The Trump Tax Cut: Even Worse Than You’ve Heard

[wdmso]

Trump cancels pay raises for almost 2 million federal workers
‘In light of our nation’s fiscal situation
But a tax cutting is ok

Seems you missed that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Trump cancels pay raises for almost 2 million federal workers
‘In light of our nation’s fiscal situation
But a tax cutting is ok

Seems you missed that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Should we raise everyone's taxes so the federal workers can get a pay raise?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Should we raise everyone's taxes so the federal workers can get a pay raise?

and if they didn’t get raises, their take home pay still likely increased, thanks to the tax cuts. but we should
ignore that, because we don’t like Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and if they didn’t get raises, their take home pay still likely increased, thanks to the tax cuts. but we should
ignore that, because we don’t like Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow that’s some crazy thinking they should be thankful for the tax cut in place of a raise that affects their retirement down the road??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Wow that’s some crazy thinking they should be thankful for the tax cut in place of a raise that affects their retirement down the road??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Were you this concerned in 2011, 2012, and 2013 when Obama cancelled the government pay raises? just trying to establish some consistency in logic

also of note is that Obama didn't increase the Locality adjustment in 2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,and 2015, which also affects retirement.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Were you this concerned in 2011, 2012, and 2013 when Obama cancelled the government pay raises? just trying to establish some consistency in logic

also of note is that Obama didn't increase the Locality adjustment in 2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,and 2015, which also affects retirement.

Now you are guilty of whataboutism!!

And no, it wasn't objectionable then.

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Were you this concerned in 2011, 2012, and 2013 when Obama cancelled the government pay raises? just trying to establish some consistency in logic

Not true...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Not true...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, I just make this chit up as i go along

https://www.generalschedule.org/raise

https://www.generalschedule.org/localities

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Were you this concerned in 2011, 2012, and 2013 when Obama cancelled the government pay raises? just trying to establish some consistency in logic

also of note is that Obama didn't increase the Locality adjustment in 2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,and 2015, which also affects retirement.

another one who is cursed by the inability see things in context


It would be the first pay freeze for civilian federal workers since 2011 to 2013, when President Barack Obama instituted a three-year pay freeze as the nation recovered from the recession.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

another one who is cursed by the inability see things in context


It would be the first pay freeze for civilian federal workers since 2011 to 2013, when President Barack Obama instituted a three-year pay freeze as the nation recovered from the recession.

You and spence need to get your stories straight, he says it never happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Wow that’s some crazy thinking they should be thankful for the tax cut in place of a raise that affects their retirement down the road??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

WDMSO, is it that much better to get a $100 raise, than it is to get a $100 tax cut? At the end of the day, if you have $100 more to spend, do you care which column in the balance sheet it came from? If so, could you please explain why? Because I couldn't give a rat's azz.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

WDMSO, is it that much better to get a $100 raise, than it is to get a $100 tax cut? At the end of the day, if you have $100 more to spend, do you care which column in the balance sheet it came from? If so, could you please explain why? Because I couldn't give a rat's azz.

Actually, a tax cut will net you more than an equal pay raise. Part of the pay raise will be reduced by income taxes.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, a tax cut will net you more than an equal pay raise. Part of the pay raise will be reduced by income taxes.

Oh shut up with that logic.

Raises are better, especially if they are a result of liberal policies.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, a tax cut will net you more than an equal pay raise. Part of the pay raise will be reduced by income taxes.

not sure how your retirement works mine is based on. base pay last 3 years tax break does nothing to increase my retirement pay compared to a pay raise ... and not all states tax pension to start with

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Should we raise everyone's taxes so the federal workers can get a pay raise?

Not really the point is it

But let’s give corporate America huge tax breaks removing money from the budget.. then screw the workers. Saying sorry we can’t afford your raise .... we’re broke
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Not really the point is it

But let’s give corporate America huge tax breaks removing money from the budget.. then screw the workers. Saying sorry we can’t afford your raise .... we’re broke
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If there's currently too much being taken from individuals and corporations, then it's just to give it back to them.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If there's currently too much being taken from individuals and corporations, then it's just to give it back to them.

Trump helping the little guy. Wait he thinks all federal employees are democrats .. now it makes sense
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Trump helping the little guy. Wait he thinks all federal employees are democrats .. now it makes sense
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Trump helping the little guy"

Unemployment for blacks, Hispanics, and those with high school diplomas, is down. And he gave "the little guy" a tax cut.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Not really the point is it

But let’s give corporate America huge tax breaks removing money from the budget.. then screw the workers. Saying sorry we can’t afford your raise .... we’re broke
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Krugman's assertion is that overall wages in the private economy have not gone up, then what is the point of raising public sector wages which depend on income derived from taxing the private sector? And if government workers already have better job security, better guaranteed pension and health insurance than the average private sector worker, as well as, on average, higher pay, then what is the problem with cutting some of that fat from government spending?

And if the reason for corporate tax cuts is to create more jobs, then those cuts are a boon to the "little (unemployed or underemployed) guy." Unemployment numbers are significantly down. That aspect of the tax cuts is working.

And, what TDF said, Obama did it too, so it must be good because Obama is a way better POTUS than Trump.

And, yeah, the government is broke, has been broke . . . and the Krugman/Keynesian deficit spending model will ensure that it will remain broke for a long time . . . or forever.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If Krugman's assertion is that overall wages in the private economy have not gone up, then what is the point of raising public sector wages which depend on income derived from taxing the private sector? And if government workers already have better job security, better guaranteed pension and health insurance than the average private sector worker, as well as, on average, higher pay, then what is the problem with cutting some of that fat from government spending?

And if the reason for corporate tax cuts is to create more jobs, then those cuts are a boon to the "little (unemployed or underemployed) guy." Unemployment numbers are significantly down. That aspect of the tax cuts is working.

And, what TDF said, Obama did it too, so it must be good because Obama is a way better POTUS than Trump.

And, yeah, the government is broke, has been broke . . . and the Krugman/Keynesian deficit spending model will ensure that it will remain broke for a long time . . . or forever.

I didn't even see that Paul Krugman wrote this, I should have guessed! Krugman previously said that the US economy would never recover from a Trump presidency, meanwhile the economy is rolling along better than it was 2 years ago by just about any conceivable measure. the guy has exactly ZERO credibility, he's not a scientist, he's a liberal advocate. Everything he says and writes, shows a clear liberal bias.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If Krugman's assertion is that overall wages in the private economy have not gone up, then what is the point of raising public sector wages which depend on income derived from taxing the private sector? And if government workers already have better job security, better guaranteed pension and health insurance than the average private sector worker, as well as, on average, higher pay, then what is the problem with cutting some of that fat from government spending?

And if the reason for corporate tax cuts is to create more jobs, then those cuts are a boon to the "little (unemployed or underemployed) guy." Unemployment numbers are significantly down. That aspect of the tax cuts is working.

And, what TDF said, Obama did it too, so it must be good because Obama is a way better POTUS than Trump.

And, yeah, the government is broke, has been broke . . . and the Krugman/Keynesian deficit spending model will ensure that it will remain broke for a long time . . . or forever.

WDMSO, detbuch asks a tremendous question. If wages are not going up in the private sector, then even if tax rates were unchanged, that means tax revenue collected stays the same, so by what logic should public sector workers than get raises?

You have fun answering that one.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

WDMSO, detbuch asks a tremendous question. If wages are not going up in the private sector, then even if tax rates were unchanged, that means tax revenue collected stays the same, so by what logic should public sector workers than get raises?

You have fun answering that one.

because they dont work for private companies... Wow that was hard

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

because they dont work for private companies... Wow that was hard

you didn’t understand the question.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Wow that was hard

Government workers are employees of the people of this country. They serve the people, not the other way around. The average private sector citizen makes much less in total wage and benefits than the average public employee. Perhaps you see merit in a system wherein the servant makes more than the master . . . and which accuses the master of being a greedy, fascist pig.

Most private companies are not huge corporations. If you are suggesting that all small to medium size businesses should provide their employees the same wage and benefit packages as well as the job security that average government workers are given, can you please explain how they can afford to do so?

They can't endlessly borrow from their employees in order to pay them. But the federal government not only does that, it borrows from the people that employ it. And the financial debt it owes to the people of this country should more than bankrupt it. It should go to prison for the massive fraud, the embezzlement, it has perpetrated on the people who employ it. But the Ponzi scheme it foists on us is secure because rather than serving us, it rules us.

Yeah, it's not hard for you to say "because they dont work for private companies..." But they do work for a big crook who pays them with an endless supply of stolen money.