others) want all the benefits of big government but not the bills that ensue. If the US wants to spend 40% of GDP on government services, the government should "take" 40% in taxes. But to say we want 40% or more in government support but only want to pay 30% of GDP in taxes is simply to rob our children. It is irresponsible.

The question then becomes whether a tax cut will generate more revenues and a smaller deficit. That is an empirical question. At the extremes (tax rate=0% or tax rate=100%), a tax system generates no revenues. Between them there is a sweet spot that yields the maximum possible revenue: higher than that and GDP slows too much, lower than that and the government is taking too little. What matters now is whether Trump's policy moves us towards the sweet spot.

The answer is almost certainly no: Even Laffer, the conservative who developed this model, says that taxes are so low going into the Trump plan that lowering them further can't generate positive growth. So this really is just a transfer of wealth from future generations to the present. It is irresponsible.

There is a good case that the corporate system should be overhauled. But there are two points that need to be considered here. First, if the government is taking too little in taxes to support current spending, cutting any major source of revenue will make the deficit bigger. What is called for, then, is not a simple cut in corporate taxes but a reorganization of the code into something that generates the same (or more) revenue without disadvantaging corporations.

Second, the situation in the economy today indicates that the benefits Trump promises simply won't materialize. Interest rates are depressed, which means by definition that there is not excess demand for funds. Bringing money home from abroad will then simply pour into the stock market (which is why the market is so high now) and won't go into investment. You recall the meeting with executives in which one of the Trump cabinet members asked how many companies were going to increase investment as a result of the new plan and only one or two hands went up? That's because firms already have all the productive capacity they need: more capital won't change that, nor will it expand hiring.

Trump's plan was designed terribly. It lowers overall revenues, creating a bigger national debt and depressing long-term growth in favor of short-term market appreciation; shifts money from the poor to the rich; and lowers corporate taxes without providing an alternative source of revenues. It was sold on false promises: Laffer Curve optimism, rejected by Laffer himself, that lower rates would raise revenues; and a promise that repatriation of capital would lead to more jobs.

Why was it enacted? Because both Trump and the GOP desperately need a success, something to tout as they go into next year's election campaign. I think they will achieve their (cynical) goal because taxes will go down a bit next year, and voters will see that, but by 2020 the plan will be very, very unpopular. It is not clear to me, though, that the GOP will even exist then given the profound forces tearing it apart right now.

Thanks for the conversation.

http://fortune.com/2017/12/04/republican-tax-bill-donors/

“My donors are basically saying, ‘Get it done or don’t ever call me again,” Rep. Chris Collins told The Hill last month. Sen. Lindsey Graham reportedly said that if the GOP doesn’t pass the bill, “contributions will stop.” (Graham’s spokesperson said Saturday this quote was taken “grossly out of context,” but did not clarify further).

Q: What happens if GOP isn't able to pass tax reform?

Graham: "The party fractures, most incumbents in 2018 will get a severe primary challenge, a lot of them will probably lose, the base will fracture, the financial contributions will stop, other than that it'll be fine!"

— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) November 9, 201

My big concern is the national debt. I am tired of the mentality of our country spending today (and paying huge amounts of interest today,) and paying for it tomorrow. Maryland, despite being a blue state, does require a balanced budget each year. And after a lot of wrangling from our state assembly, the legislators always manage to balance the budget.

An extra $1K in my pocket (maybe) will not do much to give my lifestyle a bump. A few thousand a year might do it, but $1K, not so much. I rather cynically think it will just give service providers an excuse to jack up prices.

The rich don't need more money, from what I can see. They appear to have terrific lifestyles as it is. The poor and the middle class could use the help, but IMO this tax cut won't be enough to do much for them.

Quite the opposite.

Taxes on the poor and the middle class will start to rise within 2 years. That's clearly written into the law.

. . . through RfM site-search confirmation of your violation of stated board policy against handle flipping. Consistency had nothing to do with it and you know it.

If you hadn't been called out, you wouldn't have 'fessed up to getting snagged red-handed. You only changed your handle so you could talk straight politics; i.e., so you could (as you yourself admitted) hide behind anonymity in order to continue talking party politics--the very thing you condemn on this board. At least I have tied my responses into historical examples of the Mormon Church's top leadership engagement in political gamesmanship. You have made no effort whatsoever to couch your political commentary within the Mormon context because that is not your agenda here.

Just admit it, "azsteve." You've been busted, along with that horse of hypocrisy you rode in on.



Edited 12 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2017 01:09AM by steve benson.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2017 11:26PM by steve benson.

and, therefore, that means you get to flip your handle in this thtead when we don't agree, "azsteve."

Please point to the RfM board policy that allows for this on-the-fly chamaeleon excuse of yours to conveniently kick in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2017 12:33AM by steve benson.

Xactly. He's not fooling anyone.

Quit trying to thread the needle and live with it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2017 01:16AM by steve benson.

The "doubling" of the standard deduction is far less of a benefit than it sounds like.

Under current law, a single filer gets a $6,300 standard deduction and a $4,100 personal exemption. That's $10,400 knocked off their taxable income. Under the new law, the personal exemption is gone, and the standard deduction is $12,000.

So, for someone who already didn't itemize deductions, their taxable income will be reduced by $1,600. If they are in a 15% bracket, that will save them $240 a year, or 67 cents a day.

Now suppose you had a $150,000 mortgage, some property tax, charitable contributions, and itemized $10,000 in deductions. That'd be typical for a lower middle class person. Under current law, this person reduces taxable income by $10,000 + $4,100 = $14,100. Under the new law, your deduction goes down $2,100 to $12,000.

Gee, thanks.

If you used to itemize, you are almost certainly worse off. If you can still itemize even with the new $12,000 standard deduction, you lose the entire amount of the $4,100 personal exemption.

If you have children, the new law is even worse. Their exemptions are gone too. The increasedChikd Tax Credit helps, but that was a last minute addition, it was already $1,000, and the additional $1,000 goes away in 2026. Or the entire Child Tax Credit goes away when the child turns 17, so your taxes spike $2,000 starting their junior year in HS.

So, doubling the standard deduction (loudly trumpeted) and the loss of personal exemptions (hardly mentioned) is not all that impressive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2017 08:56AM by Brother Of Jerry.

Brother of Jerry, that's what I'm afraid of. I'm single and currently itemize my mortgage interest, state and property taxes, and school expenses that exceed the $250 above the line deduction. If I end up paying more federal tax, I won't be a happy camper. I was 46 when I was able to purchase my home, and I want to enjoy the same benefits of home ownership that my peers have always enjoyed.

I can't imagine that parents of young children will be happy, particularly if they have large families. They will lose a lot of money.

To me there is so much information and misinformation on all this.

Come April 2019, I'll fill out the 2018 and 2017 tax forms and compare what is true for me.

All the news seems to say is that the sky is falling.

If some of the statistics are somewhat correct and about 45% of the populous doesn't pay any federal tax, that means 55% does, and the upper 2-3% are paying the most.

Seems to me those 2-3% should get a larger share of the tax breaks, they pay the most.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2016-02-24

Your next tax return will show that you have been given some money. That is baked into the law. You may well find that you have received additional benefits the following two years. If you judge the bill on those grounds, you will be very happy and may vote Republican--which is the point of the early tax reductions.

But that is bait and switch. Watch what happens after that, when your taxes rise.

It doesn't make sense to say that the top taxpayers should be given the most breaks. They already get the most breaks. Do you really think Mitt should have been paying 11.5% whereas the middle class is in the 20s and 30s? And Donald Trump, who constantly boasts of his wealth, paid zero percent in some years. Are they really overburdened relative to the middle and working classes?

We have a democracy. The rich control the funding for the major parties. The parties constantly cut the rich's taxes and make the poor, and future generations, bear the burden. Soon you don't have a democracy anymore. That may be a little stark but it is pretty much the truth because for a democracy to funciton everyone needs a base level of income and security. Deprive a large number of people of those things and they cannot afford even to think about elections let alone make their voices heard.

Democracies require a certain level of equity in the distribution of resources, a middle class. That is at risk, and paying too much attention to the shiny object of a $1,000 gift is a mistake when future tax rates are going to rise much more than that.

That's how you are going to judge it? You got a few bucks? You feel the uber rich should get a bigger break on taxes?

I suspect maybe you have been bought for a few bucks, and it isn't even permanent. The rich know giving only crumbs will satisfy people who think like you while allowing the rich oligarchy to take more and make the gap wider.

People can't afford to get a house (especially in a blue state) or get education. But but by golly, estates and jet fuel and golf course LLCs (or whatever their fine print ended up being) need to get breaks. The bottom line is the donors who bought the senators want their money back.

How about if we compare your 2016 against 2017 and Trump's 2016 against 2017? Guess why that information won't be available.

Look at the priorities of what is favored in taxes and what basic needs are not supported. They are offering to let you eat cake. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

"45% of the populous doesn't pay any federal tax..."

No. Maybe 45% doesn't pay federal income tax. They pay federal payroll tax starting with their first dollar. That's 12.5% for independent contractors, which are often low paying jobs (e.g. women handing out samples at Costco). I know several people whose payroll taxes exceed their income tax by a wide margin.

And of course they pay sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax, medicare tax (also a payroll tax), alcohol tax, essentially every other tax there is besides federal income tax. Even their Utah state income tax is higher than their federal income tax, because of the Earned Income Credit, and Child Tax Credit.

And part of that 45% is people on Social Security, and working minors.

When Mitt made that bogus claim, he said it was 47%. Look how the world has improved. :)

In recent years, US government spending has averaged about 35% of annual GDP. Tax revenues have been a bit below 20% of GDP. That is a clear example of living far beyond the country's means and it indicates a willingness to improve our living standards at the expense of our children's and grandchildren's.

The ethically responsible way to rectify this would be to cut our expenditures to 20% of GDP or to hike taxes to 35% of GDP (actually about 40% of GDP to start paying down all the debt we've already accumulated). Yes, hike taxes by 20% of GDP. If we wanted to fix the roads, etc., taxes would have to go even higher.

There are many ways to design a tax system to do that with better efficiency than today's monstrous system, but it has to be done. The "trickle down" people are dissembling. They would have us believe that tax cuts always lead to such massive economic growth that revenues increase. That may have been true when rates were very high in the 1960s and perhaps the 1970s, but it has proved false since the early 1990s because tax rates were then below the punitive level. What that means is that if you reduce taxes from today's level, revenues/gdp will fall. That is what every reputable study of the Trump cuts has concluded.

You can fix that by raising taxes on the poor, which would wipe them out. Or you could raise taxes on the wealthy, who in many cases--Trump, Romney--pay much less than the middle class. The 1% is in fact the real 47%, metaphorically speaking. But if the country continues to insist on cutting taxes while not reducing spending, the results are inevitably lower living standards for future workers and the erosion of the foundations of democracy.

How to tax is debatable, the need for much higher taxes is not.

tumwater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seems to me those 2-3% should get a larger share of the tax breaks, they pay the most.

The well-to-do and rich people of my acquaintance are already doing quite well. They own luxury homes that they upgrade and decorate at will. They often have second and even third homes. They dine well, travel the world, and have luxury cars and boats. What more do they need, really?

Whereas I would like to be able to buy a new sofa when my old one is in tatters, or replace a major appliance that has died. I'd like to dine out on occasion, even if it's a modestly priced chain restaurant, or see the occasional show, or go to the beach once a year, or maybe hop on a plane every now then to see a friend. What I am asking for is the modest prosperity that one might expect after getting an advanced degree with more than 20 years in my field.

Then we also have the working poor, who in my experience are already holding down two or three jobs each.

Tell me again why the rich need more money?

I thought we were supposed to 'inflate' our way out of the national debt? I was ready to do my part!

I fear that day will come in a decade or two. And what is inflated away will be the savings of our children and grandchildren.

What unanticipated inflation does is erode the value of savings and debt. So if the government is the big debtor and households the big saver, it is a transfer from savers to the government; it is a tax.

But the dawg already knew that.

Listen, I just want China to give us a good reference!

I thought this was a Christmas commercial.

Picture (cartoon) is worth a 1,000 words.