The loss of itemization was how they “paid” for the tax cuts. And the temporary increase in standard. They wouldn’t have been able to “pay” for the cuts if it was permanent.You got it. The left is carefully distorting that fact. This is just the required (because dems back then set a drop dead date) refused to make the cuts permanent. Yes they are "tax cuts for billionaires - all 565 of them - and for EVERYONE ELSE.
The left remains consistent on this while you bury your nose up Trump's ass as he spins on the topic. I guess that's why you posit a hopeful hypothetical here instead of facts.The left will call Trump a fascist because of this.
The rubes are so dumb, the majority of small businesses don't get anywhere near the top marginal rate, and why would a bunch of rightwing billionaires construct a tax plan that increases their burden, he has consistently created structures that lower it. Our education system has failed us, but in the opposite way the right claims. critical thinking is totally absent in half of the population.But he got it in the headlines which is all that he wanted out of it
I used to itemize, until they raised the standard, then I was way short.I had not reached the point where I felt the need to itemize. But a bunch of people I know took it up the ass. Real problem, not just a gripe. 3-5000k.
"paying" for tax cuts is a nonsensical blather of the left. It's based on a false premise that the same gains would have occurred under the old rate. Most analyses disagree.The loss of itemization was how they “paid” for the tax cuts. And the temporary increase in standard. They wouldn’t have been able to “pay” for the cuts if it was permanent.
Nope.The rich got permanent tax cuts.
Notice he's not raising capital gains tax which is where many many many of the mega rich hide their actual incomes.
More baseless babbling reich-wing bullshit.It would be so amusing if Trump undercut Democrats and hiked taxes on the rich to pay for tax cuts for the middle class.
Perhaps if Demcorats weren't such flaming idiots they would get back to their roots of being for the working man and actually do something useful for the middle class on taxes. Instead they'll focus all their energy on letting hairy 40 year old men into the women's bathroom and telling little Johnny he's actually Sarah.
If you are talking about CBO scoring before implementing, of course you look at the effects of tax rate changes holding all other things equal, that's how you isolate the change."paying" for tax cuts is a nonsensical blather of the left. It's based on a false premise that the same gains would have occurred under the old rate. Most analyses disagree.
Nope.
There is as much chance of Trump and Republicans raising taxes on the rich as there is of AOC renouncing her Socialist/Marxist philosophy and embracing Anarcho-Capitalism, or of Stephen Miller announcing that he now supports admitting millions of migrants and refugees from Third World countries.It would be so amusing if Trump undercut Democrats and hiked taxes on the rich to pay for tax cuts for the middle class.
Perhaps if Demcorats weren't such flaming idiots they would get back to their roots of being for the working man and actually do something useful for the middle class on taxes. Instead they'll focus all their energy on letting hairy 40 year old men into the women's bathroom and telling little Johnny he's actually Sarah.
Is this your pitch for a government run confiscatory and forced wealth redistribution?No, that is not what has happened. Wages for the top 1% have grown substantially over the last few decades, while wages for everyone else have stagnated:
Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts
Our country has suffered from rising income inequality and chronically slow growth in the living standards of low- and moderate-income Americans. This disappointing living-standards growth—which was in fact caused by rising income inequality—preceded the Great Recession and continues to this...www.epi.org
Isn't the 'middle class' the most populous of all socioeconomic segments?But, again, referencing the tables at the links I provided, it is the middle class that is paying most of that increased revenue. That means the middle class is paying more from the same income, which is what explains the rise in revenue.
Again, this is obviously not the case. You're ignoring the possibility that a greater percent of income is withheld from those earners' paychecks, and more is kept at the end of the FY when middle class folks file their returns--and that's what the data indicate has happened. That's certainly what has happened to me since 2018, my colleagues who have talked about it say the same.
Fair, that's be the COVID pandemic.The 2017 bill did not affect 2017 taxes. It affected 2018 taxes, which would have been accounted for in 2019. As I recall, something pretty big happened early in 2020 that zapped a lot of people's income pretty hard, and there were a number of options to delay payment of taxes owed. We didn't return to normal until late 2021.
If it is, then you should be able to say what is wrong with it and post facts that the interpretation cannot handle. Have at it, if you can. That said, there's not much interpretation going on in what I posted. It's a fact that to be included in the top 50%, you only need an income of about $50k. You can look at that table and calculate a difference in revenues paid in by income bracket and quickly see where the biggest increases were coming from--it's in the earners who are making between $50k to $90k.
This I attribute to the the devaluation of the currency by inflation, by the fed, forced by the US federal government spending and debt and paying that debt with devalued currency.Back in the 70's and 80's, that'd have been upper middle class. Now, it's just middle class.
'cuts aren't nearly as easy as advertised' because congress is not, and has not been, and refuses to be, fiscally responsible with the public's money.You miss the point--DOGE had an ostensible mission to investigate "waste, fraud, and abuse" in federal spending, and they seem to have--again, pretty recklessly--done just that. What they found that could be cut was pretty small in comparison to total federal spending. When you have a bunch of zealots for cutting spending try to cut spending and manage to do only a little, that's a really good indication that cuts aren't nearly as easy as advertised.
It is difficult to respond to that abject ignorance intended only to troll.Trump attracts the Maoists.
Been reading your own responses again?It is difficult to respond to that abject ignorance intended only to troll.
ABeen reading your own responses again?
Anybody with a triple digit IQ realizes that it is the way that woke dogma that has infiltrated our society that represents the Maoist revolution.Been reading your own responses again?
That's why Trump loves stupid people.A
Anybody with a triple digit IQ realizes that it is the way that woke dogma that has infiltrated our society that represents the Maoist revolution.
Outside of Vermont, Bernie has no real voters as the democrat party will never nominate him for president.He is going for Bernie voters!
Thanks for reminding meThat's why Trump loves stupid people.
Yup, that's why Trump loves stupid people. The more mentally incompetent, the better for MAGA.Thanks for reminding me
I should have said anybody with an IQ above 80, instead.
Tariffs are looking good for the long range. Clearly a man looking to the future of this country. We need a leader who will lead us into the future by bringing industry back. A breath of fresh air from the policies handing our industry over to other countries. Sorry if putting Americans to work actually making products again is going to hurt our billionaires importing everything from China. It is time to make America great not China.Well not that I believe it, but he'll need to do something to offset the damage his tariffs will do.
This should be interesting to see if the left can overcome their hate and do something good for a change.It would be so amusing if Trump undercut Democrats and hiked taxes on the rich to pay for tax cuts for the middle class.
Perhaps if Demcorats weren't such flaming idiots they would get back to their roots of being for the working man and actually do something useful for the middle class on taxes. Instead they'll focus all their energy on letting hairy 40 year old men into the women's bathroom and telling little Johnny he's actually Sarah.
Traitor Trump needs Dem support to make permanent portions of his 2017 TCJA that expire at the end of this year, and he knows Dems won’t cooperate without give from Republicans.It doesn't seem like this proposal, which seems half-hearted, is going anywhere anyway. Republicans are not the pro-working class party of fiscal responsibility, after all, it would seem.
Traitor Trump needs Dem support to make permanent portions of his 2017 TCJA that expire at the end of this year, and he knows Dems won’t cooperate without give from Republicans.
He’s publicly calling for increased personal tax rates, or a return to pre-TCJA rates, because he knows that will be one the Dems demands.
Essentially, he’s trying to get ahead of what he expects to happen anyways so he can claim credit for being “generous” when Republicans in Congress are forced to capitulate.
Considering the tax is on Profit/INCOME, likely very little more than they get now.
Too many ways to offset profit, and billionaires taking it as income is even less likely.
Hmm yes undercutting democrats by doing the thing Democrats have been saying we should do. Genius!It would be so amusing if Trump undercut Democrats and hiked taxes on the rich to pay for tax cuts for the middle class.
Perhaps if Demcorats weren't such flaming idiots they would get back to their roots of being for the working man and actually do something useful for the middle class on taxes. Instead they'll focus all their energy on letting hairy 40 year old men into the women's bathroom and telling little Johnny he's actually Sarah.
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?