Everything you've heard from the Congressional Republicans and especially from the POTUS about the tax bill is a LIE.
This tax bill is a gift to Republican billionaire donors. If you're age 65 or older, your taxes are going up, and eventually your Medicare and Medicaid coverage will shrink.
This is not a tax break for the middle class or the poor, it is a gift to the 1%.
18 comments:
If the GOP is so convinced that their precious tax cuts are going to rev up the economy and cause already insanely profitable companies to hire more people, against the wishes of their boards, why not put their money where their mouths are?
Put some triggers in the legislation.
If after 18 months we do not see the promised growth in the economy and a lower deficit, then corporations lose their tax cut and we see increases on incomes above $250,000 to a level that will fund the government and lower the deficit.
I mean, these guys can't possibly be wrong about the tax cuts leading to growth and lower deficits can they?
Some Republicans object to triggers because they would make future taxes unpredictable, and businesses want a stable and predictable environment to plan future hiring and investment. It's actually a valid point -- but that just means they need to make sure their tax program will indeed have the desired results before they pass it. And while their economic "theories" always say tax cuts will stimulate growth, the actual evidence says otherwise. Taxes on the rich have been trending downward since Eisenhower, and so has economic growth. Since the time of Reagan, as taxes on the rich have continued to drop, wages have stagnated even as productivity has soared, because most of the growth is siphoned off by the very wealthiest. Thet's how we got such a staggering level of inequality. Kansas, too, shows that tax cuts don't produce growth, they just produce budget shortfalls and crises.
Actually tax cuts stimulate the economy more to the extent that they're targeted at the lowest income levels (and actual disbursements work even better). Poor people usually have things they've been putting off buying because they can't afford them, so if they suddenly have more money, they spend it quickly and that stimulates the economy. Rich people who have more money tend to invest it, not spend it. And no matter how much you cut a corporation's taxes, it won't hire more people unless it sees an increase in demand for its products.
As the post says, this tax plan is just a giveaway to rich political donors who want to see a return on their campaign-contribution investment. It won't help the economy and isn't intended to.
Can someone here please explain why those on the left feel so much dislike for Americans with wealth?
Who should get the largest tax break? Maybe it is the under 50% of those who do not pay FIT or should it be the ones who contribute 80% of taxes paid. Does it benefit the rich more than the poor, yes but they pay the most so of course they would benefit the most. The Fair Tax would benefit everyone but it would strip congress from the power to use the punitive tax code to punish the successful. When did making over 250k become a bad thing and why should they be punished them by raising their already outrages taxes because they are successful.
The Fair Tax, eliminating all deductions would benefit everyone and would take away the loop hole of deductions from the "rich". Corporations pass through taxes so that is a moot point. We are already seeing growth just because of the rumor of a tax break. I believe we should totally overhaul the tax code where you could file your taxes on a post card and pay a percentage of your income even if you are a church or charitable organization. If we took away the charitable tax break people would give because they want to not because it is a tax break for the Rich.
From VOX: The Senate’s tax bill is a sweeping change to every part of federal health care
It slashes Medicare by billions and will leave millions without insurance.
Can someone tell me why Republican politicians want to give tax breaks to billionaires and take health care away from poor people and seniors? Is it just me or does this sound like something we'd hear about a Banana Republic?
"The Senate tax bill is really a health care bill with major implications for more than 100 million Americans who rely on the federal government for their health insurance.
The bill reaches into every major American health care program: Medicaid, Medicare, and the Obamacare marketplaces.
These are expected outcomes based on two significant policy changes in the bill. First, the bill repeals the individual mandate, a key piece of Obamacare that requires most Americans get covered. Economists expect its elimination to reduce enrollment in both the Affordable Care Act’s private marketplaces and Medicaid by millions. The money saved will be pumped into tax cuts for the very wealthy.
The bill also includes tax cuts so large that they would trigger across-the-board spending cuts — including billions for Medicare. The last time Medicare was hit with cuts like this, patients lost access to critical services like chemotherapy treatment."
Can someone tell me how taking funds away from people undergoing chemotherapy is good for America?
This is personal for me!
Shouldn't an economy be shaped like a pyramid? One with a strong base enjoying the rewards of its labors?
Having spent a life involved with management and decision making I echo Infidel when he talks about business wants stability and predictability. Lower taxes has nothing to do with stability however. Demand does. When the base of the pyramid can afford more growth and stability is greater.
Interesting stuff.
Can someone tell me how taking funds away from people undergoing chemotherapy is good for America?
The US is the only advanced country where this kind of thing still happens. The question for Republicans is why they want this embarrassing and tragic situation to continue.
Is it just me or does this sound like something we'd hear about a Banana Republic?
I'm not sure if Costa Rica would be described as a "banana republic", but they have universal health coverage and maintain taxes to pay for it (and thus have better health outcomes than the US, including a longer life expectancy). So thanks to Republican priorities, the US cannot yet claim to be as civilized as a banana republic in this area.
From The Week:
Senate Republicans started the clock for a final vote on their tax plan Wednesday evening, but among the unresolved demands from GOP waverers is a provision to prevent the bill from adding up to $1.5 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years. No serious analysis has suggested the growth from slashing taxes for corporations and other businesses would make up that shortfall, and Republicans haven't offered any evidence. At a Politico Playbook forum on Wednesday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said that cutting taxes needs to be followed by cutting spending on popular federal programs.
"I analyze this very differently than most," Rubio said. "Many argue that you can't cut taxes because it will drive up the deficit. But we have to do two things. We have to generate economic growth which generates revenue, while reducing spending. That will mean instituting structural changes to Social Security and Medicare for the future." He suggested reducing benefits and raising the retirement age for future retirees, so people can prepare for the changes.
Isn't it curious that the GOP always goes after the elderly, the poor, the sick to offset their gifts to the billionaires.
The people who voted for Trump are going to be hit with Rubio's "resturcturing" scam.
Mind you, none of the Congressional cads who are looking forward to undercutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, will be impacted by this scam.
The GOP has always been for the wealthy in this country and against anything that benefits the less fortunate.
Skud asked... "When did making over 250k become a bad thing and why should they be punished them by raising their already outrages taxes because they are successful?"
Skud, making over 250K is not a bad thing and no liberal believes ppl that do should be punished.
Many of us do believe in the concept of "To whom much is given, much is expected."
I think when people hear of raising taxes, there's a bit of a misunderstanding. If someone makes $251K, no one is asking for a high tax rate on the entire amount. What they are saying is that on the amount above 250K, or 1,000 doilars, they should pay a higher rate.
Why should anyone have a problem with that concept? Pick an amount that we believe an average person can live on, increase by some percentage, and call it good. After that, for the good of society, tax a major portion of that persons income, for the good of our country as a whole. just as it was during the Eisenhower Admin when individual top rates were 91%.
But these are just disagreements on policy. Libs don't hate rich people as many conservatives claim and do not think they are bad people just because they are rich, or make tons of money. And few of us believe they should be punished. Should they pay a higher rate of taxes? Of course they should.
And American leaders have agreed since the 1700's when we first instituted the estate tax, when many of conservatives vaunted Founding Fathers were still around to object.
This was from an interview with Senator Charles Grassley yesterday on npr on why he supports the tax bill:
GRASSLEY: "I suppose to show appreciation for people that have lived frugally early in their life, delayed spending so they could save. It seems to me there ought to be some incentive and reward for those who work and save and invest in America as opposed to those who just live from day to day. You could take the same hundred-thousand-dollar income for two people - one of them, they spend it, have it all spent at the end of the year and the others have saved a fourth of it and invested and create jobs and leave something for the future. The first person leaves nothing for the future."
Good lord did he make my blood boil as I was listening driving home from work. Would he ever think that a couple making $100,000, especially living in the DC area would have no choice but to spend it all just to pay the friggin bills! Listen, I live in the DC area, am single and make between $60-70,000 a year and it is a definite struggle. I might go out to dinner 3-4 times a YEAR, if that. I drive a 14 year old car that I'm praying keeps going for another 5 years, cannot afford wifi at home, etc. But according to Chuck I should be saving a quarter of my income to invest in others. Talk about out of touch...
Possumlady
Increasing the deficit has never been a real concern for either party because we just print more and borrow more so problem solved. The repugs are backed into a wall because they promised a tax cut and they know the dems will take the senate next year so time is running out.
During the obama years, all eight of them, businesses didn't expand or invest in the US because they were never certain what the administration was going to do. Now we have an administration that doesn't know what they are going to do so everyone is in a panic.
Obamacare has turned into a horrible mess and needs to be radically changed. The fear mongers that ten million will lose health insurance if we eliminate the mandate is a lie. People will be able to choose what they want and not be forced to. Even with mandates only 30% of eligible people took Obamacare so how effective is that. The liberals will only be satisfied when we go to universal healthcare and provide mediocre care for all.
Maybe we could provide more benefits if we required anyone who can work do and reinvest the billions spent on supporting illegals to supporting citizens. Little is said about the cost of illegal immigration.
Speaking of lies...
The fish rots from the top.
Michael Flynn, former head of the Trump Security Council will plead guilty today to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian government on behalf of the Trump Campaign and Admin. Also noted is that there was yet another previously undisclosed meeting between Flynn and the Russian Ambassador.
And all the trump Campaign had to do was say "Yes, we had contacts with the Russian Government both during the campaign and transition period."
I wonder why they did not just do that and avoid this whole dustup?
Maybe the myriad of former Law and Order conservative voters can tell us...
@skud -- Maybe it is the under 50% of those who do not pay FIT or should it be the ones who contribute 80% of taxes paid.
------------
skud,skud,skud you've been listening to too much rabies radio or watching too much Faux News.
Federal income taxes (progressive) and payroll taxes (not progressive) contribute roughly equally to the treasury. So this 80% figure is smoke.
In fact when you include sales taxes, gas tax and various excise taxes, the American tax system is more regressive than not.
Do you see any problem with the idea that people should be taxed roughly in proportion to the amount of wealth they control? I know there would be less money available to form equity bubbles but overall don't you think the nation would be better off?
Ducky... what would you expect from the crowd that elected a billionaire "populist" who ran on a platform of reforming the system so as to empower the poor folks?
We're gonna be seeing a lot of spin to somehow make this Tax Reform giveaway sound like a gift to the ever shrinking middle class.
How long before the dupes figure out they've been played? And when they do, do you think they'll turn on him then? Or will they happily follow him off the cliff pledging fealty to his ridiculous notion that taking restoring the gilded age is Making America Great Again?
I'd like to edit my first sentence in saying that what I quoted was just one of the reasons that Grassley was voting for the tax bill. I want to be careful to not become one of "those" people that might take something out of context or only report one part of the interview.
Thanks,
Possumlady
Well, Dave, they're constantly reminding us what a great business man he is. Neglecting the fact that he declared bankruptcy so often that only Russian oligarchs would loan him money.
He knows what's best and they will follow him right over the cliff. To admit they got suckered threatens the foundation of their belief system.
Duck,
The tax reform has nothing to do with sales tax and other regressive taxes. You do realize that the "rich" do pay more taxes than the non "rich". I am disappointed eliminating the carried interest is off the table but it has yet to be signed after all it is income and should be taxed as such. On the other side Charities and Churches should be taxed but that won't happen. How about The Fair Tax system solving the inequity of our tax system.
I am not disappointed in the Democrat response about any tax break which hasn't changed in decades. The only thing that pleases the democrats in congress is to raise taxes so they can give more away. Wasn't obamacare a huge tax increase for the middle class and look at how effective that has been.
So, the Tax Bill to Benefit the Rich and Corporations was rammed through with last minute deals and changes under the cover of darkness.
Bravo GOP. You have short memories, the public won't. Bring on 2018.
Post a Comment