Republican Tax Bill - the final Bill

[Anonymous]

For those with meeting how Trump and the Rs tend to pay for the tax cuts (besides elimination by funding for CHIP and getting rid of the student loan interest deduction), apparently funding for domestic security is in the he block and feds can expect a pay freeze:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/12/14/democrats-say-trump-to-seek-federal-pay-freeze-and-cuts-to-domestic-security/?hpid=hp_local-news_davidson-745am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.6cd63b78701a

I guess the argument is that are no is going to keep all the terrorists out so we don’t need to worry about it?

[Anonymous]

Geez, sorry, major iPhone typing fail. Corrected post below.

Anonymous wrote:For those wondering how Trump and the Rs tend to pay for the tax cuts (besides eliminating funding for CHIP and getting rid of the student loan interest deduction), apparently funding for domestic security is on the chopping block and feds can expect a pay freeze:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/12/14/democrats-say-trump-to-seek-federal-pay-freeze-and-cuts-to-domestic-security/?hpid=hp_local-news_davidson-745am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.6cd63b78701a

I guess the argument is that Trump is going to keep all the terrorists out so we don’t need to worry about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would have liked to see the tax bill give more to the middle class earners but my question is why did the Democrats not take the initiative when they had the presidency, the senate and the house under their control from 2008 to 2010. Instead of doing this they focused on ACA which is now collapsing because it was structurally unsound. They passed a $700+ billion spending stimulus and what lasting benefit did we see from that legislation? Why are Democrats always associated with tax increases and increased social spending?

Yes, the tax bill will result in an increase in the national debt if there is not increased GDP and time will tell if that happens. But Democrats are the last people who should talk about deficits given that the debt just about doubled from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in the eight years that Obama was in office during this period.

The next thing we need is welfare reform and I'd love to see the Democrats take the initiative on this because since Clinton did it in the mid-90s - and what he did was commendable - we have not had any significant welfare reform. The same holds true regarding what will replace ACA - rather than Schumer and Pelosi saying that they are only open to fixes to ACA they should be willing to work with the Republicans to come up with something that is viable even if it bears no resemblance to ACA. If they don't do so, they can't stay aloof and then blame whatever product the Republicans come up with.

Because tax cuts weren’t needed?

Democrats under Obama, Pelosi, and Reid cut taxes in 2009 as part of the 2009 stimulus package. The difference was that the tax cuts were targeted at the middle class. These tax cuts are targeted primarily at the wealthy and are not needed (we are not in a recession right now). In 2009, the Republicans voted against almost solidly the bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would have liked to see the tax bill give more to the middle class earners but my question is why did the Democrats not take the initiative when they had the presidency, the senate and the house under their control from 2008 to 2010. Instead of doing this they focused on ACA which is now collapsing because it was structurally unsound. They passed a $700+ billion spending stimulus and what lasting benefit did we see from that legislation? Why are Democrats always associated with tax increases and increased social spending?

Yes, the tax bill will result in an increase in the national debt if there is not increased GDP and time will tell if that happens. But Democrats are the last people who should talk about deficits given that the debt just about doubled from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in the eight years that Obama was in office during this period.

The next thing we need is welfare reform and I'd love to see the Democrats take the initiative on this because since Clinton did it in the mid-90s - and what he did was commendable - we have not had any significant welfare reform. The same holds true regarding what will replace ACA - rather than Schumer and Pelosi saying that they are only open to fixes to ACA they should be willing to work with the Republicans to come up with something that is viable even if it bears no resemblance to ACA. If they don't do so, they can't stay aloof and then blame whatever product the Republicans come up with.

You do realize that the vast majority of the deficit spending that occurred during Obama's 8 years was pre-baked when he came into office, right? The Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and A'stan, and the Bank Bailouts were all approved by GWB and the Republican Congress and continued to increase in size during the Obama Presidency. There was zero Obama could do about the tax cut size and bank bailouts because those were statutory.



Do you now see Republicans' "strategy"? They initiate deficits when in power, which then get bigger - by design - when someone else is in power (usually a Democrat). Look at that graph and see what the biggest growers are to the deficit - you'll see that they are mostly GWB initiatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are going to get killed on loosing the state and local tax deduction. Virginia’s rate is 5.75% (not even that high) which is $11,500 for a family making 200,000. $17,250 if you make $300k. And that is before mortgage interest, which is another $8-12k for most people. Guess we’ll be taking the standard. Ugh.

Why should the federal tax structure subsidize states that have ludicrously exorbitant state tax rates whether state income tax or property taxes?

If your argument is that these taxes are needed to pay for services that the state provides then you should be willing to pay for it without the federal government chipping in by providing a deduction against federal taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are going to get killed on loosing the state and local tax deduction. Virginia’s rate is 5.75% (not even that high) which is $11,500 for a family making 200,000. $17,250 if you make $300k. And that is before mortgage interest, which is another $8-12k for most people. Guess we’ll be taking the standard. Ugh.

Why should the federal tax structure subsidize states that have ludicrously exorbitant state tax rates whether state income tax or property taxes?

If your argument is that these taxes are needed to pay for services that the state provides then you should be willing to pay for it without the federal government chipping in by providing a deduction against federal taxes.

DP... I would be happy to have a flat 10% federal tax rate across the board, then let states tax the rest. Federal government should not give ANY states ANY money. Let the states take care of its own, just like Rs want - states' rights and all that. We'll see how low tax red states fare. If KS is any indication, they won't do very well.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/06/18/kansas-tax-hike-hailed-as-fix-doesnt-quite-balance-budget.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/kansas-budget-disaster-tax-reform-repeal-gop-similar-to-trumps-2017-6

The economic growth from the tax cuts never materialized. Kansas was saddled with an almost instantaneous budget hole, leaving schools and pensions drastically underfunded. Infrastructure repairs were put on hold. And to deal with a $700 million drop in revenue — almost twice what was predicted — Kansas raised its sales tax, hurting all residents, but especially lower income Kansans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are going to get killed on loosing the state and local tax deduction. Virginia’s rate is 5.75% (not even that high) which is $11,500 for a family making 200,000. $17,250 if you make $300k. And that is before mortgage interest, which is another $8-12k for most people. Guess we’ll be taking the standard. Ugh.

Why should the federal tax structure subsidize states that have ludicrously exorbitant state tax rates whether state income tax or property taxes?

If your argument is that these taxes are needed to pay for services that the state provides then you should be willing to pay for it without the federal government chipping in by providing a deduction against federal taxes.

Brush up on Federalism and tax codes and then come back and re-ask the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are going to get killed on loosing the state and local tax deduction. Virginia’s rate is 5.75% (not even that high) which is $11,500 for a family making 200,000. $17,250 if you make $300k. And that is before mortgage interest, which is another $8-12k for most people. Guess we’ll be taking the standard. Ugh.

Why should the federal tax structure subsidize states that have ludicrously exorbitant state tax rates whether state income tax or property taxes?

If your argument is that these taxes are needed to pay for services that the state provides then you should be willing to pay for it without the federal government chipping in by providing a deduction against federal taxes.

I’d counter that with the fact that low tax states tend to receive more than they pay in federal taxes. Maybe they shouldn’t get as much then? Why should blue states subsidize red states? Seems like they should take care of themselves, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are going to get killed on loosing the state and local tax deduction. Virginia’s rate is 5.75% (not even that high) which is $11,500 for a family making 200,000. $17,250 if you make $300k. And that is before mortgage interest, which is another $8-12k for most people. Guess we’ll be taking the standard. Ugh.

Why should the federal tax structure subsidize states that have ludicrously exorbitant state tax rates whether state income tax or property taxes?

If your argument is that these taxes are needed to pay for services that the state provides then you should be willing to pay for it without the federal government chipping in by providing a deduction against federal taxes.

DP... I would be happy to have a flat 10% federal tax rate across the board, then let states tax the rest. Federal government should not give ANY states ANY money. Let the states take care of its own, just like Rs want - states' rights and all that. We'll see how low tax red states fare. If KS is any indication, they won't do very well.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/06/18/kansas-tax-hike-hailed-as-fix-doesnt-quite-balance-budget.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/kansas-budget-disaster-tax-reform-repeal-gop-similar-to-trumps-2017-6

The economic growth from the tax cuts never materialized. Kansas was saddled with an almost instantaneous budget hole, leaving schools and pensions drastically underfunded. Infrastructure repairs were put on hold. And to deal with a $700 million drop in revenue — almost twice what was predicted — Kansas raised its sales tax, hurting all residents, but especially lower income Kansans.

So many haters on here. Sad!

[Anonymous]

Liberals love to spend as long as someone else picks up the tab!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberals love to spend as long as someone else picks up the tab!

In fact the most highly taxed states tend to get less back in federal funding. So those blue states keep on subsidizing the red states. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/



The reddest states also have the highest levels of poverty and therefore the greatest number of people on federal assistance programs - but those of us in blue states are happy to provide where that heartless red state won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberals love to spend as long as someone else picks up the tab!

Can you read, honey? 12:45 explained it, but she's not going to shove your face directly into the water.

[Anonymous]

Don't confuse them with facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Geez, sorry, major iPhone typing fail. Corrected post below.

Anonymous wrote:For those wondering how Trump and the Rs tend to pay for the tax cuts (besides eliminating funding for CHIP and getting rid of the student loan interest deduction), apparently funding for domestic security is on the chopping block and feds can expect a pay freeze:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/12/14/democrats-say-trump-to-seek-federal-pay-freeze-and-cuts-to-domestic-security/?hpid=hp_local-news_davidson-745am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.6cd63b78701a

I guess the argument is that Trump is going to keep all the terrorists out so we don’t need to worry about it?

But I thought Republicans promised American workers they would see an average wage increase of $4000 as a result of the tax cuts. I am so confused! Are federal workers not American anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberals love to spend as long as someone else picks up the tab!

Conservative fantasy. We pay your red state bills.