• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Biggest Reform EVER passed thread

It's weird that the biggest tax benefit is in the first year.

Give me a free hit to get them hooked.

This part of the bill will have some solid consequences for workers and not the way republicans are thinking.

“it encourages businesses to invest more, allowing them to immediately expense the cost of things like new equipment and machinery”

Exactly. Now businesses can afford those robots that will save them from having to pay people.

If only we had a social safety net and programs to retrain people to help them start their own businesses.


At least the Dems put things out there to show the republicans know what they say is full of shit.

Democrats just offered an amendment to ensure corporations use their tax savings to raise employee wages at the same rate they increase executive pay, stock buybacks and dividends to shareholders. Every single Republican voting, voted NO.

Because the goal of this whole thing is for the wealthiest Americans to take an even bigger piece of the pie. But they can't do that without giving us some crumbs.


yeah but plama's gonna make a hundred bucks, dude.

Much better than free universal health care.

FTR I did find something in my googling that made it sound like the withholding guidance was updated in mid-year in 2003 after the Bush tax cuts. So maybe they will change withholding during 2018. The only thing I remember about the Bush tax cuts were the $600 checks. I didn't realize that they went out almost immediately. Imagine if this bill mailed everyone a check just prior to Christmas.

Bush signs $1.3 trillion tax cut bill / $300-$600 rebate checks start going out next month

The 2008 rebate check helped pay for my wedding. Most Americans burned through their GOP free money giveaway paying for $4 gas.
 
Just curious, what would we do with $1.5 trillion to get universal healthcare? What would that money be spent on?

Sanders' last 'Medicare for all' plan cost nearly $1.4 trillion

"Under the 'Medicare for all' initiative, Americans would have comprehensive coverage, which would include doctors' visits, hospital stays, preventative care, mental health services and prescription drugs. It would also pay for vision, dental, long-term care and hospice needs. All doctors would be in network.

What's more, patients would no longer have to pay private insurance premiums, deductibles or co-pays."

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/12/news/economy/sanders-medicare-for-all/index.html
 
I will laugh so hard if they can't pass something. The GOP has spent so much time burning shit and pissing off libtards that they can no longer effectively govern and potentially even pass a tax cut (raise for some).



Republicans rewriting tax bill — and won’t vote tonight

Senate GOP leaders are still making major changes to the plan in order to win over several hold-outs.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/30/mccain-to-vote-for-gop-tax-bill-270511
 
Last edited:
Next Up: Tax Reform

Just curious, what would we do with $1.5 trillion to get universal healthcare? What would that money be spent on?

Just curious, why do you think it's better to blow $1.5T in debt on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans rather than universal health care for everybody?

Keep in mind, there are individual savings inherent in universal health care. A portion of that could be used to increase taxes to reduce the burden on the debt.

Also, the economic advantages of people not having to save for health expenses are obvious.
 
Senate Republicans are still scrambling to win over enough votes to pass their massive tax code overhaul, with major changes to the bill still up in the air and a final vote pushed beyond Thursday night.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the next vote in the tax debate will come at 11 a.m. Friday, as work continues behind the scenes to win over skeptical deficit hawks and other hold-outs.

Story Continued Below

Multiple GOP senators leaving the chamber after a dramatic late afternoon vote said a key proposal for deficit hawks — a trigger to raise tax rates if sufficient economic growth did not materialize — would not pass procedural muster and would need to find something else to satisfy the bloc of deficit hawk holdouts, led by Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

“It doesn’t look like the trigger is going to work, according to the parliamentarian,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said. “So we have an alternative, frankly: a tax increase we don’t want to do to try to address Sen. Corker’s concerns.”

Corker told reporters: “My understanding is, that the parliamentarian has ruled against it so they’re just going to automatically put [tax increases] in, period.” Corker and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said the revenue raised with tax increases — which senators say would kick in six years after the enactment of the tax legislation — would total about $350 billion, although Cornyn suggested that figure may need to go higher.

Their comments came after extended drama on the Senate floor Thursday during an otherwise mundane procedural vote, when Corker, Flake and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) initially withheld their support on a vote to move forward with the bill. Ultimately they aligned with their party, but it suggested real concerns remained.
 
yeah but plama's gonna make a hundred bucks, dude.

Much better than free universal health care.

Just curious, what would we do with $1.5 trillion to get universal healthcare? What would that money be spent on?

FWIW - with the tax savings, I could buy my own Silver HMO plan 100% free and clear and still have $38 a month leftover. Maybe they should rename the tax bill Universal Healthcare PLUS.
 
awww not gonna pay yr troll toll though it was a good try
 
Sanders' last 'Medicare for all' plan cost nearly $1.4 trillion

"Under the 'Medicare for all' initiative, Americans would have comprehensive coverage, which would include doctors' visits, hospital stays, preventative care, mental health services and prescription drugs. It would also pay for vision, dental, long-term care and hospice needs. All doctors would be in network.

What's more, patients would no longer have to pay private insurance premiums, deductibles or co-pays."

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/12/news/economy/sanders-medicare-for-all/index.html

So in reading the information in that link that's 1.4 trillion per year vs 1.5 trillion over ten years for the tax cuts. Someone is distorting facts in opposing this bill.
 
Just curious, why do you think it's better to blow $1.5T in debt on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans rather than universal health care for everybody?

Keep in mind, there are individual savings inherent in universal health care. A portion of that could be used to increase taxes to reduce the burden on the debt.

Also, the economic advantages of people not having to save for health expenses are obvious.

My question was legitimate not a dig against universal health care. I was curious how we might convert our system to single payer and what the consequences both positive and negative would be. I consider myself a fiscal conservative I tend to favor smaller government and lower taxes. That said I've voted for Democrats in two of the last three Presidential elections so I also consider myself open minded. Our last interaction was over my concerns about the constant increase in the cost of higher education well above the inflation rate. I have similar concerns about our healthcare spending and have come around to the believe that single payer might be our only way to truly contain healthcare costs. I think our care will suffer in ways we son't be able to see, when a drug isn't invented or a new treatment or new medical equipment isn't developed you don't really miss it, but I think that's a trade off we may need to make. If we can't contain healthcare costs we will face an ever growing deficit and putting the stability of our economy at risk over the long term. Based on the link further down the thread Bernie's plan would actually cost $14 trillion over ten years not $1.4 trillion. Regardless of the cost I don't know what we would do to make the conversion. That was my question.
 
My question was legitimate not a dig against universal health care. I was curious how we might convert our system to single payer and what the consequences both positive and negative would be. I consider myself a fiscal conservative I tend to favor smaller government and lower taxes. That said I've voted for Democrats in two of the last three Presidential elections so I also consider myself open minded. Our last interaction was over my concerns about the constant increase in the cost of higher education well above the inflation rate. I have similar concerns about our healthcare spending and have come around to the believe that single payer might be our only way to truly contain healthcare costs. I think our care will suffer in ways we son't be able to see, when a drug isn't invented or a new treatment or new medical equipment isn't developed you don't really miss it, but I think that's a trade off we may need to make. If we can't contain healthcare costs we will face an ever growing deficit and putting the stability of our economy at risk over the long term. Based on the link further down the thread Bernie's plan would actually cost $14 trillion over ten years not $1.4 trillion. Regardless of the cost I don't know what we would do to make the conversion. That was my question.

it costs $14 trillion and assumes $6 trillion in savings "largely stemming from lowering the rates paid to doctors, hospitals and drug manufacturers"; which of course won't happen in the real world - so that's a $20 trillion price tag
 
Back
Top