Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
this is where you lost most people. Your bigoted view of democrats debases your post.
You might as well be saying F you to Dems by making up such a falsehood. Nobody "wants to pay more tax' however some people are "WILLING" to assist those less fortune than themselves.
I see lots of Republicans talk like this and i means one of two things. 1 you know it is not true, but like saying it. 2 you are brainwashed. the third option of simply being misinformed does not exist because only someone who suffers from brainwashing would be able to rationalize such a patently false premise.
Do better stockwiz, you could have made your point without that type of talk.
Oh but it is true....
Like stockwiz... not married, no brats. I benefit bigly. No penalty for not having health insurance means no more ridiculous premiums nor deductibles. It's cheaper to pay out of pocket than it is to use insurance.
He's right in that it's only dems and never Trumpers who oppose this tax plan.
Call an accountant that's apolitical and only cares about numbers. See what they tell you.
2 of the dorks I protected in highschool became CPAs...
They say it helps anyone under 100k the most. Especially single and with no kids. And if they had to guess, it's going to be places with sky high taxes that people oppose this tax plan...
Which should give nyers and californians reason to audit their state and demand they reform their spending or don't and deal with it.
Bigoted against democrats? LOL that's a new one. Can't pull any other card now gotta use party?
In order to pay for all the social programs they want to have such as single payer healthcare, along WITH letting in anyone and everyone without any immigration controls, it's going to require everyone to pay more taxes. Throw in this drive by some to want to have college paid for when Bernie Sanders was running and I don't know what other conclusion you could come up with. Perhaps they don't think about this when they make up these proposals?
Ok stockwiz, i get it you don't want real debate or discussion. because we both know the bolded bit is simply made up by the right to frighten people into voting for them. The dems had a super majority and did not use it to bring people in so you can see your premise is false. so why do you pretend otherwise?
again you know the bolded bit is not true so why are you saying it? real question stockwiz?
Like stockwiz... not married, no brats. I benefit bigly. No penalty for not having health insurance means no more ridiculous premiums nor deductibles. It's cheaper to pay out of pocket than it is to use insurance.
He's right in that it's only dems and never Trumpers who oppose this tax plan.
Call an accountant that's apolitical and only cares about numbers. See what they tell you.
2 of the dorks I protected in highschool became CPAs...
They say it helps anyone under 100k the most. Especially single and with no kids. And if they had to guess, it's going to be places with sky high taxes that people oppose this tax plan...
Which should give nyers and californians reason to audit their state and demand they reform their spending or don't and deal with it.
Bigoted against democrats? LOL that's a new one. Can't pull any other card now gotta use party?
Ok stockwiz, i get it you don't want real debate or discussion. because we both know the bolded bit is simply made up by the right to frighten people into voting for them. The dems had a super majority and did not use it to bring people in so you can see your premise is false. so why do you pretend otherwise?
again you know the bolded bit is not true so why are you saying it? real question stockwiz?
Part of the reason Hillary was opposed by people like myself was her stating she wanted to continue and increase the Syrian refugee program. Regardless of what happened in the past, this is an issue that she campaigned on and I didn't want the United States to turn into what is happening in Germany and other parts of Europe. Granted the number she gave was I believe "only" 11,000, but nonetheless...
I've noticed we've continued taking in some refugees under Trump as well.. so who knows if electing him made any difference or not in this case...
If you want to afford social programs you can't just let in anyone and everyone.... liberals often are too compassionate for their own good and don't think out the long term repercussions of some of the policies they propose. The cost of California's immigration policies has started to add up for example..
If a person can hold a full time job and prove they are an asset to this country, give them legal citizenship and a social security number so they can pay taxes like the rest of us. Otherwise, they stay out. The way we've snowflaked our young people we have enough people with anxiety and bipolar disorders on section 8 not working as it is. We don't need more people we have to give welfare handouts and free healthcare too. You need enough people contributing to the system for single payer to work without bankrupting the system. Period. This is why we are going to face a crisis with social security and medicare in about 10-20 years as birthrates go down and social security is dependent on significant population growth to remain affordable... something like 6 to 1 workers versus takers. We're not going to be anywhere near that. The boomers like my father are all on the edge of retirement. It will be interesting to see how we address the increasing costs of these programs in the coming years regardless of which party is in power. The thought of making them work until 75 in a society that is already very discriminatory against age makes me want to vomit.. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but hey it might become necessary... the boomers retiring NOW and starting to collect are the ones really making out...
Large corporations generally can structure it to take advantage of the deductions. Smaller ones, which is most of them and where most of the job growth is occurring, often cannot. There needs to be a comprehensive overhaul that gets rid of most deductions combined with the lower rate. That didn't occur. Apple and Microsoft or Facebook will all pay even less taxes on US generated income. They just may need to do it with a new foreign tax shelter as Ireland is finally cracking down on the 0% tax rate for corporations is all. The tax bill just solidifies that digital goods (like iTunes) that are sold somewhere like Ireland to a customer in the US are not subject to US taxation as you're making the purchase from a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple based out of Ireland who doesn't (or didn't) charge taxes as they considered the sale to take place in the US. Everyone did that. It's not like reducing the rate from 35% to 20% is going to make Apple move the shell company back to the US and be subject to 20% taxes. If Ireland gets closed off they'll just move somewhere else with a 5-10% tax rate. It would be stupid not to, so you can't really blame Apple (and everyone else) for doing so. The problem is the tax code pure and simple.
The problem is and remains inconsistency in the tax code, some companies can hide profits overseas while others don't have the ability. But like you indicated these companies will always gravitate to the country with the lowest tax rates and some countries may very well follow suit in lowering their rates. This was not addressed in this supposed reform and I'm not sure it can be, it looks like a race to the bottom unless the world reforms.
Taxes are at those levels for a good reason, the US needs tax receipts for the government. Loss of that revenue only means that we will run a deficit and at some point taxes will just come from another source.
What is your point? You don't have one. You just parrot the old worn out line it fleeces the middle class when if you crunch the numbers. IT DOESN'T
Does it adversely affect the highest taxed blue states? No more able to write off local tax? Yup.
But that's what happens when you have a state that's only way to look good is freebie for layabouts and open arms to illegals.
Don't tell me neither CA or NY dont...
You must forget. I lived in NY for 28 of my 30 years. If I managed my money the same way NY managed their tax payers money I'd not only spend more than my budget but be able to collect more with raising taxes to justify it and have everyone of the lemmings cheer it on and watch small business owners drop to their knees begging for a tax break or be forced to lay off a third of their employees.
Funny, Florida had a surplus and foolishly pizzed it all away on vinyl graphics to go on ground level electric transformers...
We will see how well that "free" SUNY school works out for the tax payers of NY... Along with their proposed heroin safespace with nurses to babysit and remove the stigma of overdoses.
My point. Democrats can't be trusted with anyone's money.
They can spend your money faster than you can and tell you what a victory it is for the little guy.
Meanwhile their wallets grow, and the little guy didn't get anything.
All your candidates, Up Chuck and Gillibrand especially, are capable of doing is lip service and spending others money.
If I had it my way I'd ban anyone red or blue from NY from having a say in the nation's politics. They'll bankrupt ya.
IRE charges 12% mostly, the 0% thing was a special deal made during dark times to get some jobs to rural IRE...
To be clear while lower rates to 12% was a great success building the tech sector there, it also means the tax burden was slowly shifted to the middle class. They pay outrageous taxes now..
so we are now faced with the same choice here in the USA. We the Rs pile new taxes on the middle to cover the shortfalls? Or will the decimate SS, medicare, medicaid , education...
think apple now uses Jersey netherlands and IRE as primary shelters... but i am not really current on it.
Yeah, I'm not in a financial field and don't follow it that closely anymore either, just what hits the news re Ireland's lawsuits which was for back taxes they said companies owed from the 0% era.
Option D? seems to be the chosen route of the Rs. Moderate amounts of tax increases on the middle-class combined with huge amounts of deficit to pay for tax cuts that go to the wealthy. Whenever you shift the tax burden, someone is going to cry foul. That's just the nature of shifting the tax burden. In the past we've shifted the tax burden a bit more to the wealthy so now it shifts back and the middle-class cries foul. Whatever. That's just life. The Ds typically want to shift the tax burden on the wealthy and the Rs want to shift it back from the wealthy to the middle-class. Old hat. It's the huge amounts of deficit that I actually take the bigger issue to.
If you want to afford social programs you can't just let in anyone and everyone.... liberals often are too compassionate for their own good and don't think out the long term repercussions of some of the policies they propose. The cost of California's immigration policies has started to add up for example..
If a person can hold a full time job and prove they are an asset to this country, give them legal citizenship and a social security number so they can pay taxes like the rest of us. Otherwise, they stay out. The way we've snowflaked our young people we have enough people with anxiety and bipolar disorders on section 8 not working as it is. We don't need more people we have to give welfare handouts and free healthcare too. You need enough people contributing to the system for single payer to work without bankrupting the system. Period. This is why we are going to face a crisis with social security and medicare in about 10-20 years as birthrates go down and social security is dependent on significant population growth to remain affordable... something like 6 to 1 workers versus takers. We're not going to be anywhere near that.
To a T and to reinforce the bolded, want everyone to pay for their compassion.
And in order to do so, declare a certain dollar amount money earner as evil stingey etc.
Wealth is earned, want it? Get off your azz and get it. There's no invisible oppressive boogeyman preventing anyone from becoming wealthy...
Except colleges... want affordable college? Sit out an entire generation for a couple years like I did, and watch the tuition prices plummet when demand for their goods and services dry up.
Don't expect 0 oversight and free college to be funded by me. Want an education and can't afford it? You feel entitled to a college education? Go take a couple jobs, stay on mom and dad's good side, don't go sleeping around and spitting kids out when your a teenager or in your 20s, and maybe. Just maybe when you get to be 30 like me you can mock the fools who fell hook line and sinker for college right after highschool and have your first house bought renovated and paid for complete by 25.
And if you vote republican from 18 on chances are greater that you will succeed.
Vote in favor of entitlement programs refugees and having a soft spot for irrelevant social issues. You get to enjoy that "fairness" you wanted. One where you're all equally worthless and broke paying for each other's medical and college bills under a socialist like sanders.
Dems spread debt.
Republicans spread wealth.
1st year in with Trump I'm doing better than I ever did under oblunder... that's only 1 year 8 oh my
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
