Trumpcare makes things worse

[franklin]

Your rant is going off on a tangent here. Of course we will do whatever we can to get out of paying taxes. That was my initial attack on Trump. He is too stupid to hire a good accountant and is paying 24% instead of sub 20%.

I hire an accountant to take my taxes from 28% to sub 20% every year. I play by the rules and use them to my advantage.

BUT, that doesn't mean the rules are ok, or right.

It's horrible that Mitt and Buffet are paying sub 20% in income taxes and some poor, struggling single mother is paying over 20% on a $60,000 a year income. Or a father, who wants his wife to stay home and care for their kids, is paying 25% on $75,000 income and Mitt is paying 13%.

It's immoral.

Do you not agree?

You're full of ****.

 

[RandyForRubio]

You're full of ****.

Seriously.

As a single income husband/father, I pay less than 20% income on $42k a year.

 

[franklin]

Seriously.

As a single income husband/father, I pay less than 20% income on $42k a year.

You're under 2% income tax rate after standard deductions and child tax credit. Unless you have 2 kids that is and then your rate is negative.

 

[LogGrad98]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/warren-buffett-wants-to-pay-higher-taxes/

Warren Buffet.

Not sure what this has to do with that post as he is not a politician.

Also, while I applaud this from Buffet, as he seems to be one of the more socially-conscious billionaires out there, it is also kind of a token gesture.

Even if his tax rate were raised to a real 50% what impact would that really have on his standard of living in any meaningful way. Is 250 million take-home pay really that much different than 500-million when it is a drop in the bucket against the total net worth?

Again I am not slamming Buffet. He gives a lot of his money away relatively, as do many others of the ultra-rich. But to pretend we can ever compare the impact of tax rate changes between the ultra-rich and the middle-class is intellectually dishonest at best, outright ******** at worst.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Rather than raise taxes, give these wealthy corporations/people incentives to spend their money. To get industry started, Obama allowed for rapid depreciation. I mean, we could depreciate a $5000k warehouse in one year. Since we could do that, we built a bunch of sheds...otherwise, we would've just sat on the money. That alone kept a construction crew in business for a year, otherwise the guy would've had to fire everybody but one or two.

Incentives to spend does a world more good than raising taxes. Promote that.

 

[RandyForRubio]

A large assumption is that we'll spend all this money wisely if we raise taxes. We haven't shown that we can do that yet, there's tons of waste.

Treat taxes like an investment. I want to see where my money is going, what it's being used for, and how that is helping. Shouldn't we have the right to know that?

 

[babe]

Your rant is going off on a tangent here. Of course we will do whatever we can to get out of paying taxes. That was my initial attack on Trump. He is too stupid to hire a good accountant and is paying 24% instead of sub 20%.

I hire an accountant to take my taxes from 28% to sub 20% every year. I play by the rules and use them to my advantage.

BUT, that doesn't mean the rules are ok, or right.

It's horrible that Mitt and Buffet are paying sub 20% in income taxes and some poor, struggling single mother is paying over 20% on a $60,000 a year income. Or a father, who wants his wife to stay home and care for their kids, is paying 25% on $75,000 income and Mitt is paying 13%.

It's immoral.

Do you not agree?

I've been working on a case to challenge Mark Levin on his radio show.

Mark has been on a rant about Trump's tariff talk, likening it to Smoot-Hawley in Hoover days. Free Trade!!!!

When our founders faced the issue of how to support the small idea government they were really afraid to turn loose on the world, for fear it would become what it is today, they were still smarting from British taxes and tariffs, and anti-smuggling laws that essentially meant colonists had to buy from the British Far East Trading Company, or go without. They rejected the notion of "income tax" and put it down that the fed money would come from tariffs. Levin thinks that's stupid.

Actually, "income tax" levied by the federal government is a tariff on domestic labor and domestic production. It is an abhorrent idea. Looking in our taxpayers guide published by the IRS today, they reject outright all the ideas anyone has come up with to challenge their taxes, and have levied a $5000 fine on anyone who dares whisper the words.

Seen as a tariff on domestic production/labor, it is clear that "Free Trade" with foreign nations can never be "Fair Trade". We've already shot ourselves in the foot, maybe in the head, too. Sure there are governments with higher tariffs on their production, like European nations generally. But combined with all the costs on payroll, all the costs of regulations, environmental and labor compliance, etc etc etc, it is not "fair trade" if we impose tariffs upon our own goods at the point of production, and give international corporations incentives for starting businesses overseas as well.

sure we have notions about people who play by the rules, like Mitt and Green, to avoid taxes using special little deals congress has given special interests. I don't agree it's immoral for people to play by the rules. What is immoral is the income tax.

Sure we could do a national sales tax, just have the States collect it as they do sales taxes now, or a flat tax, but a tariff would really be a good way to retire the income tax. Consumers pay all the taxes, and the consumer would have a fair idea of what he's paying every day, as he goes about his life. It would eliminate the fantasy that government can just print money without inflationary effects on prices, or that people don't pay for everything.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Do we have Bernie's tax returns? I'd bet Trump paid a lower percentage than Sanders or Obama...well, maybe not Obama, because Obama isn't dumb enough to pay 24% of his income to taxes.

Let's get to the heart of the matter:

The right likes to say: Oh, Trump paid $34,000,000 in taxes. That is SOOOO much. He is so great. He pays too much!!! You only paid #30,000, you suck!!!

BUT, they fail to realize the most important aspect: It's not the total amount that is paid that is important. It is the percentage paid. Trump paid 24%. I paid 30%. I paid a higher percentage of my income to taxes than he did.

Be smart. Argue intelligently.

I don't care if Trump paid $100,000,000 in taxes. What I care about is what percentage of his income did he pay? If it is 10%, it's not enough. If it is 30%, then fantastic.

i dont ****ing care about percentages. i am a proponent of flat tax, and limited govenrment. so your percentages and stuff dont mean anything to me.

trump paid more in 1 year than bernie paid his whole live.

bernie is a hypocryte. he has 3 houses. how the **** can some marxist who never worked outside of government own 3 houses!

but since you care about percentages! bernie paid 13.5% but the mainstream media aint reporting on that because it is REAL NEWS!!!!!!!!!

 

[DutchJazzer]

Your rant is going off on a tangent here. Of course we will do whatever we can to get out of paying taxes. That was my initial attack on Trump. He is too stupid to hire a good accountant and is paying 24% instead of sub 20%.

I hire an accountant to take my taxes from 28% to sub 20% every year. I play by the rules and use them to my advantage.

BUT, that doesn't mean the rules are ok, or right.

It's horrible that Mitt and Buffet are paying sub 20% in income taxes and some poor, struggling single mother is paying over 20% on a $60,000 a year income. Or a father, who wants his wife to stay home and care for their kids, is paying 25% on $75,000 income and Mitt is paying 13%.

It's immoral.

Do you not agree?

i try and live by my7 conservatarian ideals as much as humanly possible.
by that i mean i think i should pay taxes only for **** i choose to USE but i cant dodge taxes for the others so i am forced ot pay.
nobody is forcing Bernie to hire an accountant and search for loopholes to go down to 13%


if i was screaming about fair share like commie Bernie, i would not hire an accountant to pay 13%. i would show the world my ideals and pay my "fair share" whatever the f bernie means by it. unless he means 13% is his fair share.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Bernie paid approximately 13-14% if I remember right. Same with Obama.

If you can find ways to pay less taxes, that's great. The money will still be used somewhere. If we make a lot of money and want to pay less taxes, we build or buy things. Lowers our tax rates, helps the economy. Oh the horror.

would you still find a way to pay less if your screaming about "fair share" on television for over a year?

 

[DutchJazzer]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/warren-buffett-wants-to-pay-higher-taxes/

Warren Buffet.

he could just give the money to a desalination plant in somali land, so they never have a drought that kills thousands of people.
i got lots of global ideas for what that commie globalist can do with his money. he is rich i bet he can come up with some ideas, or hire people to spend his mmoney that benefits (globalist) society

 

[DutchJazzer]

So, I was wrong on Bernie, but my point still stands.

ofcourse you are wrong about bernie! everybody is wrong about bernie

 

[babe]

Do we have Bernie's tax returns? I'd bet Trump paid a lower percentage than Sanders or Obama...well, maybe not Obama, because Obama isn't dumb enough to pay 24% of his income to taxes.

Let's get to the heart of the matter:

The right likes to say: Oh, Trump paid $34,000,000 in taxes. That is SOOOO much. He is so great. He pays too much!!! You only paid #30,000, you suck!!!

BUT, they fail to realize the most important aspect: It's not the total amount that is paid that is important. It is the percentage paid. Trump paid 24%. I paid 30%. I paid a higher percentage of my income to taxes than he did.

Be smart. Argue intelligently.

I don't care if Trump paid $100,000,000 in taxes. What I care about is what percentage of his income did he pay? If it is 10%, it's not enough. If it is 30%, then fantastic.

Just gotta say this.

I don't care what you think is "moral". Socialists are all sociopaths hell-bent on imposing their "religion" on everyone else, you make the SNL "church lady" skits look like freaking Mother Theresa, when you're idolizing Hillary and Obama and being all sanctimonious accusing Donald of every imaginable offense.

oughtta get off the john and leave the world alone.

 

[Stoked]

A large assumption is that we'll spend all this money wisely if we raise taxes. We haven't shown that we can do that yet, there's tons of waste.

Treat taxes like an investment. I want to see where my money is going, what it's being used for, and how that is helping. Shouldn't we have the right to know that?

I agree. Step 1 to fixing any budget problems is a full accounting of what is currently coming in and what is currently going out.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Bernie paid approximately 13-14% if I remember right. Same with Obama.

If you can find ways to pay less taxes, that's great. The money will still be used somewhere. If we make a lot of money and want to pay less taxes, we build or buy things. Lowers our tax rates, helps the economy. Oh the horror.

I believe his was low because of the amount he donated to charity.

He is routinely among the least wealthy senators iirc

 

[Miggs]

A large assumption is that we'll spend all this money wisely if we raise taxes. We haven't shown that we can do that yet, there's tons of waste.

Treat taxes like an investment. I want to see where my money is going, what it's being used for, and how that is helping. Shouldn't we have the right to know that?

I agree. Everything should be transparent imo.

 

[Miggs]

I agree. Step 1 to fixing any budget problems is a full accounting of what is currently coming in and what is currently going out.

They have this. It's just not transparent and scrutinized by those with no vested interest and by vested, I mean, monetary or politicial.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I believe his was low because of the amount he donated to charity.

He is routinely among the least wealthy senators iirc

Donates about 4% of income to charity. That wouldn't account for it.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

A large assumption is that we'll spend all this money wisely if we raise taxes. We haven't shown that we can do that yet, there's tons of waste.

Treat taxes like an investment. I want to see where my money is going, what it's being used for, and how that is helping. Shouldn't we have the right to know that?

In theory yes, but answering all of these questions is incredibly hard. My profession in trying to measure the latter (how that is helping), and I can tell you that this is very, very hard and very, very expensive to do and to do well.

As an aside, I find it interesting that among the crowd constantly clamoring for treating government like a business and cutting waste,one is hard pressed to find many who apply the same standard to military spending, which is perhaps THE most wasteful area of government spending, and one which the same crowd consistently wants to increase, and increase, and increase absent any accountability for where the money is going, what it's being used for, and how that is helping.

BUT, when it comes to spending on social programs that benefit the less well off, Holy Crap but do they apply those stringent standards, and in spades.

 

[Stoked]

In theory yes, but answering all of these questions is incredibly hard. My profession in trying to measure the latter (how that is helping), and I can tell you that this is very, very hard and very, very expensive to do and to do well.

As an aside, I find it interesting that among the crowd constantly clamoring for treating government like a business and cutting waste,one is hard pressed to find many who apply the same standard to military spending, which is perhaps THE most wasteful area of government spending, and one which the same crowd consistently wants to increase, and increase, and increase absent any accountability for where the money is going, what it's being used for, and how that is helping.

BUT, when it comes to spending on social programs that benefit the less well off, Holy Crap but do they apply those stringent standards, and in spades.

Not in my experience. Those I talk to openly admit that there is huge waste in the military, especially the R&D arms. They often talk about how an "increase' would simply be from leaving military budget levels as is but eliminating waste and duplication.

Next big thing I hear about is foreign aid.