Senate OKs tax bill as Trump, GOP near big legislative win

[Dashinka 24,513]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Looking at income tax, most people will come out ahead. That is the point of a tax cut. The down side is the 1.5 trilion that will get added to the deficit over the next 10 years. That's a conservative estimate as well. It rely's on a lot of optimistic economic projections. The other thing is many of the provisions of this bill give a greater benefit those who are already wealthy. Historically most tax cuts do both of those things, which is why they often end up being a poor deal in the long run.

 

   I should save about 5k going by the calculator. I have mixed feelings about that. I would have liked to have seen a plan that tackled the  existing deficit and not add to it, but the government has shown at every level and every party that they are not serious about doing that. In essence, the government would piss all that money away, so at least people can invest those savings or do something. I still think we are going to be worse off down the road for this and there are going to be some people who get screwed over immediately who see no reduction in tax owed.

 

  

I agree, I wish they would control out-of-control federal spending and get the deficit down, but we never seem to see this succeed.  Too many politicians doing whatever they can to buy votes which is easy to do when dealing with money that does not belong to them.

[Boiler 45,535]

The swamp is too big.

[jg121783 3,915]

1 hour ago, Póg mo said:

Yes, but you would be wrong. The Republican party has shown itself again and again to always place the wealthy above everyone else. Their latest tax bill is a perfect example of this.

 

You are naive if you don't see that both parties place the wealthy above everyone else. This is not exclusive to republicans.

 

1 hour ago, Póg mo said:

Sure mate, what could go wrong?

 

OMG, here we go again. This is the exactly same kind of nonsense arguments people used to defend the Bush tax cuts with.  Honestly I don't know where to begin. 

Nonsense? It's an indisputable fact that anyone earning over $32k a year is in the top 1%. Sorry to burst your bubble and take away from the emotional effect of your "1%" soundbite.

[Dashinka 24,513]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

 

You are naive if you don't see that both parties place the wealthy above everyone else. This is not exclusive to republicans.

 

Nonsense? It's an indisputable fact that anyone earning over $32k a year is in the top 1%. Sorry to burst your bubble and take away from the emotional effect of your "1%" soundbite.

As to the Dems it is all about their rhetoric and not their actions.  For some reason the Dems have a lock on being sympathetic toward the poor even though their actions say otherwise.

[yuna628 9,676]

Talking to a friend about this morning who directed me to a webpage that claims to calculate what savings or no savings would be had based on your answers with no bill, the house version, or the senate version. And here's what I came up with:

 

No bill: no change.

House version: nice savings BUT it would hit people harder that are not in our situation especially if they own a home.

Senate version: negligible savings.. in fact it's silly for the senate to act like this is a helpful bill. it's laden with pork, and the savings to the average taxpayer is minute.

 

We have to realize something: tax cuts mean there is less money coming in, but with no cuts, the deficit will keep going up. So let's say we make cuts, the cuts often come into things that affect those who are the most vulnerable - the elderly and the poor. I don't believe any of these bills actively help to stimulate the economy. There is nothing that will help stagnant wages, nothing to ensure those big corporations getting breaks will actually invest it back into their workers (if anything we know they won't). And even if we make cuts we never seem to reinvest money into important stuff like infrastructure. We don't have enough coming in as it is to do anything about that.. which is a serious problem.

[Boiler 45,535]

Most Federal money is wasted, the main issue Politicians look for is that it benefits their supporters and ensures their re elections.

[yuna628 9,676]

17 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Most Federal money is wasted, the main issue Politicians look for is that it benefits their supporters and ensures their re elections.

When you say supporters though, I don't see this (especially if it's the senate version) really helping out the average republican voter... and if cuts get involved, I see it especially making the elderly and poorer republican voters hurt, big time. This doesn't help people get re-elected. It does help out big time donors... which of course politicians like over the short term to line their pockets. It just seems to me that plans like this one, are only for short term personal gain for an official, but ultimately political suicide.

[Boiler 45,535]

Just now, yuna628 said:

When you say supporters though, I don't see this (especially if it's the senate version) really helping out the average republican voter... and if cuts get involved, I see it especially making the elderly and poorer republican voters hurt, big time. This doesn't help people get re-elected. It does help out big time donors... which of course politicians like over the short term to line their pockets. It just seems to me that plans like this one, are only for short term personal gain for an official, but ultimately political suicide.

Supporters, those who pay the big bucks to fund campaigns etc.

[Dashinka 24,513]

6 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Supporters, those who pay the big bucks to fund campaigns etc.

Definitely, not sure there is a politician in Washington that really cares about the little people that actually vote for them.

[Póg mo 1,749]

8 hours ago, jg121783 said:

 

 

Nonsense? It's an indisputable fact that anyone earning over $32k a year is in the top 1%. Sorry to burst your bubble and take away from the emotional effect of your "1%" soundbite.

Okay I'll bite, if someone living in New York City earned $32k, is that person wealthy or poor going by New York City standards? How much of a house would that person realistically afford? I'd suspect not much of one at all, if at all. So the point I am trying to make is that comparing the income of someone in earning $32k to to people in rest of the world earning a similar income is completely stupid end of story. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

36 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Okay I'll bite, if someone living in New York City earned $32k, is that person wealthy or poor going by New York City standards? How much of a house would that person realistically afford? I'd suspect not much of one at all, if at all. So the point I am trying to make is that comparing the income of someone in earning $32k to to people in rest of the world earning a similar income is completely stupid end of story. 

They would be pretty poor by NY standards.  But wouldn’t we all?  Heck, court reporters there make $135K or more.  State Troopers can make $125-175K.  That is not the norm elsewhere.  NYC is an expensive place to live, therefore it has to pay its citizens more.  The problem is, that $125K or more salary does not buy what it does in MN, AR, GA, WY, etc.

 

The average property taxes on Long Island are over $8K.  Even higher in New Jersey, around $8.5K.  Average.  That’s 8-10 times the property taxes for comparable sites down South.

 

IMO, $32K is poor by any standard, anywhere in the US.  Even more so in NYC.  But he said the world, not NYC.  According to payscale.com, the average NY salary is $69K, as a means of comparison.

 

Quote

 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median wage for workers in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2016 was $849 per week or $44,148 per year for a 40-hour work week.

 

For example, people working in professional, management and related occupations earned an average of $63,076 annually, while those working in service occupations only earned an average of $28, 080 annually. Jobs in large metropolitan cities which have a higher cost of living tend to pay more than jobs in more rural areas.

 

 

[Póg mo 1,749]

7 hours ago, IDWAF said:

They would be pretty poor by NY standards.  But wouldn’t we all?  Heck, court reporters there make $135K or more.  State Troopers can make $125-175K.  That is not the norm elsewhere.  NYC is an expensive place to live, therefore it has to pay its citizens more.  The problem is, that $125K or more salary does not buy what it does in MN, AR, GA, WY, etc.

 

The average property taxes on Long Island are over $8K.  Even higher in New Jersey, around $8.5K.  Average.  That’s 8-10 times the property taxes for comparable sites down South.

 

IMO, $32K is poor by any standard, anywhere in the US.  Even more so in NYC.  But he said the world, not NYC.  According to payscale.com, the average NY salary is $69K, as a means of comparison.

 

 

Go outside, and look up at the sky, and you might see my point way above your head in the sky.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Póg mo said:

Go outside, and look up at the sky, and you might see my point way above your head in the sky.

Trust me, your comments are not so amazing that your “points” are above the rest of our heads.  I understood what he meant, and I am sure you did too, but wanted to make him sound wrong because you don’t regularly agree with much he says.  But that’s part of what makes CEHST work, eh?

 

But to humor you, I did what you suggested.  And all I saw was a low layer of clouds.

Edited December 4, 2017 by IDWAF

[Steeleballz 7,550]

   How did we get to talking about the top 1% in the world? The discussion of the top 1% has generally referred to the top 1% in the USA. I don't see the relevance in comparing US earnings to other countries, especially as it relates to tax on income. There are way too many other variables involved.

[Póg mo 1,749]

17 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

   How did we get to talking about the top 1% in the world? The discussion of the top 1% has generally referred to the top 1% in the USA. I don't see the relevance in comparing US earnings to other countries, especially as it relates to tax on income. There are way too many other variables involved.

Exactly