The pay fors (if you don't get this concept it may be difficult for you to understand anything Congress talks about legislation wise) are the increase of taxes on the wealthy and the change in the corporate tax rates. The cost will be born by wealthy taxpayers and corporations."Paid for" by whom?
If it was "paid for" - then someone "paid for" it. Someone therefore incurred a cost to pay for it. For whom was it a "cost?"
"Cost" to whom?
why did a majority of people who are making over 100K a year vote for Trump? I don't think Trump is as smart as Romney or Obama, but I believe he is much smarter than Biden. I think my son traps stuff smarter than Biden.And the average Biden voting zip code had over 10 times the GDP of the average Trump voting zip code. You didn't vote for Trump because you thought he was intelligent or even competent, you voted for him because you hate taxes and you love guns.
do you think people should pay federal income taxes on moneys that were taken by state income tax schemes or property taxes?The pay fors (if you don't get this concept it may be difficult for you to understand anything Congress talks about legislation wise) are the increase of taxes on the wealthy and the change in the corporate tax rates. The cost will be born by wealthy taxpayers and corporations.
In the 2018 tax cuts, the pay fors (about $3 trillion came primarily from blue states no longer being allowed to deduct 100% of taxes paid to the state). The other $2 trillion were added to the National debt.
BSno they didn't. people had far more money to spend the government had less. the proper claim is that the tax cuts meant the government had less money. That is not the same as saying something COST the government. I realize collectivists want to cast a bad light on tax cuts. But it is spending the costs money, not tax cuts
Many Trump voters liked his racist dog whistles.And the average Biden voting zip code had over 10 times the GDP of the average Trump voting zip code. You didn't vote for Trump because you thought he was intelligent or even competent, you voted for him because you hate taxes and you love guns.
why not focus on the fact that the american people gained 2+ trillion dollars
Well thank you for the lesson in puerile condescension.The pay fors (if you don't get this concept it may be difficult for you to understand anything Congress talks about legislation wise) are the increase of taxes on the wealthy and the change in the corporate tax rates. The cost will be born by wealthy taxpayers and corporations.
Well the question was actually quite simple.In the 2018 tax cuts, the pay fors (about $3 trillion came primarily from blue states no longer being allowed to deduct 100% of taxes paid to the state). The other $2 trillion were added to the National debt.
Every dime the rich can snag from the poor and middle class is a win for some people. It's obvious.Because that isn't what I'm talking about.
The wealthy and the corporations are pulling a lot of money out of this country. Trump's stupid tax cuts did nothing to slow that down.Well thank you for the lesson in puerile condescension.
What you just admitted (though perhaps you didn't realize it - knowing what you do about how Congress talks about legislation) is that Biden's bill IS NOT FREE. Someone - in this case, the "wealthy" and corporations are going to have to pay for it. You see, IRL nothing is truly "free." You also admitted that congress is going spend money (spending is always an expense) to pay for their bill.
Apparently what you don't understand is that the only entity for whom this bill is actually "free" is congress itself. They're just the middleman, taxing the wealthy and corporations to pay for their spending.
Apparently what you also don't understand is that most corporations (not all, but most) earn their money in the marketplace. Ergo, if you raise their cost of doing business by gouging them with inordinately higher taxes, you increase by extension the cost of the goods and services they provide to the rest of us "non-wealthy" citizens under this scheme. In other words, it's not just the corporations that will pay for this bill, but it's you and I as well that will pay for it in the form of higher cost of goods and services to us.
Well the question was actually quite simple.
You see, a "tax cut" is a reduction of people's tax liability. In other words, people who normally would pay X in taxes will now pay X - (whatever the cuts are) = Less than what they were paying before the tax cut.
In other words - their cost goes down.
However, in leftism language, leftists seem to believe this is not the case. They seem to believe a "tax cut" is somehow an EXPENSE. My question for you then was, an EXPENSE to whom?
But so you might better grasp the concept, let me explain to you what most leftists believe in this regard:
Most leftists believe certain expenditures (anything they arbitrarily define as "good for society" qualifies here) are, for them, entitlements - monies they OUGHT to be able to spend without regard for how or where they got them. With me so far? Ok - now reduce those "entitlements" and what happens? You reduce their ability to spend money on their "good for society" schemes. IOW, they now view their reduction in what they imagine are entitled funds for them as a COST. Hence, their language describing any tax cut as a "cost." Make sense now?
Every dime the rich can snag from the poor and middle class is a win for some people. It's obvious.
what money did they waste?If a tax cut is supposed to spur growth and investment, yet there is no difference in growth and investment after the tax cut, then the government kind wasted their money if that was the goal.
I wonder if they realize that the poor and disenchanted have them too. And, most of them are a lot younger than the average late stage in life Thumper.Guns!
smhwhat money did they waste?
Not puerile condescension, a legitimate response to a mistaken representation you continue to present. Obviously, everything has a cost. Pay fors mean it is paid for not put on the country's 'credit card'. Prices corporations charge are not based on what things cost them, they are based on what the market will bear.Well thank you for the lesson in puerile condescension.
What you just admitted (though perhaps you didn't realize it - knowing what you do about how Congress talks about legislation) is that Biden's bill IS NOT FREE. Someone - in this case, the "wealthy" and corporations are going to have to pay for it. You see, IRL nothing is truly "free." You also admitted that congress is going spend money (spending is always an expense) to pay for their bill.
Apparently what you don't understand is that the only entity for whom this bill is actually "free" is congress itself. They're just the middleman, taxing the wealthy and corporations to pay for their spending.
Apparently what you also don't understand is that most corporations (not all, but most) earn their money in the marketplace. Ergo, if you raise their cost of doing business by gouging them with inordinately higher taxes, you increase by extension the cost of the goods and services they provide to the rest of us "non-wealthy" citizens under this scheme. In other words, it's not just the corporations that will pay for this bill, but it's you and I as well that will pay for it in the form of higher cost of goods and services to us.
Well the question was actually quite simple.
You see, a "tax cut" is a reduction of people's tax liability. In other words, people who normally would pay X in taxes will now pay X - (whatever the cuts are) = Less than what they were paying before the tax cut.
In other words - their cost goes down.
However, in leftism language, leftists seem to believe this is not the case. They seem to believe a "tax cut" is somehow an EXPENSE. My question for you then was, an EXPENSE to whom?
But so you might better grasp the concept, let me explain to you what most leftists believe in this regard:
Most leftists believe certain expenditures (anything they arbitrarily define as "good for society" qualifies here) are, for them, entitlements - monies they OUGHT to be able to spend without regard for how or where they got them. With me so far? Ok - now reduce those "entitlements" and what happens? You reduce their ability to spend money on their "good for society" schemes. IOW, they now view their reduction in what they imagine are entitled funds for them as a COST. Hence, their language describing any tax cut as a "cost." Make sense now?
uh, all of the money that should have been collected in taxes, ended up not being collected, which EXPLODED the deficit and the debt, which is what republicans do every single time they are in power.how did we 'waste money' on a tax cut?
Somebody explain that.What money was wasted?
If you personally, "obtained X less revenue" would it not have cost you?the honest way of saying this is that the tax cuts meant the government obtained X less revenue. that is not a cost anymore than saving money is a cost. a cost is when you spend something. taking less of our money is not spending
that's not a cost. it's a lack of funds. a cost is when you pay for something. the cost of my gasoline I put in my car. the cost of a new carIf you personally, "obtained X less revenue" would it not have cost you?
should have been collected. now that is an interesting perspectiveuh, all of the money that should have been collected in taxes, ended up not being collected, which EXPLODED the deficit and the debt, which is what republicans do every single time they are in power.
cutting taxes is a decrease in revenue collected by the govn't. the tax cuts of 2017 cost the US 2 trillion dollars in uncollected revenue. This is simply objective fact. You can certainly argue that spending should have also been cut, but republicans LOVE them some deficit and debt busting spending, only they are so incompetent that they also slash revenues at the same time. This is why the debt increases orders of magnitude more under republicans, that under democrats.can you find me some authoritative source that claims cutting taxes is government spending or is a "cost"
It does mean the government has less revenue. That is not a cost per se
It's not hard to understand, unless someone never had to earn their keep.should have been collected. now that is an interesting perspective
how so? it's very simple and very basic math. If you usually collect something at 30%, but you reduce that percentage to 22%, you will collect less than you otherwise would have, as a matter of mathematical certainty. Its why republicans ALWAYS explode deficits and the debt. They decrease the amount of revenues collected, while spending like drunken 16 year old girls with daddy's credit card.should have been collected. now that is an interesting perspective
And you just proved my point about how the left views their pet spending programs - in this case shadily depicted as the "debt obligations of the country."Do you believe that a tax cut suddenly reduces the debt obligations of the country issuing the tax cut? It doesn't. So tax cuts 'cost' everyone that has to pay for the tax revenue lost. The expense of a tax cut is the loss of revenue to the country while the expenses of the country remain the same. You can also reduce other programs that have not a whit to do with spending on people's needs. DoD budget ring a bell?
Some people would rather lie and deny reality than accept these basic facts.cutting taxes is a decrease in revenue collected by the govn't. the tax cuts of 2017 cost the US 2 trillion dollars in uncollected revenue. This is simply objective fact. You can certainly argue that spending should have also been cut, but republicans LOVE them some deficit and debt busting spending, only they are so incompetent that they also slash revenues at the same time. This is why the debt increases orders of magnitude more under republicans, that under democrats.
you said should have been collected. that suggests you think the amount being taken from taxpayers was a proper amount and the tax cuts were wrong. I think way too much is taken from taxpayers and the government spends far too much money.how so? it's very simple and very basic math. If you usually collect something at 30%, but you reduce that percentage to 22%, you will collect less than you otherwise would have, as a matter of mathematical certainty.
Actually, I would call them drunken 16 year old Brett Kavanaugh with daddy's credit card. It fits better.how so? it's very simple and very basic math. If you usually collect something at 30%, but you reduce that percentage to 22%, you will collect less than you otherwise would have, as a matter of mathematical certainty. Its why republicans ALWAYS explode deficits and the debt. They decrease the amount of revenues collected, while spending like drunken 16 year old girls with daddy's credit card.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?