Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
Has there been any indication of a need, or even desire, to cut spending dollar for dollar with tax revenue that is being foregone by the cuts? Has there been any discussion of spending cuts?
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
according the the dem libtards the budget they just passed was going to kill everyone in sight and was the worst thing to happen to america in 4000 years.....so ya got thatip_law-hokie wrote:Has there been any indication of a need, or even desire, to cut spending dollar for dollar with tax revenue that is being foregone by the cuts? Has there been any discussion of spending cuts?
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
Thanks cwtcr.cwtcr hokie wrote:according the the dem libtards the budget they just passed was going to kill everyone in sight and was the worst thing to happen to america in 4000 years.....so ya got thatip_law-hokie wrote:Has there been any indication of a need, or even desire, to cut spending dollar for dollar with tax revenue that is being foregone by the cuts? Has there been any discussion of spending cuts?
Has there been any indication of a need, or even desire, to cut spending dollar for dollar with tax revenue that is being foregone by the cuts? Has there been any discussion of spending cuts?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
I've seen no mention of spending cuts, by either side. Both are addicted to using tax dollars which is why we are in the mess we're in.
As of now the discussion is on trying to make the tax cuts revenue neutral. Given that would all be based on 10 year forecasting, it's really just a joke.
As of now the discussion is on trying to make the tax cuts revenue neutral. Given that would all be based on 10 year forecasting, it's really just a joke.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
I've seen mention of lower limits on 401(k) tax deferments, which was largely misinterpreted by the public to refer to lower limits on all 401(k)'s (including roth's), and thus a poison pill.133743Hokie wrote:I've seen no mention of spending cuts, by either side. Both are addicted to using tax dollars which is why we are in the mess we're in.
As of now the discussion is on trying to make the tax cuts revenue neutral. Given that would all be based on 10 year forecasting, it's really just a joke.
While still an accounting gimmick, at least that did make some attempt to pay for the cuts in the near term. Like you, I haven't seen anything beyond that in the way of spending cuts.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
-
- Posts: 3192
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
LOL- people invest in 401Ks BECAUSE of the tax deferments. So let's downplay that and tell the public that they can put as much money as they want in their 401K, we are just lowering and capping the tax deferment amount- and nothing changes- lol. Are people this stupid?ip_law-hokie wrote:I've seen mention of lower limits on 401(k) tax deferments, which was largely misinterpreted by the public to refer to lower limits on all 401(k)'s (including roth's), and thus a poison pill.133743Hokie wrote:I've seen no mention of spending cuts, by either side. Both are addicted to using tax dollars which is why we are in the mess we're in.
As of now the discussion is on trying to make the tax cuts revenue neutral. Given that would all be based on 10 year forecasting, it's really just a joke.
While still an accounting gimmick, at least that did make some attempt to pay for the cuts in the near term. Like you, I haven't seen anything beyond that in the way of spending cuts.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
Are you familiar with Roth 401(k)s? Based on your post, I'm not sure that you are.CFB Apologist wrote:LOL- people invest in 401Ks BECAUSE of the tax deferments. So let's downplay that and tell the public that they can put as much money as they want in their 401K, we are just lowering and capping the tax deferment amount- and nothing changes- lol. Are people this stupid?ip_law-hokie wrote:I've seen mention of lower limits on 401(k) tax deferments, which was largely misinterpreted by the public to refer to lower limits on all 401(k)'s (including roth's), and thus a poison pill.133743Hokie wrote:I've seen no mention of spending cuts, by either side. Both are addicted to using tax dollars which is why we are in the mess we're in.
As of now the discussion is on trying to make the tax cuts revenue neutral. Given that would all be based on 10 year forecasting, it's really just a joke.
While still an accounting gimmick, at least that did make some attempt to pay for the cuts in the near term. Like you, I haven't seen anything beyond that in the way of spending cuts.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
Spending should absolutely NOT be cut dollar for dollar with tax cuts.
Rather, spending should be cut far in excess of the amount of the proposed puny tax cuts.
Rather, spending should be cut far in excess of the amount of the proposed puny tax cuts.
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
I agree. In the absence of meaningful spending cuts, I don’t think we should be cutting taxes.BigDave wrote:Spending should absolutely NOT be cut dollar for dollar with tax cuts.
Rather, spending should be cut far in excess of the amount of the proposed puny tax cuts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
it is complete stupidity to have a high corp. rate. Corporations do not pay any income tax, the buyers of their products do as any taxes are baked into the selling price of the product. And all having one of the highest corp. tax rates does is make big companies jump thru lots of questionable loopholes to have income taxed in other foreign countries with more reasonable tax ratesip_law-hokie wrote:I agree. In the absence of meaningful spending cuts, I don’t think we should be cutting taxes.BigDave wrote:Spending should absolutely NOT be cut dollar for dollar with tax cuts.
Rather, spending should be cut far in excess of the amount of the proposed puny tax cuts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
I was referring to personal income tax rates. I agree that corporate taxes are another issue.cwtcr hokie wrote:it is complete stupidity to have a high corp. rate. Corporations do not pay any income tax, the buyers of their products do as any taxes are baked into the selling price of the product. And all having one of the highest corp. tax rates does is make big companies jump thru lots of questionable loopholes to have income taxed in other foreign countries with more reasonable tax ratesip_law-hokie wrote:I agree. In the absence of meaningful spending cuts, I don’t think we should be cutting taxes.BigDave wrote:Spending should absolutely NOT be cut dollar for dollar with tax cuts.
Rather, spending should be cut far in excess of the amount of the proposed puny tax cuts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- Bay_area_Hokie
- Posts: 6027
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:53 am
- Alma Mater: VT
- Party: Surprise Party
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
They will never cut spending as they are all addicted to the spending. They have figured it out. Keep rates low and assets increase at a 10% CAGR. This screws people with no assets but who cares? Just give them Obama phones and they will shut up. The ruling class is asset rich so they win. With assets, they can buy treasuries and the party goes on forever, until it doesn't.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“With God there are only individuals” - Philosopher Nicolas Gomez Davila
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
No one is buying treasuries!Bay_area_Hokie wrote:They will never cut spending as they are all addicted to the spending. They have figured it out. Keep rates low and assets increase at a 10% CAGR. This screws people with no assets but who cares? Just give them Obama phones and they will shut up. The ruling class is asset rich so they win. With assets, they can buy treasuries and the party goes on forever, until it doesn't.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
In that regard they are just making fewer tax brackets, some folks will get a cut and some will pay more, the big cut is proposed in corp tax rateip_law-hokie wrote:I was referring to personal income tax rates. I agree that corporate taxes are another issue.cwtcr hokie wrote:it is complete stupidity to have a high corp. rate. Corporations do not pay any income tax, the buyers of their products do as any taxes are baked into the selling price of the product. And all having one of the highest corp. tax rates does is make big companies jump thru lots of questionable loopholes to have income taxed in other foreign countries with more reasonable tax ratesip_law-hokie wrote:I agree. In the absence of meaningful spending cuts, I don’t think we should be cutting taxes.BigDave wrote:Spending should absolutely NOT be cut dollar for dollar with tax cuts.
Rather, spending should be cut far in excess of the amount of the proposed puny tax cuts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
Lol, that's why the rates are so low. Now, it probably isn't the "ruling class," but every foreign government wants dollars.133743Hokie wrote:No one is buying treasuries!Bay_area_Hokie wrote:They will never cut spending as they are all addicted to the spending. They have figured it out. Keep rates low and assets increase at a 10% CAGR. This screws people with no assets but who cares? Just give them Obama phones and they will shut up. The ruling class is asset rich so they win. With assets, they can buy treasuries and the party goes on forever, until it doesn't.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
People who know, know.
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
My reply was to the other posters comment about the ruling class being asset rich so they can buy treasuries "and the party goes on forever". No one of wealth is buying treasuries. Our government buys them and foreign governments do as well. But no investor is buying treasuries.TheH2 wrote:Lol, that's why the rates are so low. Now, it probably isn't the "ruling class," but every foreign government wants dollars.133743Hokie wrote:No one is buying treasuries!Bay_area_Hokie wrote:They will never cut spending as they are all addicted to the spending. They have figured it out. Keep rates low and assets increase at a 10% CAGR. This screws people with no assets but who cares? Just give them Obama phones and they will shut up. The ruling class is asset rich so they win. With assets, they can buy treasuries and the party goes on forever, until it doesn't.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
GOP House and Senate tax leaders threaten to break Trump’s promise not to change 401(k) rules - The Washington PostCFB Apologist wrote:LOL- people invest in 401Ks BECAUSE of the tax deferments. So let's downplay that and tell the public that they can put as much money as they want in their 401K, we are just lowering and capping the tax deferment amount- and nothing changes- lol. Are people this stupid?ip_law-hokie wrote:I've seen mention of lower limits on 401(k) tax deferments, which was largely misinterpreted by the public to refer to lower limits on all 401(k)'s (including roth's), and thus a poison pill.133743Hokie wrote:I've seen no mention of spending cuts, by either side. Both are addicted to using tax dollars which is why we are in the mess we're in.
As of now the discussion is on trying to make the tax cuts revenue neutral. Given that would all be based on 10 year forecasting, it's really just a joke.
While still an accounting gimmick, at least that did make some attempt to pay for the cuts in the near term. Like you, I haven't seen anything beyond that in the way of spending cuts.
https://apple.news/AoXrqfdy8SZWrenuAWHR ... enuAWHR3nQ
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
I figured as much. My reply was probably more to Bay than you.133743Hokie wrote:My reply was to the other posters comment about the ruling class being asset rich so they can buy treasuries "and the party goes on forever". No one of wealth is buying treasuries. Our government buys them and foreign governments do as well. But no investor is buying treasuries.TheH2 wrote:Lol, that's why the rates are so low. Now, it probably isn't the "ruling class," but every foreign government wants dollars.133743Hokie wrote:No one is buying treasuries!Bay_area_Hokie wrote:They will never cut spending as they are all addicted to the spending. They have figured it out. Keep rates low and assets increase at a 10% CAGR. This screws people with no assets but who cares? Just give them Obama phones and they will shut up. The ruling class is asset rich so they win. With assets, they can buy treasuries and the party goes on forever, until it doesn't.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
People who know, know.
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
Great discussion IP. This smells to me like more Dick Cheney “Ronald Reagan showed us that deficits don’t matter” type of policy. I like the idea of fewer brackets and simpler tax policies, but in the absence of spending cuts this policy is just another acceleration of deficit spending.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
Thanks Fatman, though admittedly it’s difficult to have much of a discussion with the details that we have at the moment.fatman wrote:Great discussion IP. This smells to me like more Dick Cheney “Ronald Reagan showed us that deficits don’t matter” type of policy. I like the idea of fewer brackets and simpler tax policies, but in the absence of spending cuts this policy is just another acceleration of deficit spending.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
Thanks Fatman, though admittedly it’s difficult to have much of a discussion with the details that we have at the moment.fatman wrote:Great discussion IP. This smells to me like more Dick Cheney “Ronald Reagan showed us that deficits don’t matter” type of policy. I like the idea of fewer brackets and simpler tax policies, but in the absence of spending cuts this policy is just another acceleration of deficit spending.
As you state, it appears we can be assured of relatively lower tax revenues and larger deficits.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
1.5 Trillion seems like a big cut to me. Does the deficit concern you?cwtcr hokie wrote:In that regard they are just making fewer tax brackets, some folks will get a cut and some will pay more, the big cut is proposed in corp tax rateip_law-hokie wrote:I was referring to personal income tax rates. I agree that corporate taxes are another issue.cwtcr hokie wrote:it is complete stupidity to have a high corp. rate. Corporations do not pay any income tax, the buyers of their products do as any taxes are baked into the selling price of the product. And all having one of the highest corp. tax rates does is make big companies jump thru lots of questionable loopholes to have income taxed in other foreign countries with more reasonable tax ratesip_law-hokie wrote:I agree. In the absence of meaningful spending cuts, I don’t think we should be cutting taxes.BigDave wrote:Spending should absolutely NOT be cut dollar for dollar with tax cuts.
Rather, spending should be cut far in excess of the amount of the proposed puny tax cuts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
House Republicans pass GOP budget with $1.5-trillion deficit increase to fund Trump's tax cuts - Los Angeles Times
https://apple.news/AfkRv_wGOT2KpWYtPm-c ... WYtPm-cxdg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
Time to cut back on the butter to make up the difference.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
Maybe they can pinch some pennies so as to avoid going over 1.5 Trillion in increased deficit spending. 1.5T in increased deficit to our children is the beat case scenario.HokieJoe wrote:Time to cut back on the butter to make up the difference.
Ending public radio subsidies should do the trick.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: Haven't been keeping up with the tax discussion
Have to pass the bill before we know what's in it! Isn't that how major legislation is done?ip_law-hokie wrote:Thanks Fatman, though admittedly it’s difficult to have much of a discussion with the details that we have at the moment.fatman wrote:Great discussion IP. This smells to me like more Dick Cheney “Ronald Reagan showed us that deficits don’t matter” type of policy. I like the idea of fewer brackets and simpler tax policies, but in the absence of spending cuts this policy is just another acceleration of deficit spending.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk