Trump about to rip off the US public for $10T... again!

[godzilla]

1 minute ago, User said:

Because I don't like engaging with dishonest people until they own up to what they did. 

Why did you create a thread with a number you knew you had no idea was accurate or not?

That is not true at all. 

 

Good thing no one is starving here. We have tons of safety net programs to help people. 

 

ah yes... the moral bias. i'm dishonest because i thought that was the right number but now i'm being told it is not.

i already admitted that it may not be the number. i haven't even bothered to look. because its too much fun asking you what the number is and having you refuse to supply one!

i can be wrong. and i'm always willing to adjust my mental model to accept fact.

prove it. give me the number.

stop with the cop outs.

[User]

1 minute ago, godzilla said:

ah yes... the moral bias. i'm dishonest because i thought that was the right number but now i'm being told it is not

No, you are dishonest because you kept pushing that number even after I challenged you, then you tried to claim it was a typo that you said 1.5 instead of 10, and now you continue to refuse to explain what made you think it was the right number. 

2 minutes ago, godzilla said:

i already admitted that it may not be the number. i haven't even bothered to look. because its too much fun asking you what the number is and having you refuse to supply one!

Like I said, you are being dishonest just making this a game. 

3 minutes ago, godzilla said:

i can be wrong. and i'm always willing to adjust my mental model to accept fact.

Clearly not. 

3 minutes ago, godzilla said:

prove it. give me the number.

stop with the cop outs.

I don't have anything to prove, you already admitted:

"i was wrong. i don't know where i got the number now. i don't know what the number is. i haven't even bothered to look."

[godzilla]

3 minutes ago, User said:

I already have. You ignored me both times I made the same point and asked you the same question. 

this is how the threads with the zealots end up...

"i don't answer dishonest people"

"i already told you the answer"

 

[godzilla]

2 minutes ago, User said:

No, you are dishonest because you kept pushing that number even after I challenged you, then you tried to claim it was a typo that you said 1.5 instead of 10, and now you continue to refuse to explain what made you think it was the right number. 

Like I said, you are being dishonest just making this a game. 

Clearly not. 

I don't have anything to prove, you already admitted:

"i was wrong. i don't know where i got the number now. i don't know what the number is. i haven't even bothered to look."

ok ok... i'll let you off the hook. sorry, its just too easy to have fun with you.

Trump’s Tax Cut-A-Rama Total So Far: $9.75 Trillion

got another number? i mean, its serious legislation... its important to know the number, right?

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, godzilla said:

ok ok... i'll let you off the hook. sorry, its just too easy to have fun with you.

Trump’s Tax Cut-A-Rama Total So Far: $9.75 Trillion

got another number? i mean, its serious legislation... its important to know the number, right?

Dude, that was an absolutely embarrassing melt down on your part, all because @User asked you for a simple cite. 

So looking over your numbers, your initial post was quite wrong.  You misunderstood what you were reading. 

What they have indicated is that if nothing else changes then there will be that much of a loss in REVENUES from taxation.  IF nothing else changes. 

However, they do not even attempt to calculate the increased business and economic revenue that such tax cuts can produce. 

You MISTOOK that estimate for ACTUAL REVENUE REDUCTION.  You claimed that amount would be added to the debt. But it's not actual revenue reduction, and it doesn't allow for any other factors like spending reductions. 

It is NOT the amount that will be added to the deficit AT ALL. They are saying that IF NOTHING ELSE CHANGED then that would be the cost, not that this would be the debt addition. It's just looking at the number that would need to be replaced by increased activity or spending cuts to maintain parity.  It's not actually going to show up on the  debt or deficit, it's to calculate how much will need to be recovered. 

First, revenue is not deficit.  Any reduction in revenue can be offset with spending cuts  or other factors.  So right off the bat you got your statement wrong. 

Secondly, the tax cuts  WILL affect economic activity

The Case for Trump’s 15 Percent Corporate Tax Rate | Cato at Liberty Blog

as noted in the above work, there will likley be NO actual reduction in revenues, or at least no substantial reduction. 

So revenue losses from reduced rates will likely be offset almost entirely by increases in business activity as a result of those reductions. 

Your claim that the calculated amount was what trump was adding to the debt was absolutely incorrect. 

 

No wonder that you didn't want to tell him where the number came from  

 

Edited January 12 by CdnFox

[User]

4 hours ago, godzilla said:

this is how the threads with the zealots end up...

"i don't answer dishonest people"

"i already told you the answer"

 

Yes, you are still being dishonest as you are conflating two different points now. 

4 hours ago, godzilla said:

ok ok... i'll let you off the hook. sorry, its just too easy to have fun with you.

You may have fun being dishonest... I would not openly brag about that. 

 

4 hours ago, godzilla said:

Trump’s Tax Cut-A-Rama Total So Far: $9.75 Trillion

got another number? i mean, its serious legislation... its important to know the number, right?

More dishonesty. 

That is not the amount the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act allegedly cost. That is an article talking about the totals of all FUTURE tax cuts Trump has mentioned. Remember, you titled this thread "again"

 

[Aristides]

4 hours ago, User said:

 

 

Good thing no one is starving here. We have tons of safety net programs to help people. 

 

Yes cause living on hand outs from the mega rich is the American way.

[User]

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Yes cause living on hand outs from the mega rich is the American way.

So... now you want people to starve to death?

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Yes cause living on hand outs from the mega rich is the American way.

It absolutely is. That's how the taxes work now.

The vast majority of the taxes and the social benefits that they pay for come from the mega rich (depending how you define that).   In fact federally in the us the one percent alone pay about 40 percent of the taxes.  76 percent are paid by the top 10 percent. 

So all the benefits and programs offered by the US gov't including all military, all social programs, all welfare or medical, etc etc are all paid for by hand outs from the mega rich for the most part. WIthout them the USA would have nothing. 

[Deluge]

On 1/10/2025 at 12:35 PM, godzilla said:

and now the circus clowns begin their reign of economic terror! haaha!

House GOP puts Medicaid, ACA, climate measures on chopping block

the "felon in chief" and GOP's MO is to renew the Trump tax cuts that will add another $10T to the national debt. that $10T going directly into the pockets of the richest Americans.

but that pesky debt ceiling! so they are going to attempt to rifle through seniors benefits, health care for the poor and infrastructure spending to find that money for the billionaire boys club! of course, you can't bleed a stone so they have only been able to identify $5.6T in cuts that even they can stomach.

mind you, Trump is not a "fiscal conservative"... they never are. he has repeatedly suggested that the US get rid of the debt ceiling so that his ilk can just shovel cash into their own pockets.

the "felon in chief" will claim that he inherited such a mess (the economy being stronger than its been in US history) that billionaires need more money.

Greenland, Greenland, Greenland... look over here!

Woke psychopaths, like gozilla here, hate the American dream. He wants everyone who isn't a democrat eititist to suffer equaly. 

[Aristides]

5 hours ago, User said:

So... now you want people to starve to death?

Yes, everyone will  be so much better off when all the wealth is held by the top 1%

Like I said. Obtuse.

Edited January 12 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Yes, everyone will  be so much better off when all the wealth is held by the top 1%

Like I said. Obtuse.

It's not possible in a market society. 

The 1 percent only get to be the 1 percent by creating goods services and business that creates wealth. Musk, zuck, gates, etc all created something and offered goods and services of value 

That HAS to generate economic activity around it in a market.  It's not possible for them to do that alone.  

So what happens is they get mega rich but many people around them get very rich and then others become wealthy etc.  The term 'microsoft millionaire' was in common use for quite some time. Tonnes of employees of mircosoft got rich 

Even the very poorest people tend to benefit. 

This is well documented. In fact the more multi millionares or billionares a country has per capita the higher it's average wage tends to be on average. 

You talk of wealth like there's a set amount.  LIke there's  only so much "wealthonium" out there and when someoene's got it all there's no more.  That's not how it works in a market based capitalist model.  Wealth only exists as a function of economic activity - and you can ALWAYS create more economic activity. So people can always increase their wealth if that's something they want to focus on.  Gates getting rich does NOT come at the expense of you getting rich. The opposite is true. 

[Nationalist]

On 1/10/2025 at 4:14 PM, godzilla said:

blind ideological faith is a gift to the puppet masters that keeps on giving!

"ideology is like a failed religion" - Jordan Peterson

This is rich.

Hey Tweenkie-Poo...how'd that open border work out? Are you enjoying the rapes, murders, theft, assault, and over doses? Do you enjoy having hotels full of illegal aliens at tax payer expense? How about the inflation? Giving you a woody is it?

You happen to be the very mindless plank Peterson was talking about in your quote.

[User]

11 hours ago, Aristides said:

Yes, everyone will  be so much better off when all the wealth is held by the top 1%

Like I said. Obtuse.

They don't hold all the wealth though... nor is that my argument. Should we argue about how great it will be to be ruled by Aliens next?

Also... you never answered the question. So, now you want people to starve to death?

Edited January 12 by User

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, User said:

They don't hold all the wealth though... nor is that my argument. Should we argue about how great it will be to be ruled by Aliens next?

Also... you never answered the question. So, now you want people to starve to death?

Things will be even better when they hold all the wealth and pay no taxes. 

That wasn't a question it was a statement and you made it, not me.

[User]

Just now, Aristides said:

Things will be even better when they hold all the wealth and pay no taxes. 

That wasn't a question it was a statement and you made it, not me.

When will they hold all the wealth? Is that going to be before or after the Alien invasion?

You are here talking about people starving, I mention no one is starving, then you complain about the policies that help prevent anyone from starving... so... do you now want to see people starve?

 

[godzilla]

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Dude, that was an absolutely embarrassing melt down on your part, all because @User asked you for a simple cite. 

So looking over your numbers, your initial post was quite wrong.  You misunderstood what you were reading. 

What they have indicated is that if nothing else changes then there will be that much of a loss in REVENUES from taxation.  IF nothing else changes. 

However, they do not even attempt to calculate the increased business and economic revenue that such tax cuts can produce. 

You MISTOOK that estimate for ACTUAL REVENUE REDUCTION.  You claimed that amount would be added to the debt. But it's not actual revenue reduction, and it doesn't allow for any other factors like spending reductions. 

It is NOT the amount that will be added to the deficit AT ALL. They are saying that IF NOTHING ELSE CHANGED then that would be the cost, not that this would be the debt addition. It's just looking at the number that would need to be replaced by increased activity or spending cuts to maintain parity.  It's not actually going to show up on the  debt or deficit, it's to calculate how much will need to be recovered. 

First, revenue is not deficit.  Any reduction in revenue can be offset with spending cuts  or other factors.  So right off the bat you got your statement wrong. 

Secondly, the tax cuts  WILL affect economic activity

The Case for Trump’s 15 Percent Corporate Tax Rate | Cato at Liberty Blog

as noted in the above work, there will likley be NO actual reduction in revenues, or at least no substantial reduction. 

So revenue losses from reduced rates will likely be offset almost entirely by increases in business activity as a result of those reductions. 

Your claim that the calculated amount was what trump was adding to the debt was absolutely incorrect. 

 

No wonder that you didn't want to tell him where the number came from  

 

great. i get that. so what is the number? your cite from the Koch family doesn't mention any real data from the outcomes of Trumps tax cuts at all.

again, again... this cite from Wikipedia offers 300 citations.

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

"According to Bloomberg, the TCJA has simplified the tax code for some, but not others; has lowered corporate debt; has led investment to temporarily increase before declining; and has brought money back from overseas without bringing back business activity."

"during the first year following enactment of the TCJA, real median household income increased by $553; the Census Bureau characterized this increase as statistically insignificant."

In 2018, companies spent a record-setting $1.1 trillion to buy back their own stock, and a majority of major firms (84%, as polled by the National Association for Business Economics) did not alter their hiring practice or their investment in their business in response to the tax cuts they received. This pattern was evident even in early 2018, when Bloomberg reported (based on an analysis of 51 S&P 500 companies) that an estimated 60% of corporate tax savings was going to shareholders, while 15% was going to employees. A Bloomberg Economics analysis found that, while business investment did increase in 2018, relatively little of that activity could be attributed to lower taxes.^[131] A study by the Federal Reserve Bank similarly found that corporations bought-back stock and paid down debt, rather than undertake either new capital expenditure or investment in research & development.

Bloomberg News reported in January 2020 that the top six American banks saved more than $32 billion in taxes during the two years after enactment of the tax cut, while they reduced lending, cut jobs and increased distributions to shareholders.^"

^"Federal corporate tax receipts fell from an annualized level of $409 billion in Q1 2017 to $269 billion in Q1 2018, a direct result of the Trump tax cuts.^[135][136] Corporate tax receipts for the full fiscal year ended September 2018 were down 31% from the prior fiscal year, the largest decline since records began in 1934, except for during the Great Recession when corporate profits, and hence corporate tax receipts, plummeted. Analysts attributed the fiscal 2018 decline to the tax cut"

while i can't find a nice graph showing tax revenue over time that goes past 2015, the lines continue on their trajectory. 1.3% of US tax revenue from corporations in 2023.

note the rise in payroll tax vs corporate tax.

" all economists agree that the true economic incidence of a payroll tax is unaffected by this distinction, and falls largely or entirely on workers in the form of lower wages.^[1][2][3][4] Because payroll taxes fall exclusively on wages and not on returns to financial or physical investments, payroll taxes may contribute to underinvestment in human capital, such as higher education.^"

i could go on... the overall view from economists is that this is a tax cut for the rich with no mandate to increase spending in the economy.

and tariffs? is that a progressive or regressive tax? its a regressive tax.

Trump is indeed "winning"... but thats just him and the billionaire boys club.

 

 

Edited January 12 by godzilla

[godzilla]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It absolutely is. That's how the taxes work now.

The vast majority of the taxes and the social benefits that they pay for come from the mega rich (depending how you define that).   In fact federally in the us the one percent alone pay about 40 percent of the taxes.  76 percent are paid by the top 10 percent. 

So all the benefits and programs offered by the US gov't including all military, all social programs, all welfare or medical, etc etc are all paid for by hand outs from the mega rich for the most part. WIthout them the USA would have nothing. 

wow, so much rich worship!

let me ask you something. if i had a great business idea and wanted capital to make it work and you invested... then that business made it big, would you expect something in return?

does Musk and Bezos make all of this money by themselves, naked in the forest somewhere? or do they manipulate the resources that they have access to to generate that wealth? the latter. they use the roads, bridges, electricity and infrastructure. they rely on the consistency of safety from the military and first responders. they need labour. educated and healthy labour. labour that is also sustained by that same infrastructure.

and i won't even start to touch on the fact that being rich is statistically just plain stupid luck. most of it is.

so what is it? should working people pay more than the rich?

again, everything in politics is one conversation masked as many. who pays for the socialist component of our mixed economy is the only fight that is consistent in ideological politics.

and history is pretty clear that the progressive tax system is the most powerful tool at building a very strong society that can maintain a very robust economy. and that concentration of money in fewer hands leads to an oligarch situation. wealth is mobile so the wealthy can always leave.

i'm all for the free enterprise component of the mixed economy. but when people are so frickin wealthy that they will never be able to touch or experience even a portion of that wealth then its time to put it to good use.

and if poor people get hand outs. then so what? at any moment "society" could decide that they go dodge bullets for "US interests".

but whatever... keep worshipping the rich and blaming the poor for all of societies problems.

[eyeball]

On 1/11/2025 at 9:36 AM, User said:

It is finite only in the sense that in some abstract, distant future, we will never see in our lifetime, or generations of lifetimes,

So why on Earth do we need things like quotas for fisheries or annual allowable cuts for forest industries in our lifetimes? 

[User]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So why on Earth do we need things like quotas for fisheries or annual allowable cuts for forest industries in our lifetimes? 

If only your argument were that fish were a finite resource... but even then, this is an example of a renewable resource, only that it is managed to help provide for maximum long term sustainable use... which really means they are not so finite after all. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, godzilla said:

great. i get that. so what is the number? your cite from the Koch family doesn't mention any real data from the outcomes of Trumps tax cuts at all.

Of course not. They don't happen in isolation. Your entire premise is flawed.  How much spending did trump cut during the future time you're talking about? That plays a role.  Were there actually tariffs? That plays a role. What was the population growth? That plays a role. Were there any other incentivizing tax breaks offered, or any other economic stimulus? What was the interest rate? 

Because you don't understand how this works you're trying to come up with one number out of an equation with a large number of variables that you can't account for. Every time you say "whats the number" all anyone else hears is "he doesn't know how this works". 

The end effect will be that the revenue will fall slightly for each dollar earned, but that more dollars will be earned. The exact numbers will depend on the other variables, and in order to be successful trump will have to manage all of those variables and make adjustments over time to get the results he wants.

1 hour ago, godzilla said:

again, again... this cite from Wikipedia offers 300 citations.

The problem again is you don't understand what you're citing.  And your example takes into account only SOME of the tax reforms and not the big picture. 

Trump brought in tax reform. The next year it did as it was supposed to. That growth didn't repeat at the same level in the third year so normally you'd make adjustments and so  on. 

But then covid hit. And that was the end of that, there was no third year. 

Sadly we'll never know how the final year would have gone, there's no reason to believe it wouldn't have been another improved year. Tax reforms and economies don't turn on a dime. They are usually measured over a period of years. 

As to the previous tax cuts it is universally recognized that they did in fact benefit everyone when you look at the whole package.  If they benefitted the rich more in terms of actual dollars then that's because the rich pay more tax. But everyone benefitted including the middle class

IRS data proves Trump tax cuts benefited middle, working-class Americans most

 

Lets cut to the chase. You want trump to be a bad person, so you cherry pick data that suggests that. However, that is not what the real data suggests. It doesn't suggest he was some sort of financial god either as some suggest, but it does suggest his cuts were on the right track and were moving the country in the right direction with benefits for all. 

And your original premise was still absolute nonsense. 

 

[eyeball]

57 minutes ago, User said:

If only your argument were that fish were a finite resource... but even then, this is an example of a renewable resource, only that it is managed to help provide for maximum long term sustainable use... which really means they are not so finite after all. 

No they're not. There's barely anywhere on the planet now where fishing communities thrive. Most are struggling, many are dead.

Some economists regard fishing communities the way miners regard canaries - they're important indicators of sustainability and more importantly the lack thereof.

Oh well, I'm sure unleashing our resource industries will make it all right as rain in no time.

I can't wait.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, godzilla said:

wow, so much rich worship!

Stating easily verified facts is hero worship now?

Quote

let me ask you something. if i had a great business idea and wanted capital to make it work and you invested... then that business made it big, would you expect something in return?

it would depend how much i put in, how much you secured the investment and how long it went on for. Your question doesn't seem to have a point. 

1 hour ago, godzilla said:

does Musk and Bezos make all of this money by themselves, naked in the forest somewhere? or do they manipulate the resources that they have access to to generate that wealth? the latter. they use the roads, bridges, electricity and infrastructure. they rely on the consistency of safety from the military and first responders. they need labour. educated and healthy labour. labour that is also sustained by that same infrastructure.

Do they have access to MORE roads than you do? No? Don't their customers also benefit from the use of those roads? 

Do they pay wages to that staff? Do they buy the electricity? etc etc. 

Your entire argument appears to be based on jealousy and hatred. The fact is the most wealthy people come from low or middle income families. They work and they take advantage of opportunity and their skill and they get wealthy. 

And the fact is those wealthy people pay the VAST majority of taxes AND create the vast majority of income for those 'workers' you mentioned. 

And you have every opportunity to get wealthy if that's what you want and where you're willing to put your focus. So you get the same chances they do, and yet they pay more. 

You want to punish them because they put out the risk and managed to succeed.  Something you weren't willing to do.  That's not right. 

They have not taken a single penny in earnings from you. Nothing they've done reduces your income by even a cent. You are probably worth more because of their efforts.  So you can be jealous of them to your heart's content but they're already paying the majority of your taxes on your behalf, and they've taken nothing from you. They don't owe you anything

 

 

[godzilla]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

IRS data proves Trump tax cuts benefited middle, working-class Americans most

 

is that it? thats all you got?

a Hill "opinion piece" by Justin Haskins of the Heartland Institute? quoting his one pager at the Heartland Institute website where he supplies data with no citations to anything published by the IRS?

even if those numbers are correct... inflation of 8% destroys any middle class and lower advantage. when eggs double in price for the lower half then its serious. for the upper middle half its... meh.

i'm not a Trump bad guy... he's an id!ot and an obvious tyrant. whatever. i'm making a factual claim that "conservative" policies favour regressive tax regimes while "liberal" policies favour progressive tax regimes. thats a fact. thats the whole nature of the beast of politics. the Trump tax cuts weaken progressive tax regimes.

in times where the economy is on steroids, the inequality of the wealth distribution is at an all time high, inflation has spiked the cost of living and there has been little to no rise in wages of the working... then the outcomes are obvious from an economic standpoint. its ridiculous to state otherwise.

 

 

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The fact is the most wealthy people come from low or middle income families.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!

[godzilla]

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And you have every opportunity to get wealthy if that's what you want and where you're willing to put your focus.

 

HAHAHAHAHA!

so EVERYONE can be wealthy? hahahaha! i'm afraid thats not how it works, friend. if everyone was wealthy then a loaf of bread would be $1000. inflation would adjust all the classes back to where they were.

i've done very well but others in my field have knocked it out of the park and others less well than i. and we were all doing the very same thing. its just that some had more luck than others.

in fact, its statistically calculable that these things are luck. and its statistically calculable that once you have big money that it makes money on its own and that you don't even have to try any more. its the success paradox.

Is Success Luck or Hard Work?

Edited January 12 by godzilla