DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus White House economist: Middle class will benefit from business tax cuts in 3 to 5 years

I like GM. Always have. He seems like a good dude and an intelligent poster. Hear that GM? I do like you.
But I’ve seen you post that you were a single policy voter in the past and have not said a thing. This morning it rubbed me a little and I spoke up. I don’t think you’re deplorable. I do think that screwing the living and calling yourself pro life is contradictory. Confusing. Frustrating.

You understand that Trump doesn't comprehend any of this stuff, and isn't intellectually curious enough to attempt to, right?

If you wrote a universal health care bill and called it TrumpCare, he'd sign it. If there's a tax plan, he's told to sign it or not, and then he goes to play golf and eat carving table meat all day.

The notion that he deliberates or negotiates is absurd. Listen closely when he discusses health care or taxes - he doesn't know what he's talking about, and has a few choice catchphrases he parrots.

Hey it's never a problem between us bro. I know you were letting off steam thats why I asked you if you felt better after your post Like almost everybody else on here we agree sometimes and disagree sometimes and we can disagree and go after each other sometimes with no hard feeling involved from either one of us. But one of these days we still have to sit down and share some Absinthe like we talked about years ago

I also don't think I am contradictory. I am against the death sentence. I am against the crappy health insurance and no health insurance many in this country are stuck with. I am against big business moving out of this country to pad their profits while Americans suffer for it.

My wife and I also disagree with your intelligent comment

The Dems won the last two out of three presidential elections. Since they finally won one, they're acting like they now have the market cornered. The sad part is I think he actually believes his own BS.

The fact is, agree with GM or not, he stands by his principals.

What I find absurd is the Left's refusal to see that President Trump has got the Markets and the Economy humming right now.

He won a stare down fight with North Korea, made NATO pay up, is crushing ISIS among other things.

Not bad for a moron who is in his first political office of his life. And in January he will have his first year done.

No, not bad at all.

The Dems have absolutely bled everywhere outside of the executive branch. GOP wins have been big and many. They control the government. Though it's not because the ideology is popular, but because nothing is being offered on the other side (that and gerrymandering).

The Dems had the gov't, and the only thing they produced was a crappy health care plan. They got a crack at running against a mentally ill clown, and they ran the only person less likeable than him, leaving America's most popular politician on the bench. The party's vision and actions are beneficial only if you live in a city or on the coast and have money. They left an entire segment of the country abandoned.

Things can change quickly, but the GOP deserves to be spiking the football to a degree.

First, you don't know a damn thing about me. Unlike you, I believe in the common good. I don't approve of abortion, but I don't think you or anyone else has the right to dictate what a women can do with her own body. I don't support killing babies because babies are BORN! Fetuses are not born, they are UNBORN. I agree that late stage fetuses should be protected, but not early stage and not defective fetuses. A child is a life long responsibility. If that child is not going to be wanted or loved and cared for, or somehow creates an extreme burden to the parent or society, then termination is currently the best option.

Now if you all focused on fixing the state's handling of children that are unwanted like guaranteeing 100% adoption by loving families, 100% life long free care for those with disabilities, free medical treatment both physically and mentally for would be mothers who give up those children, a system that guarantees no child ever goes hungry, homeless, unclothed, or uneducated... then I would get behind your cause.

BTW, I'm happy your life is good. That's good to hear. Now if EVERYBODY else had it good there would be no issues and we would all be happy. Sorry if you think my thinking about others somehow makes me selfish.

They have also lost 1200 seats everywhere else.

I don't like Obama, but I can and will admit he was unwildly popular and loved by the left. And he was a great campaigner (and he gave the black community a pretty good reason to come out an vote in record numbers). As soon as Obama was not on the ticket, Trump wins, arguably the second worst president nominee in history. I don't think you can argue that the country has not been voting the dems out, nor that the dems have no real candidate to run outside of Obama.

BINGO! But I would argue outside of the major cities of LA and NY, they're ideology is more popular than you give them credit for.

Gronk style too

and yet what does that say about the GOP that they won all those seats why obama was in office, and his policies STILL got passed?

i remember all the conservatives on the board constantly whining about how the GOP is letting Obama do whatever he wants, and them showing no backbone to "stand up" to Obama.

you know what that reminds me of? when israel swapped 1000 palestinian prisoners for 1 israeli soldier.

that's how worthless the GOP is. all those seats and still couldn't stand up to Obama, the Dem, the lefty.

pathetic conservatives.

hell, look at the situation now. PDF talking about how the GOP should be able to spike the ball....how?

they got control of everything and yet they completely crapped the bed so far. they got nothing accomplished.

so people can say what they want about the dems but at least they unite and work together.

so far i've seen nothing but hissy fits from gop leaders to OTHER gop leaders. it would be hilarious if the country wasn't suffering because of it.

I haven't heard so much crying and whining about dems and ignoring how they got the economy back on track, since Slick Willy left office. ....Good Job

where did I say a damn thing about me knowing anything about you? I asked how your 401K is doing, I would assume it is doing well, as they are soaring across the board

The age old debate of the pro-choice. The government tells me I cant shoot drugs in my veins, they tell me what types of alcohol I can and cannot buy, they tell me I can drive drunk.

We support womens right, so long as it doesn't kill anyone...50% of those babies are female, so what about its rights to choose? You are not giving that child the right to be pro-choice.


yes, well the person that didn't give me bbq sauce with my mcnuggets was an invonvience to me, so they should be aborted - So those homeless and those unwilling to work are an extreme burdon on society - we should cut all welfare funding too?

Yet they are still ALIVE, with a heartbeat, with its own DNA.

Too bad others don't get the chance to be happy as they are not given the chance of life.

FYI my position on abortion - if its a medical need or endangerment to the woman or child to birth, or in the case of rape, I am open to it. Women like Whoopi who just use it as means of birth control, are the most vile creatures on earth.

I'm not going to respond to your entire post as you're asking for a lot of information and I'm a tad busy today. But I think that Americans get too caught up in income taxes. Honestly, I think it'd be best for everyone if they were significantly lowered. However, capital gains should start to be taxed higher. 80% of the wealth in the stock market is .controlled by 10% of the population. Capital gains is how real money is made now. I'd start looking there (as well as adding 1-2 more tax brackets for the extremely wealthy.

Many don't agree. In no case. It's god's will.

I know many don't agree, however it is not place nor anyone elses to tell them they are wrong and incorrect. Those are their beliefs and they are entitled to them. I think that is something that should be understood.

The argument for the rape case (and although I don't agree - I see the argument) - is that the supreme court ruled that the death penalty is inhumane for a rapist and they cannot be tried for death. However the baby can be aborted and tried for death of that persons actions....

again, I don't agree, but I can see the argument. I can understand the argument, and I don't think demonizing someone for thinking that is going to accomplish anything.

So that's why you spent your morning calling Whoopi Goldberg a killer...

So a 20% tax on long-term capital gains for the wealthiest isn't enough? What do you suggest it should be and at what point should it be more than the 15% most pay (420k+ pays 20% currently)? If killing a strong market and hurting the middle classes investments along with those "that can afford it" is what you are looking to do I suppose an increase in capital gains is the way to go.

I just don't understand the mentality of taking more from "the rich". They already pay most of the taxes and you want them to pay more? I wouldn't consider myself rich, though I do pretty well, and my tax burden is ludicrous.

Obviously. We currently are facing a grave income inequality problem. As a result we should lower taxes on how people actually make their money (income tax) and raise it in an area, that has far more available money that truly benefits a small amount of people. Like it or not, we also have an incredible deficit, so we can't just cut taxes for everyone. That's why we'll probably see a new tax bracket made when we get a tax plan out of congress.

Also, you should see my taxes for virtual currency. I withdraw it within a year and I have to pay %50. Heck, I make most of my money through investing, but it's not a route real working people have.

The biggest lie in America is that the rich makes their money the same way as the poor does.

I'm sure you know I was talking about dollars, the typical liberal response of "Warren Buffets secretary paid more in taxes than he did" was expected.

I am not going to refute that, but they pay a hell of a lot more money. And yes I understand they make more money and thus should pay more. I'm not a fan of progressive taxes, I've stated that many times. They are unfair to everyone except those not paying any taxes.

If it were up to me, I'd tax somewhere in the area of a 15-20% rate on EVERYONE regardless of income and exempt the first 60k for single, 100k married income for EVERYONE. That'll never fly, but to me that would be fair to almost everybody.

I'm also open to the Fair Tax plan of a national sales tax.

There is no argument to make in cases like that - those are not religious beliefs.

If there is an actual reason or argument to make, I will listen, 7 ? try to argue that, please.

That will never fly because its common sense, the left would fight that. They want the rich to pay 100% of the tax burden of the country and not pay single dime themselves.

BS, Get it straight. The wealthiest Americans want the middle class to pay most of their tax burden for them. And the sorry saps do. The beat goes on.

Sorry, I misread that. I guess I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. My bad.

But they don't, so you are wrong.



Link to Above stats

Face it, the Left wants to punish the successful in our Society for being successful.

Capitalism works if you apply yourself and they hate it.

They don't want to punish them, they just want them to take care of them.

If you get a trophy for not winning

that lends to the mindset of getting paid for not working.

speaking of things not working:

Slashing 401(k) limits to fund budget is like 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/slashing-...-131637150.html

The Trump administration and Congress have been mulling a reduction in the 401(k) tax-free contribution limits as they work on a tax plan. Currently, the employer-based plans allow most employees to put away up to $18,000, deferring taxes until a withdrawal is made upon retirement.

The 401(k) may be changed because the Trump administration is looking for ways to drum up revenue to pay for its tax reform plan, which includes significant cuts, while not adding to the national debt, an issue dear to many conservatives.

The tax-free nature of a 401(k) is set to cost the government $583 billion in lost revenue between 2016 and 2020. A significant cut to the program would bridge most of that gap.

However, it’s not that simple. The 401(k) simply defers taxes, it doesn’t exempt them. According to the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank, this half-trillion figure “does not represent taxes that will never be paid. Instead, it represents taxes that will be paid at a future time, when individuals retire.”

“The revenue will have to be found in the future,” Olivia Mitchell, a professor at the Wharton School and executive director of the Pension Research Council, told Yahoo Finance. “It’s robbing Peter to pay Paul.”


House Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas is the GOP’s chief tax writer in the House. ( AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)
More
Slashing 401(k) makes revenue for the short term, but not the long

The Tax Foundation’s analysis noted that this “Rothification,” as they call it, — a Roth IRA uses post-tax earnings but does not tax withdrawals — “mainly alters the timing of collecting taxes, and using it to raise revenue.”

“It’s essentially an accounting gimmick,” said Mitchell. “We do need tax reform and pay fors, but this one doesn’t bring about the kind of long-term tax reform that we need.”

The Tax Foundation and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s Marc Goldwein also called it a “budgetary gimmick.”

“Roths are a worse deal for the federal government — probably more revenue is lost,” he told Yahoo Finance. “So if anything, switching from traditional tax-deferred plans to Roth IRAs is probably a long-term loss.”

Even if it doesn’t help the budget, it could still be smart

Goldwein notes everything depends on the policy. From a budget standpoint, cutting 401(k)’s tax-exempt status could be revenue neutral to negative, but it could be good from a policy standpoint — getting people to save. In comments at the Yahoo Finance All Markets Summit, chief GOP tax author Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) alluded to creating policy that encourages savings beyond current 401(k) participation.

If Congress does elect to reduce 401(k) limits and put forth policy that encourages people to save through other vehicles like Roth IRAs, it’s important to know it’s not going to last, Goldwein noted. “The right thing to do would be to set it aside, if you know money is going to go away,” he said.

Withdrawals from Roth IRAs may not be tax-free forever

A shift to Roths from traditional vehicles may present a further fiscal problem in the future. Mitchell believes that taxes will have to rise in the future, potentially erasing Roths’s tax-free withdrawal.

“With population aging and longer lifetimes we’re not going to be able to keep the promise to have Roths not be taxed in retirement,” she said. “I think it’s going to get more difficult to protect.”

The mixed messages from President Donald Trump shows the political danger of touching retirement savings. After Trump tweeted that “There will be NO change to your 401(k)” on Oct. 23, Trump then told reporters two days later, “Well, maybe it is [on the table], and maybe we’ll use it as negotiating.”

Politicians from both parties have tried to scale back the 401(k) system. Former President Barack Obama proposed a cap on 401(k) balances of $3.4 million in 2015. As this year’s Nobel Laureate Richard Thaler noted in a tweet, “reducing the limit on 401(k) contributions is massively progressive.”

So while politicians may not decide to directly tax Roth IRA withdrawals, they may find a way around it.

“Even if they don’t tax it directly, they’ll do it indirectly,” said MItchell, who cited means testing for other social programs as a way to tax. “if you have more money, you pay more for benefits. So it’s already there.”

And, they do.

I'm going to disagree with the article about the Roth part. Plus they stated those may be taxed at some point as well, which should be criminal if that happens. When people retire they typically pull a lot less money than they were making when working, thus a lower tax burden on the withdraws.

If they mess with retirement contribution limits this tax plan should be in the trash can.

we will see bro. in the healthcare bills are any indication, everything they promise they won't touch, ends up being touched.

swish we don't agree much - that's a given.

but I think we can agree that when bills and plans are put forth - there are a lot of articles about how great they are and how bad they are from both sides.

I think the 401K is a bad idea to cap, Trump said he wouldn't touch it, then said he might. I tend to believe he shows being wishy washy on it because he doesn't want people to know his real feelings and use it as leverage. You may argue that its because hes an idiot - too each their own

But the 12 page plan we have seen, will look very different from the BILL sent to the house, and even more different AFTER the senate gets their hands on, and be an entire different piece of legislation by the time it hits trumps desk. And it could be bad by that time, it could be good, its gonna depend on what side you agree with.....but again, I think all the hissy fits about the 12 pages put forth are a little overboard until we actually see a real piece of the bill. I would assume you could agree with that.

i agree that bills change from house to senate.

however, there are a few things a lot of people expect not to be changed.

messing with people's 401k plans is a non starter for a lot of folks around the country, for example.

Not Trump. Why should we? And they pay less tax on the dollar earned then the typical middle class tax payer. In other words they don't pay their fair share of taxes compared to the middle class wage earner. Plus they have a boat load loop holes they are all lined up nice and purdy looking towards the middle class waiting for their corporate handouts to make them richer every year. Yup the same people who want to slash gov't programs for women and other minorities. Murica

I'm thinking maybe this doesn't mean what you think it means?

100,000-200,000 paid 12%, but paid 25% of all income taxes in 2009. Uh, is that because there's a ton more people in that income range?

Those making up to 500,000, combined with the 100-200 thou, paid 45% of all income taxes? Yup, they pay. (honestly, a "group" of people making between $100,000 and $500,000 pay 45% of all income taxes collected? And you think they don't pay enough?

Americans earning more than 1 million "paid just 20% of the total taxes collect? No crap. That's a select few people. Let's face it, relatively speaking, not many people make a million a year.

But, add that 20% to the 45% - and we get "people making over $100,000 pay 65% of the income taxes.

Now, find out how many people make over $100,000. I'm guessing, but maybe 20% of the population?

Using that number (and it's pretty close), we have 20% of the people paying 65% of the taxes?

And anyway, you're mixing "percentage paid" with dollars collected, and further, in your link, there is no percentage of the population that earns $ in those categories.

What percent of the people fall in the million or more per year, what percent fall in the over $100,000 but less than 1 million.

I agree with that. and it is for me too. that's why I don't see it happening. you would have uproar from both sides.

Eww boy ... He's wishy washy on it because he doesn't have a clue on what to do. It's the blind leading the blind and he's playing pin the tail on the donkey hoping he comes close. Problem is he can't even find his own ass.