Tax reform

[GURPS (Premo)]

I bet I know a thing or two more than you ....

your posts and attitude towards Obamacare belie all is needed to know about little sappy

and am not constantly crying about raising insurance rates and taxes.

yes we know, you are a hard core communist willing to give up all you work for - to assuage your white liberal guilt - tell me are you sorry you were born

I am certainly not jealous of you and your situation

you must be, otherwise WHY mention it .....

[Starman]

Yes but in your example if you are getting a reduced tax rate and you therefore have an additional X dollars a month you aren't going to buy twice as much meat to feed your family.


What you describe above is economics. The trickle down part is where republicans try to convince people they will benefit from corporate tax cuts by buying twice as much meat and stimulating the economy which is unproven

I think the more money that one has earned that he can keep and do with as they wish is a good thing. I don't know where this idea comes from that the government has right of first refusal on money we earn.

Your comments also imply there is a "correct" level of taxation. Want to start by telling me what that is?

[GURPS (Premo)]

The trickle down part is where republicans try to convince people they will benefit from corporate tax cuts .....

still wait on your excuses why Bezo's and Zuckerberg aren't hiring 1000's or Additional Employees with all the cash they have

Soros ?
Buffet ? Berkshire Hawthay is worth billions

Michael Moore - hired the cheapest SCAB Employees to make his files and treated them like crap



come on put up or shut up .....

why is ANY Progressive so RICH if they believe in helping EVERYONE

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Yes but in your example if you are getting a reduced tax rate and you therefore have an additional X dollars a month you aren't going to buy twice as much meat to feed your family.

Of course not, Mo. You are being silly. The money could/would go toward a vacation home...a nice boat..a collector car...an expensive vacation...a private plane....a larger mansion...and so on. And in every single case, that money spend helps to create and/or maintain jobs for people.

But the point is largely moot; the wealthiest are not going be seeing much if any tax reduction if the current proposal passes. About the only really significant beneficiary will be "C" corporations, but I'm fine with that.

[stgislander]

Of course not, Mo. You are being silly. The money could/would go toward a vacation home...a nice boat..a collector car...an expensive vacation...a private plane....a larger mansion...and so on. And in every single case, that money spend helps to create and/or maintain jobs for people.

But the point is largely moot; the wealthiest are not going be seeing much if any tax reduction if the current proposal passes. About the only really significant beneficiary will be "C" corporations, but I'm fine with that.

The Senate plan is kicking the corporate tax rate reductions down the road.

[Sapidus]

I think the more money that one has earned that he can keep and do with as they wish is a good thing. I don't know where this idea comes from that the government has right of first refusal on money we earn.

Your comments also imply there is a "correct" level of taxation. Want to start by telling me what that is?

I’ve never said anything of the sort. I’ve simply pointed out trickle down economics doesn’t work because you give businesses a break doesn’t mean the workers will see the benefit. Or spend a benefit if the do receive it

[Gilligan (Premo)]

I’ve never said anything of the sort. I’ve simply pointed out trickle down economics doesn’t work because you give businesses a break doesn’t mean the workers will see the benefit. Or spend a benefit if the do receive it

Except that it always has worked. Just fine.

Except for that, you mean.

[Sapidus]

Except that it always has worked. Just fine.

Except for that, you mean.

Prove it. Liar.

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Prove it. Liar.

I don't have to "prove" it. I see it working every single day. When you own and operate businesses, the mechanisms and consequences are as plain as the nose on your face.

Not that you'd have any reason to understand any of that. You've never been there. Loser.

[transporter]

Some general thougths

[QUOTE]

So I am a middle of the road republican. I do not think the term "Tax Reform" is good. It means reforming the way taxes are collected to make it more efficient. I want government reform where the spending they do on governance and the products I see from my government is better.

You are correct in that those who call the current proposals "reform" are incorrect. "Reform" should involve wholesale changes in tax policy should be revenue neutral. When the tax codes is being reformed in a period of economic expansion, tax revenue should be increased in order to build a reserve for when the economy is in recession.

A complete fiscal overhaul would be wonderful. Reform the entitlement programs...get revenue and spending in line.

See I understand that taxation is a way the government funds projects and services for the greater good of our society. I get that and it is needed. However I want them to reform what they are doing to make it better, cut out things that suck and are ineffective then pass the savings on to me.

Nice thought...exceeding naïve. To accomplish this goal we would need to eliminate gerrymandering, eliminate money in politics, eliminate the revolving door lobbyists, etc etc. All worthy goals though.

It is not good enough in my mind to cut taxes yet carry the same level of expenses.

And it shouldn't be...the current trajectory of our annual deficits is scary. But our incompetent President and the bought and paid for House/Senate are going to make that worse.

Yea yea I get the concept and believe that stimulating the economy via tax reduction actually means increased revenue but that does have a limit.

That theory just doesn't hold water at the current levels of taxation. (been explained too many times). Additionally, the current proposals really wouldn't do much to stimulate economic activity. Cutting the tax rates of huge multinational corps will do little for their workers. What the Republicans in the House and Senate (and those from Fox, Breitbart and the like) always fail to mention is that a company has no loyalty or obligation to its employees. A corp act in the best interest of itself and its owners (shareholders). So give large multinationals a huge tax break...are they going to raise wages? No...they are going to implement share buyback programs or increase dividend payments. Joe Sixpack won't see a pay raise.

I want them to do both, cut the amount of revenue needed to fund governmental services and products, and then make a reduction to my bill for my share of the products.

Agreed...but understand that the fiscal year that just ended had a $660B deficit. Budgets are running about $4T. To get to your goal, we first have to cut spending by more than 15% just to balance. In good times we should be running a surplus. Go ahead and look at where how the federal budget is spent. Look at the actual expenditures and determine what should be cut that gets us to $660B...that's this year. Deficits (without this silly tax cut proposal) will be over $1T in a few years.

I would also like to see the federal government scale back the intrusion into the states and allow the states to manage most of the governmental services and products. Why? Because I, we, you can influence our state and local legislatures to be better in tune with our needs.

And, you also have significant issues with non standardized services on everything from education to food safety.

I have no problem with the federal government cutting rates WAY back to 5, 10 and 15% and let the individual states raise their tax rates to take up the slack.

Unless you live in Mississippi or one of the poor states that do not have the tax base to support significant cuts in federal dollars.

That's pretty much it.

Your post is a lot of wishful thinking. It has some good points and some idealistic ones. Unfortunately, it fails the reality test of a country that is as economically diverse as the US.