Tax cuts and deficit

 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 10-06-2017, 12:37 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
In this country, when the rich get richer the middle and lower class have always improved their lifestyle. I think that many folks fail to realize that our average poor family lives as well as many middle class in other countries. Our middle class lives as well as upper middle class to lower wealthy in other countries. Why? Because we have an abundance of wealthy in this country.
I respectfully disagree, the government spending much more than they take in is what stimulates the economy. Pass a balanced budget next year and even while ignoring the debt the economy and stock market would both tank badly. With pension plans disappearing and people relying on 401K the stock market resembles a Ponzi scheme. IMHO
  #17  
Old 10-06-2017, 01:13 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
Do you have a link to that information? What are the income groups that you are quoting. How do you average a wealthy family?
Trump says tax plan helps middle class, not wealthy. Experts say that's not true. - Chicago Tribune
  #18  
Old 10-06-2017, 01:21 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

9 ways Trump’s tax plan is a gift to the rich, including himself - The Washington Post

Trump's Tax Plan and 'the Rich' - FactCheck.org

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthony.../#2cc8b87055eb

Big Winners in Donald Trump’s Tax Plan: The Wealthy - WSJ

From the FORBES link above.....

"By eliminating tax breaks and loopholes, we will ensure that the benefits are focused on the middle class, the working men and women, not the highest-income earners. They can call me all they want. It’s not going to help. I’m doing the right thing, and it’s not good for me. Believe me.

Well, Mr. President, it appears as though you can stop worrying about rich friends calling to complain. They're going to do juuuust fine under your plan, and so are you, as evidenced by an analysis released today by the Tax Policy Center. They and you will do disproportionately better, in fact, then the lower-class taxpayers you said were the focus of your tax cuts.

Oh, and as for America's forgotten middle class? For those making between $100,000 and $300,000, well...there is a one-in-three chance they will be paying more in tax then under current law."

  #19  
Old 10-06-2017, 02:55 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

a tax system should not seek to be " fair". A tax system should seek to be effective and efficient.

This issue of " fairness" as respects taxes is meaningless. In that I mean at every socio-economic level people will complain that someone else is not paying their fair share. As a result we find politicians passing legislation allowing for carve outs for their favored constituents. these same politicians need to satisfy the hoi polli so they provide entitlements one way or another. Let's not forget that these same politicians pass legislation making it easier to take back the bacon to their home states

The following carve outs ought to be eliminated estate taxes because people are forced to pay taxes twice on earned income, state/local tax deduction because states with lower or no state tax finance the deduction. And also the mortgage interest deduction.
I desire repeal of the estate tax only on the belief that it is punitive in nature.

Some posters continue to be concerned about the balance between revenue and expenditures. I am not because no matter what Congress decides they will continue raising the debt ceiling.

Our government representatives and employees are imprudent spenders of taxpayer funds and are guilty of abuse, fraud and waste.

I view government as the Sheriff of Nottingham and have his way with us when he wants.

I await a genuine tax reform but doubt I will ever see it in my time.

Personal Best Regards:
  #20  
Old 10-07-2017, 02:36 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
a tax system should not seek to be " fair". A tax system should seek to be effective and efficient.

This issue of " fairness" as respects taxes is meaningless. In that I mean at every socio-economic level people will complain that someone else is not paying their fair share. As a result we find politicians passing legislation allowing for carve outs for their favored constituents. these same politicians need to satisfy the hoi polli so they provide entitlements one way or another. Let's not forget that these same politicians pass legislation making it easier to take back the bacon to their home states

The following carve outs ought to be eliminated estate taxes because people are forced to pay taxes twice on earned income, state/local tax deduction because states with lower or no state tax finance the deduction. And also the mortgage interest deduction.
I desire repeal of the estate tax only on the belief that it is punitive in nature.

Some posters continue to be concerned about the balance between revenue and expenditures. I am not because no matter what Congress decides they will continue raising the debt ceiling.

Our government representatives and employees are imprudent spenders of taxpayer funds and are guilty of abuse, fraud and waste.

I view government as the Sheriff of Nottingham and have his way with us when he wants.

I await a genuine tax reform but doubt I will ever see it in my time.

Personal Best Regards:
A balanced budget amendment with no wiggle room would solve most of the issues you speak to. It would force the tough decisions that are ignored now to be made. Spending would have real consequences at the ballot box. Term limits would not be needed. Maybe those junk yard dogs Reagan was going to set loose to go after wasteful spending 35 years ago might even come back to life.
  #21  
Old 10-07-2017, 03:57 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
A balanced budget amendment with no wiggle room would solve most of the issues you speak to. It would force the tough decisions that are ignored now to be made. Spending would have real consequences at the ballot box. Term limits would not be needed. Maybe those junk yard dogs Reagan was going to set loose to go after wasteful spending 35 years ago might even come back to life.
What would cutting the "budget" by 1/4, over $1 trillion, 25%...solve?

Do you KNOW just how many people RELY on the government? Half get benefits...government hiring and contracts create/maintain jobs.

The country would crash and burn without that money.
  #22  
Old 10-08-2017, 04:27 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Location: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
What would cutting the "budget" by 1/4, over $1 trillion, 25%...solve?

Do you KNOW just how many people RELY on the government? Half get benefits...government hiring and contracts create/maintain jobs.

The country would crash and burn without that money.
Good, then the survivors will live and the losers will die off. I wonder how many libtards would wish to ban guns if that happened.
  #23  
Old 10-08-2017, 07:31 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
Good, then the survivors will live and the losers will die off. I wonder how many libtards would wish to ban guns if that happened.
What we SHOULD have been doing all along.

HALF the country receives a government benefit...that cannot be sustained.

WHAT are we going to do with 50 million people who can't afford to eat? Keep housing them? Keep feeding them? KEEP paying for their b@stard children? THEY outnumber US below the age of 7. They ARE taking over...breeding us out.
  #24  
Old 10-08-2017, 07:46 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default




We could start here:



.
  #25  
Old 10-08-2017, 12:45 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Location: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Pelosi said that food stamps, unemployment checks and welfare were good for the economy. I say, cut them off and those that wish to survive will seek employment. THAT will be good for the economy. More of the population working will also increase tax revenues. Of course, libTARDS only believe that taxing the rich will increase tax revenues. Idiots!
  #26  
Old 10-08-2017, 04:38 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
The administration is offering large tax cuts with no commensurate spending cuts at all.

Should this signal that we are going to simply allow the deficit to grow and make not more attempts to even try to reduce it ?
Both are good but I do not think you can get then done together. The deficit has been growing because we spend too much not because we do not tax enough.
  #27  
Old 10-08-2017, 05:03 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
What would cutting the "budget" by 1/4, over $1 trillion, 25%...solve?

Do you KNOW just how many people RELY on the government? Half get benefits...government hiring and contracts create/maintain jobs.

The country would crash and burn without that money.
If what you are saying is we cannot cut spending then should we not raise taxes. I just think we should do one or the other, maybe both but stop this credit madness.
  #28  
Old 10-08-2017, 05:05 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
What we SHOULD have been doing all along.

HALF the country receives a government benefit...that cannot be sustained.

WHAT are we going to do with 50 million people who can't afford to eat? Keep housing them? Keep feeding them? KEEP paying for their b@stard children? THEY outnumber US below the age of 7. They ARE taking over...breeding us out.
Does that include retired people drawing a lot more social security and medicare benefit than they paid in?
  #29  
Old 10-08-2017, 06:54 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
Pelosi said that food stamps, unemployment checks and welfare were good for the economy. I say, cut them off and those that wish to survive will seek employment. THAT will be good for the economy. More of the population working will also increase tax revenues. Of course, libTARDS only believe that taxing the rich will increase tax revenues. Idiots!
You're going to "cut off" 50 million mostly minority women? You're gonna say...work or you and your children starve? Have at it...

The government supports the blacks and lets them sit home doing nothing because FORCING them to work is slavery again.

We LET the illegals come here and do their jobs. The jobs the blacks and kids used to do...Hispanics do now. And we pay them too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
Does that include retired people drawing a lot more social security and medicare benefit than they paid in?
Those people are long gone...everyone starting collecting now has paid in their entire working lives.

It includes everyone collecting something from the government...the DIFFERENCE is...the white people collecting SS...PAID...the 50 million on welfare did NOT. One is a RETURN on investment...the other is a gift...charity. That's a HUGE difference.

What happens when the government has to start cashing in those SS trust fund IOUs to pay people? Where is it going to come up with that? It already borrows more than a $ trillion a year. It'll be $2 trillion next year as Trump has to pay for the TX and FL, PR hurricane damage.
  #30  
Old 10-08-2017, 07:13 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Location: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Baldwin View Post
You're going to "cut off" 50 million mostly minority women? You're gonna say...work or you and your children starve? Have at it...

The government supports the blacks and lets them sit home doing nothing because FORCING them to work is slavery again.

We LET the illegals come here and do their jobs. The jobs the blacks and kids used to do...Hispanics do now. And we pay them too.



Those people are long gone...everyone starting collecting now has paid in their entire working lives.

It includes everyone collecting something from the government...the DIFFERENCE is...the white people collecting SS...PAID...the 50 million on welfare did NOT. One is a RETURN on investment...the other is a gift...charity. That's a HUGE difference.

What happens when the government has to start cashing in those SS trust fund IOUs to pay people? Where is it going to come up with that? It already borrows more than a $ trillion a year. It'll be $2 trillion next year as Trump has to pay for the TX and FL, PR hurricane damage.
Did all the liberals take a break... Where is the rebuttal? Come on you have Don on the ropes...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
 

Tags
make, tax

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:16 AM.