For those who want to pay more, there is NOTHING stopping you.
Ronnie '88
Exactly. Anything coming from the CBPP should be taken with a huge grain of salt due to their obvious political bias.PeekingDuck said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_on_Budget_and_Policy_Priorities
Umm - - quit posting links with no commentary. It's rude, and against this site's policy. Thanks.KillerAg21 said:
https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Edwards-Testimony.pdf
KillerAg21 said:
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-2017-trump-tax-law-was-skewed-to-the-rich-expensive-and-failed-to-deliver
I think he was referring to the Soros-backed progressive editorializing in your first link.KillerAg21 said:
How is it left leaning if the committee is Republican led?
Also the TLDR is the summary which directly opposes your interpretation of it.
Actually, don't. Just don't post on this board if all you want to do is troll (which appears to be the way you roll given your football posting history).I bleed maroon said:I think he was referring to the Soros-backed progressive editorializing in your first link.KillerAg21 said:
How is it left leaning if the committee is Republican led?
Also the TLDR is the summary which directly opposes your interpretation of it.
Try harder.
The Republicans are about as trustworthy as the Democrats when it comes to spending so I don't really care if they led this committee. Considering all that we now know about how incompetent and corrupt our government is I trust absolutely nothing generated by any Congressional committee or organization. Everything they put out should be suspect and considered wrong until it's validated by people wholly unrelated and with zero ties to the government.KillerAg21 said:
Here is an article from the Ways and Means Committee on the long term effect of this tax reform. Which by the way is a Republican led committee.
https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Edwards-Testimony.pdf
Don't care. Until the government decides to cut spending then either let me hold more of my money, or make more people pay tax and have skin in the game. Congress never considers both halves of the equation so cry me a river until they do.Quote:
The Primary Effect of the Law: Decimated Federal Revenue
As they should be since they pay all of the tax in this country. Why should someone who pays nothing in tax get some kind of benefit from tax cuts?Quote:
The Primary Beneficiaries of the Law: Highest Income Americans
This entire point lamented lost revenue from tax cuts without once mentioning our out-of-control spending. And then had the gall to piss and moan that these tax cuts prevented new welfare programs from being created!!Quote:
Key Point 2: The Opportunity Cost of Failed Tax Policy is Significant
LOL! Then cut spending. Debt to GDP ratio is now pushing 125% which is terrible and unsustainable and there is zero talk of cutting spending...only whining about not having enough tax revenue.Quote:
Key Point 3: The Accumulating Budgetary Cost of Failed Tax Policy is Significant
The federal government is not adequately funded, and tax policy cannot avoid blame. It is failing to fulfill its fundamental purpose.
Several members of Congress past and future have warned that debt as a percentage of GDP could augur "the end of the Republic" its situation is so dire.xx Yet, the past 25 years have seen a historic decline in federal revenues.
! Donald Trump now claims he will "get SALT back" if elected president. That is the previously unlimited state and local tax deduction that he capped at $10,000 in his 2017 tax law. Most Republicans oppose reinstating SALT and have attacked Democrats for wanting to bring it back. pic.twitter.com/Gd4iOfUfNF
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) September 17, 2024
themissinglink said:
More brain dead handouts on the campaign trail.! Donald Trump now claims he will "get SALT back" if elected president. That is the previously unlimited state and local tax deduction that he capped at $10,000 in his 2017 tax law. Most Republicans oppose reinstating SALT and have attacked Democrats for wanting to bring it back. pic.twitter.com/Gd4iOfUfNF
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) September 17, 2024
dallasiteinsa02 said:
I want a standard deduction and no other deductions. Make it an amount that covers the true poverty level and that is it. Stop using the tax code to encourage behavior.
While I conceptually agree with you, the tax code's current purpose, outside of raising revenue, is to encourage (or discourage) behavior. The very things people appreciate about it (i.e. encouraging home ownership via property tax and mortgage interest deduction) are politically driven. Tax deductibility of 401 (k) contributions, per child tax credits, etc. are also behaviorally driven. I'm generally OK with this, and finding the right balance is inherently part of our political process.dallasiteinsa02 said:
I want a standard deduction and no other deductions. Make it an amount that covers the true poverty level and that is it. Stop using the tax code to encourage behavior.
Campaigning on things you can actually get done is a sure-fire way to lose, because it doesn't play into the fears of the voters nearly enough. You have to tap into people's fears.I bleed maroon said:While I conceptually agree with you, the tax code's current purpose, outside of raising revenue, is to encourage (or discourage) behavior. The very things people appreciate about it (i.e. encouraging home ownership via property tax and mortgage interest deduction) are politically driven. Tax deductibility of 401 (k) contributions, per child tax credits, etc. are also behaviorally driven. I'm generally OK with this, and finding the right balance is inherently part of our political process.dallasiteinsa02 said:
I want a standard deduction and no other deductions. Make it an amount that covers the true poverty level and that is it. Stop using the tax code to encourage behavior.
If, say, we replaced all taxes with a national sales tax or flat income tax, people would want another method to continue to advantage certain behaviors, and elect politicians who promote their priorities, which would lead us to another layer of deductions, credits, and exceptions. I think the best we are left with is to tinker around the margins of the current tax code to achieve the intended societal impact. I acknowledge that it's messy, and not sound conceptually, but we live in the real world.
I actually have long believed in a concept known as the negative income tax from a conceptual standpoint, but believe it's too different from the current method to be widely accepted. And also, it would likely be tinkered with, which would dilute its' theoretical positive influence.
I'm not sure what point you're making, here? Clearly, fear is a powerful motivator, in elections and other decisions. But how are you applying it to the tax code being currently constructed to influence behavior?94chem said:Campaigning on things you can actually get done is a sure-fire way to lose, because it doesn't play into the fears of the voters nearly enough. You have to tap into people's fears.I bleed maroon said:While I conceptually agree with you, the tax code's current purpose, outside of raising revenue, is to encourage (or discourage) behavior. The very things people appreciate about it (i.e. encouraging home ownership via property tax and mortgage interest deduction) are politically driven. Tax deductibility of 401 (k) contributions, per child tax credits, etc. are also behaviorally driven. I'm generally OK with this, and finding the right balance is inherently part of our political process.dallasiteinsa02 said:
I want a standard deduction and no other deductions. Make it an amount that covers the true poverty level and that is it. Stop using the tax code to encourage behavior.
If, say, we replaced all taxes with a national sales tax or flat income tax, people would want another method to continue to advantage certain behaviors, and elect politicians who promote their priorities, which would lead us to another layer of deductions, credits, and exceptions. I think the best we are left with is to tinker around the margins of the current tax code to achieve the intended societal impact. I acknowledge that it's messy, and not sound conceptually, but we live in the real world.
I actually have long believed in a concept known as the negative income tax from a conceptual standpoint, but believe it's too different from the current method to be widely accepted. And also, it would likely be tinkered with, which would dilute its' theoretical positive influence.