|
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. |
On December 02 2017 07:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 07:07 hunts wrote:On December 02 2017 06:58 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 06:55 Wulfey_LA wrote:The Dossier got the gist of the most explosive allegation correct. Schiller (Trump's longtime bodyguard) confirmed the following allegations in the Dossier: (1) Trump was at the named hotel (2) Trump was offered services of 5 Prosititutues Schiller: (3a) Schiller says Trump turned them down, but Schiller doesn't know what happened after Schiller left Dossier: (3b) Trump took up the offer of the 5 prostitutes and they were used to generate Kompromot I see all kinds of shit talking on the Dossier, but its dodgiest part has been confirmed right up to the door of Trump's Russian hotel room.
The dossier, written by former British spy Christopher Steele, alleged that Trump hired prostitutes to perform a "golden showers' show in front of him" at the Moscow Ritz Carlton in 2013.
Schiller denied that anything inappropriate happened, telling the committee that he and Trump laughed off the offer and went to bed.
But the dossier also alleges, in a completely different section, that Trump "paid bribes and engaged in sexual activities" in St. Petersburg "but key witnesses were silenced and evidence [was] hard to obtain."
"Speaking to a trusted compatriot in September 2016, two well-placed sources based in St Petersburg, one in the political/business elite and the other involved in the local services and tourist industry, commented on Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump's prior activities in the city," the dossier reads.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/11/11/trumps-bodyguards-testimony-raises-new-questions-about-the-most-salacious-allegations-in-the-dossier/23274380/ The "gist of the most explosive allegation" is not that Trump stayed in the hotel or was offered hookers. A ten year old would receive a low grade for that attempt at summarizing. Come on, you can try better than that. At this point you are literally just trolling (although I suppose you have never not trolled?) "here's this evidence, but I will counter it with some vaguery and say it didn't happen because I said so." Like obviously you don't want it to be true because you're pro trump and all that, but at some point you have to face reality, right? I guess given you and others like you still believe in uranium one, pizza gate, and the murder of Ben Ghazi, I shouldn't make such wild assumptions, but one can hope. The accusations against the journalist that he got nasty with a hooker in his hotel room were greatly aided when it was revealed that he took a stripper's card on the Vegas strip. Said no news story ever. You missed the overreach. The gist of what I'm saying now is that you don't make it very far. Granted, it's better than claiming a man is in Prague that's not in Prague. I have to assume you're in the habit of reading The Enquirer in newstands and finding out Hillary stayed in a hotel was a huge step towards your final belief that aliens made contact with Hillary in that hotel.
It's a significant step. Trump stayed in the room in question and was offered 5 five hookers. It seems you're being a little obtuse.
|
On December 02 2017 07:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 06:59 Introvert wrote:Honestly it seems that this version is better than previous ones.
Media are being dishonest about Republican tax bill's treatment of the middle class
The New York Times editorial page crossed the line from spirited opinion journalism to outright activism by tweeting phone numbers of key senators and urging constituents to demand lawmakers oppose the Republican tax bill. Sadly, the publication’s activism has polluted its news coverage.
While the Republican plan is by no means perfect and can and should be improved in a number of ways, debate should at least be conducted with an intellectually honest presentation of basic facts.
The Times ran a front-page story on Thursday with the breathless headline, “G.O.P. Tax Plan Could Reshape Life in the U.S.” Though it was dubbed “analysis,” that doesn’t excuse this line, which was widely-cited on social media: “By 2027, people making $40,000 to $50,000 would pay a combined $5.3 billion more in taxes, while the group earning $1 million or more would get a $5.8 billion cut, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office.” It isn’t merely misleading, but factually inaccurate. And it’s indicative of a lot of media coverage about the tax bill, so it’s worth exploring in more detail.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/media-are-being-dishonest-about-republican-tax-bills-treatment-of-the-middle-class/article/2642275He takes a look at the rest after that opening. Posting from phone sorry for any weird copy paste or formatting. The nonpartisan tax policy foundation showed an across the board tax cut. It still didn't sway me to support it. Far too little is actually getting cut for the amount of political capital they're expending on the effort. I also don't think the individual mandate repeal will make it into the final version post-reconciliation.
Another case of you pointing to a headline and yelling "See!"
From that very article:
Finally, these tax calculations are assumed to take place in 2018. Because of the temporary nature of the majority of the individual title in the Senate’s version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, these results are not representative of the entire 10-year budget window. We also made no assumptions regarding individual’s health insurance status, meaning impacts of functionally eliminating the individual mandate penalty are not included.
|
On December 02 2017 07:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 06:59 Introvert wrote:Honestly it seems that this version is better than previous ones.
Media are being dishonest about Republican tax bill's treatment of the middle class
The New York Times editorial page crossed the line from spirited opinion journalism to outright activism by tweeting phone numbers of key senators and urging constituents to demand lawmakers oppose the Republican tax bill. Sadly, the publication’s activism has polluted its news coverage.
While the Republican plan is by no means perfect and can and should be improved in a number of ways, debate should at least be conducted with an intellectually honest presentation of basic facts.
The Times ran a front-page story on Thursday with the breathless headline, “G.O.P. Tax Plan Could Reshape Life in the U.S.” Though it was dubbed “analysis,” that doesn’t excuse this line, which was widely-cited on social media: “By 2027, people making $40,000 to $50,000 would pay a combined $5.3 billion more in taxes, while the group earning $1 million or more would get a $5.8 billion cut, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office.” It isn’t merely misleading, but factually inaccurate. And it’s indicative of a lot of media coverage about the tax bill, so it’s worth exploring in more detail.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/media-are-being-dishonest-about-republican-tax-bills-treatment-of-the-middle-class/article/2642275He takes a look at the rest after that opening. Posting from phone sorry for any weird copy paste or formatting. https://twitter.com/taxfoundation/status/933081745272004608The nonpartisan tax policy foundation showed an across the board tax cut. It still didn't sway me to support it. Far too little is actually getting cut for the amount of political capital they're expending on the effort. I also don't think the individual mandate repeal will make it into the final version post-reconciliation.
Being nonpartisan doesn't mean they're neutral on this tax bill, though. They seem to make it a mission to support pro-business tax cuts.
See how their 48K couple only gains 0.6% increased income? If they had had dependents I'm pretty sure they have a tax increase. And none of them looked at cases of > 2 dependents (except the ultra-rich couple).
I mean, of course you can construct scenarios where everyone sees a tax cut (even a useless 0.6% one) and they did so. But that says nothing about the effect on the average household making in a certain income range.
Edit: I mean, I can make a chart showing how an MIT student's taxes go up 60% under this tax plan, but it would hardly mean that's the average effect on individuals making ~25K a year (or the 65K-ish the federal government now claims he is making).
|
On December 02 2017 08:03 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 07:14 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 07:07 hunts wrote:On December 02 2017 06:58 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 06:55 Wulfey_LA wrote:The Dossier got the gist of the most explosive allegation correct. Schiller (Trump's longtime bodyguard) confirmed the following allegations in the Dossier: (1) Trump was at the named hotel (2) Trump was offered services of 5 Prosititutues Schiller: (3a) Schiller says Trump turned them down, but Schiller doesn't know what happened after Schiller left Dossier: (3b) Trump took up the offer of the 5 prostitutes and they were used to generate Kompromot I see all kinds of shit talking on the Dossier, but its dodgiest part has been confirmed right up to the door of Trump's Russian hotel room.
The dossier, written by former British spy Christopher Steele, alleged that Trump hired prostitutes to perform a "golden showers' show in front of him" at the Moscow Ritz Carlton in 2013.
Schiller denied that anything inappropriate happened, telling the committee that he and Trump laughed off the offer and went to bed.
But the dossier also alleges, in a completely different section, that Trump "paid bribes and engaged in sexual activities" in St. Petersburg "but key witnesses were silenced and evidence [was] hard to obtain."
"Speaking to a trusted compatriot in September 2016, two well-placed sources based in St Petersburg, one in the political/business elite and the other involved in the local services and tourist industry, commented on Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump's prior activities in the city," the dossier reads.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/11/11/trumps-bodyguards-testimony-raises-new-questions-about-the-most-salacious-allegations-in-the-dossier/23274380/ The "gist of the most explosive allegation" is not that Trump stayed in the hotel or was offered hookers. A ten year old would receive a low grade for that attempt at summarizing. Come on, you can try better than that. At this point you are literally just trolling (although I suppose you have never not trolled?) "here's this evidence, but I will counter it with some vaguery and say it didn't happen because I said so." Like obviously you don't want it to be true because you're pro trump and all that, but at some point you have to face reality, right? I guess given you and others like you still believe in uranium one, pizza gate, and the murder of Ben Ghazi, I shouldn't make such wild assumptions, but one can hope. The accusations against the journalist that he got nasty with a hooker in his hotel room were greatly aided when it was revealed that he took a stripper's card on the Vegas strip. Said no news story ever. You missed the overreach. The gist of what I'm saying now is that you don't make it very far. Granted, it's better than claiming a man is in Prague that's not in Prague. I have to assume you're in the habit of reading The Enquirer in newstands and finding out Hillary stayed in a hotel was a huge step towards your final belief that aliens made contact with Hillary in that hotel. It's a significant step. Trump stayed in the room in question and was offered 5 five hookers. It seems you're being a little obtuse.
No problem if you call it a small step towards proving it right, as long as you know the gist of the substance is not hotels or proferrings.
|
On December 02 2017 07:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 06:59 Introvert wrote:Honestly it seems that this version is better than previous ones.
Media are being dishonest about Republican tax bill's treatment of the middle class
The New York Times editorial page crossed the line from spirited opinion journalism to outright activism by tweeting phone numbers of key senators and urging constituents to demand lawmakers oppose the Republican tax bill. Sadly, the publication’s activism has polluted its news coverage.
While the Republican plan is by no means perfect and can and should be improved in a number of ways, debate should at least be conducted with an intellectually honest presentation of basic facts.
The Times ran a front-page story on Thursday with the breathless headline, “G.O.P. Tax Plan Could Reshape Life in the U.S.” Though it was dubbed “analysis,” that doesn’t excuse this line, which was widely-cited on social media: “By 2027, people making $40,000 to $50,000 would pay a combined $5.3 billion more in taxes, while the group earning $1 million or more would get a $5.8 billion cut, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office.” It isn’t merely misleading, but factually inaccurate. And it’s indicative of a lot of media coverage about the tax bill, so it’s worth exploring in more detail.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/media-are-being-dishonest-about-republican-tax-bills-treatment-of-the-middle-class/article/2642275He takes a look at the rest after that opening. Posting from phone sorry for any weird copy paste or formatting. https://twitter.com/taxfoundation/status/933081745272004608The nonpartisan tax policy foundation showed an across the board tax cut. It still didn't sway me to support it. Far too little is actually getting cut for the amount of political capital they're expending on the effort. I also don't think the individual mandate repeal will make it into the final version post-reconciliation.
I'm not in love with this bill, but the modernization of the corporate tax code is something that needs to be done. Some cuts are probably needed to make the public buy into a corporate tax cut, but I don't think a cut as large as this one's is necessary. I'm not really a big fan of the estate tax repeal either, but I'm not convinced it's a huge deal one way or another.
I'd vote for it because it's the best that we can hope for in the disastrous political environment that Washington is currently. It'll get amended in the future probably, but it's likely that the corporate taxes will stick as it's more consistent with how everybody else is handling corporate taxes these days.
The realistic alternatives are no corporate tax reform or whatever awful class warfare tax plan the Democrats would come up with, and this tax plan is significantly better than either of those outcomes.
|
I love the argument "Well its pretty shit, but its the best shit we are going to get. Maybe we can make it less shit later. The important part is that we cut taxes when the nation is at full employment and also been at war for nearly 20 years."
But I understand. Republicans are in power and rich people need that pay day. Just like the Bush era tax cuts. Gotta pay their the people that fund their elections and all those conservative publicans.
|
On December 02 2017 08:08 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 07:10 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 06:59 Introvert wrote:Honestly it seems that this version is better than previous ones.
Media are being dishonest about Republican tax bill's treatment of the middle class
The New York Times editorial page crossed the line from spirited opinion journalism to outright activism by tweeting phone numbers of key senators and urging constituents to demand lawmakers oppose the Republican tax bill. Sadly, the publication’s activism has polluted its news coverage.
While the Republican plan is by no means perfect and can and should be improved in a number of ways, debate should at least be conducted with an intellectually honest presentation of basic facts.
The Times ran a front-page story on Thursday with the breathless headline, “G.O.P. Tax Plan Could Reshape Life in the U.S.” Though it was dubbed “analysis,” that doesn’t excuse this line, which was widely-cited on social media: “By 2027, people making $40,000 to $50,000 would pay a combined $5.3 billion more in taxes, while the group earning $1 million or more would get a $5.8 billion cut, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office.” It isn’t merely misleading, but factually inaccurate. And it’s indicative of a lot of media coverage about the tax bill, so it’s worth exploring in more detail.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/media-are-being-dishonest-about-republican-tax-bills-treatment-of-the-middle-class/article/2642275He takes a look at the rest after that opening. Posting from phone sorry for any weird copy paste or formatting. https://twitter.com/taxfoundation/status/933081745272004608The nonpartisan tax policy foundation showed an across the board tax cut. It still didn't sway me to support it. Far too little is actually getting cut for the amount of political capital they're expending on the effort. I also don't think the individual mandate repeal will make it into the final version post-reconciliation. Another case of you pointing to a headline and yelling "See!" From that very article: Show nested quote +Finally, these tax calculations are assumed to take place in 2018. Because of the temporary nature of the majority of the individual title in the Senate’s version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, these results are not representative of the entire 10-year budget window. We also made no assumptions regarding individual’s health insurance status, meaning impacts of functionally eliminating the individual mandate penalty are not included.
I was seeing a little bit too much saying everybody knows tax rates go up for the poor and middle class. Next year, provably, taxes are going down across pretty much all income regions.
Deepen your understanding. 68% of households take the standard deduction. The IRS says this number changes to 94% for lowest incomes, in fact, it's only the higher incomes that prefer not to (link). The bill just doubled the standard deduction, meaning the vast majority of middle income families see a tax cut in this plan. You can still hate it for other reasons, that's fine.
Hell, we could probably save ourselves a lot of time here if you read Introvert's story and tell us your takeaway and why. I feel like you're trusting a second set of numbers without understanding they aren't tax burden change but insurance premium subsidy changes.
|
On December 02 2017 08:25 Plansix wrote:
I love the argument "Well its pretty shit, but its the best shit we are going to get. Maybe we can make it less shit later. The important part is that we cut taxes when the nation is at full employment and also been at war for nearly 20 years."
But I understand. Republicans are in power and rich people need that pay day. Just like the Bush era tax cuts. Gotta pay their the people that fund their elections and all those conservative publicans.
You forgot the conservative team uniform "all other alternatives are bad" nonsense that lets everyone know that any attempt at characterizing non-Republican plans as anything but "awful class warfare" will end in some kind of performance piece aimed at also letting everyone know that somehow, some way, somebody still thinks Friedman-esque economics aren't obsolete and that it's currently 1972.
|
On December 02 2017 08:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 08:08 Gahlo wrote:On December 02 2017 07:10 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 06:59 Introvert wrote:Honestly it seems that this version is better than previous ones.
Media are being dishonest about Republican tax bill's treatment of the middle class
The New York Times editorial page crossed the line from spirited opinion journalism to outright activism by tweeting phone numbers of key senators and urging constituents to demand lawmakers oppose the Republican tax bill. Sadly, the publication’s activism has polluted its news coverage.
While the Republican plan is by no means perfect and can and should be improved in a number of ways, debate should at least be conducted with an intellectually honest presentation of basic facts.
The Times ran a front-page story on Thursday with the breathless headline, “G.O.P. Tax Plan Could Reshape Life in the U.S.” Though it was dubbed “analysis,” that doesn’t excuse this line, which was widely-cited on social media: “By 2027, people making $40,000 to $50,000 would pay a combined $5.3 billion more in taxes, while the group earning $1 million or more would get a $5.8 billion cut, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office.” It isn’t merely misleading, but factually inaccurate. And it’s indicative of a lot of media coverage about the tax bill, so it’s worth exploring in more detail.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/media-are-being-dishonest-about-republican-tax-bills-treatment-of-the-middle-class/article/2642275He takes a look at the rest after that opening. Posting from phone sorry for any weird copy paste or formatting. https://twitter.com/taxfoundation/status/933081745272004608The nonpartisan tax policy foundation showed an across the board tax cut. It still didn't sway me to support it. Far too little is actually getting cut for the amount of political capital they're expending on the effort. I also don't think the individual mandate repeal will make it into the final version post-reconciliation. Another case of you pointing to a headline and yelling "See!" From that very article: Finally, these tax calculations are assumed to take place in 2018. Because of the temporary nature of the majority of the individual title in the Senate’s version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, these results are not representative of the entire 10-year budget window. We also made no assumptions regarding individual’s health insurance status, meaning impacts of functionally eliminating the individual mandate penalty are not included. I was seeing a little bit too much saying everybody knows tax rates go up for the poor and middle class. Next year, provably, taxes are going down across pretty much all income regions. Deepen your understanding. 68% of households take the standard deduction. The IRS says this number changes to 94% for lowest incomes, in fact, it's only the higher incomes that prefer not to ( link). The bill just doubled the standard deduction, meaning the vast majority of middle income families see a tax cut in this plan. You can still hate it for other reasons, that's fine. Hell, we could probably save ourselves a lot of time here if you read Introvert's story and tell us your takeaway and why. I feel like you're trusting a second set of numbers without understanding they aren't tax burden change but insurance premium subsidy changes.
Please, please, please do not present that infographic as some analysis that estimates the savings across all U.S. income brackets. It's simply the change in amount of taxes paid in a handful of scenarios they modeled, and they say as much in their actual article.
If they could do that analysis, they would have, and it would have been in the article.
|
On December 02 2017 08:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 08:25 Plansix wrote:
I love the argument "Well its pretty shit, but its the best shit we are going to get. Maybe we can make it less shit later. The important part is that we cut taxes when the nation is at full employment and also been at war for nearly 20 years."
But I understand. Republicans are in power and rich people need that pay day. Just like the Bush era tax cuts. Gotta pay their the people that fund their elections and all those conservative publicans. You forgot the conservative team uniform "all other alternatives are bad" nonsense that lets everyone know that any attempt at characterizing non-Republican plans as anything but "awful class warfare" will end in some kind of performance piece aimed at also letting everyone know that somehow, some way, somebody still thinks Friedman-esque economics aren't obsolete and that it's currently 1972.
I love their claims that they are going to grow the economy with this plan, but most economists are like "Like, unless you can solve that baby boomer's retiring problem, we are not getting much above 3%. This isn't the 1960-1970s and we just electrified the entire country, built a highway and figured out how to feed everyone, so we are rocking out a 6% GDP." Damn straight they think they are in the 1970s.
Vodoo economics are the economics of Republicans. And pure, 100 % fantasy is the economics of conservatives.
|
I really hope all the rumors about Cotton getting the nod to head the CIA turn out false.
|
mozoku -> you call the republican tax warfare plan better than the dem class warfare plan? you do admit that this plan is just republican class warfare, right? your claims that the dem plan would be worse are entirely unfounded by the recent history of legislation in the country; so they'll be ignored as the utter nonsense they are.
we could construct a far better tax plan if republicans weren't such reprehensible trash as to oppose anything sensible.
of course I could construct a far better tax plan than all of congress, but so could a lot of people 
|
United States42008 Posts
On December 02 2017 08:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 08:08 Gahlo wrote:On December 02 2017 07:10 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 06:59 Introvert wrote:Honestly it seems that this version is better than previous ones.
Media are being dishonest about Republican tax bill's treatment of the middle class
The New York Times editorial page crossed the line from spirited opinion journalism to outright activism by tweeting phone numbers of key senators and urging constituents to demand lawmakers oppose the Republican tax bill. Sadly, the publication’s activism has polluted its news coverage.
While the Republican plan is by no means perfect and can and should be improved in a number of ways, debate should at least be conducted with an intellectually honest presentation of basic facts.
The Times ran a front-page story on Thursday with the breathless headline, “G.O.P. Tax Plan Could Reshape Life in the U.S.” Though it was dubbed “analysis,” that doesn’t excuse this line, which was widely-cited on social media: “By 2027, people making $40,000 to $50,000 would pay a combined $5.3 billion more in taxes, while the group earning $1 million or more would get a $5.8 billion cut, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office.” It isn’t merely misleading, but factually inaccurate. And it’s indicative of a lot of media coverage about the tax bill, so it’s worth exploring in more detail.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/media-are-being-dishonest-about-republican-tax-bills-treatment-of-the-middle-class/article/2642275He takes a look at the rest after that opening. Posting from phone sorry for any weird copy paste or formatting. https://twitter.com/taxfoundation/status/933081745272004608The nonpartisan tax policy foundation showed an across the board tax cut. It still didn't sway me to support it. Far too little is actually getting cut for the amount of political capital they're expending on the effort. I also don't think the individual mandate repeal will make it into the final version post-reconciliation. Another case of you pointing to a headline and yelling "See!" From that very article: Finally, these tax calculations are assumed to take place in 2018. Because of the temporary nature of the majority of the individual title in the Senate’s version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, these results are not representative of the entire 10-year budget window. We also made no assumptions regarding individual’s health insurance status, meaning impacts of functionally eliminating the individual mandate penalty are not included. I was seeing a little bit too much saying everybody knows tax rates go up for the poor and middle class. Next year, provably, taxes are going down across pretty much all income regions. Deepen your understanding. 68% of households take the standard deduction. The IRS says this number changes to 94% for lowest incomes, in fact, it's only the higher incomes that prefer not to ( link). The bill just doubled the standard deduction, meaning the vast majority of middle income families see a tax cut in this plan. You can still hate it for other reasons, that's fine. Hell, we could probably save ourselves a lot of time here if you read Introvert's story and tell us your takeaway and why. I feel like you're trusting a second set of numbers without understanding they aren't tax burden change but insurance premium subsidy changes.
"Lower income families take the standard deduction"
I rate this statement true
"This bill doubles the standard deduction"
I rate this statement mostly true. It increases it from $6,350 to $12,000. That's nearly double.
"Meaning the vast majority of middle income families see a tax cut in this plan"
I rate this statement pants on fire.
The "doubling" of the standard deduction gives each adult in the family ad addition $5,650 of tax exempt income. But $4,050 of tax exempt income is removed by the removal of exemptions. So the net difference is actually just $1,600 more tax deductible space for every adult.
However, children and dependents also previously came with $4,050 exemptions. Now they do not. That means that for one adult and one child you actually lose $2,450 of tax deductible income. For one adult and two children that rises to $6,500. Two adults two children, previously you had $6,350 x2 + $4,050 * 4 = $28,900, now you have $24,000.
Sorry Danglars but I actually read the tax plan. It's actually reducing the tax free allowance for most families, not increasing it. You're either being deliberately misleading or you were yourself misled by someone else being deliberately misleading. Either way, this tax plan does not do what you think it does.
Also you saying "deepen your understanding" was particularly silly.
|
On December 02 2017 08:21 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 07:10 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 06:59 Introvert wrote:Honestly it seems that this version is better than previous ones.
Media are being dishonest about Republican tax bill's treatment of the middle class
The New York Times editorial page crossed the line from spirited opinion journalism to outright activism by tweeting phone numbers of key senators and urging constituents to demand lawmakers oppose the Republican tax bill. Sadly, the publication’s activism has polluted its news coverage.
While the Republican plan is by no means perfect and can and should be improved in a number of ways, debate should at least be conducted with an intellectually honest presentation of basic facts.
The Times ran a front-page story on Thursday with the breathless headline, “G.O.P. Tax Plan Could Reshape Life in the U.S.” Though it was dubbed “analysis,” that doesn’t excuse this line, which was widely-cited on social media: “By 2027, people making $40,000 to $50,000 would pay a combined $5.3 billion more in taxes, while the group earning $1 million or more would get a $5.8 billion cut, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office.” It isn’t merely misleading, but factually inaccurate. And it’s indicative of a lot of media coverage about the tax bill, so it’s worth exploring in more detail.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/media-are-being-dishonest-about-republican-tax-bills-treatment-of-the-middle-class/article/2642275He takes a look at the rest after that opening. Posting from phone sorry for any weird copy paste or formatting. https://twitter.com/taxfoundation/status/933081745272004608The nonpartisan tax policy foundation showed an across the board tax cut. It still didn't sway me to support it. Far too little is actually getting cut for the amount of political capital they're expending on the effort. I also don't think the individual mandate repeal will make it into the final version post-reconciliation. I'm not in love with this bill, but the modernization of the corporate tax code is something that needs to be done. Some cuts are probably needed to make the public buy into a corporate tax cut, but I don't think a cut as large as this one's is necessary. I'm not really a big fan of the estate tax repeal either, but I'm not convinced it's a huge deal one way or another. I'd vote for it because it's the best that we can hope for in the disastrous political environment that Washington is currently. It'll get amended in the future probably, but it's likely that the corporate taxes will stick as it's more consistent with how everybody else is handling corporate taxes these days. The realistic alternatives are no corporate tax reform or whatever awful class warfare tax plan the Democrats would come up with, and this tax plan is significantly better than either of those outcomes.
Yeah. Sincerely, just get out there Congressmen and make that case that our corporate tax code is encouraging companies to flee. I like the corporate tax cut if this was just ordinary make-America-competitive-again legislation.
It's being sold as "the greatest tax cut in American history." The cuts are huge on the corporate side, and they're only taking tiny snips out on the individual side. It reduces itemized deductions (by memory, property taxes, state income taxes) to pay for the lopsidedness. And they're calling it a reform? What's streamlined about all that? It's being packaged as this giant reform that ordinary Americans could embrace, but it's really just a pro-growth corporate tax cut ... necessary, but not a reform and too ethereal for ordinary Americans to understand. And this only for the 50% of people in the country that work and pay a net federal income tax...
|
Normally I save my praise for things that have been fully read. No one has read this bill yet. And they won't until after it is voted on.
|
On December 02 2017 08:36 zlefin wrote:mozoku -> you call the republican tax warfare plan better than the dem class warfare plan? you do admit that this plan is just republican class warfare, right? your claims that the dem plan would be worse are entirely unfounded by the recent history of legislation in the country; so they'll be ignored as the utter nonsense they are. we could construct a far better tax plan if republicans weren't such reprehensible trash as to oppose anything sensible. of course I could construct a far better tax plan than all of congress, but so could a lot of people
The 1% already pay ~50% of all tax revenue. If you think decreasing that burden is "rich class warfare" then your sense of undue entitlement to their money is pretty amazing.
|
It's always fun to see a self-proclaimed "statistics guy" play fast and loose with games of relative proportionality when pressed on use of loaded bullshit phrases.
|
United States42008 Posts
On December 02 2017 08:45 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 08:36 zlefin wrote:mozoku -> you call the republican tax warfare plan better than the dem class warfare plan? you do admit that this plan is just republican class warfare, right? your claims that the dem plan would be worse are entirely unfounded by the recent history of legislation in the country; so they'll be ignored as the utter nonsense they are. we could construct a far better tax plan if republicans weren't such reprehensible trash as to oppose anything sensible. of course I could construct a far better tax plan than all of congress, but so could a lot of people The 1% already pay ~50% of all tax revenue. If you think decreasing that burden is "rich class warfare" then your sense of undue entitlement to their money is pretty amazing.
If the 1% don't want to pay so much of the tax revenue then they should let the rest of us have some of the money.
Even if we had a completely flat tax structure the 1% would still pay the plurality of taxes simply because they have most of the money.
You're approaching this from the wrong angle. The problem isn't that the ultrarich are paying too much of the tax burden, it's that only the ultrarich have any money.
|
Normally I save my praise for things that have been fully read. No one has read this bill yet. And they won't until after it is voted on Well, to be fair the best bills are the ones, that haven't been read, yet. Nobody wants to hear, how the hot dogs are made...so eat up and enjoy whatever bills we're throwin' at ya!
|
On December 02 2017 08:45 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 08:36 zlefin wrote:mozoku -> you call the republican tax warfare plan better than the dem class warfare plan? you do admit that this plan is just republican class warfare, right? your claims that the dem plan would be worse are entirely unfounded by the recent history of legislation in the country; so they'll be ignored as the utter nonsense they are. we could construct a far better tax plan if republicans weren't such reprehensible trash as to oppose anything sensible. of course I could construct a far better tax plan than all of congress, but so could a lot of people The 1% already pay ~50% of all tax revenue. If you think decreasing that burden is "rich class warfare" then your sense of undue entitlement to their money is pretty amazing.
if you're going to call the dem plan class warfare without a good justification, then i'll call the rep plan class warfare with good justification.
but fooling people like you into hurting the country and the world is whta makes republicans succeed, so grats on helping them do so.
you really also have been proving that you're willing to abuse statistics to try to prove your point, rather than to be reasonable. that makes you a liar in my book. using statistics to lie in politics is admittedly not much of a surprise. (either that, or you haven't earned your degree because you don't understand statistics all that well and are being incredibly sloppy in using them)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
