Does anyone care about the tax bill?

[Albion]

Are you kidding me, we know what is in the tax bill...The question is, plain and simple, do you support it.

That's a worthwhile overview of the bill. Now, let's have the answer to Hannah's question, please.

 

[mark kennedy]

I didn't ask you if you KNEW what was in the tax bill.

I asked what it was specifically you did and did not like.

For starters:

Elimination of the estate tax. Called the "death tax" in the plan, this applies only to inherited assets totaling $5.49 million or more in 2017. Very few households pay the estate tax, but it has long been a target for Republicans. (HERE: All the details of Trump's massive tax plan. Businessinsider.com)

 

[mark kennedy]

That's a worthwhile overview of the bill. Now, let's have the answer to Hannah's question, please.

Specifically what do you want me to address?

 

[Albion]

Is not that item mainly a matter of tax fairness (leaving aside the argument of the Left that everything that "rich people" own is illegitimate)?

The estate tax taxes assets on which federal taxes have already been paid. Even if the revenue lost by repealing estate taxes had to be made up from somewhere else, they are inherently wrong.

 

[Albion]

Specifically what do you want me to address?

...the parts of the bill that you yourself listed for us which you either agree with or disagree with (in connection with your statement in the OP: "It's a politically vindictive tax bill and an obvious tax hike for anyone making less the 70,000 dollars.")

 

[mark kennedy]

Is that item mainly a matter of tax fairness (leaving aside the argument of the Left that everything that "rich people" own is illegitimate)? The estate tax taxes assets on which taxes have already been paid. Even if the revenue lost by repealing estate taxes had to be made up from somewhere else, they are inherently wrong.

It comes down to a dollar amount and yet another unfunded tax break for the rich. It will mercilessly pay for the cut at the expense of the middle class and the poor while pandering to the richest 1%. It's incredibly obvious.

 

[mark kennedy]

...the parts of bill that you yourself listed for us which you either agree with or disagree with.

We can start with the estate tax, I'm more then happy to continue from there.

 

[Albion]

It comes down to a dollar amount and yet another unfunded tax break for the rich. It will mercilessly pay for the cut at the expense of the middle class and the poor while pandering to the richest 1%. It's incredibly obvious.

Blah blah blah. As I read the list of changes you gave us, many of them seem good for the poorer people while the claim about the bill favoring the rich is always couched in the vaguest of terms, usually just what you wrote here--"mercilessly pay for the cut at the expense of the middle class...while pandering, etc."

We simply asked you to tell us (not even to prove it correct) how what you listed favors the rich while hurting the middle class and poor.

 

[mark kennedy]

Blah blah blah. As I read the list of changes you gave us, many of them seem good for the poorer people while the claim about the bill favoring the rich is always couched in the vaguest of terms, usually just what you wrote here--"mercilessly pay for the cut at the expense of the middle class...while pandering, etc."

We simply asked you to tell us (not even to prove it correct) how what you listed favors the rich while hurting the middle class and poor.

Taxpayers in the top 1% — defined as those making over $730,000 — would receive 20% of the total tax cut, the think tank found. They'd get an average cut of $37,000, which translates to about 2.4% of their after-tax income. (Business Insider)
​

Do you deny that statement?

 

[Albion]

Taxpayers in the top 1% — defined as those making over $730,000 — would receive 20% of the total tax cut, the think tank found. They'd get an average cut of $37,000, which translates to about 2.4% of their after-tax income. (Business Insider)​

That's it? I think we all should be fair enough to recognize what every congressman who has worked on this bill has noted, which is that it is (not surprisingly) a compendium of giving and taking in order to make a more coherent tax plan.

What matters--and what you said when you described it as a "rich versus the poor" kind of proposal--is the bottom line.

If I lose a certain deduction, but I also am given a tax bracket break that more than makes up for that deduction or, as sometimes is the case, incorporates that deduction, I am not being punished for someone else's benefit. However, a partisan can do just what you did here and take one element and present it as if there were nothing else in the bill to consider.

Anyway, you gave us a long list of changes that I didn't argue with. You were then asked by us to justify the claim that the rich will prosper at the expense of the middle and poor. Do that if you can. We'll consider the above point as a beginning and await the full assessment, which is obviously needed before anyone can decide who's being helped and who's not.

 

[Larniavc]

He had to pry 3 times, and even then, the answer you gave was "it may not be so bad because there will still be changes by the Senate", but that was essentially just used as a segue into you trotting out your mission statement about how you want to get rid of all "the dems".

What's wrong with just coming out and saying "Trump and the GOP don't care one bit about the middle class like they claim to" without trying to spin it back around on "the dems"?

This is big C conservatives to a T.

Here in England there are schools in the constituency of the PM who are begging parents for hand outs to fund exercise books, pens etc.

Big C conservatives simply have to support the monied classes at the expense of the less well off to remain in power.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's it? I think we all should be fair enough to recognize what every congressman who has worked on this bill has noted, which is that it is (not surprisingly) a compendium of giving and taking in order to make a more coherent tax plan.

That's not it, it's where we start and it's interesting you don't have time to address it.

What matters--and what you said when you described it as a "rich versus the poor" kind of proposal--is the bottom line.

Right, because it has nothing to do with the wealthy getting paid.

If I lose a certain deduction, but I also am given a tax bracket break that more than makes up for that deduction or, as sometimes is the case, incorporates that deduction, I am not being punished for someone else's benefit. However, a partisan can do just what you did here and take one element and present it as if there were nothing else in the bill to consider.

What in the bill would you like me to consider?

Anyway, you gave us a long list of changes that I didn't argue with. You were then asked by us to justify the claim that the rich will prosper at the expense of the middle and poor. Do that if you can. We'll consider the above point as a beginning and await the full assessment, which is obviously needed before anyone can decide who's being helped and who's not.

A larger standard deduction. To avoid raising taxes on those currently in the 10% tax bracket, the standard deduction for all taxes would increase to $12,000 for individuals (up from $6,350) and $24,000 for married couples (up from $12,700). These are slightly less than the doubled deductions expected — and as Business Insider's Josh Barro noted, the idea that this would save people money may be misleading since it eliminates other personal deductions and a secondary standard deduction. (HERE: All the details of Trump's massive tax plan. Businessinsider.com)​

Your weak on the specifics, why is that?

 

[Albion]

This is big C conservatives to a T.

Here in England there are schools in the constituency of the PM who are begging parents for hand outs to fund exercise books, pens etc.

Big C conservatives simply have to support the monied classes at the expense of the less well off to remain in power.

That's not very helpful when we're discussing a proposal for changing the American tax system, though.

 

[Larniavc]

That's not very helpful when we're discussing a proposal for changing the American tax system, though.

I was suggesting that big C conservatives will always protect the monied classes.

But do carry on.

 

[hislegacy]

Taxpayers in the top 1% — defined as those making over $730,000 — would receive 20% of the total tax cut, the think tank found. They'd get an average cut of $37,000, which translates to about 2.4% of their after-tax income. (Business Insider)
​

Do you deny that statement?

Is it possible that is because the top 1% Pay the majority of total income taxes levied each year?

Again I make 51,000. I virtually pay 0.00 in federal income taxes. (Not speaking of Medicare).

If I get a 20% tax cut, 20% of zero is still zero.

It just stands to reason the people who pay the most will benefit the most from a cut.

• The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (39.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.1 percent).

 

[Albion]

That's not it, it's where we start and it's interesting you don't have time to address it.

I beg your pardon. When you give us something complete, I'll be happy to give you reaction to the proposal. If you think that you can pick and choose the provisions that you want us to think favor one group over another while simultaneously omitting any reference to another provision that counteracts some or all of it, that isn't going to work.

What in the bill would you like me to consider?

YOU created the list of provisions that were posted, so it's obviously important to see how what the bottom line is if they all are enacted. Anything less would be misleading.

 

[Albion]

I was suggesting that big C conservatives will always protect the monied classes.

But do carry on.

In the UK, perhaps, where there are quite different conditions. We don't even HAVE A Conservative Party such as you were referring to when speaking of "big C conservatives" let alone the same legislative system.

 

[Albion]

It just stands to reason the people who pay the most will benefit the most from a cut.

but only in absolute dollars, not by percentages gained or lost.

 

[mark kennedy]

I beg your pardon. When you give us something complete, I'll be happy to give you reaction to the proposal. If you think that you can pick and choose the provisions that you want us to think favor one group over another while simultaneously omitting any reference to another provision that counteracts some or all of it, that isn't going to work.

You say that without reference to the actual tax bill, why is that?

YOU created the list of provisions that were posted, so it's obviously important to see how what the bottom line is if they all are enacted. Anything less would be misleading.

Making that statement without any reference to the legislation proposed is misleading.

 

[mark kennedy]

but only in absolute dollars, not by percentages gained or lost.

How so?