• 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

Yep. Troll.

Better than actually believing the Pub plan is good for anything other than short-term gain for wealthy folks.
 
Last edited:
I'm serious, dude's paying my student loans. Also, again its somewhat amusing that saving 90% of the country money is shitty legislation. Odd that message isn't resonating at the ballot box.
 
palmab03 said:
I'm serious, dude's paying my student loans. Also, again its somewhat amusing that saving 90% of the country money is shitty legislation. Odd that message isn't resonating at the ballot box.
Click to expand...

50% of the country. And only 30% of those making between $30K and $100k
 
tiltdeac said:
50% of the country. And only 30% of those making between $30K and $100k
Click to expand...

this is nine kinds of false, what kinda fakenews are you digesting these days. yeesh. Pretty sure those numbers you are referring to are 10 years down the road after all the cuts expire (At which point they'd just re-up)
 
palmab03 said:
this is nine kinds of false, what kinda fakenews are you digesting these days. yeesh. Pretty sure those numbers you are referring to are 10 years down the road after all the cuts expire (At which point they'd just re-up)
Click to expand...

That's what the bill does man, not my fault they wrote it that they. They didn't have to.
 
tiltdeac said:
That's what the bill does man, not my fault they wrote it that they. They didn't have to.
Click to expand...

It helps people immensely for 10 years then punts it to congress 10 years from now to continue the lower rates. They had to structure it that way because for some reason democrats won't vote for the rates to be permanent. Apparently helping 90% of their constituents is bad politics according to democrats. Odd, really.
 
palmab03 said:
I'm serious, dude's paying my student loans. Also, again its somewhat amusing that saving 90% of the country money is shitty legislation. Odd that message isn't resonating at the ballot box.
Click to expand...

It's not saving money. We will just have to pay for more of various goods and services that our taxes would typically pay for.
 
PhDeac said:
It's not saving money. We will just have to pay for more of various goods and services that our taxes would typically pay for.
Click to expand...

Or the prices of some of those things, like real estate, will go down.
 
palmab03 said:
It helps people immensely for 10 years then punts it to congress 10 years from now to continue the lower rates. They had to structure it that way because for some reason democrats won't vote for the rates to be permanent. Apparently helping 90% of their constituents is bad politics according to democrats. Odd, really.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they object to giving 95% of the people crumbs, in order to pay for larger cuts for the super wealthy.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Perhaps they object to giving 95% of the people crumbs, in order to pay for larger cuts for the super wealthy.
Click to expand...

Again, you referring to a couple hundred bucks a month as crumbs might just be why the average joe thinks you're an elitist jerk from DC. There are people to which that amount of money matters, and it's most of the country.
 
palmab03 said:
Again, you referring to a couple hundred bucks a month as crumbs might just be why the average joe thinks you're an elitist jerk from DC. There are people to which that amount of money matters, and it's most of the country.
Click to expand...

A couple hundred a month??? Paul Ryan was recently bragging it would save a hypothetical family $700 a year. Or less then $60 a month.

This is what they call being generous.
 
1. Will the plan lower the taxes for most people short term, probably yes but we will say yes.
2. Are those cuts actual reform and permanent, no.
3. Are the biggest cuts for the wealthy, yes. It makes sense though because they pay the most.
4. Does the extra 1-2% after tax income actually matter, could argue that it’s yes. However an extra 6,000 when you make 300,000 is who cares money and the amount drops dramatically as you make less.
5. Are those cuts paid for, unless you believe in fake growth numbers, no.
6. Since they aren’t paid for the deficit goes up by a lot, that’s suppose to matter but let’s say it doesn’t.
7. Even though the deficit we are saying doesn’t matter it does need to be less than 1.5 trillion so to get that you now cut services for poor and middle class, like healthcare, Medicare, etc...
8. Once the tax cuts pass the deficit will be considered important again, so republicans will try and gut programs to reduce spending, because taxes were cut and deficit its important again!!!!
9. When programs and services get cut the meager tax cuts for the middle class dont make up for greater spending on services previously provided by the government. So for lower income individuals it’s a wash if not worse.
10. The cuts to services because deficit!!!! Don’t matter to the biggest gainers in the cuts, corporations and rich people.
11. So in the end you have tax cuts that lead to deficit increase that leads to spending cuts that disproportionately effect lower income that results in no net gain so rich people can save a shit ton of money and well off people can add the entertainment package to their new car purchase.
12. This line of thinking only applies if conservatives return to caring about the deficit and then look to control it through spending cuts, they will.
 
palmab03 said:
It helps people immensely for 10 years then punts it to congress 10 years from now to continue the lower rates. They had to structure it that way because for some reason democrats won't vote for the rates to be permanent.
Click to expand...

Again, they did not have to structure it that way. They could have given bigger, permanent tax to the lower and middle class. But they prioritized huge permanent cuts for corporations and the wealthiest Americans. And since we still have to, you know, pay for stuff, they had to make the middle class tax cuts temporary (but keep permanent things that actually raise taxes on the middle class, like chained-CPI). That basically leaves us with two options.

1. We take the bill for what the text says, a tax increase for half of Americans overall, and two thirds of Americans in the middle quintile of income, while giving over 60% of the total savings to the top 1% (40% of the savings to the top 0.1%).
2. We pretend that the tax cuts will continue after they expire and prove the Republicans who were screaming about the deficit are all full of shit. Dramatic increases in the debt suppresses GDP and most likely result in cutting services (they are already talking about doing this "next") that are disproportionately used by the lower and middle classes.


Either way, the bill sucks.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
A couple hundred a month??? Paul Ryan was recently bragging it would save a hypothetical family $700 a year. Or less then $60 a month.

This is what they call being generous.
Click to expand...

The Senate plan is more generous than the house plan.

Its about $2,000 a person ($4k for married couples) for those without kids/house. On the senate plan Each kid you're about $350 worse off per kid. I'd have to see what hypothetical family Paul Ryan was referring to, and also I basically just ignored the house plan cause obviously it's going to end up whatever the Senate can get passed.
 
tiltdeac said:
Again, they did not have to structure it that way. They could have given bigger, permanent tax to the lower and middle class. But they prioritized huge permanent cuts for corporations and the wealthiest Americans. And since we still have to, you know, pay for stuff, they had to make the middle class tax cuts temporary (but keep permanent things that actually raise taxes on the middle class, like chained-CPI). That basically leaves us with two options.

1. We take the bill for what the text says, a tax increase for half of Americans overall, and two thirds of Americans in the middle quintile of income, while giving over 60% of the total savings to the top 1% (40% of the savings to the top 0.1%).
2. We pretend that the tax cuts will continue after they expire and prove the Republicans who were screaming about the deficit are all full of shit. Dramatic increases in the debt suppresses GDP and most likely result in cutting services (they are already talking about doing this "next") that are disproportionately used by the lower and middle classes.


Either way, the bill sucks.
Click to expand...

before we jump into this, are you still referring to 10 years down the road (2027) and ignoring completely the 10 years before that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top