The One Big Beautiful Bill

[iluvatar5150]

Make American Families & Workers Thrive Again
Makes the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent – protecting the average taxpayer from a 22 percent tax hike.

What? I'd love to know how they came up with that number. The 2017 tax bill didn't cut taxes by remotely that much.

Sidenote for those playing at home (and for me so I can reference it later) - If a 22% increase now would get us back to where we were in 2017, that would work out to an 18% cut in 2017.

 

[Fantine]

Not one Republican Congressman on TV today told the truth: that the tax cut extension didn't have to be "all or nothing." They could end the tax breaks for the top 1% without harming a single one of the 99%---and since the 1% had the lion's share of the tax cuts, almost all of the previous savings could be recouped and used to reduce the deficit.

And what's with these family-owned farms? If they are worth more than $12 million dollars they can protect themselves against estate taxes by doing things like getting term life insurance policies on key members, or incorporating the farm. They are being "used" as a sympathetic group, but huge corporate farms are not truly "family" farms.

Farmers may indeed need help as the tariffs decimate their bottom lines, and as cuts in SNAP and food distribution will result in less benefits to them. And of course, if they get sick, their rural hospitals will have closed down due to the Medicaid cuts, and they will have to pray they can get to a hospital in time.

I have no respect for the Congressmen who are lying to the American public.

This big beautiful bill should be defined as the "bill" it really is--an invoice that our children and grandchildren will get in 10 years for the addition $5 trillion in debt. This largesse to the richest Americans will cost future generations trillions.

 

[Vambram]

Makes the debt worse.

Makes the debt worse.


Makes the debt worse.

Makes the debt worse.

Makes the debt worse.

Makes the debt worse.

Makes the debt worse.

I mean, I get it. These are the bribes on offer to We The People. But where are the savings? Or can we just drop the facade that this was ever about reducing deficits and the debt? We'll see what the deficit hawks in the GOP can achieve or if they will cave.

I have an honest question for you.
Do you yourself really want the annual budget deficits and the National Debt to decrease? If your answer is yes, then briefly describe how you believe that those 2 objectives ought to be accomplished. Thank you.

Also, I reject the premise that the annual budget deficits shall get worse. A strong and growing national economy, along with prudent budget cuts weeding out inefficiency and waste and fraud, can decrease the annual deficits.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I have an honest question for you.
Do you yourself really want the annual budget deficits and the National Debt to decrease?

Yes. The debt is obviously a longer term proposal, but to start that, the deficit has to get under control.

If your answer is yes, then briefly describe how you believe that those 2 objectives ought to be accomplished.

Raising taxes. Nothing too radical. We don't even have to go up to the high (70%-90%) marginal rates in the top tax brackets that we had in the good old days. Certainly this can be paired with some spending cuts, but raising revenue will be key.

Also, I reject the premise that the annual budget deficits shall get worse.

We'll have to see what, if anything, finally emerges from the budget process, but anything like the GOP plan will (per the CBO) increase deficits.

As House GOP grinds ahead, new CBO report says Trump’s big tax cuts bill will add to deficit​

--

CBO Analysis itself: Estimated Budgetary Effects of a Bill to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act​

 

[Fantine]

The one big beautiful invoice. Mortgaging our children's futures with irresponsible tax cuts to billionaires.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Modern-day presidential strikes again​

'Trump says 'big bill' should only help GOP states: ​

"We're going to make a couple of tweaks," Trump said of his "one big beautiful bill" during a Tuesday trip to Capitol Hill. "I mean, we don't want to benefit Democrat governors, although I would do that if it made it better, but they don't know what they're doing."

"We want to benefit Republicans. They are the ones that are going to make America great again," he added. "The Democrats are destroying our country."

 

[BPPLEE]

 

[Richard T]

Well today interest rates climbed again, dollar down, gold and silver up. The climb has been occurring for the last few weeks. Why? Because the markets are anticipating larger debt in the USA, plus the Moody's credit downgrade. Lower credit and confidence means that the USA will pay more interest on new debt obligations and it could snowball. Want to go further? This bill will do that. Turkey pushed this edge. They now are doing better with current inflation 37% and borrowing rates for new debt at 35%. Yes, that is actually an improvement for them. Zimbabwe once added six zeros to their dollar. a million became a dollar in less than one year. Now that was an aggressive push. The USA will never go that far, but the cracks are showing and adding up.

Please do not get estimates of growth or benefits of new programs from politicians or even pressured agencies. From history I will give two examples of how wrong they usually are. First, G.W. Bush's prescription drug plan cost far more than anticipated.
"By the time President Bush left office there was no change in Social Security. But a new drug benefit had been added to Medicare, with no source of financing. The unfunded liability in the new Part D program was estimated at the time to be $17 trillion. (All estimates by the Social Security and Medicare Trustees.)" The Worst Entitlement Program In Our History
Yes, the costs were far more than what Bush projected.

My second example was how the GOP was wrong about the Clinton tax hikes and surplus. The GOP was quite excited about the budget surplus under President Clinton. He had raised taxes and while many in the GOP suggested that the hikes would tank the economy, there was good fortune and the USA ran a surplus. So the GOP decided under G.W. Bush to finance tax cuts based on the rosy projections of the surplus continuing in the future. Surprise, surprise, the surplus quickly dissipated and deficits were back with a vengeance.
Such projections on anticipated revenue and costs from politicians are very dangerous. They almost always lean toward the new program or cut in the best possible light in order for it to pass. Promises like the Iraq war will pay for the war, or rare minerals will pay back the USA for Ukraine are not based in reality. Politicians are snake oil salesmen who use pretend numbers to get what they want. Households that plan this way often go bankrupt. I pray the USA does not.
The point is that budgets should be practical. Tax cuts should be fully funded too. In this bill they are not. I would argue that like the other examples I gave here, the consequences will be far worse than anticipated.

 

[Richard T]

The one big beautiful invoice. Mortgaging our children's futures with irresponsible tax cuts to billionaires.

I try to always remember that tax cuts with borrowed money are "deferred taxes" rather then genuine tax cuts. Sadly, I think we have not had a real tax cut since Kennedy.

 

[BPPLEE]

Well today interest rates climbed again, dollar down, gold and silver up. The climb has been occurring for the last few weeks. Why? Because the markets are anticipating larger debt in the USA, plus the Moody's credit downgrade. Lower credit and confidence means that the USA will pay more interest on new debt obligations and it could snowball. Want to go further? This bill will do that. Turkey pushed this edge. They now are doing better with current inflation 37% and borrowing rates for new debt at 35%. Yes, that is actually an improvement for them. Zimbabwe once added six zeros to their dollar. a million became a dollar in less than one year. Now that was an aggressive push. The USA will never go that far, but the cracks are showing and adding up.

Please do not get estimates of growth or benefits of new programs from politicians or even pressured agencies. From history I will give two examples of how wrong they usually are. First, Bush's prescription drug plan cost far more than anticipated.
"By the time President Bush left office there was no change in Social Security. But a new drug benefit had been added to Medicare, with no source of financing. The unfunded liability in the new Part D program was estimated at the time to be $17 trillion. (All estimates by the Social Security and Medicare Trustees.)" The Worst Entitlement Program In Our History
Yes, the costs were far more than what Bush projected.

My second example was how the GOP was wrong about the Clinton tax hikes and surplus. The GOP was quite excited about the budget surplus under President Clinton. He had raised taxes and while many in the GOP suggested that the hikes would tank the economy, there was good fortune and the USA ran a surplus. So the GOP decided under Reagan to finance tax cuts based on the rosy projections of the surplus continuing in the future. Surprise, surprise, the surplus quickly dissipated and deficits were back with a vengeance.
Such projections on anticipated revenue and costs from politicians are very dangerous. They almost always lean toward the new program or cut in the best possible light in order for it to pass. Promises like the Iraq war will pay for the war, or rare minerals will pay back the USA for Ukraine are not based in reality. Politicians are snake oil salesmen who use pretend numbers to get what they want. Households that plan this way often go bankrupt. I pray the USA does not.
The point is that budgets should be practical. Tax cuts should be fully funded too. In this bill they are not. I would argue that like the other examples I gave here, the consequences will be far worse than anticipated.

You might want to edit that because it reads like Clinton was in office before Reagan. Perhaps you meant Bush?

 

[Richard T]

You might want to edit that because it reads like Clinton was in office before Reagan. Perhaps you meant Bush?

Yes, thanks for catching that. It was G.W. Bush and the GOP of that era that cut taxes based on their overly rosy projections of surplus.

 

[comana]

Modern-day presidential strikes again​

'Trump says 'big bill' should only help GOP states:​

"We're going to make a couple of tweaks," Trump said of his "one big beautiful bill" during a Tuesday trip to Capitol Hill. "I mean, we don't want to benefit Democrat governors, although I would do that if it made it better, but they don't know what they're doing."

"We want to benefit Republicans. They are the ones that are going to make America great again," he added. "The Democrats are destroying our country."

Well, the Democrat Governors should have known that only loyalty Trump pays.

 

[Hans Blaster]

View attachment 365317

Income is income. Tax it all the same.

Wages, pensions, capital gains, interest, profits, dividends, tips, gifts, inheritance, royalties, winnings, all of it.

 

[Say it aint so]

Why Washington’s Huge Tax Bill Is Worrying Bond Investors​

I disagree with your information from the globalists of apnews. Everyone knows that the unemployment and the employment rate was very good before the pandemic.

Of course you disagree with fact.
You have to.
What I posted was from the Bureau of Labor Statistics prior to the pandemic.
I will do it one more time.
Point out where this spike in job creation took place after the Trump Tax Cut No Jobs act?

 

[BPPLEE]

Income is income. Tax it all the same.

Wages, pensions, capital gains, interest, profits, dividends, tips, gifts, inheritance, royalties, winnings, all of it.

Inheritance has already been taxed. Why does the government get to double dip?

 

[Vambram]

Why Washington’s Huge Tax Bill Is Worrying Bond Investors​

Of course you disagree with fact.
You have to.
What I posted was from the Bureau of Labor Statistics prior to the pandemic.
I will do it one more time.
Point out where this spike in job creation took place after the Trump Tax Cut No Jobs act?

View attachment 365322

I didn't say it spiked. I said it got better. Also, before the pandemic, we had very low unemployment numbers and we had real wage growth above inflation. Also, that graph clearly shows the seasonal changes in employment rates.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Inheritance has already been taxed. Why does the government get to double dip?

When did someone inheriting money pay taxes on that money before?

 

[BPPLEE]

When did someone inheriting money pay taxes on that money before?

The people who left it paid taxes on it. It doesn’t belong to the government and those people should be able to do whatever they want with the money.
It doesn’t matter if they’re middle class or millionaires, the money has already been taxed.

 

[Bradskii]

When did someone inheriting money pay taxes on that money before?

Inheritance tax raises my blood pressure somewhat. There was talk in Australia about taxing the family home if it was left to children in a will. Now I'm probably a little further to the left than most people but I am against this 100%.

I don't expect to leave the kids much money (my wife and I are doing our best to spend it all) but the family home will be theirs when we've shuttled off. Now we worked hard to earn the money to pay the mortgage (now long paid off) and in the early days it was a struggle. Interest rates hit 17% at one point. But we both paid tax on the money we earned to pay for the house and it'll be a cold day in hell before I'd agree that someone has to pay tax on it a second time.

 

[Bradskii]

It doesn’t matter if they’re middle class or millionaires, the money has already been taxed.

Exactly right.

Hey, we agreed on something...