So despite liberal hysteria that all it was going to do, was make it easier for the wealthy to slaughter the poor and confiscate their meager possessions...what I see is some of the largest companies in the nation (Wells Fargo, Boeing, Comcast, AT&T) announce things like:

increasing minimum wage to $15
bonuses to non-executives
commitments to investing in growth, training, and job creation
increases in charitable giving

Oh, the horror!

I watched half-beast Rachael Maddow do a 15 minute segment on the growth of income inequality, as if conservatives strive for income inequality and liberals can contain it.

When the economy grows, I'm not sure income inequality can fail to increase. Because the wealthy have much more disposable income, they have a lot more money invested in things (like stocks and small businesses) that increase in value when the stock market increases. So if the stock market goes up 20% this year, that's great for me, but it's better for Warren Buffet, because he has zillions in the market and I don't. So it increases the difference between his net worth and my net worth.

And you know what? I have zero reason to give a damn about that. I say good for him. And it's also good for me. Because I know he's not going to bury that money he made, nor is he going to burn it. Eventually, he's going to pay some taxes with it, he's going to spend some, he's going to invest some, he's going to put some in the bank, he's going to give some to charity. ALL of that is good for the country.

It's not exactly "fair", I guess, that income inequality increases as the economy grows. But it's not inherently bad either. If Warren Buffet makes another million today, despite what liberals claim, that does not mean there's a million less for the rest of us to scrounge for. Aggregate wealth is not finite, it's not like a pizza. One person's wealth does not cause anyone else's poverty (very rare exceptions like crooks).

This may harm the country if it adds a lot to the debt, that is a question that can't be answered yet. But all the liberals who said this would only benefit the rich? Tell that to 200,000 AT&T employees who are getting a $1,000 Christmas bonus. 200,000 Americans can now pay cash for their Christmas presents. If that's not a good thing, I don't know what is. Good for them.

$1000 bonuses to be paid next week, IF bill is signed before Christmas. There is a very good chance it won't be signed before Christmas, as doing so will trigger a partial shutdown of Medicare.....

I am a little bit cynical of the bill as there is so much buried in it. Like the limitations on Medicare. And why 21% rate for corporations? When 25% would have still gone the distance to invigorate the economic engine? And why should the personal income tax benefits not be permanent like the corporate ones are? Who knows? They have gone all in with this notion of the economic boom the new law will generate to provide the dollars to close the deficit.... Both sides using smoke and mirrors. No one telling it straight. And that is what grates me the most.

The tax bill won’t be signed and sealed until February so that Medicare won’t be defunded until after midterm elections.

Think about that for a while.

But thank god that they are gonna build that wall to protect us.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The weeks leading up to this my RI reps were telling me the promised GOP tax break was a lie - it would be bad for me as someone in the Middle Class - my taxes would be increasing. Now they are dialing it back and telling me yes you will get a tax break but not as much as your rich neighbor. I'll wait for my first check in February and let you know who is telling the truth.

Jim, shiny!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The tax bill won’t be signed and sealed until February so that Medicare won’t be defunded until after midterm elections.

Think about that for a while.

But thank god that they are gonna build that wall to protect us.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What midterm elections? The ones in November 2018? How will waiting until February 2018 to sign impact primaries in March thru June?? For a November Election?

The weeks leading up to this my RI reps were telling me the promised GOP tax break was a lie - it would be bad for me as someone in the Middle Class - my taxes would be increasing. Now they are dialing it back and telling me yes you will get a tax break but not as much as your rich neighbor. I'll wait for my first check in February and let you know who is telling the truth.

You mean you are not gonna die?

Jim, shiny!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hahaha

The weeks leading up to this my RI reps were telling me the promised GOP tax break was a lie - it would be bad for me as someone in the Middle Class - my taxes would be increasing. Now they are dialing it back and telling me yes you will get a tax break but not as much as your rich neighbor. I'll wait for my first check in February and let you know who is telling the truth.


Enjoy your savings of a couple grand while the recession is triggered from people who will be effected negatively by this stop spending. Just wait and see what happens when all of the personal bankruptcies happen due to medical bills. And when the recession causes the stock market to tank, enjoy watching 20 to 30% of your life savings evaporate.

Your logic is like watching the glee from the kid who just bent over to pick up a $20 bill on ththe sidewalk only to walk right into a telephone pole.

Enjoy your savings of a couple grand while the recession is triggered from people who will be effected negatively by this stop spending. Just wait and see what happens when all of the personal bankruptcies happen due to medical bills. And when the recession causes the stock market to tank, enjoy watching 20 to 30% of your life savings evaporate.

Your logic is like watching the glee from the kid who just bent over to pick up a $20 bill on ththe sidewalk only to walk right into a telephone pole.


As opposed to bending over to pick up a 20 and having someone else take 50 out of your wallet while not looking. Now they are only taking 32.50 when you bend over

Enjoy your savings of a couple grand while the recession is triggered from people who will be effected negatively by this stop spending. Just wait and see what happens when all of the personal bankruptcies happen due to medical bills. And when the recession causes the stock market to tank, enjoy watching 20 to 30% of your life savings evaporate.

Your logic is like watching the glee from the kid who just bent over to pick up a $20 bill on ththe sidewalk only to walk right into a telephone pole.

Did any of that happen when Bill Clinton cut taxes? Or is only a catastrophe when a Republican president cuts taxes?

As opposed to bending over to pick up a 20 and having someone else take 50 out of your wallet while not looking. Now they are only taking 32.50 when you bend over

I think you need to evaluate who “they” are.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The weeks leading up to this my RI reps were telling me the promised GOP tax break was a lie - it would be bad for me as someone in the Middle Class - my taxes would be increasing. Now they are dialing it back and telling me yes you will get a tax break but not as much as your rich neighbor. I'll wait for my first check in February and let you know who is telling the truth.

The rich will make out better than the rest of us, that's the way the math works. That doesn't mean that regular folks won't benefit.

Did any of that happen when Bill Clinton cut taxes? Or is only a catastrophe when a Republican president cuts taxes?
Macroeconomics Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Macroeconomics Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Common sense, elementary school arithmetic, and honesty, Spence.

Common sense, elementary school arithmetic, and honesty, Spence.

Is that your resume ? 😂😂😆
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is that your resume ? ������
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well if it is, he is ahead of the kids coming out of college with a $200k degree in Gender Studies

Well if it is, he is ahead of the kids coming out of college with a $200k degree in Gender Studies

agreed.

Well if it is, he is ahead of the kids coming out of college with a $200k degree in Gender Studies

Ha, not sure you saw that Easthampton schools have determined the word freshman to be offensive. It will be replaced with first year student. This is the America that some of our progressive and liberal members long for. What a country!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ha, not sure you saw that Easthampton schools have determined the word freshman to be offensive. It will be replaced with first year student. This is the America that some of our progressive and liberal members long for. What a country!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
A public high school in Massachusetts is asking students to stop using the word “freshmen.”

did you read this on turtle boy : their lead Easthampton High School Kids Can’t Use The Word “Freshman” Any More Because It Offends The Gender And Sexuality Alliance Group..




are you disappointed in an inclusive America ??? nothing here is forced its in a handbook..

change with the times or be a dinosaur the gender thing is real and not going to go away a

from the actual ap story

Easthampton High School will transition the official language to “first year students” and ask students to use that phrase, WWLP reported Thursday. The decision came after a school’s Gender and Sexuality Alliance Group recommended the school handbook use gender-neutral language.

Free speech rights still reign, and students may continue to use the word “freshman” if desired, Easthampton Superintendent Nancy Follansbee said in a statement.

not sure how this applies to Taxes

A public high school in Massachusetts is asking students to stop using the word “freshmen.” any use of any word which contains the word man or men should be considered a microaggression

are you disappointed in an inclusive America ??? sometimes

change with the times or be a dinosaur the gender thing is real and not going to go away yes, at this rate we will have hundreds of gender identities to sort through in short order



Easthampton High School will transition the official language to “first year students” [COLOR="Red"]and ask students to use that phrase,.



I object to the word "first"...it could be taken to imply that one or some students are better than others...they need to find more "number neutral" language to truly be "inclusive"

A public high school in Massachusetts is asking students to stop using the word “freshmen.”

did you read this on turtle boy : their lead Easthampton High School Kids Can’t Use The Word “Freshman” Any More Because It Offends The Gender And Sexuality Alliance Group..




are you disappointed in an inclusive America ??? nothing here is forced its in a handbook..

change with the times or be a dinosaur the gender thing is real and not going to go away a

from the actual ap story

Easthampton High School will transition the official language to “first year students” and ask students to use that phrase, WWLP reported Thursday. The decision came after a school’s Gender and Sexuality Alliance Group recommended the school handbook use gender-neutral language.

Free speech rights still reign, and students may continue to use the word “freshman” if desired, Easthampton Superintendent Nancy Follansbee said in a statement.

not sure how this applies to Taxes

As usual you didn't understand the context of why I posted the story. But I will dumb it down for you. When tdf was talking about gender studies, I thought I would post a humorous example of the far reaching righteousness of our progressive educators. Nothing more,nothing less.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s funny that the gender fags want to limit other people’s freedom of speech and ignore their first amendment rights. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I read an interesting story the other day about a woman who had married a man who sort of identified as a woman and dressed the part, she was upset that she felt real lesbians were labeling her a "fake lesbian" because her wife was actually a dude dressed up as a chick....

I read an interesting story the other day about a woman who had married a man who sort of identified as a woman and dressed the part, she was upset that she felt real lesbians were labeling her a "fake lesbian" because her wife was actually a dude dressed up as a chick....

seems legit.

Oh my
RIP #^&#^&#^&#^& Enberg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh my
RIP #^&#^&#^&#^& Enberg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How was the spa pizza last week?

seems legit.

there is nothing that is no longer "legit" :laugha:


It’s easy to laugh at a grown man in a rubber dog suit chewing on a squeaky toy. Maybe too easy, in fact, because to laugh is to dismiss it, denigrate it – ignore the fact that many of us have found comfort and joy in pretending to be animals at some point in our lives.

Secret Life of the Human Pups is a sympathetic look at the world of pup play, a movement that grew out of the BDSM community and has exploded in the last 15 years as the internet made it easier to reach out to likeminded people. While the pup community is a broad church, human pups tend to be male, gay, have an interest in dressing in leather, wear dog-like hoods, enjoy tactile interactions like stomach rubbing or ear tickling, play with toys, eat out of bowls and are often in a relationship with their human “handlers”.

In the documentary, we see Tom, AKA Spot, take part in the Mr Puppy Europe competition in Antwerp, a mix of beauty pageant, talent show and Crufts; David, AKA Bootbrush, talk to camera in a leather dog mask; two pups walk through London pretending to wee on lampposts to raise awareness of their identity; and lots of men jumping up for “treats”, barking and wagging their mechanical tails.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/may/25/secret-life-of-the-human-pups-the-men-who-live-as-dogs

I think you need to evaluate who “they” are.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
They being the elected theives of both parties.


Is that your resume ? 😂😂😆
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Kinda - he is a professional accountant, no?

Well if it is, he is ahead of the kids coming out of college with a $200k degree in Gender Studies

200k debt in Gender Studies / Advanced Barista Tech

I read an interesting story the other day about a woman who had married a man who sort of identified as a woman and dressed the part, she was upset that she felt real lesbians were labeling her a "fake lesbian" because her wife was actually a dude dressed up as a chick....

Where was that transitioning girl from a few years ago that was upset that other boys were not interested in her during or after transitioning? Not making a joke or snark. Generally interested in how it went.

I don't care if someone is gay / whatever - do what you want. Don't ask me to jump for joy for you or vote you Homecoming King/Queen. Don't ask, don't care.

I’ll say this again. Trump is not signing this tax bill until 2018 so that when the cards fall, it will happen after the 2019 elections. Why would he do this if this is such a gift to all Americans?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How was the spa pizza last week?

Never made it Paul, life got in the way. It hasn't been great since 1985 to be honest. I am a Lynwood cafe guy for the most part
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’ll say this again. Trump is not signing this tax bill until 2018 so that when the cards fall, it will happen after the 2019 elections. Why would he do this if this is such a gift to all Americans?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

great question...:hihi:

President Donald Trump signed his tax cut bill on Friday morning in the Oval Office with little fanfare in his final order of business before the start of his Christmas holiday away from the White House.

Calling it 'the biggest tax cut, the biggest reform of all time' he said 'the numbers will speak' for themselves when taxpayers start to see results.

'I think it's selling itself,' Trump said of the landmark legislation. 'It's becoming very popular. You'll see something on February 1 when they open up the paycheck.'

Rather than holding an elaborate signing ceremony in early January, he said he rushed to turn the bill into law before December 25 to honor a pledge to make tax cuts his Christmas present to the American people.

Ok. glad to hear this. :lm:

As usual you didn't understand the context of why I posted the story. But I will dumb it down for you. When tdf was talking about gender studies, I thought I would post a humorous example of the far reaching righteousness of our progressive educators. Nothing more,nothing less.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is actually pretty common across the country. Doesn't seem to much much of an issue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’ll say this again. Trump is not signing this tax bill until 2018 so that when the cards fall, it will happen after the 2019 elections. Why would he do this if this is such a gift to all Americans?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got any other predictions?

Got any other predictions?

You will post more about your fascination with gays and liberals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You will post more about your fascination with gays and liberals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And Hillary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is actually pretty common across the country. Doesn't seem to much much of an issue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Its dopey and offensive to anybody with common sense,which is why I am not surprised you consider it to be acceptable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got any other predictions?

2018
I suspect the Dems will pick up some house and senate seats. Rumors of lots of women in both parties invigorated, running or supporting women running. Possibly flipping the senate to dems, but not flipping the house.

2020
Donald will get primaried from inside the GOP
Not a clue who runs for the dems. We’ll see after 2018 who emerges.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And Hillary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who? That nut doing infomercials for her book? Is she still around?

2018
I suspect the Dems will pick up some house and senate seats. Rumors of lots of women in both parties invigorated, running or supporting women running. Possibly flipping the senate to dems, but not flipping the house.

2020
Donald will get primaried from inside the GOP
Not a clue who runs for the dems. We’ll see after 2018 who emerges.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

2018: in the senate, the GOP could not have better hand-picked which seats are up for re-election. There are twice as many democrats up for re-election as republicans. And I believe there is one Republican up for re election in a state that Hilary won, and 8 or 9 democrats up in states that Trump won. It would take a major event for the democrats to pick up seats in the senate. And that could happen.

You may be right in the house. Or, if the Dow is at 30,000, unemployment is at 3%, and 80% of Americans are actually seeing a small bump in their net take home pay, they might remember that not a single democrat voted for any of that. That's the gamble with tax reform. It's why the democrats are scared sh*tless of that bill.

In 2020 I think Trump steps down, and Pence runs, hopefully with Nikki Haley. Unless God answers my prayers and Condaleeza Rice steps up. Lie-awatha will run for the Democats, maybe Sanders too. Can't see anyone else on the horizon, Chris Murphy (God help us) maybe...

2018: in the senate, the GOP could not have better hand-picked which seats are up for re-election. There are twice as many democrats up for re-election as republicans. And I believe there is one Republican up for re election in a state that Hilary won, and 8 or 9 democrats up in states that Trump won. It would take a major event for the democrats to pick up seats in the senate. And that could happen.

You may be right in the house. Or, if the Dow is at 30,000, unemployment is at 3%, and 80% of Americans are actually seeing a small bump in their net take home pay, they might remember that not a single democrat voted for any of that. That's the gamble with tax reform. It's why the democrats are scared sh*tless of that bill.

In 2020 I think Trump steps down, and Pence runs, hopefully with Nikki Haley. Unless God answers my prayers and Condaleeza Rice steps up. Lie-awatha will run for the Democats, maybe Sanders too. Can't see anyone else on the horizon, Chris Murphy (God help us) maybe...

You are not wrong on the senate, but even if it falls on the same lines one or two seats either way are huge. If Bannon gets involved and makes the gop voters divisive, all bets are off...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are not wrong on the senate, but even if it falls on the same lines one or two seats either way are huge. If Bannon gets involved and makes the gop voters divisive, all bets are off...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unless the economy crashes or we have a 9/11 event, I fail to see how the GOP doesn’t pick up senate seats. There are a few democrats up for re election in states that trump won by double digits. It’s just a horrible set of seats that happen to be up for re election, from the democrat perspective. It’s as if the gop hand picked which seats would be up.

As usual, you make an astute point about Bannon. He could screw the whole thing up.

There are several democrat senators who won purple states in 2012, largely because they rode Obamas coat tails. He can’t help them in 2018. And that will have an effect.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unless the economy crashes or we have a 9/11 event, I fail to see how the GOP doesn’t pick up senate seats. There are a few democrats up for re election in states that trump won by double digits. It’s just a horrible set of seats that happen to be up for re election, from the democrat perspective. It’s as if the gop hand picked which seats would be up.

As usual, you make an astute point about Bannon. He could screw the whole thing up.

There are several democrat senators who won purple states in 2012, largely because they rode Obamas coat tails. He can’t help them in 2018. And that will have an effect.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are correct, no Obama coattails, but there are votes that will come over with Trumps polarization. It will be telling who he endorses now and who wants his endorsement in the gop.

It will be an interesting year of politics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are correct, no Obama coattails, but there are votes that will come over with Trumps polarization. It will be telling who he endorses now and who wants his endorsement in the gop.

It will be an interesting year of politics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Very, very interesting.

If 80% of Americans really do see a tax cut, that's the whole GOP election message right there. "Vote for me, or your taxes will go back up, and you'll stop getting these $1,000 bonuses and minimum wage hikes." It's a smart political move by the GOP. The people who got those $1,000 bonuses, might not care that Trump is a reptile.

Its dopey and offensive to anybody with common sense,which is why I am not surprised you consider it to be acceptable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I didn't say I'd support it, just that it doesn't seem like that big of a deal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am a simple guy poor writer and worse speller but I work pay bills and have a house and live comfortably ..

its been said by many conservatives the Government should be run as a business or as we run our households.. ok hows is this tax plan doing that?

Sure i may get a tax break of 500 or 1000 bucks . i could also switch to geico stop going to D&D and save as much ..



Republicans know poor people and the middle class drive the economy 98% of any money they get is put back into the system.. where is the rich its reverse 2% goes back the other 98% gets invested or remains as wealth passed along

so in a nut shell the government gives big business more money and the government gives the middle class some money back to give it back to the companys who just got a huge tax break . but we should be thanking Trump for this bounty?

So the government just took a $5.5 trillion in revenue loss over a decade.

this is like one of us in our house losing our job.. the out come is clear things have to go ....or worse

a business with such a reduction in revenue would more likely close

What are they going to try to Take next? the next argument will be need to balance the budget

I am a simple guy poor writer and worse speller but I work pay bills and have a house and live comfortably ..

its been said by many conservatives the Government should be run as a business or as we run our households.. ok hows is this tax plan doing that?

It should be run at the behest of its citizens. If the citizens want personal freedom then it should be run differently than if they want to be subservient to government and to depend that it will provide all wants and needs. In either case, the smarter, more able, most aggressive, most dominant, will find a way to "run" things. Powerful, ruling humans, not being angels, will more often than not progress into a form of tyranny. A check against that would be a system of government which pits power versus power. Checks and balances, as we say in our system. Power seekers would over time tend to eliminate as many checks against them as they can.

Sure i may get a tax break of 500 or 1000 bucks . i could also switch to geico stop going to D&D and save as much ..

You could also make that switch with the tax plan and so save twice as much. If $2000 thousand is a pittance to you, you're not as poor as you say.

Republicans know poor people and the middle class drive the economy 98% of any money they get is put back into the system.. where is the rich its reverse 2% goes back the other 98% gets invested or remains as wealth passed along

Entrepreneurs and businesses drive the economy. The rest of us are passengers who buy the tickets. Both are equally needed.

And investment in business also drives the economy. Investment in business maintains and grows the economy. Confiscating money from business over and above the money business spends in wages, maintenance, growth, etc., and distributing it to others without compensation limits its abilities to hire, maintain, and grow. So it cannot "drive" as well and so cannot carry as many passengers.

so in a nut shell the government gives big business more money and the government gives the middle class some money back to give it back to the companys who just got a huge tax break . but we should be thanking Trump for this bounty?

If you want the economy to drive better, to carry more passengers, it is wise to invest in the drivers. Investing in government siphons fuel from the economy's engine, and we find ourselves walking or peddling a bike or driving an old car or staying home waiting for a government check rather than riding in a new car to work and pleasure.

So the government just took a $5.5 trillion in revenue loss over a decade.

this is like one of us in our house losing our job.. the out come is clear things have to go ....or worse

No, it's like one of us overextending ourselves and our resources and needing to cut back to a more sustainable level of work and spending. And one of us does not have the ability to print fiat money, as does the federal government, to cover our profligate spending, and by doing so, to devalue everyone elses savings and spending power.

a business with such a reduction in revenue would more likely close

General Motors was forced, by the federal government, to downsize and pay entry level workers less, and the company divested itself of pension responsibilities giving that to the workers and their unions to handle, and it is back bigger than ever, Now, for some reason, the federal government cannot see the wisdom it applied to an over-bloated, overextended, financialy in unstainable debt, General Motors, to its own similar financial condition. But then, why should we expect it to see the light when it can just print its own money and screw the rest of us by doing so, and then blaming it on the evil businesses, and entrepreneurs, enabling it to regulate them into submission and placing them under threat of new regulations.

What are they going to try to Take next? the next argument will be need to balance the budget

Oh, as Spence would say, the horror.

I am a simple guy poor writer and worse speller but I work pay bills and have a house and live comfortably ..

its been said by many conservatives the Government should be run as a business or as we run our households.. ok hows is this tax plan doing that?

Sure i may get a tax break of 500 or 1000 bucks . i could also switch to geico stop going to D&D and save as much ..



Republicans know poor people and the middle class drive the economy 98% of any money they get is put back into the system.. where is the rich its reverse 2% goes back the other 98% gets invested or remains as wealth passed along

so in a nut shell the government gives big business more money and the government gives the middle class some money back to give it back to the companys who just got a huge tax break . but we should be thanking Trump for this bounty?

So the government just took a $5.5 trillion in revenue loss over a decade.

this is like one of us in our house losing our job.. the out come is clear things have to go ....or worse

a business with such a reduction in revenue would more likely close

What are they going to try to Take next? the next argument will be need to balance the budget

Money that is invested is also “put back into” the economy. Unless you burn your money or bury it, it goes back into he economy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, as Spence would say, the horror.

who said i was poor? I know I should be happy with my 1000.00 dollars (sarcasm) with the estate tax removal the Trump family would get $7B windfall I should be happy for them (sarcasm) like they need a tax break

Money that is invested is also “put back into” the economy. Unless you burn your money or bury it, it goes back into he economy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

1000 spent and 1000 invested are not the same

1000 spent and 1000 invested are not the same

I didn’t say they were the same. I said they are both pumped into the economy. You said wealthy people don’t use money in a way that puts it back into the economy. Unless they burn it or bury it, it goes back into the economy, and nothing in chairman Mao’s little red book can make that wrong. The economy needs people to invest, and it also needs people to spend. Both are critical.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who said i was poor?

I apologize. I misread your post. You said you are a poor writer, not a poor person. But you certainly are not a poor avoider of rational discussion. I give a detailed response to your post, and the only thing you can respond back to is my irrelevant misread. But that gives you the appearance of actually responding to the meat of my post, which you are, apparently, incapable of doing. That you can't actually debate economics, makes you a poor judge of economic issues, so an unreliable judge of how the tax bill will impact the economy. You spout leftist talking points, but give no evidence that you know what you're talking about.

I know I should be happy with my 1000.00 dollars (sarcasm) with the estate tax removal the Trump family would get $7B windfall I should be happy for them (sarcasm) like they need a tax break

If you are not happy with $1,000 tax free every year, why should the rest of us care how you feel? There are probably millions of folks who'd be happy to take it off your hands if it means so little to you. Millions of folks who would be thrilled with the extra money. I doubt if the rest of the world cares what your emotional reaction to getting the money is. Burn it, for all we care. No, wait, spend it or invest it or save it in some bank account which will all contribute to the economy. And everyone else who gets the 1K or more will do the same, and the economy will be better off.

But why do you care how much of Trump's money he gets back? He's going to do the same thing you do, but on a grander scale, so will personally make a far more positive impact on the "economy" than you will, with your puny unappreciated 1K.

But if the federal government keeps it, the record shows that it will squander most of it on projects and programs that stifle the market growth needed to create jobs in which people will depend on earned income. So, instead, it will create more permanent government dependents. And, somehow, even with the massive cut the fed gets from tax confiscation, it manages to keep getting further in debt. Which also becomes a drag on the rest of us, not to mention the drag on the economy.

If you are not happy with $1,000 tax free every year, why should the rest of us care how you feel? There are probably millions of folks who'd be happy to take it off your hands if it means so little to you. Millions of folks who would be thrilled with the extra money. I doubt if the rest of the world cares what your emotional reaction to getting the money is. Burn it, for all we care. No, wait, spend it or invest it or save it in some bank account which will all contribute to the economy. And everyone else who gets the 1K or more will do the same, and the economy will be better off.

But why do you care how much of Trump's money he gets back? He's going to do the same thing you do, but on a grander scale, so will personally make a far more positive impact on the "economy" than you will, with your puny unappreciated 1K.

But if the federal government keeps it, the record shows that it will squander most of it on projects and programs that stifle the market growth needed to create jobs in which people will depend on earned income. So, instead, it will create more permanent government dependents. And, somehow, even with the massive cut the fed gets from tax confiscation, it manages to keep getting further in debt. Which also becomes a drag on the rest of us, not to mention the drag on the economy.


Hard to have a rational discussion. when your only point in all your threads is anti government this anti government that ,,

.. i would have rather kept taxes where they were and took care of nations infrastructure.. but that wont happen now

its basic math ... you pull that much revenue from any system things suffer... you dont need a degree in economics to figure that out ..

Maybe he would be much happier had Hillary won and no doubt instead of getting $1000 the government would be taking atleast that $1000 from all of us !




If you are not happy with $1,000 tax free every year, why should the rest of us care how you feel? There are probably millions of folks who'd be happy to take it off your hands if it means so little to you. Millions of folks who would be thrilled with the extra money. I doubt if the rest of the world cares what your emotional reaction to getting the money is. Burn it, for all we care. No, wait, spend it or invest it or save it in some bank account which will all contribute to the economy. And everyone else who gets the 1K or more will do the same, and the economy will be better off.

But why do you care how much of Trump's money he gets back? He's going to do the same thing you do, but on a grander scale, so will personally make a far more positive impact on the "economy" than you will, with your puny unappreciated 1K.

But if the federal government keeps it, the record shows that it will squander most of it on projects and programs that stifle the market growth needed to create jobs in which people will depend on earned income. So, instead, it will create more permanent government dependents. And, somehow, even with the massive cut the fed gets from tax confiscation, it manages to keep getting further in debt. Which also becomes a drag on the rest of us, not to mention the drag on the economy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=wdmso;1134026]Hard to have a rational discussion. when your only point in all your threads is anti government this anti government that ,,

.. i would have rather kept taxes where they were and took care of nations infrastructure.. but that wont happen now

What “nations infrastructure” you talking about, ours or the rest of the world ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You guys are insane if you think that parking millions or billions in a bank account Ian”returning it back into the economy”.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You guys are insane if you think that parking millions or billions in a bank account Ian”returning it back into the economy”.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are insane if you park millions or billions in a bank account....:huh:

you are insane if you park millions or billions in a bank account....:huh:

As opposed to the same amount of money used by the middle class “consumers”. I should have explained my point further.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You guys are insane if you think that parking millions or billions in a bank account Ian”returning it back into the economy”.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are insane, more accurately ignorant, if you deny it.

Nebe, where do you suppose banks get money to make loans, so that people can get mortgages and open businesses? They are lending the depositors' money. If there are no depositors, the bank has no funds to make loans.

Turn off MSNBC and read an economics text.

Nebe, where do you suppose banks get money to make loans, so that people can get mortgages and open businesses? They are lending the depositors' money. If there are no depositors, the bank has no funds to make loans.
Nebe, you just got schooled.

Since you're ignorant and insane I'll break this down for you. The reason the economy is in the tank is because the banks don't have money to loan business so they can hire people and pay higher wages.

If we give the banks money in the form of deposits the banks will be able to lower interest rates and give out tons of loans. If we give the banks a lot of money they will lower rates to zero and we will have unlimited growth.

Make that wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The reason the economy is in the tank is because.....


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:huh:

I used the last of my garden grown shallots to make a red wine gravy for the tenderloin roasts. Next year I hope to grow more from the allium family as the red onions are almost gone. Especially tasty were the leeks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I used the last of my garden grown shallots to make a red wine gravy for the tenderloin roasts. Next year I hope to grow more from the allium family as the red onions are almost gone. Especially tasty were the leeks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I forgot to buy shallots and had to use the end of a yellow onion. No wine, just herbs and stock. Big fan of leeks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Geez it was OK when it was Bernie's plan ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=204&v=FYAClOv3px4

1000 spent and 1000 invested are not the same

Let’s talk about $1000 invested vs $1000 spent. If I invest, the $ goes against the Assets of a Company somewhere. The company I work for invests bigly in equipment and technology so they borrow money against invested assets to make that investment and pay some capital cost call it 5% so now my $1000 is doing the work of $1050. Our company pays all expenses and expects an investment to pay for itself in one year so the $1000 probably supported an employee for 100 hours (my portion of the total capital investment) at some wage; even $15/hr would mean someone else earned $1500 from y $1500. Any profit made on that asset is taxed and what is left is split up between the corporation and the investor (me) I earn since Trump took office 25% so my investment of $1000 is worth $1250 on paper, I pay 20% tax on 250 capital gain and the Government gets $50 and I net $200. So my $1000 investment “parked in the market” nets me $200, it nets the government at least $50, it nets some employee $1500, it nets a finance company $50 (which is also taxed at some level), the government confiscates (taxes) another 10% from the employee or $150, and whatever goods are produced are sold and intangibly improve someone’s life. So yes $1000 spent isn’t the same as $1000 parked in the market. Bank $50, Employee $1500, government $200+, Investor $200 Total $1950 from $1000 just sitting there doing nothing..

Nebe, you just got schooled.

Since you're ignorant and insane I'll break this down for you. The reason the economy is in the tank is because the banks don't have money to loan business so they can hire people and pay higher wages.

If we give the banks money in the form of deposits the banks will be able to lower interest rates and give out tons of loans. If we give the banks a lot of money they will lower rates to zero and we will have unlimited growth.

Make that wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I said that it’s good for the economy when people deposit money in banks. I was correct. You somehow made the Evil Kineval leap that I meant that banks would lower interest rates? Not sure how you concluded that.

But Spence, if you think I’m wrong, and that it’s better when banks have no depositors, you are entitled to that opinion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hard to have a rational discussion. when your only point in all your threads is anti government this anti government that ,,

You are not only what you describe as a poor writer, you are a poor reader. Some of my threads have not been about government. None of them have been anti-government this or that. Neither have any of my posts been anti-government. I am opposed to bad government. I am opposed to unconstitutional government. I am for good government. I am for constitutional government. I am for that government which governs best when it governs least. I am for self government. I am for equality before the law government. I am opposed to government of special interests and for special groups.

If your definition of "anti-government" is narrowed to any form or any instance of "government," then you are anti-government. You have issued a chit load of criticisms of the Trump Administration and especially against Trump, the President, himself. By your own definition, it would be hard to have a rational discussion with you.

Come to think of it . . .

.. i would have rather kept taxes where they were and took care of nations infrastructure.. but that wont happen now

Infrastructure was not taken care of when taxes were where they were. It was not taken care of even when a so-called stimulus package of billions of dollars were set aside to take care of infrastructure. So what would have been the magic wand to all of a sudden now the infrastructure would be repaired by keeping taxes where they were?

its basic math ... you pull that much revenue from any system things suffer... you dont need a degree in economics to figure that out ..

I's called restructuring the system to fit available revenue. Downsizing is one form of successful restructuring. Over extending any system beyond actual resources is a sure way to make that system, as you put it, "suffer"--even collapse. And constantly borrowing, without repaying on the principal, getting further and further in debt, will also cause a system to "suffer"--even to collapse. And creating a Ponzi scheme system wherein it pays returns to its investors (the "people" in a government system) from new capital (fiat money in a Ponzi government system) paid to the operators (government bureaucracy and its special interests and lobbyists who support it) by new investors (new generations, the children of the "people" in a government system), rather than from profit earned through legitimate sources (reasonable, affordable, taxes to support a rigorously defined, limited, and consistently responsible, well structured system of government), will eventually, as all Ponzi schemes do, collapse.

As you say, it doesn't require a degree in economics to understand that.

I said that it’s good for the economy when people deposit money in banks. I was correct. You somehow made the Evil Kineval leap that I meant that banks would lower interest rates? Not sure how you concluded that.

But Spence, if you think I’m wrong, and that it’s better when banks have no depositors, you are entitled to that opinion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think, but can't be sure when it comes to Spence, that he thinks that banks, wealthy folks, businesses, just sit on large chunks of money, preferring that it lose its value to inflation rather than moving it in ways to increase its value.

I forgot to buy shallots and had to use the end of a yellow onion. No wine, just herbs and stock. Big fan of leeks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They are a staple but don't last too long after harvest. I have been making a dish for special occasions for many years. Google potatoes w leeks and gruyere for a dish that will impress.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think, but can't be sure when it comes to Spence, that he thinks that banks, wealthy folks, businesses, just sit on large chunks of money, preferring that it lose its value to inflation rather than moving it in ways to increase its value.

I'm certain most liberals believe that. It's absurd.

I'm certain most liberals believe that. It's absurd.
I don't know anyone that thinks that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If we give the banks money in the form of deposits the banks will be able to lower interest rates and give out tons of loans. If we give the banks a lot of money they will lower rates to zero and we will have unlimited growth.

Make that wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Federal Reserve's program of quantitative easing created an artificial bubble of bank reserves for which the Fed paid a secured higher interest to the banks than the banks could get from less secure loans to the private sector at the lower interest dictated by the Federal Reserve's low benchmark interest rates.

That coupled with the economic downturn after 2008 which lowered the demand for loans, made it more profitable for the banks to lend less to the private sector and depend more on the Fed interest payments to them on the money it was holding for them, and so was not being released at normal volume into the market in the forms of loans to the private sector.

This intrusion by the Fed Reserve distorted the normal relationship of bank deposits to loans. It created a huge bubble of artificial bank reserves, not related to market activity, which can create massive inflation when that reserve is released into the market. The economy has recovered since then and the demand for loans is rising, and expected to rise more if the public confidence in the economy remains. There may be a tricky balance for the banks in taking on a great amount of public deposits to add to their reserve bubble which could infuse too much money into the economy and cause the feared inflation. In any event, the market will have to correct for the ill conceived bubble created by massive quantitative easing. Let's hope it doesn't provoke another crash.

Eventually, when things return to normal, if they do, then private deposits to banks will again create the reserve they need to make loans.

I don't know anyone that thinks that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then why do most liberals say that trickle down doesn’t help the economy?

Spence, if the wealthy don’t burn their money or bury it, then how do they use it in a way that isn’t beneficial to the economy? If they save it, spend it, invest it, donate it, or pay taxes with it, don’t all of those things help the economy? Please explain, I’m all ears.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then why do most liberals say that trickle down doesn’t help the economy?

Spence, if the wealthy don’t burn their money or bury it, then how do they use it in a way that isn’t beneficial to the economy? If they save it, spend it, invest it, donate it, or pay taxes with it, don’t all of those things help the economy? Please explain, I’m all ears.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

rich people love guys like you ... your the reason they stay rich you support a party that supports the 1% over the rest of the country
and happily wait under their table thanking them for what falls to the floor.. buying into the fantasy Anyone in American can be like them... that ship has sailed

the bottom 90% held 73% of all debt. According to The New York Times, the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.


In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 86% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 14%.

scraps from the table theory of economics

Let’s talk about $1000 invested vs $1000 spent. If I invest, the $ goes against the Assets of a Company somewhere. The company I work for invests bigly in equipment and technology so they borrow money against invested assets to make that investment and pay some capital cost call it 5% so now my $1000 is doing the work of $1050. Our company pays all expenses and expects an investment to pay for itself in one year so the $1000 probably supported an employee for 100 hours (my portion of the total capital investment) at some wage; even $15/hr would mean someone else earned $1500 from y $1500. Any profit made on that asset is taxed and what is left is split up between the corporation and the investor (me) I earn since Trump took office 25% so my investment of $1000 is worth $1250 on paper, I pay 20% tax on 250 capital gain and the Government gets $50 and I net $200. So my $1000 investment “parked in the market” nets me $200, it nets the government at least $50, it nets some employee $1500, it nets a finance company $50 (which is also taxed at some level), the government confiscates (taxes) another 10% from the employee or $150, and whatever goods are produced are sold and intangibly improve someone’s life. So yes $1000 spent isn’t the same as $1000 parked in the market. Bank $50, Employee $1500, government $200+, Investor $200 Total $1950 from $1000 just sitting there doing nothing..


so a 1000 invested is returning 950 dollars ???

so are you going to cover what spending 1000 does?

rich people love guys like you ... your the reason they stay rich you support a party that supports the 1% over the rest of the country
and happily wait under their table thanking them for what falls to the floor.. buying into the fantasy Anyone in American can be like them... that ship has sailed



love you Wayne, but this is just....good grief...

rich people love guys like you ... your the reason they stay rich you support a party that supports the 1% over the rest of the country
and happily wait under their table thanking them for what falls to the floor.. buying into the fantasy Anyone in American can be like them... that ship has sailed

the bottom 90% held 73% of all debt. According to The New York Times, the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.


In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 86% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 14%.

scraps from the table theory of economics

"your the reason they stay rich"

Oh, I am the reason that rich people are rich! Jeez, whatever magic wand I have that makes people wealthy, I should get around to using it on myself one of these days instead of living paycheck to paycheck. So Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg are only rich because of Republicans, not because of anything they did. What an astute observation.

"you support a party that supports the 1% over the rest of the country"

Well, I live in cT, where liberals have ruled for 40 years. Our cities are FAR worse now than 40 years ago. So if you want to tell me that liberals care more about the poor than conservatives, you need to support that. The one study done on the subject, actually shows that conservatives are more charitable. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant.

"According to The New York Times, the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. "

And that's because of simple math. not because of theft. The wealthy have more money to invest than the rest of us. So when the economy grows, they will always benefit more than the rest of us. Out of curiosity, how would you stop this? Pass a law saying that people are no longer allowed to work or invest once their net worth hits some maximum? Is that something that you do in a free country?

"buying into the fantasy Anyone in American can be like them"

I never said anything that stupid. But 90% of us can be middle class if we work hard and make good decisions, and most importantly, if we have good parents. Most of us can learn a trade, or graduate from a public university with a degree in nursing, teaching, accounting, physical therapy, etc...You don't have to be rich or have a 200 IQ to pull those things off. True or false?

"the bottom 90% held 73% of all debt."

Part of that is that we want to live way beyond our means. How many flat screen TVs, smart phones, and all that other crap, must one have?

Your fixation on the wealth is very telling, and very telling. You claim that the rest of us can only wait for their scraps. That's demonstrably false, pure liberal bullsh*t. Wealth is not finite, it's not like a pizza. If Oprah Winfrey earns another million today, that does NOT mean there's a million less for the rest of us. When she gets richer, that doe NOT make my life or your life any harder. Don't you see that? How can you not see that?

All of liberalism is now based on divisiveness - based on race, gender, economic class. Liberals always blame someone else for their problems, rather then ever taking responsibility.

Chances are, if you want to know the cause of your problems, look in the mirror.

rich people love guys like you ... your the reason they stay rich you support a party that supports the 1% over the rest of the country

The rich do well no matter which party is in power. Many of the rich support the Democrats and get favorable legislation in return. The Dems like to brag about how the richest states are run by Democrats, and the poorest by Republicans. Somehow, reality doesn't seem to fit your picture of who supports the 1%. There is a leftist political rhetoric that paints your picture, but it is, after all, political. And is meant to persuade "guys like you," as you put it.

The rich aren't rich because they are supported by a political party. Both parties receive support from the rich.


and happily wait under their table thanking them for what falls to the floor.. buying into the fantasy Anyone in American can be like them... that ship has sailed

You said a few posts ago that you own a home, pay your bills, and live comfortably. Are those scraps that fell to the floor? Those scraps are the envy of most people on this planet. And the tax plan is going to drop some more scraps to your floor. But because the 1% are doing so well, your scraps are an insult. Would you have more scraps if the 1% were doing worse?

the bottom 90% held 73% of all debt. According to The New York Times, the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.


In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 86% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 14%.

scraps from the table theory of economics

Does the top 1% eat 35% of the food and own 35% of the homes, cars, clothes, toys, guns, televisions, computers, etc. in this country? What is meant by owning more wealth?

Does your "all debt" include the debt government owes? latest 2017 stats say that "Total Government And Personal Debt In The U.S. Has Hit 41 Trillion Dollars ($329,961.34 Per Household)." (https://thedailycoin.org/2017/07/27/total-government-personal-debt-u-s-hit-41-trillion-dollars-329961-34-per-household/ And that does not include corporate debt.

So if the federal government debt is around $20 trillion, and the State and municipal debts are around 5 trillion, that leaves personal debt to be about $16 trillion. Which is well less than half the total debt owed in this country. Most of the debt is owed by government, supposedly borrowed on our behalf. And to whom is the government debt owed? A great deal of it is owed to the top 1%. And a lot of that money was borrowed from the top 1% by Democrat politicians--probably more than was borrowed by Republicans. Not that it matters who borrowed it, but gives a lie to your who supports the top 1%.

So the government has handed you a personal bill of $329,961.34. Thanks to both parties but mostly to the Democrats. Can you pay that? Of course not. So who is going to pay for it? Apparently, no one will. Not if the government keeps borrowing from the top 1% to pay for only the interest on the debt. Your children will be left the tab. So they will need a booming economy to provide the jobs and wealth that can chip away at that debt. I guess that's why some politicians, and economists think that structuring tax policies in favor of business growth is more important than merely lowering personal tax rates.

Would you have more scraps if the 1% were doing worse?
.

His opinion, that the wealthy get first dibs at the trough and the rest of us have to get by on the scraps, is liberal economics in one sentence. It is demonstrably false, and far beyond absurd. But it's always easier to blame the boogeyman for our lot in life, than it is to take responsibility for our own lot in life. Liberalism always looks to blame someone else, preferably a white guy in a Brooks Brothers suit.

Liberalism always looks to blame someone else

One thing I'm grateful for this year is that my parents never allow me to grow up miserable like Jim and be filled with the type of hate he demonstrates here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Two brother-in-laws both went to pay their property tax for the rest of 2017 today. One pays 22k and the other pays 25k but also has a second house that he stays in 2 days a week. Said he will try to sell the second house now. Both were die hard Trump fans until recently. I also went to pay the rest of my property tax today.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Two brother-in-laws both went to pay their property tax for the rest of 2017 today. One pays 22k and the other pays 25k but also has a second house that he stays in 2 days a week. Said he will try to sell the second house now. Both were die hard Trump fans until recently. I also went to pay the rest of my property tax today.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Looks like Trump's tax plan is already working, by getting rich folks to kick in their fair share :hee:

I told you guys... property taxes are going to get you in the ass.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One pays 22k and the other pays 25k but also has a second house that he stays in 2 days a week. Said he will try to sell the second house now.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the nerve of someone owning a second house

love you Wayne, but this is just....good grief...


Just saying if you support this tax bill or see it in a positive light endorse the estate tax repeal or changes in pass thru accounts or provision clearly attacking blue states . Amongst other things .. then yes the rich love you and say thanks

Just saying if you support this tax bill or see it in a positive light endorse the estate tax repeal or changes in pass thru accounts or provision clearly attacking blue states . Amongst other things .. then yes the rich love you and say thanks

it was this part

"wait under their table thanking them for what falls to the floor.. buying into the fantasy Anyone in American can be like them... that ship has sailed "


between you and GOT hoping America somehow survives Trump...you guys might be better off in Canada with Spence

I told you guys... property taxes are going to get you in the ass.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not me, looks like it will get the rich folks though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not me, looks like it will get the rich folks though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Property taxes in Connecticut are high so you don't have to be rich to hit the $10,000 level.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So lower the property taxes in Connecticut.

Not me, looks like it will get the rich folks though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
When the fed gubment cuts back on money to the states and the states cut back on funding to towns, the towns will play the Shell game and use the tax apraisor to magically tell you that your 300k house is now worth 400k. Local governments will also look to any other way to suck you dry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Property taxes in Connecticut are high so you don't have to be rich to hit the $10,000 level.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's for the children...

When the fed gubment cuts back on money to the states and the states cut back on funding to towns, the towns will play the Shell game and use the tax apraisor to magically tell you that your 300k house is now worth 400k. Local governments will also look to any other way to suck you dry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought government was benevolent?

When the fed gubment cuts back on money to the states and the states cut back on funding to towns, the towns will play the Shell game and use the tax apraisor to magically tell you that your 300k house is now worth 400k. Local governments will also look to any other way to suck you dry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about the fed not taking the lion's share of tax money out of the states in the first place. The situation that we are in now where states have to depend on getting money back that was taken from them in the first place by the federal government is ass-backwards. The federal government shouldn't be so heavily involved in state finances and state taxation.

It shouldn't be doing those things that were meant, constitutionally, for the states to do. Divesting itself from those responsibilities would tremendously lower its need to tax us and could leave the states to fend for themselves by structuring their own tax system to suit their resources.

Which would give the citizens of those states a much greater motivation and voice in shaping their tax structures. When they could no longer depend on the central government giving them tax breaks to compensate for their high state taxes, they would demand that their state taxes get lowered.

Oh boy .. 1k for me .. Pass on a 1.5 trillion dollar to the debt. for my grandson . If they added 3 trillion to the debt. I could have gotten 2k maybe . Free money . I thought it was bad reaching into somebody else's pocket . Hmmmm and you call yourselves conservatives . Laughable .

Property taxes in Connecticut are high so you don't have to be rich to hit the $10,000 level.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your home needs to be assessed at about half a million to hit the $10k level in CT. That certainly isn't poor.

your home needs to be assessed at about half a million to hit the $10k level in CT. That certainly isn't poor.

It varies a bit by town, but that's just about correct. And what's also correct, is that you're not poor if you have that house.

Also, the cap on state and local taxes is one piece of the tax reform, there are lots of moving pieces. I will also be hurt by the cap on state/local taxes (here in CT, I have a 5 year old Pathfinder and a 9 year old minivan, and I pay $1,000 a year to my town in car taxes, that's how CT works), so between that, my state income tax, and the tax on my home, I am a bit over 10k in total state/local taxes.

But other things in the bill, like the child tax credit, will more than offset that for me. I'll pay about $2,000 less than I would under the old tax rules.

You have to consider the combined effect of all the things that are changing, not just the pieces that make your taxes go up.

your home needs to be assessed at about half a million to hit the $10k level in CT. That certainly isn't poor.

Also remember, the limit of 10k is for all state and local taxes (not just tax on your home), including car tax you pay to your town (I pay $1,000 a year for a 5 year-old Pathfinder and a 9 year-old minivan) and state income tax, which is around 5%-6% of income. If the total of all those taxes is over 10k, then you are hurt by the cap. But as I posted, there are other things changing that can offset that, especially if you have a couple of kids.

it's for the children...

yeah, right...

yeah, right...

why do you hate children?

Also remember, the limit of 10k is for all state and local taxes (not just tax on your home), including car tax you pay to your town (I pay $1,000 a year for a 5 year-old Pathfinder and a 9 year-old minivan) and state income tax, which is around 5%-6% of income. If the total of all those taxes is over 10k, then you are hurt by the cap. But as I posted, there are other things changing that can offset that, especially if you have a couple of kids.

Yep, I'm aware of what it contains, still not coming close to the $10k, and I don't consider myself poor. I also don't see the doom and gloom of property taxes because I get to see a more direct benefit from them than I do from Federal.

My town does a great job with property taxes, we have new schools, new library, roads are in great shape, they do a good job plowing. We have an excellent police force that stays involved in the community and keeps crime down. Hell, a couple of years ago my wife mentioned to the town manager that the plows took out our mailbox, next day it was replaced.

your home needs to be assessed at about half a million to hit the $10k level in CT. That certainly isn't poor.

I am certainly not poor, nor am I rich. I pay more than 10K. small house in an area very close to the water where my house is considered a tear down bc of the size. I was very lucky w/my house bc the area became hot (and continues to be)after I bought it. Very desirable area, with good schools. Paid off my mortgage quickly by not taking the standard 30 year term and made extra payments (mainly so I can stop paying flood insurance).

Can't complain (too much).

Doom and Gloom predicted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7pTkV7vX60

What I like best about the new plan is they got rid of the AMT, carried interest, reduced the number of brackets and above all simplified the code so much I can do my taxes on a single postcard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh boy .. 1k for me .. Pass on a 1.5 trillion dollar to the debt. for my grandson . If they added 3 trillion to the debt. I could have gotten 2k maybe . Free money . I thought it was bad reaching into somebody else's pocket . Hmmmm and you call yourselves conservatives . Laughable .


I have made the same point ... but was soundly scolded for not being grateful for my 1000.00 extra dollars a year .. and scolded for not being happy for those for whom the estate tax was repealed for

4,700 estate tax returns reporting tax liability were filed in 2013, out of 2.6 million total deaths in the United States. That means the estate tax hits roughly 0.2% of Americans, or 1 out of every 500 people who die.

Tax policy to help 0.2%.. the estate tax never made a rich persons family from being rich after they passed ... so let repeal it after 100 years on the books ?

but 1000.00 bucks a year is going to help working Americans ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagger View Post

Oh boy .. 1k for me ..

Free money . FREE MONEY is what government hands out to those who did not earn it

I thought it was bad reaching into somebody else's pocket .

Hmmmm and you call yourselves conservatives . Laughable


I have made the same point ...

but 1000.00 bucks a year is going to help working Americans ...




you guys understand the very basic concept that it's YOUR money...right??? it's not FREE money....

I'm sure you guys are more than welcome to send your thousand bucks or whatever it is right to the US Treasury.....actually...send a little extra(maybe a measly additional thousand) with a note..."please use this to reduce the Federal Debt"

... but was soundly scolded for not being grateful for my 1000.00 extra dollars a year .. ...

You can give it to me if it's of no use to you.