Is this the same bill thats going to unnatural carnal knowledge grad students like me?
Not going to make it through the senate. Who cares.Thoughts and prays to the bill
Thoughts and prays to the bill
If the tax proposals go through my tax bill will increase by approximately a net of $80,000. The state and local tax will hit hard and more than offset any benefit from rate changes.
Also I get hosed if I sell my residence as I will no longer benefit from the 500,000 cap gains exclusion.
Some day my kids will benefit from the estate tax changes .
If the tax proposals go through my tax bill will increase by approximately a net of $80,000. The state and local tax will hit hard and more than offset any benefit from rate changes.
Also I get hosed if I sell my residence as I will no longer benefit from the 500,000 cap gains exclusion.
Some day my kids will benefit from the estate tax changes .
If the tax proposals go through my tax bill will increase by approximately a net of $80,000. The state and local tax will hit hard and more than offset any benefit from rate changes.
Also I get hosed if I sell my residence as I will no longer benefit from the 500,000 cap gains exclusion.
Some day my kids will benefit from the estate tax changes .
Its almost like there's a connection between the location of the houses people want to buy and the blue states hit hardest by eliminating the SALT deduction.
If the tax proposals go through my tax bill will increase by approximately a net of $80,000. The state and local tax will hit hard and more than offset any benefit from rate changes.
Also I get hosed if I sell my residence as I will no longer benefit from the 500,000 cap gains exclusion.
Some day my kids will benefit from the estate tax changes .
The estate tax is one of the easiest taxes to avoid, that's why I know you are full of shat. No rich person worries about it, because it is joke, and not much more than a conservative rallying cry about a death tax.Uninformed people say that the estate tax is easy to avoid. At certain levels that is true. As you can create trust structures to use each spousal exclusion. Currently that can get you around 11 million. The house and senate plan extend that to 22 million , with the house plan having a complete phase out in 6 years. Above the exclusion amounts it gets tricky as you have to do things like create Family limited partnerships to transfer ownership and spend a fortune on life insurance trusts etc. Of course you can create a foundation and completely avoid the estate tax as as well, but in that case your heirs are just controlling which charities your wealth goes to rather than govt directing it.
GOP tax cuts are always based on the premise that massive tax relief for rich people will spur dramatic economic growth. The Bush tax cuts led to sluggish growth and then a precipitous crash. Companies did not use the money saved from tax cuts to hire workers; most increased their shareholders’ dividends and bought back their own stock.
Trump’s chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, was speaking at a CEO forum last week. He asked the executives to raise their hands if they would increase their capital investment if the tax cuts go through. Only a few hands went up.
“Why aren’t the other hands up?” Cohn asked, seemingly surprised. He should not have been surprised. Tax cuts rarely ignite investment and hiring. They mostly make the rich executives richer.
And as a bonus, they add to both the deficit and the debt.
Republicans hate legislation that adds to the deficit ... unless they're the ones pushing such legislation. Then, it's "deficits no matta."
^^^^ ban dis guy
Uninformed people say that the estate tax is easy to avoid. At certain levels that is true. As you can create trust structures to use each spousal exclusion. Currently that can get you around 11 million. The house and senate plan extend that to 22 million , with the house plan having a complete phase out in 6 years. Above the exclusion amounts it gets tricky as you have to do things like create Family limited partnerships to transfer ownership and spend a fortune on life insurance trusts etc. Of course you can create a foundation and completely avoid the estate tax as as well, but in that case your heirs are just controlling which charities your wealth goes to rather than govt directing it.
This bill is likely to slam the upper (kinda sorta but not really wealthy) class*, and as others have said, it's no surprise that most of those folks (yours truly) live in urban and conveniently liberal areas.
*One of the hardest thing for Americans to agree on with tax reform is where the class demarcation point is. I would imagine we are in the upper middle if you consider top line income, but take out student loans and daycare that enables that income, and my wife and I are looking at a much different scenario. It continues to bother me that the tax code takes a rather backwards view of education expenses in that respect, and this bill makes it worse (don't even get started on the tuition benefits taxation changes)
This bill discentivizes a lot of what we've been taught to invest in by getting rid of student loan interest and education in general, housing (albeit mostly in very high tax areas only, or the truly wealthy in rural areas).
Getting rid of personal deductions slams families with more kids, since all you get is the 12k for filing single or 24k for MFJ. The reduction in deductions makes it very difficult for us itemize, unless we withhold donations to a lump sum every few years. There is the child tax credit, but I BELIEVE we'd continue to phase out of that. Failure to expand the childcare savings incentive makes me think that ivanka isn't actually doing anything.
I'm all for reducing the corporate tax rate (28 seemed reasonable), but the hikes on the individual level should make it no secret who the beneficiaries are supposed to be. Reasonable, bipartisan tax cuts would have been possible without such an aggressive target that disregards the working class.
So I hope that the wealthy can enjoy all of their perks at the expense of people like me, both in life and in death (with stepped up basis!)
Yup.
Shame I'll probably have to drop out of grad school when/if this bill comes into effect. I rely heavily on the tuition credits.
So if mr. 999 is correct, his taxes and the wealthy people's taxes go up. I've ran the numbers for myself, and most of my friends that are middle, to middle-upper class all have their taxes going up. Granted, most people I know live in high tax states.
So who exactly are these people that are benefitting from this?
Private Universities lose big time. So do graduate students. So do many of the poor. Why are people supporting this bill?
So if mr. 999 is correct, his taxes and the wealthy people's taxes go up. I've ran the numbers for myself, and most of my friends that are middle, to middle-upper class all have their taxes going up. Granted, most people I know live in high tax states.
So who exactly are these people that are benefitting from this?
Private Universities lose big time. So do graduate students. So do many of the poor. Why are people supporting this bill?
I think Herman can be full of it at times, but he is spot on here. Especially if your assets are tied up in something illiquid like a family business.
Not going to make it through the senate. Who cares.
If the tax proposals go through my tax bill will increase by approximately a net of $80,000. The state and local tax will hit hard and more than offset any benefit from rate changes.
Also I get hosed if I sell my residence as I will no longer benefit from the 500,000 cap gains exclusion.
Some day my kids will benefit from the estate tax changes .
They're not.
This poll, released last week (most recent I could find), says 52% of Americans disapprove while 25% approve of GOP tax plans:I think a lot of those republicans are middle~upper middle class who have kids going into graduate studies and it will absolutely trash the children forcing the parents to pay.
The biggest surprise for me was that only 60% of Republicans polled approve; I would have thought it would have been much higher.
I disagree. Insurance trusts do not cost a fortune to set up and maintain. Tax avoidance planning for those with $20 million plus is not at all difficult. And it is easier to avoid taxes with an operating family business than it is with a liquid investment portfolio. And for the "super rich" ($100 million plus, let's say), even easier.You have a good point it's the willingness to play the game . Price of admission is lawyers accountants and insurance. Then relocating to no state estate tax domicile.
It is simply a question of whether you want to play the game or not (and pay a relatively small amount to accountants and lawyers to do so).
The folks who tend to pay the most relative to their net worth are those who are in the $5 (if unmarried) to $20 million range. Harder to plan with these "small" estates - people are less willing to give up putative control etc.
The lesser known concern I have with the House version is that it eliminates the Estate Tax AND keeps in place the step up in basis on death. Prior versions of bills eliminating the Estate Tax have generally either eliminated the step up in basis or treated death like a realization event and caused a tax on the "gain" at death. Say Herman Cain dies with a $100 million portfolio of highly appreciated stocks, with a cost basis of just $10 million. There would be no estate tax, and his heirs could sell the stock right after his death and owe no capital gains taxes on the $90 million gain.
You have a good point it's the willingness to play the game . Price of admission is lawyers accountants and insurance. Then relocating to no state estate tax domicile.
You are correct it's the losing of control of a good asset that makes it tricky. The step up issue is also a big one. That is one of the good aspects of the house bill.
One of the reason the estate tax is onerous is it disencentives long term thinking in businessman of a certain age and wealth . Why take the chance , and invest not only money but time on a transformational deal or Big project when the govt takes most upside and you are saddled with downside? At a certain stage you run out of years.
Why? The estate tax doesn't hit the person making the money it but rather the person receiving money without working for it (usually). It's a misconception. The person would be better off spending every last penny because then the money is actually used in the economy rather than hoarded by a few.
I don't quite understand why big donors spend so much money on donations, lobbying, and political ads. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just hold onto that money in the first place? I guess not since otherwise why do it.No, not at all. They are expecting HUGE payoffs on their investments. A few million up front for literally billions as a result? Easy decision.
I don't quite understand why big donors spend so much money on donations, lobbying, and political ads. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just hold onto that money in the first place? I guess not since otherwise why do it.
Had Brunch with a family that were strong Trump supporters. They are very against this plan. Mostly because of a combination of SALT and property tax changes (one of them works in the real estate industry).
Was very interesting to hear them tear this bill to shreds.
Though Trump's motivations for eliminating the SALT deduction are gross, the SALT deduction at best excuses and at worst encourages fiscal irresponsibility in local government and should be eliminated to force us to have a more honest conversation about the connection between tax rates and standards of living.
Voting for trump was an implicit endorsement of Paul Ryan's tax beliefs which have been widely known for nearly a decade. He has always disliked NJ/NY subsidizing their state tax burden on the back of the Federal Government.Which of course is an intentional deception on his part. NJ and NY pay far more in Federal taxes than they receive back.
Voting for trump was an implicit endorsement of Paul Ryan's tax beliefs which have been widely known for nearly a decade. He has always disliked NJ/NY subsidizing their state tax burden on the back of the Federal Government.
The guy in White House only asked that golf club ownership and commercial real estate retain their break. Every other break was in line to be chopped. This corporate tax cut legislation being drafted was common knowledge if you've paid some attention to the only reason Paul Ryan wakes up in the morning.
This is what they voted for last November.
Which of course is an intentional deception on his part. NJ and NY pay far more in Federal taxes than they receive back.
I very much doubt the average Trump voter is/was aware of Paul Ryan's tax beliefs, much less considered them for one iota when voting last November.^This
I very much doubt the average Trump voter is/was aware of Paul Ryan's tax beliefs, much less considered them for one iota when voting last November.
This just doesn't make sense. The states that have high local and state taxes offer more services, and are net payers into the federal tax system. Those states get less money back than they put in.
The states with low local and state taxes offer fewer services, that are largely financed by federal tax dollars. Meaning the people in high-tax states are funding the low tax states.
That would make the low tax states less fiscally responsible as they are taking money from others just to get by. This rewards them even more for doing that. Your's is not an unpopular opinion, its just a very inaccurate one.
You will not find me disagreeing with the notion that the American electorate is resoundingly ignorant.
Why? The estate tax doesn't hit the person making the money it but rather the person receiving money without working for it (usually). It's a misconception. The person would be better off spending every last penny because then the money is actually used in the economy rather than hoarded by a few.That doesn’t take into the risk it takes to make an outsized gain. Guys who build valuable enterprises look at risk reward and then decide what posture to take , aggressive or conservative. Every case is different . The business builder sees the govt as the ultimate no risk beneficiary of everything he/she does. At a certain point one just stops creating new value if the risk/reward posture is skewed. At a certain stage time is not in your favor.
JB, curious why you didn't advocate banning the previous posters. I waited to say a single word related to politics in this obviously political thread until numerous other posters - including you - did.
No. I stated a fact. That Obama's budget included the same thing as this topic is discussing. It's been brought forth before, including by the most recent President's regime.
What you do is stuff like this: "GOP tax cuts are always based on the premise that massive tax relief for rich people will spur dramatic economic growth.
Republicans hate legislation that adds to the deficit"
You're directing hyperbole and lies at a particular party (which I am not a member of, btw). It's obviously against the rules of the board and you know it. Yet love it, and try to equate it with someone noting that trying to remove the 80/20 rule has been done before and very recently.
Sad!
OK, you disagree with me. And you don't like politics here. I get it. I still don't get the general hostility toward me, even when the subject isn't politics. I'm a pretty good guy, a fellow alum, I'm not a troll, and I've certainly got nothing against you.
As for this thread, I clearly was not the initiator of the political discussion here. There were 21 comments before mine (not including my "in before the lock" post high up in the thread). Of those 21, at least a dozen were purely political. So I chimed in. And that is typical of the only times I have chimed in for quite some time now.
But you know what? I will try to show even more restraint in the future. For you, JB.
If we don't talk again, have a great Thanksgiving. Ring out Aloha! (trademark pending)
Aren't politics not supposed to happen here. Very inconsistent it appears. Is there a rule or is there not a rule? Inquiring minds want to know.
I wasn't talking to you. You've been banned.
What are you talking about?
Says here, POLITICS FREE ZONE http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=51888.0
Is it a free zone or isn't it?
Question about the SALT discussion, why is it assumed that higher SALT states are providing higher services? Additionally, if that logic is correct should that not make that state more attractive so why should a state that is already more attractive than a low SALT state also need a federal carve out on tax deduction?
Additionally, if that logic is correct should that not make that state more attractive so why should a state that is already more attractive than a low SALT state also need a federal carve out on tax deduction?
i will let this speak for itself-and he(44) didn't even give us a "tax cut"
"President Obama may talk a big game about economic fairness, but his record on the issue doesn’t quite match up."
"In other words, inequality has been even more pronounced under Obama than it was under George W. Bush."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/income-inequality-obama-bush_n_1419008.html
So this is my real axe to grind on this, as well. Let's have an honest discussion about how much it costs to have nice things. And lets also be as transparent as possible about which of those nice things are coming from the federal tax base, and which are coming from SALT. I think we have a lot of self-contained races to the bottom going on that have huge effects on standards of living, and the confusing morass of how things are paid for/administered between the feds and states has a lot to do with it.
It's almost as if governments(i.e. politicians) have incentive to not be forthcoming with their constituents. Weird
Exactly.
Just because a state or a city spends more money than another one, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is providing more value to its residents.
Pretty sure the folks in Nashville are getting just as much "stuff" from the government as the ones in Chicago (if not more), and while they have a similar sales tax rate, they have no state income tax and property taxes that are a fraction of those in Chicago.
Generally, those in red states get more "stuff" from the Feds while those in blue states get more from state government.
Question about the SALT discussion, why is it assumed that higher SALT states are providing higher services? Additionally, if that logic is correct should that not make that state more attractive so why should a state that is already more attractive than a low SALT state also need a federal carve out on tax deduction?
There is a reason that poverty, poor schools and poor health are much more prevalent in the states that are low SALT states. They provide fewer services.
It doesn't necessarily make states less attractive. Wealthy people get different access to healthcare, pay for private schools, and then feel less of a pinch. It is the poor that suffer from these policies.
So the question becomes, do you think we should take care of all americans, or just the ones that have lots of money?
Inequality has been steadily rising for the last 25 years. It will rise under trump. It will rise under his successor. And it will rise under his successor's successor even higher.
If you equate tax cuts as economic fairness the three Presidents who enacted the largest tax cuts in modern American history are Reagan, Truman, and Obama. So they must be economic warriors, right?
When you repeatedly go about lying it hampers any attempt to take you seriously as an individual.
Why is that? Is that something that should continue? Is this good or bad?
"When you repeatedly go about lying it hampers any attempt to take you seriously as an individual."
was this directed at me? not sure where the lying is as the article is from huffpo and all i did was grab a few quotes out of it to illustrate my point. it seems people(media) squeal the loudest when the one party wants to cut taxes and play the class warfare game. but when nearly a $trillion$ stimulus is enacted and the dude's cronies are laughing all the way to the bank-crickets? shovel ready jobs?
"“But the problem is,” he continued, “is that spending it out takes a long time, because there’s really nothing — there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects."
we'll put this one right up there with ya wanna keep your doc, etc etc
now this is lying
i will let this speak for itself-and he(44) didn't even give us a "tax cut"
The bolded is a lie claiming that Obama didn't pass tax cuts legislation during his eight years. In fact, he passed two pieces of legislation that cut taxes.
You wrote this lie in message #60 of this thread. It is a lie. And you know it is a lie. Yet you wrote the lie because that's how you roll. I understand that now. And I accept this inadequacy.
ok, wait...if i was wrong re:tax cuts obama proposed during his presidency, my bad and i stand corrected. i was referring to my post from huffpo you seemed to refer to as a lie which confused me
one thing now, if i was lying, it was inadvertent. ok, i'll just go ahead and say it-ignorance. just please don't throw the term "lie" out so cavalierly. a more political term would be "untruth, ein'a? if i were to try to stand by my remarks re: "tax cut"-yes, that would be a form of being purposely disingenuous and provocative to say the least. then, to double down on it would be lying i guess. it is NOT how i roll by the way
If you are genuinely uneducated as it relates to Obama's legislative record 10 months after his eight year administration finished I suggest you refrain from posting about what he did (and didn't) achieve until your level of knowledge is sufficient enough to be taken seriously. It will also help you gain much needed perspective as to the current tax cuts legislation being proposed.
It's a holiday weekend so there's plenty of time to fill in the gaps.
What's interesting is I've talked with 6 Trump supporters in the last week about this tax plan. All agree it is horrible, but say that it has zero chance of passing so its not a big deal.
What happens when/if this passes, with only 25% of americans approving of the plan?
What's interesting is I've talked with 6 Trump supporters in the last week about this tax plan. All agree it is horrible, but say that it has zero chance of passing so its not a big deal.
What happens when/if this passes, with only 25% of americans approving of the plan?
Well of course the stock market likes it. It benefits corporations. And yeah while I would agree that it also benefits those who own stock, much of that benefit is going to be whittled away via tax increases.
to add to that, 52% of Americans don't own stock.
well what the...that's no fair ::)
guess we're just gonna have to read it to find out what's in it-'ey? wait, where have i heard that one before ;)
to add to that, 52% of Americans don't own stock.
They don't pay income tax, either.
guess we're just gonna have to read it to find out what's in it-'ey? wait, where have i heard that one before ;)
the stock market seems to like it...anyone's 401k down this year? i think the dow is up about 30% since last nov. 4. doubt it would be up 10% if the alternative occured-oh well eyn'er?Gee, ya think? You think shoving massive gobs of borrowed cash to corporations -- whose CEO's overwhelming say they won't use it to expand or create jobs--might cause valuations to go up?
They don't pay income tax, either.Do you think this is a good tax bill?
guess we're just gonna have to read it to find out what's in it-'ey? wait, where have i heard that one before ;)You've distorted the quote even further than I typically see. Here, perhaps read this: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-context-behind-nancy-pelosis-famous-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-quote/
Do you think this is a good tax bill?
I don't understand this whataboutism.
So because it happened before (and I'm sure you didn't like it then), you're okay with it happening this time? Even if you support the tax proposal, shouldn't you (or anyone) have the same stance now as then?
absolutely not-i still don't know enough about it to even have my own personal opinion(like or dislike) just like many other things i have an opinion on, i don't think my congress people really care. yes, i do vote, but really? you have reached the office of...listen closely as our messages have recently changed. this call may be recorded for training purposes, press 1 for... blah blah
the stock market seems to like it...anyone's 401k down this year? i think the dow is up about 30% since last nov. 4. doubt it would be up 10% if the alternative occured-oh well eyn'er?
Yeah, rocket, the market has had an amazing rise since Trump was elected president - with the S&P 500 Index up 25.2% in that year+ a month.
And hey, that's only 4 points less than its gain during the same amount of time after the previous presidential election!
That's right. The S&P 500 Index went up 29.5% in the exact same number of days (387) after Obama was re-elected on Nov. 6, 2012.
Facts are fun, aye'nahey'na?!?!
Although I have a feeling that President Factless would take credit for the post-2012-election gain, too, if one of his aides told him about it.
(I used the calculator and DividendChannel.com; gain is with dividends reinvested. https://www.dividendchannel.com/drip-returns-calculator/)
one of my portfolios-from 2012 to nov. 2016 shows 30% increase.
nov. 2016-nov. 2017...ummm, 84% increase!!
my brother in law who votes the other way is making a $hit ton of $$ i mean think buy a really really nice house money...in one year! yes. i realize it's a long way to 2020-2024, but some of these gains can be realized in safer havens to lock in the gains if one is concerned about chill
Heres the problem, partisanship...from both sides.With all due respect mu03eng, I disagree. I think the "both sides" argument is a cop-out. Both sides certainly do not do, at least not whatsoever to the same degree.
With all due respect mu03eng, I disagree. I think the "both sides" argument is a cop-out. Both sides certainly do not do, at least not whatsoever to the same degree.
Example: During the passage of the ACA, 188 amendments proposed by Republicans were adopted into the final bill. During both the attempt to repeal and the current tax bill, 0 Democratic amendments have been included. The final ACA had 25 days of debate on the floor. There will be zero for the tax bill.
I disagree that both sides are (equally) to blame when it is clearly an asymmetrical issue.
With all due respect mu03eng, I disagree. I think the "both sides" argument is a cop-out. Both sides certainly do not do, at least not whatsoever to the same degree.
Example: During the passage of the ACA, 188 amendments proposed by Republicans were adopted into the final bill. During both the attempt to repeal and the current tax bill, 0 Democratic amendments have been included. The final ACA had 25 days of debate on the floor. There will be zero for the tax bill.
I disagree that both sides are (equally) to blame when it is clearly an asymmetrical issue.
Exactly correct.
To say both sides are deeply flawed and bear some responsibility would be accurate. To say both sides are equally to blame for the state of Washington today is the kind whataboutism that mu03eng derides.
It's like comparing Al Franken to Roy Moore. Yeah, both are guilty of skeezy behavior toward females, but they're not the same.
Care to point where I said the sides were equally to blame? Much like the Franken/Moore example.....both can be awful and inexcusable but I can also be madder about one then the other, we are capable as human beings of the complexity of thought. Saying "I'm bad but not as bad as them" is part of the whataboutism. Both parties are obstructive, partisan, and beholden to special interests...what degree that is true or who is worse is somewhat irrelevant.You did not explicitly say "they are equally to blame", I agree. When you say "Heres the problem, partisanship...from both sides", however, it is easy to draw that conclusion.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/16/luis-gutierrez/rep-gutierrez-says-hundreds-republican-amendments-/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/16/luis-gutierrez/rep-gutierrez-says-hundreds-republican-amendments-/)Here is what I pulled from:
They don't pay income tax, either.
Here is what I pulled from:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/21/us/health-care-amendments.html
So much for the hard-line stance on not increasing deficit, eh?
honest question-
if the decrease in the corp. tax rate from 35% to 20% becomes law, will that bring corp. money from overseas? and if so, would that not affect the deficit? some of the money coming back would be taxed at differing rates i believe. there may be windows, incentives, etc. also, if this were to occur regardless, there will be a flood of money back circulation which should indirectly affect the deficit, no?
would have been really really nice to see the corp. rate be retroactive cuz daddy's got a sweet tooth tonight ;D
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/26/what-happened-the-last-time-companies-got-a-break-on-overseas-profits.html
"Back in 2004, Congress approved a plan to "repatriate" such overseas funds that companies could bring back home at a reduced rate.
The program was part of the American Jobs Creation Act. The hope then, as now, was that companies would shovel that money back into the economy in the form of investment and job creation.
It didn't quite work out that way.
Contrary to the intent, the benefits skewed toward a select few companies in a select few industries. Rather than use the money for hiring and capital purchases, companies plowed the cash into share buybacks and dividends, and many of the biggest beneficiaries actually cut American jobs in the years after the repatriation.
"While empirical evidence is clear that this provision resulted in a significant increase in repatriated earnings, empirical evidence is unable to show a corresponding increase in domestic investment or employment," the Congressional Research Service, Congress' nonpartisan think tank, said in a report.
The CRS cited a series of reports into the benefits of repatriation, with a common theme that the 2004 program was "an ineffective means of increasing economic growth."
Corporations are not evil. They do exactly what they are supposed to do - look out for their own self-interest.
But they're also rarely going to be benevolent.
I'm done being shocked when they are given a break by our government and turn around and stab those same people in the back.
It's a convenient talking point when you want to say no to something....otherwise it's just inconvenient.
I have little doubt that after this is passed, they'll do a about-face and claim they need to gut services (Medicare, etc) to try and control the deficit again.
So much for the hard-line stance on not increasing deficit, eh?
One truth about American politics: Only the party out of power whines about increasing the deficit.
I have little doubt that after this is passed, they'll do a about-face and claim they need to gut services (Medicare, etc) to try and control the deficit again.
little doubt? really?
who is they? only if they hate their day job-one of the 3rd rails of politics. but i'd love to see a little more
pragmatism and discipline(ok, excuse me while i catch my breath from laughing)
I have little doubt that after this is passed, they'll do a about-face and claim they need to gut services (Medicare, etc) to try and control the deficit again.Rubio admitted it two days ago.
funny thing, well not LOL funny, but have we ever made a payment off of our debt? like we have to with ours? i realize we can run an occasional deficit, but debt? try not paying your taxes for a few years. just ask mr. caponeIt depends on which accounting rules you use, but Clinton kinda sorta did.
i had to look twice to see if that was you MU. you sure one of your kids ain't messing around on your computer?
Then there's this.
Maybe it needs to go in the Daily Dose of Doom Thread?
I’m a Depression historian. The GOP tax bill is straight out of 1929.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/30/im-a-depression-historian-the-gop-tax-bill-is-straight-out-of-1929/?utm_term=.16d5fdb8b50a
I thought this was a good article.
It is pretty incredible how many times "trickle down" is tried and repeatedly fails to succeed
My wife's response was "well, this is exactly what everyone who wanted Trump voted for, might as well let them have it."
I don't understand this. Seriously.
Then again, I often don't know what you're saying.
Don't forget these things that were snuck in the "tax plan":
-Life is considered to have begun at conception
-Churches can publicly endorse candidates
-Phd students must pay taxes on waived tuition
-ACA mandate pulled, 13 million people will lose insurance, premiums up 10%