Trump Tax "Hoax" Would Blow $5 Trillion Hole In Budget Over Next Decade: Analysis

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Or god forbid, throw out some illegals so the orange picking jobs can get to $25 an hr to a citizen.

How much are you willing to pay for your morning screwdriver?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Or god forbid, throw out some illegals so the orange picking jobs can get to $25 an hr to a citizen.

How much are you willing to pay for your morning screwdriver?

Mimosa if anything involves OJ.

OJ is over rated. Cran or grapefruit for me.

I did pay 30 euro for a screwdriver at Harry's Bar in Venice, tho. Had 3.

They pour a hellofa drink and they don't sell beer or wine by the glass.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Are you for taking peoples money before they get a chance to save it or spend as they want?

Do you mean, am I for taxes? Yes.

With lower taxes, you can afford the price increase on orange juice.

Lets say the average family of 4 does save $1000 on their taxes like Trump is claiming. That's $83/month, $19/week. That's less than $10 per adult in the household. I spend more than that on adding whipped cream to my morning latte every day. It's not enough to let you afford a price increase on anything.

Or, we can look at this another way. $100,000 (what Trump claims is the median household income, and therefore what the $1000 is meant to target) is $50/hour. So $1000 is worth 20 hours to me. 20 free hours in a year is worth less than the ability to watch a 30 minute episode of TV each week as far as the time is concerned.

So... all I see is a big addition to the deficit, no corresponding proposed budget changes, and a mere pittance in value gained.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Are you for taking peoples money before they get a chance to save it or spend as they want?

Do you mean, am I for taxes? Yes.

With lower taxes, you can afford the price increase on orange juice.

Lets say the average family of 4 does save $1000 on their taxes like Trump is claiming. That's $83/month, $19/week. That's less than $10 per adult in the household. I spend more than that on adding whipped cream to my morning latte every day. It's not enough to let you afford a price increase on anything.

Or, we can look at this another way. $100,000 (what Trump claims is the median household income, and therefore what the $1000 is meant to target) is $50/hour. So $1000 is worth 20 hours to me. 20 free hours in a year is worth less than the ability to watch a 30 minute episode of TV each week as far as the time is concerned.

So... all I see is a big addition to the deficit, no corresponding proposed budget changes, and a mere pittance in value gained.

Hello my friend. Please feel free to continue to pay the additional taxes if it is what you believe in. If you weren't concerned about Obama doubling the national doubt then you can feel free to leave your hypocrisy at the door and not worry about Trump giving people back money they've earned.

You don't need high taxes have socialism or even great social services. Look at Russia. A low 13% flat tax for every person. Russia has a huge public sector that includes everything from education, healthcare, manufacturing, banking, energy.

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Are you for taking peoples money before they get a chance to save it or spend as they want?

Do you mean, am I for taxes? Yes.

With lower taxes, you can afford the price increase on orange juice.

Lets say the average family of 4 does save $1000 on their taxes like Trump is claiming. That's $83/month, $19/week. That's less than $10 per adult in the household. I spend more than that on adding whipped cream to my morning latte every day. It's not enough to let you afford a price increase on anything.

Or, we can look at this another way. $100,000 (what Trump claims is the median household income, and therefore what the $1000 is meant to target) is $50/hour. So $1000 is worth 20 hours to me. 20 free hours in a year is worth less than the ability to watch a 30 minute episode of TV each week as far as the time is concerned.

So... all I see is a big addition to the deficit, no corresponding proposed budget changes, and a mere pittance in value gained.

Hello my friend. Please feel free to continue to pay the additional taxes if it is what you believe in. If you weren't concerned about Obama doubling the national doubt then you can feel free to leave your hypocrisy at the door and not worry about Trump giving people back money they've earned.

(Translation)
Rich people should decide how much taxes they pay.

(Reality)
You don't know an iota about the American Economic Economy, you wouldn't know the first thing about the budget, none the less what constitutes 'extra'. You ride on the back on conservative MSM with buzzword analogies like 'less taxes' when you don't have the damnedest idea what actually even goes on, or how.

originally posted by: Aazadan
I spend more than that on adding whipped cream to my morning latte every day.

What?! You're not going to renovate your kitchen, buy a new car, take the family on vacation, or increase your lifestyle as Mr. Cohn said?

With GOP "starve the beast", Koch "drown govt in a bathtub" ideology, defunding govt via "tax cuts" is the tactic to do away with govt, period, (except for [privatized] military, police, courts, trade). The New America, taking us back to 1777, established in this New Age of Unenlightenment would do away with

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
United States Department of Commerce
United States Department of Education
United States Department of Energy
United States Department of Health and Human Services
United States Department of Homeland Security
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
United States Department of the Interior
United States Department of Labor (DOL)
United States Department of State (DOS)
United States Department of Transportation
United States Department of the Treasury (IRS)
United States Department of Veterans Affairs

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
The Federal Election Commission (FEC)
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC)
The Federal Reserve Board of Governors
The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB)
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
The General Services Administration (GSA)
The International Trade Commission (ITC)
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
The National Science Foundation (NSF)
The Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC)
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
The Selective Service System (SSS)
The Smithsonian Institution (SI)
The Social Security Administration (SSA)
The Surface Transportation Board (STB)
The United States Postal Service (USPS)
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

Let the free market handle an ebola outbreak. Become A Nation of Toll-Roads, and that toll road could very well be owned by a non-US corporation. No taxes, but "user fees" will take care of what you demand, if you can afford it. And just bear in mind that, without rules and regulations, the cost of taking the private sector to court to sue when you are harmed will be vastly more than any savings, let alone assuming the worst that your survivors take someone to court over your death.

Good bye, good luck, and thanks for all the fish.

originally posted by: desert
What?! You're not going to renovate your kitchen, buy a new car, take the family on vacation, or increase your lifestyle as Mr. Cohn said?

$1000 does not increase my lifestyle. If I got that, I would honestly probably just put it into savings.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Or god forbid, throw out some illegals so the orange picking jobs can get to $25 an hr to a citizen.

How much are you willing to pay for your morning screwdriver?

Keep taxes the same for all I care. Any tax savings will be a joke to me anyhow. Just don't increase spending or create any new government spy agencies and we will eventually be out of dept.

But at least we know. Trump isn't going to sneak in tax hikes.

a reply to: desert

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) United States Department of Commerce United States Department of Education United States Department of Energy United States Department of Health and Human Services United States Department of Homeland Security United States Department of Housing and Urban Development United States Department of the Interior United States Department of Labor (DOL) United States Department of State (DOS) United States Department of Transportation United States Department of the Treasury (IRS) United States Department of Veterans Affairs The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) The Federal Election Commission (FEC) The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) The Federal Reserve Board of Governors The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) The General Services Administration (GSA) The International Trade Commission (ITC) The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) The National Science Foundation (NSF) The Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) The Selective Service System (SSS) The Smithsonian Institution (SI) The Social Security Administration (SSA) The Surface Transportation Board (STB) The United States Postal Service (USPS) The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

Gee. It's a big wonder why we're in dept? If these losers would go to work like me and get real jobs.

Correction. They're not really losers. Swindlers would be closer word to what they are (at the upper levels). Hucksters. Yeah.....That's what they are.

It's not any harder working a real job. Crime doesn't pay in the long run.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: desert
What?! You're not going to renovate your kitchen, buy a new car, take the family on vacation, or increase your lifestyle as Mr. Cohn said?

$1000 does not increase my lifestyle. If I got that, I would honestly probably just put it into savings.

Agreed. We fall into that category. And I noticed that the tax goes up for "low income people." While I'm not one of those, I'm NOT in favor of helping out rich guys by increasing the tax burden on our poorest wage earners.

a reply to: Byrd
For those at the bottom of the heap the increased exemption would keep their actual tax burden from increasing but it's very true that those at the top will being doing a whole lot better.

The details are lacking but with the information provided so far it looks like this:
The lowest quintile will get about 0.5% more after tax income and it doesn't get much better until you get to those above the top 95%. At that point it goes up to 2.5% more after tax income. For the top 1% it's 8.5% more after tax income. And for the tippy tip top 0.1%, it's a bit over 10% more.

0.5% of not much money isn't much money.
8.5% of a lot of money is a lot of money.
10% of a whole lot of money, is really really a lot of money.


Sounds fair. Right? Trump lies...again. Either that, or he's clueless. Does it matter which?

What the hell are they thinking? I don't think this is going to be a slam dunk.

www.taxpolicycenter.org...

a reply to: Phage

Analysis at this point is rather premature, given that key information is still missing.

I do agree, though, that if it washes out that the top earners get the biggest percentage reductions, that would be unfair, although the current system is very unfair to the wealthy.

I can't believe folks acting like 1k to the working poor is nothing.

Who cares about whipped cream in your latte? You must be living ok to even come up with that analogy.
When my family hit rock bottom during the housing crisis, in November 2009, we were scared crapless because we needed to come up with 200.00 to make the mortgage payment when SO was laid off and the employer lied and said he quit, leaving us with no income at all.
That did get reversed and he got back pay a month later, but that November, there was no feasting- we spent the day selling what we could on eBay, hoping we could find a way to survive and maybe buy our kid a Christmas gift. All he asked for was a freaking pizza from Domino's that year!

So many people are so obviously out of touch with what some of us have been through. You would rob Peter in order to keep Paul from getting anything extra. I notice it really isn't 'the rich' most Democrats are worried about - it's TRUMP. TRUMP is gonna get all that money. "It makes me so mad!" you say, "cause Trumps going to make off like a bandit."

Today my house is paid for, and my income is a good bit above average and climbing. *WE* are doing well under the Trump administration. I won't EVER forget the lessons I learned during the Obama times though. A SINGLE DOLLAR is a lot when you need it for something vital and you don't have it.

originally posted by: hadriana
Who cares about whipped cream in your latte? You must be living ok to even come up with that analogy.

If we take the $1000 as accurate, which is what they're projecting someone who has $100k/year would get, that works out to $2.73 per day. It's not life changing money.

If we instead use Phages guideline and apply it to the working poor, we're talking about 0.5% of $15,000 which is $75 per year, which works out to 20 cents a day, which is even less than what whipped cream on a latte costs.

And I'm living fine now, but I'm quite used to being poor, I've spent the last 17 years living on under 10k/year, it's only been fairly recently that I got a job that pays well. However, even when that's what I was living on, I could still buy a latte every day so the analogy still holds.

So many people are so obviously out of touch with what some of us have been through. You would rob Peter in order to keep Paul from getting anything extra. I notice it really isn't 'the rich' most Democrats are worried about - it's TRUMP. TRUMP is gonna get all that money. "It makes me so mad!" you say, "cause Trumps going to make off like a bandit."

No, I understand it completely. Until recently I spent my life living well below the poverty line, I know what it's like when moneys tight. I also know that taxes at that type of income never affected my lifestyle. If taxes go down for that income level, it's going to be around 20 cents a day that you see in your pocket. It's not enough money to do anything with.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Byrd
For those at the bottom of the heap the increased exemption would keep their actual tax burden from increasing but it's very true that those at the top will being doing a whole lot better.

That's IF they know to take the exemptions.

The details are lacking but with the information provided so far it looks like this:
The lowest quintile will get about 0.5% more after tax income and it doesn't get much better until you get to those above the top 95%. At that point it goes up to 2.5% more after tax income. For the top 1% it's 8.5% more after tax income. And for the tippy tip top 0.1%, it's a bit over 10% more.

0.5% of not much money isn't much money.
8.5% of a lot of money is a lot of money.
10% of a whole lot of money, is really really a lot of money.

Yeah. I saw that graphic. Funny how Trump and his family fall in the group that benefits most.

His talking points are still trying to sell "voodoo economics" - we've had several generations of trickle down economics that did NOT work... but somehow it's going to be magic this time and work. Given that corporate executives seem to prefer getting salary raises over raising the salaries of their employees, I expect that it's still not going to work this time.

originally posted by: Aazadan

No, I understand it completely. Until recently I spent my life living well below the poverty line, I know what it's like when moneys tight. I also know that taxes at that type of income never affected my lifestyle. If taxes go down for that income level, it's going to be around 20 cents a day that you see in your pocket. It's not enough money to do anything with.

What you just said may be the reason that you and I see things differently than many others here: we've been that poor. If the poor were getting a 10% benefit and the wealthy an 0.8% benefit, that would be a bit fairer.

a reply to: FyreByrd

You do know that the ACA is a trickle up program right, it makes the insurance companies more wealthy on the backs of Tax Payers.

Even before the GOP was taken over by Koch Libertarian ideology (getting rid of ALL functions of govt except for a limited few), there was "starve the beast". Today's GOP ideology is to take "starve the beast" to the extreme. The following article is about Reaganomics, which along with adopting deregulation and mistrust of govt, set the course for where the USA is today.

How the Republican Party Has Conned America for Over 30 Years.... Tax cuts initiate bubble economies, not true growth.

Read in full, but here are highlights

George W. Bush embraced the Two Santa Claus Theory with gusto, ramming through huge tax cuts – particularly a cut to a maximum 15 percent income tax rate on people like himself who made their principal income from sitting around the pool waiting for their dividend or capital gains checks to arrive in the mail – and blowing out federal spending. Bush even out-spent Reagan, which nobody had ever thought would again be possible....

And it all seemed to be going so well, just as it did in the early 1920s when three consecutive Republican presidents cut income taxes on the uber-rich from over 70 percent to under 30 percent. In 1929, pretty much everybody realized that instead of building factories with all that extra money, the rich had been pouring it into the stock market, inflating a bubble that – like an inexorable law of nature – would have to burst.
.....
In reality, his tax cuts did what they have always done over the past 100 years – they initiated a bubble economy that would let the very rich skim the cream off the top just before the ceiling crashed in on working people.