Trump’s Tax Plan Is An Act Of Political Domination By The Rich

[homersapien 11,357]

I am curious to see if anyone can defend the elements of Trump's tax proposal discussed below. Is anyone still buying "trickle-down" economics?  How many years of being "trickled on" will it take to convince you it's a self-serving myth? 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-tax-plan-rich_us_59cd6a14e4b05f005d3328cb?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

Trump’s Tax Plan Is An Act Of Political Domination By The Rich

But at least we don’t have to pretend it isn’t.

By Zach Carter

Most Americans suffer from the unfortunate delusion that economic problems are violations of some mathematical order. When recession, severe inflation or other hard times engulf society, it is because the sacred equations have been angered. If we adjust the right variable just so, a set of very important numbers will respond appropriately, and a process of mystical, self-sustaining prosperity will begin. Knowledge of these secret statistical potions is closely guarded, and its practitioners deploy sophisticated abstractions to explain away common-sense calls for reform.

Why do so many people work 60-hour weeks for poverty wages while a few luxuriate in the fabulous returns of interest-bearing assets? Why are the citizens of Puerto Rico threatened by a deadly social collapse while the fruit of the island’s labor is shipped to Wall Street bondholders? The answer surely cannot be that some wealthy members of our society are exercising political power over the lives and incomes of others. We must consider growth, productivity, liquidity, gross domestic product and the debt-to-GDP ratio.

But at the heart of every important economic issue are simple and straightforward power relationships. When you are in debt, someone else has financial power over the ordering of your affairs. Wealth enables rich people to buy their way out of troubles that overwhelm the lives of the poor. For much of our history, the American government granted some people the right to own other people. Economic problems are political problems. They have always been so; they can never be otherwise.

And so in a perverse sense, President Donald Trump’s most recent tax proposal is a great gift to society. It clears away much of the obfuscating hocus-pocus that leaders of both political parties have been busy constructing around our politics over the past 40 years. Trump wants a massive tax cut for the very wealthy. He doesn’t really care how much it costs, or what it will do to the federal budget deficit, or to economic growth or to worker productivity. He isn’t even very picky about how, exactly, taxes for the rich are reduced, so long as they are diminished by a very large amount.

His framework suggests eliminating the estate tax, dramatically slashing corporate taxes, reducing the top rate on individual income taxes, and limiting the levies on special “pass through” accounts ― all perks that generate terrific sums for CEOs and hedge fund managers. If you want to tack on a few hundred dollars for middle-class families, Trump will not raise a fuss.

We could describe this as a complex, disembodied economic idea ― the mathematical inelegance of extreme inequality or the fearful ratios implied by a ballooning deficit. But it is really a simple expression of power. The Trump tax plan is a public demonstration of the political priority the American government has decided to grant to the wealthiest members of our society. It is a clear, unequivocal statement that in America, some citizens are more equal than others. Everything else we can say about the plan with statistics is window-dressing.

The billionaire donors cheering it on don’t need the money. It will not make them wealthier in any meaningful sense. They will buy the same Hermès scarves and Tom Ford sunnies they would have purchased without it. Their yachts will continue to be elegantly contoured and divinely upholstered. Many quite literally cannot use the money Trump wants to offer them. One of the biggest perks in Trump’s proposed framework is the elimination of the estate tax ― a levy that falls not on the millionaires of today, but on the inheritances of their heirs and heiresses. A wealthy individual needs to leave behind over $5 million to trigger the estate tax. For a married couple, the figure is nearly $11 million.

So Trump loves the rich so much he will cut their taxes even when they are dead. And the ultra-rich love Trump’s plan because it is a formal political recognition of their social prestige, an acknowledgement that they carry more weight than others in the political system we still optimistically refer to as a democracy. This is, as they see it, how it should be. It has, after all, been the way of things for decades.

In 2010, billionaire Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman was enraged by President Barack Obama’s suggestion that taxes on private equity and hedge fund managers be increased from 15 percent to 35 percent ― the level that other wealthy people have to pay on their salaries. It was “war,” according to Schwartzman, who likened the plan to “when Hitler invaded Poland.”

Obama settled for 23.8 percent.

“I believe one of the major things people want from politicians is psychic income,” former House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told HuffPost in 2014. “They want to be told that they are wonderful people, that their jobs are important for the human race, that they contribute greatly. Lloyd Blankfein was not really kidding when he said that, ‘We are doing God’s work.’ That’s his inner feeling. I don’t think that the [Dodd-Frank financial reform] legislation really hurt them much, and I think a lot of them, frankly, some of them welcome it because they’re not under competitive pressure to do stupid things — now, nobody can do them. But we really hurt their feelings mightily, particularly the president. You’ve seen that with these ridiculous statements from Steve Schwarzman going on about Nazis.”

Frank was close, but not quite right. Many Wall Streeters did have their feelings hurt when Obama told CBS that he didn’t run for president to protect the paychecks of “fat cat bankers.” But this was because the president’s words implied a political demotion. After years of being celebrated as “Masters of the Universe,” bankers were suddenly threatened with the prospect of becoming ordinary, humdrum members of a democracy; people whose actions might be subject to democratic forms of accountability. It must have been terrifying.

Wall Street’s very public freakout ― a fellow named Anthony Scaramucci implored Obama to stop bashing the “Wall Street piñata,” and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon declared he could now barely tolerate calling himself a Democrat ― obscured the profound degree to which Obama was protecting Wall Street interests.

Obama named a top lobbyist from JPMorgan Chase as his chief of staff. He and his attorney general, Eric Holder, steadfastly refused to prosecute what everyone knew to be widespread criminality on Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis. The Obama foreclosure relief plan became a vehicle for big banks to harvest funds from desperate families through illegal foreclosures. Obama even protected the bonuses at AIG and big banks that received taxpayer bailouts. When vulture fund investors descended on Puerto Rico, forcing the closure of schools and hospitals in the name of debt payments, Obama waved through a half-hearted reform plan that preserved the political priority of bondholders over basic social services.

"We can have a political system that respects its citizens as political equals, or we can have a society dominated by the arbitrary interests of unaccountable wealth. Trump, like Obama before him, has chosen the latter."

These bailouts and bonuses and other protections were not only infuriating because bankers were rich. They divorced socially destructive activity from political accountability. You could enrich yourself by destroying entire communities ― you could even break the law to do it ― and face no meaningful consequences. Members of a democracy, it seemed to many people, ought to be able to protect themselves from such abuses.

And yet studies by respected academics from Princeton, Northwestern University and the University of Connecticut concluded that the concerns of the wealthy dominate the congressional agenda. Some reporters on Capitol Hill noticed the same trend. But the idea has generally been dismissed by Washington officialdom, which prides itself on interpreting the mathematical codes and metaphors that show why simple problems of power are in fact very thorny economic matters.

Paul Ryan, in particular, hypnotized D.C. journalists in the days before he became House speaker with pronouncements about debt and deficits. Ryan’s story conveniently excluded credit default swaps, proprietary trading and other high-risk activity on Wall Street. He warned of an inevitable “debt crisis” just around the corner if America didn’t cut its spending ― particularly on social programs for the poor and elderly.

This wasn’t because he hated the indigent, mind you ― he merely recognized that we now had too many “takers” and not enough “makers” and were nearing a “tipping point.” He even found the magic number: If America’s public debt reached 90 percent of its gross domestic product, we were headed for another 2008, only worse. The figure, based on research from two prominent conservative economists, was eventually discredited by a lowly graduate student who discovered it was the result of a very simple Microsoft Excel error.

Today, as Trump proposes massive tax benefits for the super-rich, the deficit hawks and austerity mongers have fallen strangely silent. The profound ratios and disequilibria that once threatened to dissolve society itself have disappeared now that they are being fueled by tax cuts rather than spending programs.

We can have a political system that respects its citizens as political equals, or we can have a society dominated by the arbitrary interests of unaccountable wealth. Trump, like Obama before him, has chosen the latter. In the not-so-distant past, polities ruled by unaccountable wealth have demonstrated a marked tendency to generate less accountability and an astonishing capacity for statistical deception and logical absurdity.

In 1929, the global economy was in terrible shape. There was a tremendous amount of work to be done ― highways to be built, telephone lines to be wired, electrical grids to be constructed ― yet millions of people were out of work. The British economist John Maynard Keynes co-authored a political pamphlet with a simple solution: The government could hire the unemployed people to do the work. Financiers in the city of London were aghast at the idea, and told the public that it was all much more complicated than Keynes suggested. If the government hired people, after all, it would deprive future generations of the chance to get a job. All of the work would already have been done. Keynes knew he wasn’t proposing anything particularly clever, just trying to knock down silly ideas that people only took seriously because they were delivered by very prestigious people.

“Our main task,” he wrote, “will be to confirm the reader’s instinct that what seems sensible is sensible, and what seems nonsense is nonsense.”

No one in power listened to him then, and there will probably be plenty of Democrats and Republicans in Congress who shrug off critics of the Trump tax plan now. Our government, like those of the Gilded Age, likes to give the wealthy what they want. At least with Trump, we will not mistake a simple act of political domination for the music of the spheres.

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

TLDR....LOL

 

But it most likely will increase my taxes some.............Once I crunched some quick numbers and determined it failed that test therefore I was opposed to it. 

I am all about cutting taxes, but this looks more like give the fat cats a cut, the lower income a cut.....but lets just shift around the middle class taxes. But, I guess that is business as usual with DC. This isn't just a Trump thing, but a political elite thing on both sides of the aisle.

 

I also laugh when people say cutting the corporate rate will pass down to employees, let me go ask for a raise and see if they give me some of that additional tax savings they just got.....I am sure they would love to share. Maybe it helps promote new business, but I doubt it. Most companies can play the code and reduce their taxes anyways.

 

 

[homersapien 11,357]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

TLDR....LOL

 

But it most likely will increase my taxes some.............Once I crunched some quick numbers and determined it failed that test therefore I was opposed to it. 

I am all about cutting taxes, but this looks more like give the fat cats a cut, the lower income a cut.....but lets just shift around the middle class taxes. But, I guess that is business as usual with DC. This isn't just a Trump thing, but a political elite thing on both sides of the aisle.

 

I also laugh when people say cutting the corporate rate will pass down to employees, let me go ask for a raise and see if they give me some of that additional tax savings they just got.....I am sure they would love to share. Maybe it helps promote new business, but I doubt it. Most companies can play the code and reduce their taxes anyways.

Try reading it. It's well written.

It's not a discussion of policy specifics, it's more of a philosophical discussion of our political system.

Actually, it should resonate most highly with the class of people that are the strongest Trump supporters - whites without a college degree ("working class") - as well as most black and latinos.    Ironic, huh?

It's a philosophy the Democratic party would do well to adapt.

[Mims44 1,867]

I think it's a great idea and will help all Americans! Anyone who opposes it is NOT a true American patriot!!!

....wait, I forgot I'm not a multi-millionaire.

 

 

Yeah, it sucks.

"trickle down" only works if the people on top are good people trying to provide better lives for their employees. It's been proven time and again that only a tiny percentage if any actually do that.

[AUDub 11,141]

2 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

I think it's a great idea and will help all Americans! Anyone who opposes it is NOT a true American patriot!!!

....wait, I forgot I'm not a multi-millionaire.

 

 

Yeah, it sucks.

"trickle down" only works if the people on top are good people trying to provide better lives for their employees. It's been proven time and again that only a tiny percentage if any actually do that.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Try reading it. It's well written.

It's not a discussion of policy specifics, it's more of a philosophical discussion of our political system.

Actually, it should resonate most highly with the class of people that are the strongest Trump supporters - whites without a college degree ("working class") - as well as most black and latinos.    Ironic, huh?

It's a philosophy the Democratic party would do well to adapt.

I ended up reading it. Sadly, it is kind of like the MBB scandal........you have to live in a bubble or just so one sided in your mind to not realize that this is going on. 

I liken the political system to the "good cop, bad cop" style. Both parties play it equally well, and coordinate it well. They can both bash each other acting like they are "representing their constituency", but it is more like playing them. While behind close doors all of their bank accounts enjoy the fruits of their labors.

 

[AU64 10,122]

Yep...let's don't change the tax system because the rich might get some sort of  benefit.......therefore let's just keep what we have where the very rich definitely benefit which most people seem to accept without complaint. . 

The easiest way for the super-rich like Buffet and Gates, etc. to maintain their advantage is to stir up jealousy among the middle class about whether someone else might benefit too.    Class envy is the most effective way to sustain the status quo and Dems like Schumer are experts playing the game on behalf of their Wall Street friends and financial supporters. 

And the middle class takes the bait, fights what might benefit them in the misdirected effort to keep someone else from benefiting also. And of course, the economic ignorance of so many Americans makes a good portion of the population easy targets for the class envy arguement..

[homersapien 11,357]

45 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Yep...let's don't change the tax system because the rich might get some sort of  benefit.......therefore let's just keep what we have where the very rich definitely benefit which most people seem to accept without complaint.

I am talking about Trump's tax proposal.  I have no idea what you are talking about.

[HVAU 673]

Trickle Down and Laffer's philosophies haven't really panned out. 

It's my simple opinion that if you want to disperse money throughout the economy you give the tax breaks to those that aren't in a position to stockpile their windfall.  Businesses still benefits from the cash flow and it does the consumer class some good on the way.

But, if the conservatives are really gung-ho about cutting taxes for businesses, maybe consider making the largest tax breaks applicable to companies with under ~250 employees.  

[homersapien 11,357]

On 9/29/2017 at 3:07 PM, AU64 said:

The easiest way for the super-rich like Buffet and Gates, etc. to maintain their advantage is to stir up jealousy among the middle class about whether someone else might benefit too.    Class envy is the most effective way to sustain the status quo and Dems like Schumer are experts playing the game on behalf of their Wall Street friends and financial supporters. 

Actually, Buffet and Gates achieved their "advantage" in a fair and square way and aren't interested in "maintaining" it in any other way than the way they accumulated it.

Actually, I think both of them would more or less agree with the points that are being made in this piece.  I know they have a very negative opinion of eliminating the estate tax (for example) and Buffet often talks about the injustice associated with his tax rate compared to working people like his secretary.

I think you are way off-base in trying to portray this concern with fairness to "class envy".   That's exactly the sort of charge that the oligarchs use to defend the status quo.  

And if you noticed, I said that Democrats need to transform their policy to emphasis fairness.   I agree with you that they have been largely corrupted by the money associated with our political process, but that's a problem with being human and with the power we have allowed money to play in politics.  To that extent, they have abandoned the principles of true liberalism.  Just like conservatives have abandoned most of the values of true conservatism.

But which party would you think is the most likely to improve our system in a positive way?

The Republicans are unabashed about pushing the existing paradigm.  

I think our best hope is for reform candidates to achieve power in all branches of government like the GOP has now.  If a third party emerges that accomplishes that, then great!  But considering our political process, I don't see how that is practically possible unless the Democrats do it it by reforming themselves.  

Republicans are happy where they are. They are the problem.

[homersapien 11,357]

On 9/29/2017 at 3:07 PM, AU64 said:

And the middle class takes the bait, fights what might benefit them in the misdirected effort to keep someone else from benefiting also. And of course, the economic ignorance of so many Americans makes a good portion of the population easy targets for the class envy arguement..

I agree there is a large segment of the middle class who understand the problem - at least in a vague way - and are outraged about it.

What I don't understand is how they can be so gullible and welcome more of the same from the people they should be directing their anger toward, like the Republican party and Trump in particular. 

I can only conclude they are suckered in by the "God, Gays and Guns" campaign strategy.  And it's even stronger when you add the traditional elements of racism/xenophobia and patriotism to the mix. 

Pander to those issues and they'll willingly buy into "trickle down" economics.

[homersapien 11,357]

On 9/29/2017 at 4:06 PM, HVAU said:

Trickle Down and Laffer's philosophies haven't really panned out. 

It's my simple opinion that if you want to disperse money throughout the economy you give the tax breaks to those that aren't in a position to stockpile their windfall.  Businesses still benefits from the cash flow and it does the consumer class some good on the way.

But, if the conservatives are really gung-ho about cutting taxes for businesses, maybe consider making the largest tax breaks applicable to companies with under ~250 employees.  

Exactly.

Tax relief to people who (unfortunately) plow pretty much everything they make back into the economy have much more significant economic stimulation effects than tax breaks to the rich. 

People don't create jobs because they have incrementally more capital from tax breaks, they create jobs when there is enough demand to profit from starting or expanding a business.  Tax breaks to the lower and middle class help to  create that demand and everyone benefits.

That's the "big lie" part of trickle-down economics.  It's totally backwards.

[AU64 10,122]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Actually, Buffet and Gates achieved their "advantage" in a fair and square way and aren't interested in "maintaining" it in any other way than the way the accumulated it.

Actually, I think both of them would more or less agree with the points that are being made in this piece.  I know they have a very negative opinion of eliminating the estate tax (for example) and Buffet often talks about the injustice associated with his tax rate compared to working people like his secretary.

I think you are way off-base in trying to portray this concern with fairness to "class envy".   That's exactly the sort of charge that the oligarchs use to defend the status quo.  

And if you noticed, I said that Democrats need to transform their policy to emphasis fairness.   I agree with you that they have been largely corrupted by the money associated with our political process, but that's a problem with being human and with the power we have allowed money to play in politics.  To that extent, they have abandoned the principles of true liberalism.  Just like conservatives have abandoned most of the values of true conservatism.

But which party would you think is the most likely to improve our system in a positive way?

The Republicans are unabashed about pushing the existing paradigm.  

I think our best hope is for reform candidates to achieve power in all branches of government like the GOP has now.  If a third party emerges that accomplishes that, then great!  But considering our political process, I don't see how that is practically possible unless the Democrats do it it by reforming themselves.  

Never said they didn't earn it fair and square as did most wealthy people. Just noting that they have accountants, and lawyers and lobbyists to assure that the current system stays the same and you can bet that the estates of those gentlemen will not be burdened by estate taxes when they pass away.    They talk change but behind the scenes they are wedded to the current tax system.

[homersapien 11,357]

3 hours ago, AU64 said:

Never said they didn't earn it fair and square as did most wealthy people. Just noting that they have accountants, and lawyers and lobbyists to assure that the current system stays the same and you can bet that the estates of those gentlemen will not be burdened by estate taxes when they pass away.    They talk change but behind the scenes they are wedded to the current tax system.

That's a completely different perspective than the post I was responding to.  

But you are correct on all counts.  And this new law would go even beyond status quo in favoring them.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-won’t-rule-out-tax-hikes-for-some-in-the-middle-class/ar-AAsPSIA?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Republicans Won’t Rule Out Tax Hikes for Some in the Middle Clas

WASHINGTON — President Trump and Republican leaders have positioned their sweeping tax rewrite as a way to cut taxes on the middle class. But some top officials are now saying the plan may not benefit everyone in that income group.

The acknowledgment could complicate the administration’s ability to sell the tax plan, which is already facing questions from Republicans and Democrats over the cost and effect of the ambitious rewrite.

Those questions have gotten more pronounced after an analysis last week by the Tax Policy Center, which found that the plan could cost $2.4 trillion over the next decade, with the biggest benefits flowing to businesses and the wealthiest Americans. The analysis found that nearly 30 percent of those in the middle class could see their taxes increase as a result of changes to the deductions and exemptions many middle-class Americans rely on to lower their tax bills.

The breakdown is based on the framework released by the “Big Six” group of Republican lawmakers and administration officials, which did not include many details that could change the distributional impact, including an increase to the child tax credit and the potential for a higher tax rate on the richest Americans. Yet top officials acknowledged this weekend that a tax cut for everyone in the middle class may not be achievable.

“You can’t make guarantees because every single person’s taxes are different,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in comments to ABC News on Sunday. “People take advantage of different things, so we can’t make that guarantee. But we can say that’s our objective and that’s what we’re working to, and we want to protect the middle class.”

The comments are a break from the 2016 presidential campaign, when Mr. Trump’s advisers promised he would instruct Congress to write a bill that did not increase taxes for any low- or middle-income taxpayers. Stephen Miller, who advised Mr. Trump during the campaign and is now his chief policy adviser, said that “in sending our proposal to the tax-writing committees, we will include instructions to ensure all low- and middle-income households are protected.”

Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin said on Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that while the “purpose of this is to get a middle-class tax cut,” it is impossible to ensure that every middle-class American would see their tax bill go down.

The framework proposes to double the standard deduction for individual taxpayers and increase the child tax credit by an undetermined amount. It would eliminate some personal exemptions and several deductions, including those for state and local taxes and for out-of-pocket medical costs.

The elimination of the state and local tax deduction could adversely affect those in the upper middle class, who tend to make heavy use of the tax break. More than a third of the taxpayers who earn $150,000 to $300,000 could see their taxes go up next year, the Tax Policy Center report stated. The average tax bill for all income groups would decline by $1,600, or 2.1 percent, in 2018, the report said.

A tax plan that does not offer a cut for everyone in the middle class could hurt its chances as Republicans try to pass a bill largely along party lines.

On Monday, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, tweeted a critique of the new analysis:

"This is a GOP tax plan? Possibly 30% of middle class gets a tax hike? I hope the final details are better than this."

Republicans have signaled that they will try to push any tax bill through the Senate reconciliation process, which would make it immune to a Democratic filibuster. That means Republicans can afford only two Senate defections from their ranks if they hope to pass a bill.

Mr. Paul was one of a handful of Republican senators whose public opposition doomed a health care bill that party leaders attempted to pass via reconciliation in September.

“We know that the rich guys are going to be fine,” said Aparna Mathur, a resident scholar in economic policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington. “The real question is what happens at the bottom.”

Without specifying more details, such as the income thresholds for each tax bracket, Republicans cannot rule out tax increases on, for example, a middle-class family of four that incurs high medical costs not covered by insurance. Economists say such a family could end up paying more if the value of the new tax rates and expanded standard deduction falls short of the value of tax breaks the family enjoyed previously.

Party leaders say they are taking steps to protect middle-class families from tax increases.

On Monday, Representative Kevin Brady, Republican of Texas and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, laced into the Tax Policy Center projections, calling them a “work of fiction that Stephen King would have been proud of.” Mr. Brady said that it was impossible to assess the tax plan without details on what income levels would fall into the new tax brackets or the size of the yet to be determined child tax credit.

“They’re just guessing, and guessing poorly,” Mr. Brady said.

But Mr. Brady would not definitively guarantee that no middle-class taxpayers would see their tax bills increase from the final tax legislation.

“I will guarantee that we are going to work hard to lower taxes on every American, increase their paychecks and dramatically simplify the code for them,” he said.

Pressed as to whether some may still face higher tax bills, Mr. Brady added, “I guarantee we are going to improve the lives of every American by driving down taxes and increasing paychecks.”

[homersapien 11,357]

On 9/29/2017 at 7:34 PM, AU64 said:

Never said they didn't earn it fair and square as did most wealthy people. Just noting that they have accountants, and lawyers and lobbyists to assure that the current system stays the same and you can bet that the estates of those gentlemen will not be burdened by estate taxes when they pass away.    They talk change but behind the scenes they are wedded to the current tax system.

While you are generally correct in that the rich have undue political influence, people like Buffet and Gates aren't trying to evade the state tax with lawyers and lobbyists, they favor the estate tax.  They are opposed to eliminating it.   Trump wants to eliminate it because he thinks establishing an oligarchy is a good thing (as long as he's a part of it.)

And they wouldn't be burdened with them at any rate.  The tax is imposed on the heirs to the estate, not the estate owners (who are dead).  And it's not exactly a "burden" considering the first $5.45 million of the estate is exempt (at least at the federal level) and the spouse is exempt from estate taxes, period.

And of course, charities are exempt, which is where the bulk of the estate for people like Buffet and Gates goes.  

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,357]

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-won’t-rule-out-tax-hikes-for-some-in-the-middle-class/ar-AAsPSIA?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Republicans Won’t Rule Out Tax Hikes for Some in the Middle Class

It is impossible to provide a tax cut to the middle class and to the wealthy without increasing the deficit.  That's just common sense.

The argument that the resulting economic stimulus will offset that deficit increase is a blatant lie.  We are about to repeat the mistake of Kansas on a national level.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-won’t-rule-out-tax-hikes-for-some-in-the-middle-class/ar-AAsPSIA?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Republicans Won’t Rule Out Tax Hikes for Some in the Middle Class

 

Like we determined for our own situations. It is pretty obvious from the proposed plan.

 

Maybe they will allow vaseline to be a deduction for the middle class...........  #screwed again. LOL

[autigeremt 6,592]

Just another wasted roll out of something we really need....real tax reform.

Pitiful excuse for a CIC.

[Farmer Brown 2,391]

I actually decided there was no need to even read the article, after seeing the source.

[homersapien 11,357]

19 minutes ago, Farmer Brown said:

I actually decided there was no need to even read the article, after seeing the source.

   I am not surprised.

[Farmer Brown 2,391]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

   I am not surprised.

I was born in the wrong generation.

[homersapien 11,357]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Brown said:

I was born in the wrong generation.

To read something from Huffington Post?  

Hell, I'm over 65 and it didn't hurt me.

Try it. You may be stronger than you think you are.

[Farmer Brown 2,391]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

To read something from Huffington Post?  

Hell, I'm over 65 and it didn't hurt me.

The Liberty Daily would make some of these (whatevers), got to be gender neutral, become Antifa.

[homersapien 11,357]

1 minute ago, Farmer Brown said:

The Liberty Daily would make some of these (whatevers), got to be gender neutral, become Antifa.

Sorry.  That makes no sense to me.