US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9177
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Gahlo
United States35154 Posts
On November 08 2017 22:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/alexnpress/status/928074206910312448 Good. Will be a signal to others that they don't have to bow to the party establishment. | ||
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
On November 08 2017 16:36 mozoku wrote: Sort of jumping back a page here, but I'm struggling to understand how this tax bill is supposed to be a "tax cuts for the rich"? There's literally no interpretation of this bill where this makes any sense, and the fact that anyone believes it is a testament to how thoroughly the left has brainwashed a large part of it's base--it's Fox News-level nonsense dogma. Before you accused the entire left of being brainwashed you could have looked up any of Kwark's multiple breakdowns of the bill to understand why liberals think that. Here's one, there's more if you use the search function: + Show Spoiler + On September 29 2017 00:01 KwarK wrote: Tax plan is out. Increasing standard deduction and eliminating the personal exemptions is a dick move to anyone with dependents and a bonus for anyone without. Basically what they're doing is giving you $5.65k more tax free roosm and taking away $4.05k tax free room for you and $4.05k per dependent you have. Getting rid of AMT for "paperwork reduction" reasons is pretty laughable. AMT is alternative minimum tax. Basically what it does is, as the name suggests, establishes a floor tax rate that you won't pay less than if you're superrich. You do your best to maximize your deductions and come up with how much you want to pay, just like everyone else. The AMT is a single form that calculates a number based on limiting the exploitation of deductions. If the AMT number is > than the normal number, you pay the AMT. It's all automated and it's a single form designed as a "don't take the piss" limit on the superrich taking deductions. Literally no reason to get rid of it if you're not trying to help them. It doesn't cause any additional work, nobody it applies to is doing their own taxes and nobody doing the taxes for anyone it applies to is struggling with it. Estate tax repeal doesn't need any explanation. Right now you can pass $11m to your kids tax free. Apparently $11m isn't enough to set them up in life and what we really need is a permanent aristocracy. Incidentally this isn't something that can easily be fixed later. These are wealth transfer taxes, if you transfer over $11m while alive you also pay taxes at the estate tax rate. What that means is that if this passes it'll create a window that allows tax free intergenerational wealth transfers that would then already be complete by the time the estate tax is restored. Reducing number of tax brackets is whatever. Number of tax brackets isn't really a problem in my opinion. Getting to taxable income is the hard part of doing taxes. Once you have that number it's a pretty simple formula to find out what you owe. Lowering top bracket is obviously kinda shitty but we all knew that. The real fun happens in the corporate tax part though. Two big changes. Depreciation gets to be a total fucking free for all. Here's the ELI5. Normally when you buy a thing it's either expensed or capitalized, depending upon what the thing is. If you buy a sandwich then you would call that an eating expense, you're now poorer, the amount of money you have consumed by eating goes up, the amount of dollars you have go down. Overall, you're poorer. But if you were to, for example, buy some gold bars, that's not really an expense. You can't resell the sandwich when you're done but you can probably resell the gold bars. So instead of expensing the gold bars we capitalize them. What that means is the amount of dollars we have goes down but the amount of gold bars we have goes up and so we're roughly where we were. If they get rid of capitalizing assets then suddenly we're in "I didn't make any money this year because my gold bar expense is too high and actually I made a loss" territory. It'll be a fun few years if that goes through. Also he's fucking with medium size businesses and flow-through taxes. I'll ELI5 it. If you own a business and the business makes $100,000 then really you've made $100,000. For a lot of business structures how that works is that income passes directly for you, the business pays tax on $0, you pay tax on $100,000. If you're a small business owner that's fine because your rate of personal income tax probably isn't that high. But if you're in one of the higher personal tax brackets then that's not great. Trump is throwing a 25% bracket into the middle of that. It's no use to small business owners but if you're making $300,000 or so of business income a year then suddenly you can start playing games with that shit and switch from a flow-through entity so that your business pays 25% tax and pays you a salary. And naturally you get to decide what that salary is. To make it even more fun anyone who is 1099 (contractors) can come up with their own business for which they are the employee and get that lower tax rate. The incentives for domestic manufacturing already exist. Not really interesting. It's a tax bill cobbled together by lunatics and special interests. Almost certainly won't pass but it'll be a fun few years for the accounting world if it does. Now do you think Kwark has just been brainwashed, or do you maybe think he based his opinion on looking at the bill and what it actually does? Corporate tax cuts are happening everywhere in the world... because the world has realized that it's more efficient to tax people than corporations. When you tax a corporation, the tax is pushed on to consumers, employees, and shareholders in hard-to-measure amounts. When you repeal it, the largest portion does go to shareholders but the US has to lower nominal corporate taxes rates to maintain the real tax rate in the new bill due to loophole closures. Finally, sure, this part of the bill is the most regressive portion (the GOP generally values growth over income equality after all), but that's made up for by the fact that the vast majority of the individual tax cuts are going to the middle class. You made a weird transition from "how could anyone think this bill is regressive" to "here's why these regressive policies are a good idea." And source on the vast majority of cuts going to the middle class? A lot of the middle class is going to pay more because they don't get a deduction for dependents anymore. Furthermore, the marginal rates on high earners are generally higher now, so the individual tax rates are more progressive in that sense. Sure, many high earners pay less overall but so does just about everyone else as well. It's not really tax reform, it's a tax cut. Marginal income tax rate on high earners doesn't matter that much because most people with that kind of wealth make their money through capital gains, not income. As I understand it that often knocks their tax rate low enough that they actually pay the AMT (which, you'll note, is being removed). Finally, the top 1% of earners pays literally 50% of the total tax bill. Good lord, I understand the "but they can afford to pay more" argument but 50%? If that's not progressive enough for you, you might as well just straight up ask for a free ride through life. If you think your tax bill is too high, maybe you should consider looking where we can trim expenses instead of trying to pay more of your expenses with someone else's money. I'm not sure when our reference point for "not progressive enough" became the status quo instead of absolute reality. Again, you opened with "anyone who thinks this is tax cuts for the rich is delusional" and then switched into "here's why we should cut taxes for the rich." If you really think the bill doesn't cut their taxes why are you even arguing the rich pay too much? For the record, I'm not even a really a fan of this tax bill (even though I'd likely reluctantly vote for it). I'm a fan of small government in principle, but this bill feels more like Trump populist handouts then growth-minded reform. And before I'm accused of being irrationally scared of government (as is the usual knee-jerk reaction I get when I post), I'll restate for the 100th time that I'd rather have single payer than the current healthcare mess (though I'm somewhat uncomfortable with it in principle) and that I believe corporations may be underregulated in certain industries (though overregulated in others). There's a bit of a mismatch in tone between "hey, I agree with you guys on a lot of stuff, we're all friends here" and "all of you are brainwashed zombies, let me tell you the real truth you're all too brainwashed to understand." | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Sermokala
United States13957 Posts
| ||
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
The good news: the results are consistent with what's expected when you have a sitting president with 38% approval and a generic ballot with an 8-10 point advantage for Democrats. There's nothing uniquely terrible Trump is inflicting not represented in those numbers. The bad news: there's no indication that either of those things will change at all by 2018. | ||
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
On November 08 2017 22:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/IBTimes/status/928238297612210176 Millenials are the scourge to the free market economy. They kill everything! | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 08 2017 23:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/928260190692151296 If Obamacare's not repealed and the wall's not up, that's going to be an absolute ton of Republican congressmen. | ||
Ryzel
United States529 Posts
On November 08 2017 23:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/928260190692151296 Don't know what this guys talking about, the districts that typically elect Republicans in California (e.g. Orange County) have VERY rich constituents who would have a lot to gain from this tax bill. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On November 08 2017 22:18 Gahlo wrote: Good. Will be a signal to others that they don't have to bow to the party establishment. I recommend looking at his campaign donations. He got thousands from the Dem Party of VA, House Dem Caucus, the Fairfax Dems, and a quick check puts his biggest individual donor as a stockbroker who has donated millions to Democrats. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42779 Posts
On November 08 2017 16:36 mozoku wrote: Sort of jumping back a page here, but I'm struggling to understand how this tax bill is supposed to be a "tax cuts for the rich"? There's literally no interpretation of this bill where this makes any sense, and the fact that anyone believes it is a testament to how thoroughly the left has brainwashed a large part of it's base--it's Fox News-level nonsense dogma. Corporate tax cuts are happening everywhere in the world... because the world has realized that it's more efficient to tax people than corporations. When you tax a corporation, the tax is pushed on to consumers, employees, and shareholders in hard-to-measure amounts. When you repeal it, the largest portion does go to shareholders but the US has to lower nominal corporate taxes rates to maintain the real tax rate in the new bill due to loophole closures. Finally, sure, this part of the bill is the most regressive portion (the GOP generally values growth over income equality after all), but that's made up for by the fact that the vast majority of the individual tax cuts are going to the middle class. Furthermore, the marginal rates on high earners are generally higher now, so the individual tax rates are more progressive in that sense. Sure, many high earners pay less overall but so does just about everyone else as well. It's not really tax reform, it's a tax cut. Finally, the top 1% of earners pays literally 50% of the total tax bill. Good lord, I understand the "but they can afford to pay more" argument but 50%? If that's not progressive enough for you, you might as well just straight up ask for a free ride through life. If you think your tax bill is too high, maybe you should consider looking where we can trim expenses instead of trying to pay more of your expenses with someone else's money. I'm not sure when our reference point for "not progressive enough" became the status quo instead of absolute reality. For the record, I'm not even a really a fan of this tax bill (even though I'd likely reluctantly vote for it). I'm a fan of small government in principle, but this bill feels more like Trump populist handouts then growth-minded reform. And before I'm accused of being irrationally scared of government (as is the usual knee-jerk reaction I get when I post), I'll restate for the 100th time that I'd rather have single payer than the current healthcare mess (though I'm somewhat uncomfortable with it in principle) and that I believe corporations may be underregulated in certain industries (though overregulated in others). It's tax cuts for the rich because under it the rich pay less in taxes. Elimination of the AMT and of the estate tax are deliberate policies targeted for the 0.1%. I'm not really sure how you can not understand why it's a tax cut for the rich. The rich are having their taxes cut by it. That's what it does. In what sense could that not ever be a tax cut for the rich? | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 08 2017 23:17 Sermokala wrote: I'd rather live in a Successful socialist state then a free market capitalist nation as well. I've never seen someone lay out how exactly thats suppose to work however so I never feel the need to support the revolution. We won’t know unless we try. And its not binary. We can have a little socialism for things like healthcare, housing and education/job training and a bunch of capitalism for everything else. | ||
Biff The Understudy
France7890 Posts
On November 08 2017 23:17 Sermokala wrote: I'd rather live in a Successful socialist state then a free market capitalist nation as well. I've never seen someone lay out how exactly thats suppose to work however so I never feel the need to support the revolution. Well it’s a spectrum isn’t it? Capitalism doesn’t mean an Ayn Rand dystopia and socialism doesn’t mean Poland 1960. I think when people say a “socialist state” they think Denmark and Sweden. I am biaised as I chose to live in Scandinavia, but it seems clear to me they have found a much healthier and better place on that spectrum than the US. | ||
Simberto
Germany11521 Posts
On November 08 2017 23:46 Plansix wrote: We won’t know unless we try. And its not binary. We can have a little socialism for things like healthcare, housing and education/job training and a bunch of capitalism for everything else. Also, i get this feeling that when people in the US say "socialism", they mean one of two completely different things depending on where they place on the US political spectrum, none of which is actually socialism. If they are left-wing and say socialism, they usually mean European (or Scandinavian)-style social democratic ideas. If they are right-wing, they usually mean soviet-style stalinism. I think that this is the root of a lot of misunderstandings. You guys are bad at using the right words for the things that you want to say, and you don't even all use the same wrong words or mean the same wrong things when using those words. | ||
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On November 08 2017 23:46 Plansix wrote: We won’t know unless we try. And its not binary. We can have a little socialism for things like healthcare, housing and education/job training and a bunch of capitalism for everything else. You forgot the best example we have and it rhymes with precocial maturity ![]() | ||
Sermokala
United States13957 Posts
On November 08 2017 23:46 Plansix wrote: We won’t know unless we try. And its not binary. We can have a little socialism for things like healthcare, housing and education/job training and a bunch of capitalism for everything else. Compromise is the essence of success and all but I'll still bank on calling Scandinavia more.free market then socialist. The government being.responsible for maintaining the conditions for a free market. People just arnt advocating for the global revolution like they used to so everythings chill. | ||
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On November 09 2017 00:11 Sermokala wrote: Compromise is the essence of success and all but I'll still bank on calling Scandinavia more.free market then socialist. The government being.responsible for maintaining the conditions for a free market. People just arnt advocating for the global revolution like they used to so everythings chill. You shouldn't "bank" on upholding the use of an oftentimes inaccurate label in place of admitting that this line we've drawn between "capitalist" and "socialist" is mostly bullshit utilized by pundits and fear mongers in service of outrage in lieu of actual understanding. We can and must do better. | ||
CatharsisUT
United States487 Posts
On November 08 2017 23:37 Ryzel wrote: Don't know what this guys talking about, the districts that typically elect Republicans in California (e.g. Orange County) have VERY rich constituents who would have a lot to gain from this tax bill. Not true at all. If they limit interest deductions and take away state and local tax deductions, taxes on many, many people in these areas will go up. It's particularly important in those areas, as my feeling is that GOP support in those districts is largely economic; if you prove that there's no financial benefit to tagging along with the GOP culture wars, I would expect mass defections in those areas. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
| ||