Are the Trump tax only for the rich?

[MauiMan]

What do you want me to explain, the cut in Payroll taxes cuts funding for SS and Medicare, that is reality. Yes, it put more money into the hands of the consumer but took money out of funding for their future.

Ok, I get what you’re saying. He signed a bill in 2012 that temporarily cut fica and extended the emergency jobless benefits. So, the SS money was never recovered?

 

[Kushinator]

No, sorry that isn't how it works, 146 million were employed when the recession began with a Democratic Congress and 152 million when Obama left office, that is 6 million new jobs.

Non-Farm payroll is the official measurement of employment. Your lame attempt to discredit the Obama administration requires one to ignore everything that transpired between 2008 and 2014, which of course is delusional.

A lost job that returns isn't a new job created. I feel sorry for the school that tried to educate you

This is a meaningless statement. Nowhere in any economic literature will this empty sentiment be echoed. It's a string of words you pulled out of your ass.

you will never make it in the private sector. You wouldn't last two years with those numbers let alone 8

Your opinion of whether i make or not in the private sector isn't up for debate. You've lost the debate and now are forced to make personal attacks that have no bearing on this discussion. When i question your reading comprehension, it's because you purposefully ignore the posts you quote and have poorly worded arguments with yourself. I therefore can state the observation that you have reading comprehension deficiencies. It's not personal... it's why you cannot follow any discussion without obsessing over Obama or whatever get's you going in that particular moment.

 

[Kushinator]

Ok, I get what you’re saying. He signed a bill in 2012 that temporarily cut fica and extended the emergency jobless benefits. So, the SS money was never recovered?

It doesn't matter. Social Security will begin to operate in a shortfall where federal funds will bridge the funding gap in the absence of any future legislation that addresses the issue. He'll cling to anything to discredit the Obama administration.
'

 

[Conservative]

Non-Farm payroll is the official measurement of employment. Your lame attempt to discredit the Obama administration requires one to ignore everything that transpired between 2008 and 2014, which of course is delusional.



This is a meaningless statement. Nowhere in any economic literature will this empty sentiment be echoed. It's a string of words you pulled out of your ass.



Your opinion of whether i make or not in the private sector isn't up for debate. You've lost the debate and now are forced to make personal attacks that have no bearing on this discussion. When i question your reading comprehension, it's because you purposefully ignore the posts you quote and have poorly worded arguments with yourself. I therefore can state the observation that you have reading comprehension deficiencies. It's not personal... it's why you cannot follow any discussion without obsessing over Obama or whatever get's you going in that particular moment.

No, you are a legend in your own mind, I lost nothing, you are an embarrassment to the education system and an indictment against whatever school you attended.

 

[Kushinator]

No, you are a legend in your own mind

Your opinion of me does not matter.

I lost nothing

You've lost this argument.

you are an embarrassment to the education system and an indictment against whatever school you attended.

This is evidence of your failure. I can discuss the subject matter and all you want to do is fuss about me and what you think of my education/knowledge/whogivesa****.

Hence, you've lost. :2wave:

 

[MauiMan]

It doesn't matter. Social Security will begin to operate in a shortfall where federal funds will bridge the funding gap in the absence of any future legislation that addresses the issue. He'll cling to anything to discredit the Obama administration.
'

I see. Thanks.

 

[code1211]

No, the cuts are not only for the rich—they’re mostly for the rich!

And, since I’m rich—hurrah for me! My children and grandchildren especially like the elimination of the estate tax. The reduction of corporate income tax boosts business growth, and the capital gains tax is remaining low, so I’m happy! Middle class will pay more in the long run, but I’m good with that. So—thank you President Trump and Republicans!

Congratulations on being rich! I'm sure you have earned it.

Was the Capital Gains Tax also reduced or only remain "low"?

Regarding the Corporate Tax, the intent of that tax is to make the US a more attractive place to do business. Allowing a company to keep more of its earned profit is a good first step in achieving this goal.

Conversely, reducing the amount of profit a company can keep due simply to doing business in the US is a good first step to motivating a move to a less punitive location- like Mexico or India.

Eliminating the Middle Class Tax cut, that is, raising taxes, is the promise given by the modern US Socialists.

Here's an example of what could be done to help our national fiscal problem if we had legislators who were not retarded morons with no other goal than getting re-elected:

I am not an expert on much of anything, but I am about to retire. My income stream in retirement will come from two major sources: an annuity funded by 401K savings plus Social Security Retirement benefits.

The two major sources have different impacts on the national debt: The payments to me from the Social Security Administration will increase the debt and the Annuity payments will generate tax payments which in theory would erode the debt.

IF the entire retirement benefit paid from Social Security was based on a combination of the 401K/Annuity system, my retirement income would be about the same.

If I died the day before I retired under a 401K/Annuity model, my heirs would receive hundreds of thousands of dollars.

My existence and income after retirement would not increase the national debt resulting from my retirement income if based on a 401K/Annuity model.

This is one example of how we can achieve a superior outcome at a a lower cost and eliminate the negative and far reaching fiscal problems of the current unsupportable system.

How many more issues exactly like this in other areas of spending are there that we are paying for with debt due to the idiocy of our lawmakers?

US spending has more than doubled since Clinton's last budget. When will rationality once again be present in our budgeting process?

Household income has increased by about 7% over the same period. Apparently the only folks in the country who have to double their spending over this period are the rotating pompous jack wagon twits we elect to spend our money.

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary | Tax Policy Center

Average Income in USA: Definition, Family, Household, History

 

[BahamaBob]

Congratulations on being rich! I'm sure you have earned it.

Was the Capital Gains Tax also reduced or only remain "low"?

Regarding the Corporate Tax, the intent of that tax is to make the US a more attractive place to do business. Allowing a company to keep more of its earned profit is a good first step in achieving this goal.

Conversely, reducing the amount of profit a company can keep due simply to doing business in the US is a good first step to motivating a move to a less punitive location- like Mexico or India.

Eliminating the Middle Class Tax cut, that is, raising taxes, is the promise given by the modern US Socialists.

Here's an example of what could be done to help our national fiscal problem if we had legislators who were not retarded morons with no other goal than getting re-elected:

I am not an expert on much of anything, but I am about to retire. My income stream in retirement will come from two major sources: an annuity funded by 401K savings plus Social Security Retirement benefits.

The two major sources have different impacts on the national debt: The payments to me from the Social Security Administration will increase the debt and the Annuity payments will generate tax payments which in theory would erode the debt.

IF the entire retirement benefit paid from Social Security was based on a combination of the 401K/Annuity system, my retirement income would be about the same.

If I died the day before I retired under a 401K/Annuity model, my heirs would receive hundreds of thousands of dollars.

My existence and income after retirement would not increase the national debt resulting from my retirement income if based on a 401K/Annuity model.

This is one example of how we can achieve a superior outcome at a a lower cost and eliminate the negative and far reaching fiscal problems of the current unsupportable system.

How many more issues exactly like this in other areas of spending are there that we are paying for with debt due to the idiocy of our lawmakers?

US spending has more than doubled since Clinton's last budget. When will rationality once again be present in our budgeting process?

Household income has increased by about 7% over the same period. Apparently the only folks in the country who have to double their spending over this period are the rotating pompous jack wagon twits we elect to spend our money.

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary | Tax Policy Center

Average Income in USA: Definition, Family, Household, History

You make some good points. The problem is not the amount of money the government takes in. It is the amount they spend. Democrats do not understand that you can not spend yourself out of debt. Free stuff is great for those receiving it, but someone has to pay the bill. Only and idiot would think increasing taxes on the rich will fix the problem. Our children, grand children and great grand children are they ones who will be stuck with the bill.

Those who point to Social Security as a great achievement are mentally challenged. First, millions of people pay into it for decades and die never getting a dime back. Second, the return you get on your investment is a crime. If you stuck the same money in a 401K type investment, your return would far exceed SS and as you point out, your heirs would receive what is left when you die. In fact, the federal government has robbed trillions of dollars out of the SS pot and issued IOUs to cover their theft. SS in essence is nothing but a cash cow for crooked politicians. The tax and spend Democrats will do everything in their power to keep this cash cow alive. Any politician offering an actual fix will be demonized for pushing granny off the cliff.

 

[MauiMan]

Congratulations on being rich! I'm sure you have earned it.

Was the Capital Gains Tax also reduced or only remain "low"?

Regarding the Corporate Tax, the intent of that tax is to make the US a more attractive place to do business. Allowing a company to keep more of its earned profit is a good first step in achieving this goal.

Conversely, reducing the amount of profit a company can keep due simply to doing business in the US is a good first step to motivating a move to a less punitive location- like Mexico or India.
...

Thank you, I did earn it. I had to start from zero—no rich parents to help me out.

I’m not a CPA nor a tax lawyer, so I’m no expert. But, I’ll give you my view for what it’s worth.

The highest capital gains tax is 20%, but that’s only for gains greater than $479,000. Most people pay 15%. But remember, that is only for “realized” gains. So, your money grows and grows until you cash in on some of it. Pretty nice! Once you have a pile of money, that is your income tax rate. That’s why Warren Buffet has a lower tax rate than his secretary. It’s one of the reasons wealthy people get richer—their taxes are low.

If we wanted to make it really attractive for corporations, we would have to set the corporate income tax to $0, like the Republic of Ireland—that’s why a lot of American companies are “headquartered” there. However, any reduction in corporate income taxes means more money is available to expand the business, which creates value for the investors—which is the goal of all for-profit companies (the goal is not to create jobs—that is a political misdirection).

I do not agree that our legislators are retarded morons. Most of them are smart and crafty. They’re supposed to represent their constituents, but I think most represent “special interests” such as lobbyists and donors. That’s the real problem.

BTW, congratulations on your impending retirement! Good for you, and I bet you earned it!

The payments to you from the SSA do not increase the debt. Payments to retirees come from current contributors and from the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF). The SSTF invests in US government securities. So, part of the national debt is the SSTF.

The payments to you from the Social Security Administration will not increase the debt. In fact, as the SSTF spends down over the next decade, it will be cashing in on the debt owed to it by the government. It’s weird, I know. Also, your SS income is taxable, so it helps with the debt, not hurt it.

You are right—the last administration to balance the budget was the Clinton administration. And now, the Trump administration is ballooning the debt again with large deficit spending. The real thing to worry about is the national debt as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Take a look at this:

National debt of the United States - Wikipedia

That is a really big problem—we are spending too much. Ouur budget deficit as a percentage of GDP should never be higher than 3%. Take a look at the bottom line of this chart. Not good:

United States federal budget - Wikipedia

Trump’s proposed budget is—in my humble opinion—irresponsible, but I suspect he doesn’t know that because he thinks that military spending is wonderful. It isn’t, because it doesn’t produce any direct consumer goods or services. The military contractor busniness are very happy...they don’t give a rip about the public debt. It’s not their problem—it’s ours!

 

[MauiMan]

You make some good points. The problem is not the amount of money the government takes in. It is the amount they spend. Democrats do not understand that you can not spend yourself out of debt. Free stuff is great for those receiving it, but someone has to pay the bill. Only and idiot would think increasing taxes on the rich will fix the problem. Our children, grand children and great grand children are they ones who will be stuck with the bill.

Those who point to Social Security as a great achievement are mentally challenged. First, millions of people pay into it for decades and die never getting a dime back. Second, the return you get on your investment is a crime. If you stuck the same money in a 401K type investment, your return would far exceed SS and as you point out, your heirs would receive what is left when you die. In fact, the federal government has robbed trillions of dollars out of the SS pot and issued IOUs to cover their theft. SS in essence is nothing but a cash cow for crooked politicians. The tax and spend Democrats will do everything in their power to keep this cash cow alive. Any politician offering an actual fix will be demonized for pushing granny off the cliff.

Both Democrat and Republican administrations are guilty of deficit spending. Also, deficit spending is not a problem as long as it is small enough and our economy continues to grow.

I agree that taxes on the rich will not solve the problem. The solution is to—greatly—reduce the size of the federal government, and enable the economy to expand. If we do that, the national debt will come under control.

At the risk of you calling me mentally deranged—I think the Social Security program is a good thing. It originally started as “old age insurance”, in case people outlive the money they saved during their wage-earning years. I think it’s a nice safety net for people who did, in fact, work and paid into it. Think of it as a public annuity. And annuities, BTW, are usually not inheritable. Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t have the discipline or sufficient level of income to save enough money for retirement, so they rely on Social Security to supplement their income, or as their only income when they retire. So, yes, it’s not a great achievement, but I’m glad we have it. I will also say that the Social Security program is very popular with the public. That’s the real reason politicians are afraid of changing it—both Democrats and Republicans alike.

BTW there is no SS pot of money to be robbed. Money comes in through FICA revenues. Any excess is invested in US securities by the Social Security Trust Fund. Any payments that cannot be made by direct revenues are drawn from the fund to be met.

You are right that if the Social Security Trust Fund invested in something other than US securities it would make more money. However, that is higher risk, and by law the fund can’t do that. The law could change, but what if there is an economic downturn and the fund is depleted?

Regarding your statements of the federal government robbing Social Security, etc: These statements are—in my humble view—not true, and probably political partisan hyperbole. Please bear with me on this. It is true that the Social Security Trust Fund invests in US securities, which I hope you will agree is safer than stocks or bonds. The federal government then uses those funds for spending on whatever Congress has approved. But, the federal government has to pay back the principal, plus interest in the agreed timeframe of each individual security. How is this robbery or in any way crooked?

 

[MauiMan]

You make some good points. The problem is not the amount of money the government takes in. It is the amount they spend. Democrats do not understand that you can not spend yourself out of debt. Free stuff is great for those receiving it, but someone has to pay the bill. Only and idiot would think increasing taxes on the rich will fix the problem. Our children, grand children and great grand children are they ones who will be stuck with the bill.

Those who point to Social Security as a great achievement are mentally challenged. First, millions of people pay into it for decades and die never getting a dime back. Second, the return you get on your investment is a crime. If you stuck the same money in a 401K type investment, your return would far exceed SS and as you point out, your heirs would receive what is left when you die. In fact, the federal government has robbed trillions of dollars out of the SS pot and issued IOUs to cover their theft. SS in essence is nothing but a cash cow for crooked politicians. The tax and spend Democrats will do everything in their power to keep this cash cow alive. Any politician offering an actual fix will be demonized for pushing granny off the cliff.

I forgot to include this link for further information:

No, no one is stealing from Social Security (opinion) - CNN

 

[BahamaBob]

I forgot to include this link for further information:

No, no one is stealing from Social Security (opinion) - CNN

I will point out that your link is an "opinion" piece not a fact sheet. Then I will ask you what you call it when someone pays into something for decades expecting to get a return but dies and gets nothing? All that money you paid in just vanishes. If that happened to a bank account or an investment account, what would you call it?

In addition, this tax was taken for a specific purpose. That purpose was not to be a slush fund for wars or health care shortfalls. However, that is how it has been used. In return the government has issued bonds for the money taken. However, these bonds unlike other bonds can not be sold on the open market. Therefore, they are little more than promissory notes. By law these promissory notes can only be paid with money raised by taxing. However, for the last several decades this government has not been able to cover existing debts and expenditures with the tax revenue that it receives. In a few years when SS becomes insolvent, where do you think this extra tax money will come from?

In essence, the government has taken trillions of dollars under the guise of it being for Social Security then used that money for it's other unfunded pet projects. And for this tax money they issue promissory notes that they do not have the ability to repay.

 

[MauiMan]

I will point out that your link is an "opinion" piece not a fact sheet.

Yes, that’s true. However, there are facts in the article, and links to further information supporting and defending their statements.

Then I will ask you what you call it when someone pays into something for decades expecting to get a return but dies and gets nothing?

A life annuity.

All that money you paid in just vanishes. If that happened to a bank account or an investment account, what would you call it?

That’s the way life annuities work. It guarantees payments until your death. If you live longer than what you paid in, then too bad for the issuer of the plan. If you live a short time, then you lose some or all of your investment. Your heirs get nothing. It’s kind of like life insurance in reverse—instead of paying out when you die, it pays while you live.

Social Security is a defined benefit pension plan—a type of life annuity. It’s a really good thing for everyone who works! You never have to worry about running out of money when you get old and infirm! What is bad about that?

In addition, this tax was taken for a specific purpose. That purpose was not to be a slush fund for wars or health care shortfalls. However, that is how it has been used. In return the government has issued bonds for the money taken. However, these bonds unlike other bonds can not be sold on the open market. Therefore, they are little more than promissory notes.

The FICA tax is used to fund Social Security. Current FICA revenues are used to pay current Social Security recipients. Any FICA surplus goes into the Social Security Trust Fund. The Trust Fund then invests the money in US government securities. The US government then spends that money as it wishes. However, it pays the principal plus guaranteed interest back in the timeframe specified by the securities.

The Social Security Trust Fund has never been used to fund wars or health care shortfalls. The money the government gets from the securities purchased by the Trust Fund probably was used for these things, but that has nothing to do with the Trust Fund or Social Security. Yes, the US bonds held by the Trust Fund cannot be sold on the open market (they are just for the Trust Fund).

By law these promissory notes can only be paid with money raised by taxing.

The only way the federal government receives revenues is through taxation. How else would it pay for the notes? That’s how the government pays back the entities that loaned money to it. The federal government gets its money by taxing us, and borrowing from entities (like people, corporations, foreign governments, and yes, the Social Security Trust Fund)!

However, for the last several decades this government has not been able to cover existing debts and expenditures with the tax revenue that it receives. In a few years when SS becomes insolvent, where do you think this extra tax money will come from?

The national debt has existed since the United States has existed, so the United States has never been able to cover its debts! It started with the debt owed for the Revolutionary War. So, no, not just a few decade—the debt goes all the way back.

The extra tax money to pay down the debt comes from economic growth, and subsequently more tax revenues. It is wars and recessions that increase the debt, and economic prosperity that reduces it. Here’s an article about it. It’s really very interesting:

History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia

In essence, the government has taken trillions of dollars under the guise of it being for Social Security then used that money for it's other unfunded pet projects. And for this tax money they issue promissory notes that they do not have the ability to repay.

Completely untrue—in my opinion. BTW, I’m not arguing that the Social Security / national debt situation is good, because it isn’t—just not for the reasons that you’ve argued. Social Security is actually a really good thing for working people, and I don’t know where you’re getting the information you’ve posited. I’m happy to consider any factual evidence you will put forward supporting your claims. I’m enjoying your debate and perspective, and I’m happy to look at anything you will share with me. :lol:

 

[code1211]

You make some good points. The problem is not the amount of money the government takes in. It is the amount they spend. Democrats do not understand that you can not spend yourself out of debt. Free stuff is great for those receiving it, but someone has to pay the bill. Only and idiot would think increasing taxes on the rich will fix the problem. Our children, grand children and great grand children are they ones who will be stuck with the bill.

Those who point to Social Security as a great achievement are mentally challenged. First, millions of people pay into it for decades and die never getting a dime back. Second, the return you get on your investment is a crime. If you stuck the same money in a 401K type investment, your return would far exceed SS and as you point out, your heirs would receive what is left when you die. In fact, the federal government has robbed trillions of dollars out of the SS pot and issued IOUs to cover their theft. SS in essence is nothing but a cash cow for crooked politicians. The tax and spend Democrats will do everything in their power to keep this cash cow alive. Any politician offering an actual fix will be demonized for pushing granny off the cliff.

Everything you say is accurate with one little exception:

There is virtually no difference between the tax and spend Democrats and the tax and spend Republicans when it comes to fiscal restraint and responsibility.

There have been precious few years when in our history when spending at the Federal level did not increase. None at all since 1980.

The enemy of fiscal restraint and responsibility is not the people, it's the system. ALL problems are based either systemic or personal. If the people change and the problem persists, the problem is in the system.

That said, the people do maintain the system. We elect liars and thieves to oversee our treasury. What is it we expect as an outcome? We're obviously crazy.

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary | Tax Policy Center

 

[code1211]

Thank you, I did earn it. I had to start from zero—no rich parents to help me out.

I’m not a CPA nor a tax lawyer, so I’m no expert. But, I’ll give you my view for what it’s worth.

The highest capital gains tax is 20%, but that’s only for gains greater than $479,000. Most people pay 15%. But remember, that is only for “realized” gains. So, your money grows and grows until you cash in on some of it. Pretty nice! Once you have a pile of money, that is your income tax rate. That’s why Warren Buffet has a lower tax rate than his secretary. It’s one of the reasons wealthy people get richer—their taxes are low.

If we wanted to make it really attractive for corporations, we would have to set the corporate income tax to $0, like the Republic of Ireland—that’s why a lot of American companies are “headquartered” there. However, any reduction in corporate income taxes means more money is available to expand the business, which creates value for the investors—which is the goal of all for-profit companies (the goal is not to create jobs—that is a political misdirection).

I do not agree that our legislators are retarded morons. Most of them are smart and crafty. They’re supposed to represent their constituents, but I think most represent “special interests” such as lobbyists and donors. That’s the real problem.

BTW, congratulations on your impending retirement! Good for you, and I bet you earned it!

The payments to you from the SSA do not increase the debt. Payments to retirees come from current contributors and from the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF). The SSTF invests in US government securities. So, part of the national debt is the SSTF.



National debt of the United States - Wikipedia

That is a really big problem—we are spending too much. Ouur budget deficit as a percentage of GDP should never be higher than 3%. Take a look at the bottom line of this chart. Not good:

United States federal budget - Wikipedia

Trump’s proposed budget is—in my humble opinion—irresponsible,

(edited for length. Sorry...)

Taking the last point first, the budgets submitted by the President over the last several years have nothing at all to do with the actual spending approved by Congress.

I recently heard on the radio that three of Obama's budgets did not get one single supporting vote. Now THAT'S impressive! I'm pretty sure that Trump's recent effort will meet a similar level of approval.

So Capital gains stayed even. No change or lowering is good, I suppose. In general, I favor people being able to keep what they earn legally.

Attracting companies to do business in the US is not very difficult. The US has many attractive qualities. Reducing the taxes allows them to be considered.

Outrageous taxation at the Fed level added to the state and local levels washes away the considerations of other benefits.

It's difficult for me to believe that almost half of the discretionary spending of the Feds does not help to augment the debt.

Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go

 

[code1211]

(edited for length. Sorry...)

Taking the last point first, the budgets submitted by the President over the last several years have nothing at all to do with the actual spending approved by Congress.

I recently heard on the radio that three of Obama's budgets did not get one single supporting vote. Now THAT'S impressive! I'm pretty sure that Trump's recent effort will meet a similar level of approval.

So Capital gains stayed even. No change or lowering is good, I suppose. In general, I favor people being able to keep what they earn legally.

Attracting companies to do business in the US is not very difficult. The US has many attractive qualities. Reducing the taxes allows them to be considered.

Outrageous taxation at the Fed level added to the state and local levels washes away the considerations of other benefits.

It's difficult for me to believe that almost half of the discretionary spending of the Feds does not help to augment the debt.

Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go

Whoopsie!

SS Administration outlays are in the mandatory side of spending.