Trump Tax Cut

[carpedm9587]

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.

Taxes are lower this year, just as Trump promised.

The point is that your position IN that table is dependent on those deductions, Sparko. It's one thing to say "look, this tax bracket saw an X reduction." It's another thing to then note, "but you aren't IN that tax bracket anymore - the changes in deductions have shifted you to a different bracket." THAT is the sleight of hand that is not captured by your analysis. That is how so many people saw significantly less impact on their bottom line than the tables suggest.

[seer]

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.

Weaponized Carp? Was speech weaponized before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 was passed? Of course not. And of course the speech of Citizens United was curtailed.

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

But how is that any different than what we had before BCRA? And it not only effects big Corporations, but smaller groups and Unions. What you are in essence saying is that I and a few friends could not get together and run ads against a candidate between 30-90 days before an election. The candidate though can run such ads.

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.

Then expect more and more money trying to influence Government, as Government grows. The more control it has the more attempted influence will happen. Cause and effect. That is exactly why the Founders delegated so much power to the states. Too much power in the hands of the few is never a good thing.

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.

I guess it is rather subjective as to whether you think a regulation is important or not.

[carpedm9587]

Weaponized Carp? Was speech weaponized before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 was passed? Of course not. And of course the speech of Citizens United was curtailed.

Yes - the Bill of Rights is being systematically weaponized to further empower the already powerful. After all - we can't keep a business from buying ad time - that's an imposition on "free speech." The same is happening to the 2nd amendment. And the answer to "speech was curtailed" is not "open the floodgates to big money."

But how is that any different than what we had before BCRA?

It permits unlimited dark money in politics.

And it not only effects big Corporations, but smaller groups and Unions. What you are in essence saying is that I and a few friends could not get together and run ads against a candidate between 30-90 days before an election. The candidate though can run such ads.

I am saying that money should not give one person or group a bigger megaphone than anyone else, and prevent their message from being heard.

Then expect more and more money trying to influence Government, as Government grows. The more control it has the more attempted influence will happen. Cause and effect. That is exactly why the Founders delegated so much power to the states. Too much power in the hands of the few is never a good thing.

And since unlimited dark money is now permissible - that will very likely continue to happen.

I guess it is rather subjective as to whether you thing a regulation is important or not.

It is indeed. I tend to put regulations that protect our environment (don't crap where you sleep and eat), protect our health (ensure that all people have safe food, drugs, and access to healthcare), and protect our lives (should be obvious) at the top of the list. Trump and most on the right appear to prioritize regulations based on what will and will not impact their wallets and the economy. Personally, I put quality of life above money.

[Sparko]

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



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.

Looking at my data, it shows that the middle class did indeed get the largest tax benefit percentage-wise.

Looks like Trump told the truth.

[Sparko]

The point is that your position IN that table is dependent on those deductions, Sparko. It's one thing to say "look, this tax bracket saw an X reduction." It's another thing to then note, "but you aren't IN that tax bracket anymore - the changes in deductions have shifted you to a different bracket." THAT is the sleight of hand that is not captured by your analysis. That is how so many people saw significantly less impact on their bottom line than the tables suggest.

And you are ignoring that the doubling of the standard deduction places a whole lot of people in a LOWER tax bracket. So that shift you keep talking about makes the tax cut even larger. NOT smaller. And if you have more deductions than the doubled standard deduction, you save even more.

[seer]

Yes - the Bill of Rights is being systematically weaponized to further empower the already powerful. After all - we can't keep a business from buying ad time - that's an imposition on "free speech." The same is happening to the 2nd amendment. And the answer to "speech was curtailed" is not "open the floodgates to big money."

Well to me that is infinitely better than the Government deciding who or who can not speak and when, buy air time or not, run ads in papers, show a movie, etc... concerning political speech...

It permits unlimited dark money in politics.

Again Carp, how is that any different than what we had before the BCRA was passed? It was that specific part of that law that was found unconstitutional

I am saying that money should not give one person or group a bigger megaphone than anyone else, and prevent their message from being heard.

Really? But that is exactly what happened under the law you like so much - Moore's corporation had his megaphone, Citizen United had their megaphone completely taken away.

And since unlimited dark money is now permissible - that will very likely continue to happen.

Stop with the dark money stuff. All this is largely about running ads before an election. So? Buyer beware, be informed. Research the truthfulness of such ads. And talk about dark money - did you ever read about the race between Jefferson and Adams? Anonymous booklets and pamphlets were happening back then. Nothing new under the sun.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/12487...campaigning-us

[carpedm9587]

Looking at my data, it shows that the middle class did indeed get the largest tax benefit percentage-wise.

Looks like Trump told the truth.

Specifically what on data are you looking at?

[carpedm9587]

And you are ignoring that the doubling of the standard deduction places a whole lot of people in a LOWER tax bracket. So that shift you keep talking about makes the tax cut even larger. NOT smaller. And if you have more deductions than the doubled standard deduction, you save even more.

Again, Sparko - you are focused on one thing at a time, and I don't know why you are doing that. The standard deduction was doubled, which would put people into a lower tax bracket, if that deduction adjustment was not counterbalanced by the elimination of many other deductions. The net result is what has been reported all over the place:

Lower classes: 0.4% increase in after tax income.
Lower-middle class: 1.2% increase in after tax income.
Middle class: 1.6% increase in after-tax income.
Upper middle-class: 1.9% increase in after-tax income.
Upper classes: 2.9% increase in after-tax income.

These numbers are increases based on tax cuts alone, excluding all other changes. Basically, they say, "if you filed for 2018 using the same numbers you used in 2017 - this is what you can expect to see."

I don't know why you are so micro-focused on your tax return, the tax table, and one deduction, but it does not take into account the big picture.

And I have a feeling the next response will be more of the same, so I'll respond if you ask me a question I have not answered. Otherwise, last word to you.

[carpedm9587]

Well to me that is infinitely better than the Government deciding who or who can not speak and when, buy air time or not, run ads in papers, show a movie, etc... concerning political speech...

To me the heart of "free speech" is that everyone has a voice, and no one can be punished by the government for the content of what they say.

Again Carp, how is that any different than what we had before the BCRA was passed? It was that specific part of that law that was found unconstitutional

Really? But that is exactly what happened under the law you like so much - Moore's corporation had his megaphone, Citizen United had their megaphone completely taken away.

Stop with the dark money stuff. All this is largely about running ads before an election. So? Buyer beware, be informed. Research the truthfulness of such ads. And talk about dark money - did you ever read about the race between Jefferson and Adams? Anonymous booklets and pamphlets were happening back then. Nothing new under the sun.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/12487...campaigning-us

I'm going to leave the rest of this to you as I have responded to all of it before. History suggests the discussion will just go in circles, so I'll leave the last word to you unless you ask me a question I have not already responded to.

[seer]

To me the heart of "free speech" is that everyone has a voice, and no one can be punished by the government for the content of what they say.

Right we all have a voice, but you are attempting to take away access, what little access a group like Citizens United or me and my friends have or could have. While mega Media and the Michael Moores have all the access. Tell me the difference Carp - Citizens United can publicly advertise 35 days before an election, but not 29 days before an election. Their content or message has not changed - why should one be legal and one illegal?

[carpedm9587]

Right we all have a voice, but you are attempting to take away access, what little access a group like Citizens United or me and my friends have or could have. While mega Media and the Michael Moores have all the access. Tell me the difference Carp - Citizens United can publicly advertise 35 days before an election, but not 29 days before an election. Their content or message has not changed - why should one be legal and one illegal?

I don't think I have clearly answered this question - so I'll respond:

They shouldn't - and I have not suggested they should. I have simply noted that Citizens United essentially leveled the playing field for all speakers: without regard to ability to actually speak. It made money equal to speech, opening a flood of dark (unaccounted for or reported) money into politics. In other words - wrong solution to the problem. It harmed more than it helped - by a lot. So now what we have is anyone with a lot of money (person or business) can fund any message without the need for disclosure - effectively drowning out "the little guy" and enabling a climate of messaging without accountability. We no longer even get to know who is funding the message.

Citizens United should have addressed why the two situations were allowed to be different and addressed that injustice. What it did instead was create the mess we have today.

[seer]

I don't think I have clearly answered this question - so I'll respond:

They shouldn't - and I have not suggested they should. I have simply noted that Citizens United essentially leveled the playing field for all speakers: without regard to ability to actually speak. It made money equal to speech, opening a flood of dark (unaccounted for or reported) money into politics. In other words - wrong solution to the problem. It harmed more than it helped - by a lot. So now what we have is anyone with a lot of money (person or business) can fund any message without the need for disclosure - effectively drowning out "the little guy" and enabling a climate of messaging without accountability. We no longer even get to know who is funding the message.

Citizens United should have addressed why the two situations were allowed to be different and addressed that injustice. What it did instead was create the mess we have today.

Carp what other way was there to fix it? The Court said it was unconstitutional to prevent Citizens from advertising or playing their movie. And there was nothing about disclosure in the original law. And I don't see how you can allow certain corporations (Mega Media, Michael Moore, etc...) from engaging while preventing others.

[Sparko]

Specifically what on data are you looking at?

The tax tables. I posted it earlier. The percentage of tax cuts is greatest for the middle class percentage-wise. From about $30-$70 seems to be the highest. Around 16%, higher and it drops down to 13%. Lower and it drops down also (but then they are already at a low tax bracket).

incometax.jpg

[Sparko]

Again, Sparko - you are focused on one thing at a time, and I don't know why you are doing that. The standard deduction was doubled, which would put people into a lower tax bracket, if that deduction adjustment was not counterbalanced by the elimination of many other deductions. The net result is what has been reported all over the place:

Lower classes: 0.4% increase in after tax income.
Lower-middle class: 1.2% increase in after tax income.
Middle class: 1.6% increase in after-tax income.
Upper middle-class: 1.9% increase in after-tax income.
Upper classes: 2.9% increase in after-tax income.

These numbers are increases based on tax cuts alone, excluding all other changes. Basically, they say, "if you filed for 2018 using the same numbers you used in 2017 - this is what you can expect to see."

I don't know why you are so micro-focused on your tax return, the tax table, and one deduction, but it does not take into account the big picture.

And I have a feeling the next response will be more of the same, so I'll respond if you ask me a question I have not answered. Otherwise, last word to you.

And YOU keep talking about increase in income, so that you can show a smaller change so you can claim it isn't much of a change. People who make less will get less increase. Because they are paying a lot less income tax to begin with. They are paying 10-15% income tax when the upper classes are paying 37%.

Yet nothing you have said shows that

1> There was not a tax cut and it was not significant.
2> It was not geared toward the middle class.
3> That Trump lied or conned anyone.

In fact, you keep showing INCREASES in income.

[carpedm9587]

This is a succinct breakdown - making it easier to respond. Concerning your three points:

1> There was not a tax cut and it was not significant.

I never claimed this - so I'm not trying to defend it. You are arguing against a position I did not take. It was clearly significant given the impact on our deficit.

2> It was not geared toward the middle class.

This I claimed. The middle class benefited some, but the wealthy benefited a LOT more. And the benefits to the wealthy are largely permanent, whereas the benefits to the lower classes largely expire. I have provided the numbers and their sources.

3> That Trump lied or conned anyone.

This has also been shown to be true. I refer you to the various links I've provided that furnish the relevant numbers.