Countdown Clock to Trumps impeachment " STARTS"

POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Monday, April 14, 2025 23:28
VIEWED: 485499
PAGE 67 of 404

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
Then therez the increasingly emboldened assault victimz. Trump haz at least a dozen that we no about and sertainly many more we hav yet to hear from.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

---

Links?


... oooOO}{OOooo ...

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Global dictators are free to do as they please. Why, because Trump embraces them, and he labels the media as fake. Therefore any reporting on their digressions can be labeled fake as well. Why, because our president says so. It also heightens the danger to the media for reporting negatively about them. Why, because our president won't support them. Get it...

In addition, because of Trump, we have no eyes in those countries due to our state department being gutted. This leaves authoritarians to do as they please without consequence. No one to see it, no one to report on it.

---

At least you see it, Thgrri. I was watching a discussion on that very thing: the State Dept. being carefully and quietly dismantled so as to allow certain dictators free reign. Notice I said certain dictators, although I would not put it past Putin and others from controlling the damage to the degree that there will still be a world left to rule. I'm not sure about Kim in North Korea is in on it (wrong color).

I recall the line from my favorite movie, Robin Hood: Prince John says to a knight of the realm who says that the people aren't complaining too much about a heavy tax upon them, because they are dangling from trees throughout the land: "But not too many, mind, or else we'll have no one left to till our land or pay the tax."
Basically, you can't kill off the peasants or you will kill off the revenue stream.
Just allow the common folk enough to live on and nothing more.

In the last 40-50 years or so, common folk have made headway into the land of plenty. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak all built their empires pretty much from scratch and became powerful and influential men in their own right. They are "new" money. TPTB want desperately to hang on to what they've got and not share it with others. I read somewhere that 2% control 80% of the world's wealth. I remember not too long ago, there was a young man who had skill with fixing and modernizing cars...he is now a multi-millionaire and even started a magazine about his creations. He barely finished high school. It is an idea and ambition that drove him. Those powerful men don't want any more exclusive club members.

Money is a powerful tool, as well as weapon, and these fellows are looking to take complete control. Trump is one of the poorer billionaires, so they got him by the balls. He must do as they say if he wants in on the "club." Think I'm kidding....look around the world and see what's happening. Brexit was just the beginning. Look at Spain, here in the U.S., Venezuela. France, Germany, etc. I could go on. It's happening all over the world. Call it Fake News if you wish to, but it doesn't change the facts as to Real World Events.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I still want more information on the tax plan, but I've been looking at the link that Second gave me here:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/distributional-analysis-ta
x-cuts-and-jobs-act-passed-senate-finance-committee/full

While there's no doubt that the mega-rich are getting tax breaks that they don't need, I don't really see much evidence that the working class is getting screwed. Here's a few passages from this article:

Quote:

---

WINNERS AND LOSERS
The impact of the proposal on individual taxpayers differs depending on
their income sources, demographic and family statuses, and other characteristics that affect eligibility for certain tax benefits.

---

Well... exactly. That's what I was stating and why a claim that the lowest earners would be paying 30% more with no information to back it up was pretty hard to swallow.

Quote:

---

Our estimates of the number of taxpayers that would pay more tax
or less tax than under current law exclude certain minor provisions (listed in tables 4, 5, and 6) for which it is difficult to assign the tax changes to specific taxpayers.

Overall, the excluded provisions represent a net tax increase, so we are overestimating the number of taxpayers that would see a tax cut and underestimating the number of taxpayers that would see a tax increase.
In 2019, 76 percent of taxpayers would receive a tax cut from the included provisions, averaging almost $2,000, and about 9 percent would face an average tax increase of about $2,700 (table 4). In the bottom income quintile, 53 percent would receive a tax cut and 2 percent would face
a tax increase.

---

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that my demographic will be among the 2% that would see a tax increase (single male, no children). That being said, this would only happen if I was to be making a lot more money than I am. If I remain part time at my current pay, I'd be making somewhere in the area of 12-15k in a year. The standard deduction for a single person in 2017 will be $6,350, and the personal exemption will be $4,050. This means that of the first $10,400, none of the money would be taxed, and there would be a 10% tax on the rest of it. (I don't remember what FED tax was the last time I paid it, but it was not in the double digits in the lowest quintile a few years ago when I did).

There's ways to hide some of that money from taxes, such as an HRA health plan as well as IRA/401k as well, so I doubt I'd be paying 10% on any of that.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/10/25/irs-announces
-2017-tax-rates-standard-deductions-exemption-amounts-and-more/#7b0e88057017

Quote:

---

In the middle income quintile, 88 percent would receive a tax cut and 11 percent would face a tax increase. In the top 1 percent of the income distribution, 86 percent would receive a tax cut and 14 percent would face a tax increase.

---

Hrmmmm...

Though I'm not too happy about the idea of the rich getting richer, I'm not really seeing this nightmare scenario that has been painted about the Tax plan for the majority of us who aren't so fortunate. Could somebody please explain to me what the uproar is about?


I would like to add that I have heard whispers that there might be plans to eliminate the Social Security/Medicare tax for up to a certain dollar amount for all Americans of every pay scale.

Now THIS would be huge. Even though I don't pay any federal tax until after $10,400, I have to pay around 9% on every single cent made to a program I've already been told won't be available to me when I retire.

If they were to remove that tax on the first $30,000 everyone earned, that would mean around $3,000 more per year for a lot of Americans RIGHT NOW, and would largely negate any other Federal and State taxes for the lowest income earners of all demographics.



Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Here's my short answer, Trump's disastrous Tax Plan:

https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968

Quote:

---

How It Affects You

The Senate plan would help businesses more than individuals. Through 2027, business taxes would be lower overall. But individual taxes at every income level would increase by 2027. 
Among individuals, it would help higher income families the most. Everyone gets a tax cut in 2019. But in 2021, taxes will increase on those making $30,000 or less. By 2023, costs will rise on everyone who makes less than $40,000 a year. The tax cuts expire in 2025. As a result, all income levels will pay higher taxes in 2017. The tax increases are due to loss of deductions. That's according to the most recent analysis of the Senate plan by the Joint Committee on Taxation.
The Tax Policy Center found that taxpayers earning in the top 1 percent would receive a larger percent tax cut than those in lower income levels. By 2027, those in the lowest 20 percent would pay higher taxes.
The Tax Policy Center estimated the House bill would impose higher taxes on 31 percent of middle-class households in 2027. 
Both plans increase in the standard deduction will benefit 6 million taxpayers. That's 47.5 percent of all tax filers, according to Evercore ISI. But that's not enough to offset lost deductions for many income brackets.
Neither plan helps the lowest-income families. That's because more than 70 million Americans don't make enough to pay taxes. The plans also don't help the third of taxpayers who have incomes that fall below current standard deduction and personal exemptions, according to New York University law professor Lily Batchelder. 
Both plans increase the deficit by almost $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Budget-conscious Republicans have done an about-face. The party fought hard to pass sequestration. In 2011, some members even threatened to default on the debt rather than keep adding to it. Now they say that the tax cuts would boost the economy so much that the additional revenues would offset the tax cuts. They ignore the reasons why Reaganomics would not work today.
Furthermore, some tax breaks, like those for non-child dependents, end in five years. But House leaders admit that a future Congress will probably extend it, thus adding more to the national debt. If it isn't extended, then some middle-income taxpayers will see their taxes rise after 2023.
The Penn Wharton School of Business said the House plan would increase the $20 trillion debt by $2 trillion over its first 10 years. That includes $500 billion in additional interest on the debt. The Wharton study said the House plan would boost growth by 0.4 percent and 0.9 percent in its first 10 years. But it might not improve growth at all in the subsequent 10 years.
Increase in sovereign debt dampens economic growth in the long run. When a country's debt-to-GDP-ratio is more than 100 percent, investors get concerned. They demand higher yields on the nation's bonds, increasing interest rates. Those higher rates slow growth. 
The administration believes in supply-side economics. It says companies will use tax cuts to create jobs. It worked during the Reagan administration because the highest tax rate was 70 percent. According to the Laffer Curve, that's in the prohibitive range. The range occurs at tax levels so high that cuts boost growth enough to offset revenue loss. But trickle-down economics no longer works because the 2017 tax rates are half what they were in the 1980s. 
The most significant tax cuts should go to the middle class who are more likely to spend every dollar they get. The wealthy use tax cuts to save or invest. It helps the stock market bu

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME