|
Post by morecowbell on Apr 10, 2024 23:49:05 GMT
Trump’s 2017 tax cut reduced income tax rates for the vast majority of Americans, including top earners and most lower-income workers. Bwahhaahha sure they did. Bwahhaahha I guess you just read headlines. Your news sources and your Democrats lied to you then, and they're lying to you now. Especially when you do exactly as they expect of you and only read the headlines.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 10, 2024 23:56:14 GMT
This entire thread was started with a false premise and has only gone downhill from there.
You don't believe Jan 6 was an insurrection, violent, or armed.
You think Donald Trump accepted the results of the 2020 election.
And now, the icing on the cake, mainstream media is lying. Admittedly, they are not perfect and do sometimes make mistakes. Generally, though, when they make mistakes, they print corrections and own up to it.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts.
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Apr 11, 2024 0:07:48 GMT
This entire thread was started with a false premise and has only gone downhill from there. You don't believe Jan 6 was an insurrection, violent, or armed. You think Donald Trump accepted the results of the 2020 election. And now, the icing on the cake, mainstream media is lying. Admittedly, they are not perfect and do sometimes make mistakes. Generally, though, when they make mistakes, they print corrections and own up to it. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts. You and Lucy are pushing the idea that the tax cuts are ONLY going to help the rich. The fact is: Trump’s 2017 tax cut reduced income tax rates for the vast majority of Americans, including top earners and most lower-income workers. As you said, You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 11, 2024 0:13:11 GMT
This entire thread was started with a false premise and has only gone downhill from there. You don't believe Jan 6 was an insurrection, violent, or armed. You think Donald Trump accepted the results of the 2020 election. And now, the icing on the cake, mainstream media is lying. Admittedly, they are not perfect and do sometimes make mistakes. Generally, though, when they make mistakes, they print corrections and own up to it. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts. You and Lucy are pushing the idea that the tax cuts are ONLY going to help the rich. The fact is: Trump’s 2017 tax cut reduced income tax rates for the vast majority of Americans, including top earners and most lower-income workers. As you said, You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts. Please show me where Lucy or I said that. What did I post regarding taxes that is not factual? If you go back and read our posts, nether one of us said the tax cuts are only going to help the rich. Everything I posted is factual, backed up by linked articles. FACT - The top 1% benefitted the most from Trump's tax cuts and have the most to gain with an extension or lose, if Democrats win control of the White House and Congress www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-2017-trump-tax-law-was-skewed-to-the-rich-expensive-and-failed-to-deliverWas skewed to the rich. Households with incomes in the top 1 percent will receive an average tax cut of more than $60,000 in 2025, compared to an average tax cut of less than $500 for households in the bottom 60 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center (TPC).[1] As a share of after-tax income, tax cuts at the top — for both households in the top 1 percent and the top 5 percent — are more than triple the total value of the tax cuts received for people with incomes in the bottom 60 percent.[2]
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Apr 11, 2024 0:15:19 GMT
This entire thread was started with a false premise and has only gone downhill from there. You don't believe Jan 6 was an insurrection, violent, or armed. You think Donald Trump accepted the results of the 2020 election. And now, the icing on the cake, mainstream media is lying. Admittedly, they are not perfect and do sometimes make mistakes. Generally, though, when they make mistakes, they print corrections and own up to it. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts. You and Lucy are pushing the idea that the tax cuts are ONLY going to help the rich. The fact is: Trump’s 2017 tax cut reduced income tax rates for the vast majority of Americans, including top earners and most lower-income workers. As you said, You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts. Apparently she has me on ignore because she is ignoring the Washington Fact Check article. 😀
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 11, 2024 0:20:32 GMT
You and Lucy are pushing the idea that the tax cuts are ONLY going to help the rich. The fact is: Trump’s 2017 tax cut reduced income tax rates for the vast majority of Americans, including top earners and most lower-income workers. As you said, You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts. Apparently she has me on ignore because she is ignoring the Washington Fact Check article. 😀 No, I think she just ignores facts in general that don't fit her narrative. She ignored facts that I posted, too. And she falsely claimed that Lucy and I said tax cuts are only going to help the rich. Neither of us actually said that.
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Apr 11, 2024 0:33:12 GMT
You and Lucy are pushing the idea that the tax cuts are ONLY going to help the rich. The fact is: Trump’s 2017 tax cut reduced income tax rates for the vast majority of Americans, including top earners and most lower-income workers. As you said, You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts. Please show me where Lucy or I said that. What did I post regarding taxes that is not factual? FACT - The top 1% benefitted the most from Trump's tax cuts and have the most to gain with an extension or lose, if Democrats win control of the White House and Congress www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-2017-trump-tax-law-was-skewed-to-the-rich-expensive-and-failed-to-deliverWas skewed to the rich. Households with incomes in the top 1 percent will receive an average tax cut of more than $60,000 in 2025, compared to an average tax cut of less than $500 for households in the bottom 60 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center (TPC).[1] As a share of after-tax income, tax cuts at the top — for both households in the top 1 percent and the top 5 percent — are more than triple the total value of the tax cuts received for people with incomes in the bottom 60 percent.[2]Lucy said: By promising a bunch of billionaires he’d lower THEIR taxes again. You linked a headline that says: Trump tells billionaires he'll keep THEIR taxes low at $50 million fundraising gala So, if you accept that Trump’s 2017 tax cut reduced income tax rates FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, including top earners and most lower-income workers, that he wants to keep basically everyone's taxes low, why are you trying to push that as a bad thing?
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 11, 2024 0:55:52 GMT
Are you reading anything that we've posted? I'm starting to feel like a broken record. Maybe I need to bold the words and make them bigger. The Trump tax cuts are a bad thing because they benefitted the top 1% the most, disproportionate to the majority of Americans, the bottom 95%. It was a regressive tax cut, exacerbating income inequality. And the tax cuts came at a great cost, contributing significantly to the national debt.
Trickle down economics is a massive failure, it's time to stop widening the wealth gap. www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/after-decades-of-costly-regressive-and-ineffective-tax-cuts-a-new-course-isFirst, tax cuts enacted in the last 25 years — namely, the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President Bush, most of which were made permanent in 2012, and those enacted in 2017 under President Trump — gave windfall tax cuts to households in the top 1 percent and large corporations, exacerbating income and wealth inequality. These tax cuts cost significant federal revenue, adding to the federal debt and limiting our ability to invest in policies that broaden opportunity and contribute to shared prosperity.
Second, extending the Trump tax cuts that expire at the end of 2025 would continue to mostly benefit the well-off and, if not paid for, would add considerably to the nation’s long-term fiscal challenges. Permanently extending the cuts would benefit households in the top 1 percent more than twice as much as those in the bottom 60 percent as a share of their incomes — providing a roughly $41,000 annual tax cut for the top 1 percent compared to $500 for households in the bottom 60 percent, on average — at a cost of around $300 billion per year. This would be on top of the large benefits high-income households will continue to receive from the 2017 tax law’s permanent provisions.
Third, instead of doubling down on the failed trickle-down path of the Bush and Trump tax cuts, policymakers should set a new course by partially reversing the 2017 law’s flawed corporate tax cut, strengthening its international tax provisions, and reconsidering the tax code’s large tax breaks for high-income and high-wealth households. Doing so would make the tax code more progressive and raise substantial revenues that could be used to address the nation’s long-term fiscal challenges and pay for important policy priorities. This approach stands in stark contrast to the House Republican debt limit bill, which would force deep cuts in a host of national priorities; leave more people hungry, homeless, and without health coverage; and make it easier for wealthy people to cheat on their taxes.[1]
|
|
|
Post by Lurkingpea on Apr 11, 2024 1:01:34 GMT
Apparently she has me on ignore because she is ignoring the Washington Fact Check article. 😀 No, I think she just ignores facts in general that don't fit her narrative. She ignored facts that I posted, too. And she falsely claimed that Lucy and I said tax cuts are only going to help the rich. Neither of us actually said that. Which is why it is pointless to debate her. I imagine she is on an all caps rant just like her dear leader. She is every bit as delusional and idiotic as he is.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Apr 11, 2024 1:09:26 GMT
Please show me where Lucy or I said that. What did I post regarding taxes that is not factual? FACT - The top 1% benefitted the most from Trump's tax cuts and have the most to gain with an extension or lose, if Democrats win control of the White House and Congress www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-2017-trump-tax-law-was-skewed-to-the-rich-expensive-and-failed-to-deliverWas skewed to the rich. Households with incomes in the top 1 percent will receive an average tax cut of more than $60,000 in 2025, compared to an average tax cut of less than $500 for households in the bottom 60 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center (TPC).[1] As a share of after-tax income, tax cuts at the top — for both households in the top 1 percent and the top 5 percent — are more than triple the total value of the tax cuts received for people with incomes in the bottom 60 percent.[2]Lucy said: By promising a bunch of billionaires he’d lower THEIR taxes again. You linked a headline that says: Trump tells billionaires he'll keep THEIR taxes low at $50 million fundraising gala So, if you accept that Trump’s 2017 tax cut reduced income tax rates FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, including top earners and most lower-income workers, that he wants to keep basically everyone's taxes low, why are you trying to push that as a bad thing? Because billionaires should not have their taxes lowered more than working class people do. When our country was at its most productive during the post-war era, the very wealthy paid progressive tax rates of up to 90% on their highest bracket. That’s how we funded infrastructure, education, and a variety of other things that are now crumbling because Reagan pushed trickle-down economics and Republicans have fallen in like with that for the last 40+ years.
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Apr 11, 2024 3:15:16 GMT
Are you reading anything that we've posted? I'm starting to feel like a broken record. Maybe I need to bold the words and make them bigger. The Trump tax cuts are a bad thing because they benefitted the top 1% the most, disproportionate to the majority of Americans, the bottom 95%. It was a regressive tax cut, exacerbating income inequality. And the tax cuts came at a great cost, contributing significantly to the national debt.
Trickle down economics is a massive failure, it's time to stop widening the wealth gap. www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/after-decades-of-costly-regressive-and-ineffective-tax-cuts-a-new-course-isFirst, tax cuts enacted in the last 25 years — namely, the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President Bush, most of which were made permanent in 2012, and those enacted in 2017 under President Trump — gave windfall tax cuts to households in the top 1 percent and large corporations, exacerbating income and wealth inequality. These tax cuts cost significant federal revenue, adding to the federal debt and limiting our ability to invest in policies that broaden opportunity and contribute to shared prosperity.
Second, extending the Trump tax cuts that expire at the end of 2025 would continue to mostly benefit the well-off and, if not paid for, would add considerably to the nation’s long-term fiscal challenges. Permanently extending the cuts would benefit households in the top 1 percent more than twice as much as those in the bottom 60 percent as a share of their incomes — providing a roughly $41,000 annual tax cut for the top 1 percent compared to $500 for households in the bottom 60 percent, on average — at a cost of around $300 billion per year. This would be on top of the large benefits high-income households will continue to receive from the 2017 tax law’s permanent provisions.
Third, instead of doubling down on the failed trickle-down path of the Bush and Trump tax cuts, policymakers should set a new course by partially reversing the 2017 law’s flawed corporate tax cut, strengthening its international tax provisions, and reconsidering the tax code’s large tax breaks for high-income and high-wealth households. Doing so would make the tax code more progressive and raise substantial revenues that could be used to address the nation’s long-term fiscal challenges and pay for important policy priorities. This approach stands in stark contrast to the House Republican debt limit bill, which would force deep cuts in a host of national priorities; leave more people hungry, homeless, and without health coverage; and make it easier for wealthy people to cheat on their taxes.[1]Yes, I'm reading it and it's bullshit. "Income data published by the IRS clearly show that on average all income brackets benefited substantially from the Republicans’ tax reform law, with the biggest beneficiaries being working and middle-income filers, not the top 1 percent, as so many Democrats have argued. The fact is, Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law did exactly what was promised: It lowered taxes for all income groups, provided the greatest benefits for middle-income households, and spurred economic growth that helped reduce poverty and improve prosperity." The Hill opinion
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Apr 11, 2024 3:24:59 GMT
He sure did.* By promising a bunch of billionaires he’d lower their taxes AGAIN. That’s totally the guy I want running my country. 🙄 *At least, he claims he did. Where's your proof of Trump saying this? There’s video. It’s all over social media. Go find it yourself if you don’t believe me. But I question your news sources if you haven’t seen it already. P.S. an opinion piece in The Hill is not actual evidence of anything.
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Apr 11, 2024 3:36:58 GMT
Where's your proof of Trump saying this? There’s video. It’s all over social media. Go find it yourself if you don’t believe me. But I question your news sources if you haven’t seen it already. P.S. an opinion piece in The Hill is not actual evidence of anything. It has nothing to do with my sources. I've been a little busy lately and have not paid attention to all of the news. Except for the actual evidence they provided in the article.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Apr 11, 2024 3:48:14 GMT
There’s video. It’s all over social media. Go find it yourself if you don’t believe me. But I question your news sources if you haven’t seen it already. P.S. an opinion piece in The Hill is not actual evidence of anything. It has nothing to do with my sources. I've been a little busy lately and have not paid attention to all of the news. Except for the actual evidence they provided in the article. And yet aj2hall has provided you with expert economic analysis that proves otherwise. But let’s go with what the Trump-humper says instead, right?
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Apr 11, 2024 4:34:16 GMT
It has nothing to do with my sources. I've been a little busy lately and have not paid attention to all of the news. Except for the actual evidence they provided in the article. And yet aj2hall has provided you with expert economic analysis that proves otherwise. But let’s go with what the Trump-humper says instead, right? Of course, because an expert is incapable of lying, right? And of course income data published by the IRS that actually shows who benefited would be the actual lie, according to you?
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 11, 2024 4:34:58 GMT
The opinion piece you quoted uses 2017 tax data. The article that I quoted from a non-partisan group is more recent and uses a more recent comprehensive study of the tax cuts. The top 5% of earners benefited disproportionately, 3 times as much as the majority of Americans, the other 95%.
Onelasttime linked a separate fact checking article that concluded the same thing.
But, yes let’s go with the partisan opinion piece that is outdated.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 11, 2024 4:49:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Apr 11, 2024 13:42:01 GMT
1. Your article is ALSO from 2017. 2. "All I can tell you is that no one can make real detailed analysis of the plan yet, because it's not finished," White House budget director Mick Mulvaney said Sunday on CNN's State of the Union." Even your article admits that. "The Tax Policy Center analysts acknowledge having to make some assumptions as they did their review." 3. You're using NPR as your source for "facts". Even someone AT npr says they aren't reliable when covering things about Trump and his administration. From an editor at NPR: "But after a while we started covering Trump in a way that we were trying to damage his presidency, to find anything we could to harm him."
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Apr 11, 2024 13:46:02 GMT
1. Your article is ALSO from 2017. 2. "All I can tell you is that no one can make real detailed analysis of the plan yet, because it's not finished," White House budget director Mick Mulvaney said Sunday on CNN's State of the Union." Even your article admits that. "The Tax Policy Center analysts acknowledge having to make some assumptions as they did their review." 3. You're using NPR as your source for "facts". Even someone AT npr says they aren't reliable when covering things about Trump and his administration. From an editor at NPR: "But after a while we started covering Trump in a way that we were trying to damage his presidency, to find anything we could to harm him." From the nonpartisan CBPP, written last month: www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-2017-trump-tax-law-was-skewed-to-the-rich-expensive-and-failed-to-deliver
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Apr 11, 2024 14:04:11 GMT
I haven't logged in for quite a while, but I still do stop by and read. I'm gonna just put this here, with a link to the article... I have been dealing with this in my 'real' life and have found it is NOT beneficial to keep engaging with someone who does not deal with differences of opinion / facts in a good-faith manner, because it DOES NOT WORK. YMMV. Just food for thought. (And in putting this here, please disregard the 'label' of covert narcissist and focus on the description of the TACTICS.) MedicineNet article on argument tacticsCovert narcissists tend to be passive-aggressive and may use emotional manipulation to win arguments. 6 arguing techniques used by covert narcissists 1) Arguing in bad faith: Covert narcissists will not try to understand the other person’s point of view, and sometimes even deliberately misunderstand others and use cruel words without feeling bad about it. 2) Nonsense and fallacies: They may argue using terms or techniques they don’t really understand, thinking they are being reasonable and rational. Sometimes, the argument may be full of incoherent nonsense or factual errors. 3) Dominates the conversation: Covert narcissists may become aggressive and start to provoke or intimidate you in order to be proven right or have you back down. 4) Lying and denial: Since they will try to win the argument at any cost, they may lie about what happened and deny facts to confuse you, similar to gaslighting. 5) Accusing and projecting: One tactic they may use is to shift attention from themselves to you, blaming you for toxic behavior without acknowledging or addressing their own. 6) Gossiping and slandering: Since narcissists have fragile egos, disagreeing with them can make them perceive you as being unfair or unreasonable. In order to get others on their side, they may lie or gossip about you so that people see you as wrong.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Apr 11, 2024 14:42:47 GMT
3. You're using NPR as your source for "facts". Even someone AT npr says they aren't reliable when covering things about Trump and his administration. From an editor at NPR: "But after a while we started covering Trump in a way that we were trying to damage his presidency, to find anything we could to harm him." I happen to have read that opinion piece about NPR as well. It was published in a right-wing forum started by Bari Weiss. www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trustNews media can falter, no matter their best intentions. Individuals can have differing opinions and views of situations. But when a supposedly experienced, competent, and honest media figure makes a statement like this: ”But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s coverage was notably sparse.” … all bets are off. A reading of the Mueller Report disproves the claim that he found no credible evidence of collusion. This opinion piece is full of OPINIONS, not all of which are supported by the FACTS. It’s not the first time this has happened with your sources.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Apr 11, 2024 16:37:32 GMT
link From Center on Budget & Policy Priorities. - The 2017 Trump Tax Law Was Skewed to the Rich, Expensive, and Failed to Deliver on Its Promises link 8-21-2021 - ProPublica Secret IRS Files Reveal How Much the Ultrawealthy Gained by Shaping Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Tax Cut” by Justin Elliott and Robert Faturechi
link Washington Center - Six years later, more evidence shows the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act benefits U.S. business owners and executives, not average workers link 8-23-2019 ITEP - Updated Estimates from ITEP: Trump Tax Law Still Benefits the Rich No Matter How You Look at It
link. CAP 20 - 3-27-2023 - Tax Cuts Are Primarily Responsible for the Increasing Debt RatioSome light reading.
|
|
miascraps
Full Member
Posts: 379
Jun 26, 2014 15:37:58 GMT
|
Post by miascraps on Apr 11, 2024 16:57:46 GMT
In my inbox this am. Maybe start looking at state and local taxes. www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-irs-income-taxes-who-pays-the-most-and-least/?utm_source=join1440&utm_medium=email&utm_placement=newsletterAmericans think they pay too much in taxes. Here's who pays the most and least to the IRS. By Aimee PicchiUpdated on: April 11, 2024 / 11:47 AM EDT moneywatch Edited By Anne Marie Lee Most Americans think they pay too much in federal income taxes, and about 6 in 10 mistakenly believe middle-income households shoulder the highest tax burden. In fact, only about 18% of adults correctly identified the group facing the highest federal tax burden, which are high-income Americans, according to a January poll from AP-NORC. With less than one week left to file tax returns for 2023, taxes are on the mind of millions of Americans, with many expecting refunds, and others owing money. Only about 27% of taxpayers believe their federal income taxes are fair, with 60% believing their burden is too high, AP-NORC found. In fact, the U.S. tax system is designed to be progressive, meaning that lower-income Americans pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than high-income workers, noted Alex Muresianu, senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, a think tank focused on tax issues. "Raising another dollar from someone who is higher income is not going to be as much of a burden to them as raising another dollar from someone who is lower income," he said. At the same time, there's a push from some lawmakers and policy experts to boost tax rates for the rich, with President Joe Biden proposing to reverse a rate cut on the nation's top earners that was part of the 2017 Tax Cuts & Jobs Act. Under Biden's proposal, the top marginal rate would return to 39.6% from its current level of 37%. In 2021 (the most recent data available), the typical earner paid $14,279 in federal income taxes, with an average tax rate of 14.9%, according to a recent Tax Foundation analysis of IRS data. Federal taxes don't include the payroll tax that covers Social Security and Medicare. But it's the top 50% of earners who contribute almost all of the nation's federal taxes — nearly 98%. The bottom 50%, who individually make below $46,637 annually, account for about 2.3% of the country's tax receipts. Of course, this excludes the impact of other taxes that aren't as progressive, such as state and local sales taxes, which are levied at the same rate on every consumer, regardless of their income level. That means low-income Americans pay a bigger share of their earnings toward sales taxes than higher-earning people. The top 10%, with incomes of at least $169,800, pay about three-quarters of the nation's tax bill, the analysis found. Although most Americans believe the middle class bears the heaviest tax burden, it's actually the top 1% who pay the highest federal tax rate, at 25.9%, the Tax Foundation analysis found. But the average tax rate paid by the top 1% has declined in recent decades, according to the Tax Foundation analysis. For instance, in 2001, the nation's top earners had an effective tax rate of 27.6% — almost two percentage points higher than their current rate. The analysis also found that the top 0.1% of earners, with at least $3.8 million in annual income, pay an effective federal tax rate of 25.7%, which is a hair lower than the 25.9% tax rate for the top 1%. Ultra-wealthy households often have access to tax loopholes and write-offs that aren't available to salaried workers who receive W2s, and much of their income can also stem from capital gains, which has a lower tax rate than earned income. About 6 in 10 Americans said they were bothered by the feeling that corporations and the rich aren't paying their fair share in taxes, Pew Research found last year. That may explain why about two-thirds of those polled said they support higher taxes on the rich.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 11, 2024 18:01:43 GMT
Income taxes are paid on income not on holdings.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Apr 11, 2024 18:04:37 GMT
^^^^^^ I’m sure this article is factually correct. But it misses the mark in that the issue (to me, at least) isn’t what proportion of total taxes paid are paid by the very rich rather than by the middle class. (And please just leave the bottom 50% out of this equation entirely. They should be paying very little or nothing.) Of COURSE most of the tax burden should fall on the wealthiest people.
The issue is that income taxes should be progressive. Instead, they are headed in a more regressive direction. When the country goes far more deeply into debt (approved by the very same guy who assured us he would erase the national debt in his first term) in order to provide much bigger tax breaks to rich people than to middle class and working class people, I have a problem with that.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Apr 11, 2024 19:11:26 GMT
^^^^^^ I’m sure this article is factually correct. But it misses the mark in that the issue (to me, at least) isn’t what proportion of total taxes paid are paid by the very rich rather than by the middle class. (And please just leave the bottom 50% out of this equation entirely. They should be paying very little or nothing.) Of COURSE most of the tax burden should fall on the wealthiest people. The issue is that income taxes should be progressive. Instead, they are headed in a more regressive direction. When the country goes far more deeply into debt (approved by the very same guy who assured us he would erase the national debt in his first term) in order to provide much bigger tax breaks to rich people than to middle class and working class people, I have a problem with that. In states like mine, with no income tax, the property and sales taxes upon which we raise revenue are inherently regressive. I get a giggle every time some middle class right-wing person moves here from Cali and buys a suburban McMansion, thinking their taxes will be lower, and then they end up featured in some story about how they feel duped. Property and sales tax affect the middle class and poor much more heavily than the wealthy. Combine that with a federal system that isn't nearly as progressive as it should be, and other than housing costs, it seems they would have been better off staying in Cali. They certainly don't get the level of service here that you would expect for what we pay in taxes. But the Texas GOP looooooves to harp on about our lack of income tax. They want also to do away with school taxes now, essentially defunding our public schools. Their wealthy donors don't care. They weren't going to use the public schools anyway, AND they're getting an even bigger tax break than they were already.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 11, 2024 21:12:48 GMT
This seems accurate. The last couple of bills where Trump told the Republicans how to vote were not in the country's best interests. me firstOn every issue for Donald Trump it’s not “America first” it’s “me first.”
standing with Trump
Swalwell on CNN on Mike Johnson: "Standing with Trump when it comes to national security means standing with terrorists... standing w/Trump as it relates to Ukraine means standing with Putin, & standing with Trump as it relates to the border means standing with chaos & disorder"
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 11, 2024 21:29:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 11, 2024 21:39:39 GMT
When you don't have to use campaign money to pay legal bills, you can pay for things like ads and campaign offices. This is why how much money President Biden and Trump are raising matters. Biden adcampaign offices
|
|
jayfab
Drama Llama
procastinating
Posts: 5,617
Jun 26, 2014 21:55:15 GMT
|
Post by jayfab on Apr 11, 2024 22:26:50 GMT
Bwahhaahha sure they did. Bwahhaahha I guess you just read headlines. Your news sources and your Democrats lied to you then, and they're lying to you now. Especially when you do exactly as they expect of you and only read the headlines. Um, going by personal experience. No need to read headlines.
|
|