bush_cheney2004 Posted December 26, 2017 Report Posted December 26, 2017 5 hours ago, Argus said: It vastly increases the debt ... No more than the usual Washington budget excesses....just ask President Obama and his record deficits + doubling of the debt. Trump could never match that..... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
August1991 Posted December 27, 2017 Author Report Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Argus said: There is literally nothing about this tax reform for anyone to cheer about who isn't rich.... Argus, I strongly disagree with you. I suspect that you have been duped. In the US now, there is a vicious partisan debate. Almost all the media/journalists hate Trump. Hence, I take most American MSM description/analysis of Trump's actions with a grain of salt. First, I suggest that you read the link in the OP. Second, consider the simple doubling of the personal exemption. By this reform alone, millions of low income Americans will benefit. Edited December 27, 2017 by August1991 Quote
August1991 Posted December 27, 2017 Author Report Posted December 27, 2017 6 hours ago, Topaz said: Hey, Argus, aren't u glad u aren't an American? Topaz, the average CPP benefit in 2016 was Cdn $623 per month. Link The average Social Security benefit per month in 2016 was US $1368. Link ======= There is a false belief, a meme, in Canada that our government benefits are better than in the US. It's not true. Topaz, Argus, you remind me of people in the Soviet Union who believed the propaganda that while rich Americans lived very well, ordinary people in Russia lived better than ordinary people in the US. In fact, US social security is more generous than CPP/RRQ (even with OAP/GAINS). Moreover, US Medicare is arguably better - since it gives choice - than our provincial health systems for people over 65. Quote
August1991 Posted December 27, 2017 Author Report Posted December 27, 2017 12 hours ago, Argus said: It vastly increases the debt by slashing taxes for big corporations, giving big tax breaks to Trump's family and business... Argus, that's the tell of the MSM/Soviet bias. In theory, Trump's tax reform reduces corporate taxes to current Canadian levels. ===== Frankly, I reckon that the corporate tax cut is Trump being a showman for the leftwing MSM. The real story is the SALT deduction (State and Local Taxes). Quote
?Impact Posted December 27, 2017 Report Posted December 27, 2017 6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said: No more than the usual Washington budget excesses....just ask President Obama and his record deficits + doubling of the debt. Trump could never match that..... Reagan increased the debt by 186% Bush Sr. increased the debt by 108% (normalized for an 8 year term) Clinton increased the debt by 32% Bush Jr. increased the debt by 101% Obama increased the debt by 68% You are right, the past three Republican Presidents didn't match Obama in increasing the debt, they beat him by a long shot. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 27, 2017 Report Posted December 27, 2017 41 minutes ago, ?Impact said: You are right, the past three Republican Presidents didn't match Obama in increasing the debt, they beat him by a long shot. Thank you for agreeing that President Trump is in very good company. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
H10 Posted December 27, 2017 Report Posted December 27, 2017 On 12/22/2017 at 2:15 AM, Bonam said: If people have to be forced by threat of government fines and penalties to buy a product, then it's not a product worth buying. So you think car insurance isn't worth buying?Housing insurance? On 12/22/2017 at 5:16 AM, bush_cheney2004 said: The Obamacare tax penalty did not motivate all uninsured Americans to buy in...anybody below a taxable income threshold could not be penalized by the IRS....and that is many millions of Americans who could not or would not play along. The Obamacare individual mandate penalty was a tax that did not provide health insurance. Comparisons to car insurance are problematic, as discussed here: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2013/10/30/please-stop-comparing-health-insurance-to-car-insurance/ Trump's repeal is a reset back to the previous baseline of life's guarantee of death and taxes...not health care. If you didn't buy in you were taxed, so everyone had to buy in. If you earned too little obviously you didn't pay in much because you had no earnings. It was a tax, it did provide health insurance, and it covered millions of people who had no previous car. Trump's bill doesn't eliminate Obamacare, just removes the individual mandate. It will obviously spiral up cost for those who still want healthcare. On 12/23/2017 at 8:52 PM, August1991 said: Uh, disagree. Without the tax penalty, everything else is irrelevant. Romney based his medical insurance plan on everyone buying a private health plan. Obamacare is dead. Not dead, but severely weakened. On 12/25/2017 at 4:22 PM, Bonam said: I think the supposed backlash from the tax reform is overblown in the media. The democrats did a great smear job on the tax bill and everyone thinks they will be paying way more tax come 2018. When they realize they aren't, and are in fact paying a bit less, the furor will die down. And even in NY/NJ/CA, the only people paying over 10k in state/local taxes are the top 5%, you know, the same people that vote Democrat so that they can pay their fair share. So they should be cheering the extra tax burden. No, it is not overblown. You have a party who whined and complained about large deficits for a decade to now pass a bill that will increase the deficit more so than any other president ever. The rich will pay far less tax, 50% of the middle class and poor will see a temporary tax cut, followed by a tax increase in a few years, and the other 50% will see an immediate tax increase. this just cuts taxes for corporations and the wealth and shifts it onto the poor and middle class. You are not the 5% if you are a NYC garbage man earning 80k a year, paying 30k in taxes. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 27, 2017 Report Posted December 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, H10 said: If you didn't buy in you were taxed, so everyone had to buy in. If you earned too little obviously you didn't pay in much because you had no earnings. ....and millions of such low earnings/no income tax citizens continued to lack health insurance by choice or market circumstance. Many young, healthy individuals still resist being forced to buy health insurance to increase the size and viability of the insurance pool. So called "millennials" resist buying many types of insurance compared to older groups: http://time.com/money/3178364/millennials-insurance-why-resist-coverage/ Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Topaz Posted December 27, 2017 Report Posted December 27, 2017 Yeah, u also have to remember in Canada, once u have retired the more the one gets from the Feds, the more they will get back in income taxes. I know I'm going to have to pay because now that hubby has passed on and there's no income splitting. I feel anyone who is retired shouldn't have to pay school taxes or income until one hits a certain amount and I'm still happy being a Canadian. 6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said: ....and millions of such low earnings/no income tax citizens continued to lack health insurance by choice or market circumstance. Many young, healthy individuals still resist being forced to buy health insurance to increase the size and viability of the insurance pool. So called "millennials" resist buying many types of insurance compared to older groups: http://time.com/money/3178364/millennials-insurance-why-resist-coverage/ Quote
Argus Posted December 27, 2017 Report Posted December 27, 2017 19 hours ago, Topaz said: Hey, Argus, aren't u glad u aren't an American? Given its minus 30 outside, not especially. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 27, 2017 Report Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, August1991 said: Argus, that's the tell of the MSM/Soviet bias. No, Comrade August, you don't get to suggest that because the mainstream media reports something it's automatically illegitimate and comparable to the Soviet propaganda ministry. That's an inane and brainless suggestion often made by Trumpists. The mainstream media is reporting the tax reform details accurately. Quote In theory, Trump's tax reform reduces corporate taxes to current Canadian levels. In theory, but not in practice. Tons of loopholes remain for the rich and corporations. Plus Canadian taxes go to paying for universal health care whereas Americans are out of luck. Edited December 27, 2017 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted December 28, 2017 Report Posted December 28, 2017 Deficit concerns https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/20/deficit-could-hit-1-trillion-2018-and-thats-before-full-impact-tax-cuts/969347001/ Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 28, 2017 Report Posted December 28, 2017 Americans know who pays income taxes and who doesn't..... Quote ...As for his [Romney's] claim that 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax at all: Guess what? He’s right. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/18/mitt-romney/romney-says-47-percent-americans-pay-no-income-tax/ Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted December 28, 2017 Report Posted December 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said: Deficit concerns https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/20/deficit-could-hit-1-trillion-2018-and-thats-before-full-impact-tax-cuts/969347001/ Whare are you, some kind of lefty or something!? I bet you're a Killary supporter! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
August1991 Posted December 29, 2017 Author Report Posted December 29, 2017 (edited) On 12/27/2017 at 2:37 AM, H10 said: No, it is not overblown. You have a party who whined and complained about large deficits for a decade to now pass a bill that will increase the deficit more so than any other president ever. The rich will pay far less tax... 1. Government budget deficits just don't matter; it is government spending/buying that matters. Japan's government debt is over 2X GDP. In the US, federal debt was about 120% of GDP in 1946. At present, after the 2008 crisis, it is about 100%. Graph1: FRED graph1 But far more important, US government purchases/spending have largely been flat at about 20% of GDP - but understandably rising (under Obama) during the crisis. Graph2: FRED graph2 2. "The rich will pay far less tax..." ? Americans earning over $1 million at present pay 19.3% of all federal taxes; with Trump's reform, they will pay 19.8%. (link) ========== The US MSM largely hates Trump and IMHO, it has entirely distorted perceptions/debate of this tax cut/reform. As Trump would tweet, "Sad". The result is that it is hard to find good analysis of what this tax reform/cut means. This Bloomberg link offers a rare, intelligent analysis (that I happen to disagree with in some ways - the US has always been a great place to invest and its historic current account deficit is proof): Tyler Cowen More broadly, Michael Barone wonders: "As 2017 is on the point of vanishing, it’s worth asking whether it’s time to take Trump seriously, if not literally, as a public policy maker." Edited December 29, 2017 by August1991 Quote
August1991 Posted December 29, 2017 Author Report Posted December 29, 2017 (edited) I was thinking of this thread in a broader context and wondered whether my thoughts deserved a new thread. I decided against thread proliferation. (Moderators, do as you please.) I recently listened to Prince Harry's BBC interview of Barack Obama: BBC4 (Prince Harry? WTF? Whatever.... ) To leftist Americans - indeed to most people, Obama is reasonable, intelligent, thoughtful, well-spoken, articulate - but he's not a leader in the sense of someone who can see ahead or see the broader picture. To my ear, Obama speaks to the converted. It is hard to lead. Churchill saw ahead while few listened. I wondered, imagined, if someone like Churchill (rather than a bonehead like Stalin, or someone articulate like Obama) had been leader in Russia in 1938 or so. Mulroney opposed free trade in 1983 but against all odds in 1988, indeed against the federal Liberal Party and the Anglo MSM, Brian Mulroney saw ahead and lead. He negotiated a free trade deal with the US. Nowadays, Justin Trudeau defends free trade and free choice. Edited December 29, 2017 by August1991 Quote
-TSS- Posted January 2, 2018 Report Posted January 2, 2018 Is it really possible in the US, like it was claimed in some election-debate, that a multi-millionaire CEO pays less tax than his secretary who earns something like 1/100 compared to him? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2018 Report Posted January 2, 2018 3 hours ago, -TSS- said: Is it really possible in the US, like it was claimed in some election-debate, that a multi-millionaire CEO pays less tax than his secretary who earns something like 1/100 compared to him? No, the multimillionaire would be hit by what is called "alternative minimum tax" (AMT). However, it is possible for the multimillionaire to pay a lower effective tax rate (percentage of income) compared to a secretary, which is what I believe the claim was referring to. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Reg Posted January 3, 2018 Report Posted January 3, 2018 On 12/28/2017 at 6:17 AM, bush_cheney2004 said: Americans know who pays income taxes and who doesn't..... Funny Romney assumes that all of the people who don't pay taxes all vote Democrat. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2018 Report Posted January 3, 2018 5 hours ago, Reg said: Funny Romney assumes that all of the people who don't pay taxes all vote Democrat. Romney never said that, and we know it's not true from basic demographics and voter turnout: https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/how-do-the-47-vote/ Dependence on government is a bi-partisan endeavor. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
August1991 Posted January 3, 2018 Author Report Posted January 3, 2018 18 hours ago, -TSS- said: Is it really possible in the US, like it was claimed in some election-debate, that a multi-millionaire CEO pays less tax than his secretary who earns something like 1/100 compared to him? If you earn $500,000 and pay 10% tax, you pay $50,000 in tax to the government. If your secretary earns $40,000 and pays 20% to the government, she pays $8,000 in tax to the government. Who pays more tax? You or your secretary? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 3, 2018 Report Posted January 3, 2018 On 12/29/2017 at 1:58 AM, August1991 said: 1. Government budget deficits just don't matter; it is government spending/buying that matters. Japan's government debt is over 2X GDP. In the US, federal debt was about 120% of GDP in 1946. At present, after the 2008 crisis, it is about 100%. Deficits don't matter ? That's a new one on me. Even your 'leftists' don't advocate for spending more than tax revenue so carelessly. On 12/29/2017 at 2:54 AM, August1991 said: Mulroney opposed free trade in 1983 but against all odds in 1988, indeed against the federal Liberal Party and the Anglo MSM, Brian Mulroney saw ahead and lead. He negotiated a free trade deal with the US. And so, both are neo-liberals and subscribe to conventional economics. The US administration doesn't subscribe to this view. 21 hours ago, -TSS- said: Is it really possible in the US, like it was claimed in some election-debate, that a multi-millionaire CEO pays less tax than his secretary who earns something like 1/100 compared to him? BC has explained where this misinformation came from. 3 hours ago, August1991 said: Who pays more tax? You or your secretary? No. But this is such a basic, stupid question of grade 7 math that it shows our public discussion on economics can't hope to keep up with the complexity of the real system. We now have some choices: 1) Let the system continue, so we have an uneducated 'public' discussing/voting on issues they can't hope to understand 2) Foment a true 'public' that can discuss economic policy, ie. via online public groups, and use engagement with those groups to get feedback, provide public education and thereby drive public policy 3) Simplify the system so that everyone can understand it. The question then becomes how to do so, and whether/how to keep the deficit low, keep a progressive taxation system. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Boges Posted January 3, 2018 Report Posted January 3, 2018 Deficits certainly mattered when the Black guy was POTUS. Quote
Reg Posted January 4, 2018 Report Posted January 4, 2018 On 2018-01-02 at 11:01 PM, bush_cheney2004 said: Romney never said that, and we know it's not true from basic demographics and voter turnout: https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/how-do-the-47-vote/ Dependence on government is a bi-partisan endeavor. Quote "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney said in the video. "All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. Quote
August1991 Posted January 23, 2018 Author Report Posted January 23, 2018 On 1/3/2018 at 11:35 AM, Boges said: Deficits certainly mattered when the Black guy was POTUS. Black guy? I'm not American and I'm even tired of these generalisations, racist, nationalist accusations. (Because I disagree with Obama, I'm racist. Because I agree with Trump, I'm racist. Because I vote CAQ, I'm a separatist.) ===== Boges, government budget deficits don't matter; government spending matters. Discussions of government budget deficits only matter because they may limit (politically) government spending. Sexist trigger ahead. Governments spend money like an ex-wife with a court-order right to your bank account: Does it matter whether she uses your "credit card" or "debit card" to buy stuff? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.