Trump Tax Cut

[carpedm9587]

Right, like the Government only doing what the Constitution requires. Get rid of departments that have nothing to do with those requirements. Getting rid of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor...would be a good start.

There is no requirement in the Constitution that the government limit itself to things explicitly named in the Constitution. The Constitution provides the framework for governance, and then sets out some things the government CANNOT do. I have no problem with any of the departments you have listed, and believe most/all of them provide valuable services that the pulic sector will not pick up. I do believe, however, that they are bloated and in need of some overhaul.

No Carp, in case it hasn't dawned you, the reason why lobbyists are out of control is because the federal Government has gotten so big. Reaching into most aspects of life. If they didn't have such far reaching power there would be less to lobby for.

As long as there is big money in politics, Seer, I think you can expect the government will grow - not shrink. Since you defend that reality, I don't see how you can frame an argument. It's as if you're standing in a leaking boat complaining that the water is coming in, but then handing drills out to everyone that wants one so they can drill another hole. It's not a very consistent position, IMO. Get big money out, and then perhaps we will have a government less controlled (and sized) by special interests.

[seer]

As long as there is big money in politics, Seer, I think you can expect the government will grow - not shrink. Since you defend that reality, I don't see how you can frame an argument. It's as if you're standing in a leaking boat complaining that the water is coming in, but then handing drills out to everyone that wants one so they can drill another hole. It's not a very consistent position, IMO. Get big money out, and then perhaps we will have a government less controlled (and sized) by special interests.

No Carp, it is just the opposite. Lobby money does not cause the growth of government, money follows the power, attempts to influence the power. The larger more powerful the Government the more money will flow to it seeking advantage. So you can support these massive agencies but you will only get more of what we already have.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, it is just the opposite. Lobby money does not cause the growth of government, money follows the power, attempts to influence the power. The larger more powerful the Government the more money will flow to it seeking advantage. So you can support these massive agencies but you will only get more of what we already have.

You know what I would like? I would like it if people responded to the arguments I actually AM making instead of responding to the arguments they apparently WANT me to make so they can respond to them with their canned answers. It would be SO refreshing.

I didn't say "lobby money causes growth." I said "big money," in both politics and government, is at least partially responsible for that growth. After all - government needs to be controlled because it sets policy and law (like taxation) which impacts businesses. So as long as big money has ways to use that money to influence government - government will continue to respond to big money. Since you defend big money in politics - you aren't being very consistent. Government will continue to respond to big money.

Remove the big money from government, and let it truly be rooted in the will of the people - and I suspect you will see some changes. Until then - you won't.

[seer]

I don't believe I said "lobby money causes growth." I said big money in politics and government is at least partially responsible for growth. After all - government needs to be controlled because it sets policy and law (like taxation) which impacts businesses. So as long as big money has ways to use that money to influence government - government will continue to respond to big money. Since you defend big money in politics - you aren't being very consistent. Government will continue to respond to big money.

First Carp, you are spreading a falsehood. I did not say I defended big money per se, I said I supported free speech. The Citizen United group were not big money, they were in fact the little guy compared to Michael Moore and his supporting corporations - whom you did support. And big money did not grown government, liberal policies did. And again, as long as the Government has this kind power over people, people will try to influence it, get advantage. When government taxes as much as it does, and regulates as much as it does, people have no choice but petition it in anyway they can. If the federal government did not have this kind of overriding control there would be little or less reason to try and influence it. You can't have your cake and eat it too - unless you want to restrict speech - which you didn't seem to have a problem with.

[Sparko]

I never said otherwise.



And your case is a statistical anomaly - which is my point.

No it is not an anomaly. it is the typical. The 35K example was NOT my income. I chose that as pretty much the standard for middle class income in the USA for a single person.

The numbers suggest that the average low-income person will see about a 0.4% net increase in after tax income.

Again, we are talking tax reduction not income increase. When the average low income person only pays in $1000, and they get a $200 break, of course that is not going to be much income increase, but it is a significant break on their taxes, 20%. This whole thing is about a tax break, remember?

Yes, I finally picked up on that shift. It changes the numbers somewhat, but not the overall point of my post: the reduction in taxes is percentage-wise more significant for the wealthiest - by a lot. Meanwhile, the tax cut is not paying for itself, and we have 10-digit deficits in a healthy economy. The fiscal responsibility of the Republicans in Congress is MIA.

Of course, as soon as the Democrats take power, they will suddenly forget fiscal responsibility too. As I have said - interest in fiscal responsibility seems to be limited to the party NOT in power.

The tax cut was real and was significant. You never mentioned how much you saved in taxes percentage-wise.

[carpedm9587]

I did not say I defended big money per se, I said I supported free speech.

And in the process of defending a weaponized version of "free speech," (and I have shown that no speech is being punished or impinged upon in the sense the founders intended), you end up defending big money in politics.

The Citizen United group were not big money, they were in fact the little guy compared to Michael Moore and his supporting corporations - whom you did support.

I never said they were - I said that the decision opened the door to dark money and big money in unlimited amounts in government.

And big money did not grown government, liberal policies did.

Liberal policies definitely contributed. Big money was just gas on an already burning fire.

And again, as long as the Government has this kind power over people, people will try to influence it, get advantage.

Government always has power over people, from which it derives that power. That is how our country functions. So a major reason that the government is large is because most of the people want what it does. But "large" is relative. The U.S. government is statistically no larger per capita than the average world government. We're not particularly "out of the norm." Big government, in other words, is your issue and an issue of the right. For me, government should be just as large as it needs to be to do what it has been tasked to be done.

When government taxes as much as it does, and regulates as much as it does, people have no choice but petition it in anyway they can. If the federal government did not have this kind of overriding control there would be little or less reason to try and influence it. You can't have your cake and eat it too - unless you want to restrict speech - which you didn't seem to have a problem with.

This part is true, but that is not a function of size; it is a function of philosophy. I have long held that there is too much regulation - but Trump's ridiculous "2 out for every 1 in" is a ridiculous method for achieving meaningful regulatory reduction. So now were in the midst of a purging of regulations, many of which are important, just because he's turned it into a numbers game.

[Mountain Man]

First Carp, you are spreading a falsehood. I did not say I defended big money per se, I said I supported free speech. The Citizen United group were not big money, they were in fact the little guy compared to Michael Moore and his supporting corporations - whom you did support. And big money did not grown government, liberal policies did. And again, as long as the Government has this kind power over people, people will try to influence it, get advantage. When government taxes as much as it does, and regulates as much as it does, people have no choice but petition it in anyway they can. If the federal government did not have this kind of overriding control there would be little or less reason to try and influence it. You can't have your cake and eat it too - unless you want to restrict speech - which you didn't seem to have a problem with.

But... but... Trump!

[Sparko]

I went through the tax tables from last year and this year and compared the taxes owed for various taxable income (your income after deductions).

incometax.jpg

It looks like the middle class got the highest percentage tax break.

[carpedm9587]

No it is not an anomaly. it is the typical. The 35K example was NOT my income. I chose that as pretty much the standard for middle class income in the USA for a single person.

Can you point to exactly where I said $35K was your salary? I noted that your increase in taxable income (apparently, $1300) is a statistical anomaly. Let's check that. The lower quintile, on average, is seeing 0.4% in increased taxable income. You said yours increased $1300. $1300 is 0.4% of 325K, which is not in the lower quintile, ergo you are not in the lower quintile or you are a significant anomaly. $1300 is 1.2% of $108K, which is way above the second quintile. You also said you made much less than 100K, ergo you are not in the second quintile. $1300 is 1.6% of $81K. That is actually the upper end of the third quintile, and below 100K, so you are likely in this quintile. That's the $51-90K window (approximately). Statistically, this window should have seen an increase between $816 and $1,440. So if you are in that salary range, and saw that increase, you are NOT a statistical anomaly - you're getting a number within the range we are seeing for that salary level.

Again, we are talking tax reduction not income increase. When the average low income person only pays in $1000, and they get a $200 break, of course that is not going to be much income increase, but it is a significant break on their taxes, 20%. This whole thing is about a tax break, remember?

The numbers I am working with are about increase in spendable income, which is what most people are most concerned about (i.e., what ends up in my pocket). If you want to work on "decrease in taxes," you will have a very hard time doing that. I'm not finding numbers, and the variables are all over the map depending on which deductions you used to take, what state you live in, how much of your income is in vehicles that earn capital gains, etc. I try not to put forward numbers unless I have access to the data.

The tax cut was real and was significant. You never mentioned how much you saved in taxes percentage-wise.

The tax cut was real (I never said otherwise). The tax cut was significant (I never said otherwise). The tax cut was strongly skewed to the wealthy (which is what I have been actually saying). And the tax cut was instrumental in skyrocketing our national debt to the tune of 10-digit deficits with only short-term gain (and not overwhelming gain) to our economy.

Ergo - I being the tax cut was a very bad idea that our children and grandchildren will have to pay for with THEIR taxes. Because that is what a deficit is: robbing the future to pay the present.

[carpedm9587]

I went through the tax tables from last year and this year and compared the taxes owed for various taxable income (your income after deductions).

[ATTACH=CONFIG]35194[/ATTACH]

It looks like the middle class got the highest percentage tax break.

You micro focus on tax tables does not translate to "effective tax." You are ignoring all of the changes in deductibles. The effective tax is what we all actually pay after all calculations are complete.

[Sparko]

You are still playing statistical games Carp, to make it look like Trump lied to the people. He promised them a tax cut, he gave it to them. A pretty significant one.

Even if he gave 100% of someone's taxes back (zero tax) it wouldn't be a huge increase in salary. If he gave someone who made $20,000 in taxable income all of their money back it would only be $2,213 extra. or a 11% increase. And you know they can't do that. So even a significant decrease of taxes, say 10%, would only be 10% of 11% (the tax rate) or 1.1% income increase. So yeah, you are playing numbers games to make a significant tax cut look like nothing.

[Sparko]

You micro focus on tax tables does not translate to "effective tax." You are ignoring all of the changes in deductibles. The effective tax is what we all actually pay after all calculations are complete.

Those are the taxes owed after all deductions, carp.

1 to 1 comparison between the years. Doesn't even factor in that for most people they will have a double standard deduction which would put them at a lower taxable income this year saving them even more.

Stop trying to play games with the numbers and coming up with excuses. Taxes are lower this year, just as Trump promised.

[carpedm9587]

You are still playing statistical games Carp, to make it look like Trump lied to the people. He promised them a tax cut, he gave it to them. A pretty significant one.

AND PERCENTAGE were the wealthiest in the country. You have not offered anything to counter this, except to continually point to your "substantial return."

Even if he gave 100% of someone's taxes back (zero tax) it wouldn't be a huge increase in salary. If he gave someone who made $20,000 in taxable income all of their money back it would only be $2,213 extra. or a 11% increase. And you know they can't do that. So even a significant decrease of taxes, say 10%, would only be 10% of 11% (the tax rate) or 1.1% income increase. So yeah, you are playing numbers games to make a significant tax cut look like nothing.

No - I am pointing out the disproportionate gain by the wealthiest, with just enough to the lower and middle classes to keep them satiated and cheering.

[carpedm9587]

You are still playing statistical games Carp, to make it look like Trump lied to the people. He promised them a tax cut, he gave it to them. A pretty significant one.

AND PERCENTAGE were the wealthiest in the country. You have not offered anything to counter this.

Even if he gave 100% of someone's taxes back (zero tax) it wouldn't be a huge increase in salary. If he gave someone who made $20,000 in taxable income all of their money back it would only be $2,213 extra. or a 11% increase. And you know they can't do that. So even a significant decrease of taxes, say 10%, would only be 10% of 11% (the tax rate) or 1.1% income increase. So yeah, you are playing numbers games to make a significant tax cut look like nothing.

No - I am pointing out the disproportionate gain by the wealthiest, with just enough to the lower and middle classes to keep them satiated and cheering. You are clearly satiated and cheering, so you're not looking at how the wealthiest in this country just enriched themselves and widened the income gap, at your expense and the expense of future generations.

In other words, Sparko - your net increase in taxable income COULD have been over $3000 (still not the $4000-9000 promised), if the wealthiest had not taken that tax savings for themselves.

[Mountain Man]

Those are the taxes owed after all deductions, carp.

1 to 1 comparison between the years. Doesn't even factor in that for most people they will have a double standard deduction which would put them at a lower taxable income this year saving them even more.

Stop trying to play games with the numbers and coming up with excuses. Taxes are lower this year, just as Trump promised.

Yeah, man, but it's Don the Con!