PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Mr Pou on November 16, 2017, 06:02:38 AM
-
Some cat named Tom Steyer, so I look him up and he's a democrat hedge fund manager worth $1.6B, and a staunch supporter of Clinton and BHO. Life gets stranger.
-
I'm sorry to say that I don't find that strange or out of the ordinary at all. Just another day.
How many stories do you read about rich people that support trump?
I thought so. Does that mean there aren't any?
-
New reality show coming, “Biggest Sore Loser”.
Hillary is hands down favored to win. Or then again she may actually lose this as well.
-
New reality show coming, “Biggest Sore Loser”.
Hillary is hands down favored to win. Or then again she may actually lose this as well.
She is the poster child for biggest loser. Her snake oil salesman husband was the only reason she rose in the Democrat party.
-
A much as I dislike his Tangerine highness I don't see anything impeachable. His attacks on the press amount to little more than whining, and the POTUS is allowed to take up to the bring of nuclear war. Kennedy got a crapload closer, truth be told. I think Emoluments are something that needs to get worked out by the courts. The only thing that has any hint of bite is obstruction of justice, and I just don't think that dog will hunt, especially in the absence of any clear wrong doing to be covered up.
-
My take on it is that no one in DC swamp wants to delineate the 'misdemeanors' part of impeachment. I'm fairly certain that any competent(or incompetent) fed prosecutor could come up with a case for a misdemeanor arrest of any citizen if they followed them around for even a handful of days. This includes the prez. We all break the law every day. There's no way to live life in the US without breaking some rule, regulation, law, or code. Most of it is admin law, which is not technically a misdemeanor but some of it is criminal code.
So far, all the current presidents men have shown themselves to be as all the other scurrying rats before them. They are all hangers-on, yes-men, sycophants and Trumps' band of idiots is no better or worse than BO, or the Bush or Clinton. All of them are room-temp IQ people who have ingratiated themselves with the movers and shakers. They would all kill their own grandmother for another day pulling the levers of power. It makes me sick.
Impeachment for political reasons is a dangerous minefield. One can be simply incredibly bad at the job(BO) and still get elected. Being bad at the job is almost a per-requisite these days, and those who would make a good exec are the people who don't want the job. But - don't forget that impeachment of the prez carries with it the process that can be used again, and again, and again. All one needs is a willing stooge from the opposition party in a fed court, and a majority in the opposing party HR to kick things off. What goes around comes around - as they say.
-
Impeachment for political reasons is a dangerous minefield.
That is very true, but it is a lesson the Dems never seem to learn, or care about.
-
That is very true, but it is a lesson the Dems never seem to learn, or care about.
Democratic leaders, including Pelosi, are coming out saying that there's no grounds for impeachment. They understand the political risk of going forward with impeachment for the wrong reasons. The new articles of impeachment resolution that was introduced yesterday won't go anywhere like the one submitted before that. Pelosi and the Democratic leadership also understand if they overplay this card they'll end up losing again in the midterms. If the Democrats get a majority in the House and/or Senate after the midterms, we may see more momentum.
-
A much as I dislike his Tangerine highness I don't see anything impeachable. His attacks on the press amount to little more than whining, and the POTUS is allowed to take up to the bring of nuclear war. Kennedy got a crapload closer, truth be told. I think Emoluments are something that needs to get worked out by the courts. The only thing that has any hint of bite is obstruction of justice, and I just don't think that dog will hunt, especially in the absence of any clear wrong doing to be covered up.
When did you become so bigoted based solely on skin color?
-
When did you become so bigoted based solely on skin color?
When its self-induced, which it is in the case of thy slanderous spur-galled puttock.
-
When its self-induced, which it is in the case of thy slanderous spur-galled puttock.
Then you will understand that the reason I couldn't stand our chocolate President had nothing to do with the color of his skin.
Won't you?
-
When its self-induced, which it is in the case of thy slanderous spur-galled puttock.
As I recall, it was BO who as a half-black, half-white chose to self-identify as 'African-American'. Trump is a Caucasian, and has never had a choice.
-
As I recall, it was BO who as a half-black, half-white chose to self-identify as 'African-American'. Trump is a Caucasian, and has never had a choice.
The color of Obama's skin was based on genetics, and a bit on the environment (even the darkest humans can be darkened by UV radiation). Hence it is an inborn trait, i.e. something he could do nothing about. Thy shameless clay-brained devil-incarnate got his tangerine skin from bad tanning spray most likely, though there are a few other potential causes. What there aren't are inborn medical causes, meaning he did it to himself. Hence i won't hesitate to make fun of it, just like I won't hesitate to make fun of his horrible and obviously fake colored hair. Or his enormous girth. These are all things he did to himself, unlike his boundless stupidity, which is likely a product of nature. On the other hand, his boundless arrogance makes the stupidity that much more fun.
I wouldn't make fun of Melania's accent, her English is way better than my Slovakian (and on her that accent is crazy sexy). Actually, I wouldn't make fun of Melania's anything (except perhaps her husband), indeed she is the only thing that convinces me that there's more to The Lone DeRanger than meets the eye.
-
Well, that is an outstanding, and cogent defense of racism if I ever heard one.
Mind if I use it? I'll be sure to attribute it correctly when I do. ;D
-
The perfesser sure has lots of ways to,try and justify his hatred of preppie based on skin color...
And he suppcertainly demeans women in his blatantly sexist and terribly sloppy commentary on the First Lady.
I guess being an academic progressive allows him freedom to be both racist and sexist... because.... because.... ummm,... well, because he’s so deserving.
-
I don't give a rat's assay about the skin color on Super Callous Fragile Ego Extra Braggadocius. I really don't. Its just a lot of fun to make jokes about it. And the way you guys get all riled up! I don't even care about his fake hair or bad ties. What I care about is the fact that the majority what comes out of his big fat gob is untrue. I really dislike violently his autocratic tendencies and am glad we live in a nation of laws. Folks in Russia, Turkey, Venezuela and the Philippines aren't so lucky. And I really, really ,really dislike his utter and complete ineptitude, and his incredible arrogance mistaking his incompetence for "winning".
But Melania is smoking hot.
-
I don't give a rat's assay about the skin color on Super Callous Fragile Ego Extra Braggadocius. I really don't. Its just a lot of fun to make jokes about it. And the way you guys get all riled up! I don't even care about his fake hair or bad ties. What I care about is the fact that the majority what comes out of his big fat gob is untrue. I really dislike violently his autocratic tendencies and am glad we live in a nation of laws. Folks in Russia, Turkey, Venezuela and the Philippines aren't so lucky. And I really, really ,really dislike his utter and complete ineptitude, and his incredible arrogance mistaking his incompetence for "winning".
But Melania is smoking hot.
A damning indictment of Prez Obozo. Well done, Prof!
And yes, Melania is a peach.
-
I think Trump is doing a fine job. Could be better in some respects. I give him a D rating for his communication skills, but all the rest are just fine.
He gets an A+ with a gold star bonus for his ability to piss off liberals so much they resort to violence, and show their true colors.
-
I really dislike violently his autocratic tendencies and am glad we live in a nation of laws. Folks in Russia, Turkey, Venezuela and the Philippines aren't so lucky. And I really, really ,really dislike his utter and complete ineptitude, and his incredible arrogance mistaking his incompetence for "winning".
That's rich considering former president Obama went around openly bragging about his "pen and phone" and ability to bypass Congress after saying on numerous occasions that the Constitution prohibited it.
-
I don't give a rat's assay about the skin color on Super Callous Fragile Ego Extra Braggadocius. I really don't. Its just a lot of fun to make jokes about it. And the way you guys get all riled up! I don't even care about his fake hair or bad ties. What I care about is the fact that the majority what comes out of his big fat gob is untrue. I really dislike violently his autocratic tendencies and am glad we live in a nation of laws. Folks in Russia, Turkey, Venezuela and the Philippines aren't so lucky. And I really, really ,really dislike his utter and complete ineptitude, and his incredible arrogance mistaking his incompetence for "winning".
But Melania is smoking hot.
Every dubious fact Trump spews (and I admit there are some) finds it way into the MSM, including FOX to be hashed and rehashed for weeks. Anything he says that might make some sense ends up on FOX, where liberals never hear it. So it's no wonder liberals think everything he says is untrue. That is all they are fed.
For instance, I read for months in the MSM that the Repbulican tax proposals were going to kill the private IRA, even though Trump was denying it. Guess what? Nothing is happening to the private IRA, as Trump promised, and the press has become silent on that point.
Now, they are busy pointing out all the ways people will be losing tax deductions, while only briefly mentioning that the reason is that the new, higher standard deduction will more than compensate for the lost deductions (in most cases). Yes, people with half million dollar mortgages will lose some of their deduction, but I thought libs hated those folks anyway. Except that the Lib leaders ARE them.
And it REALLY pisses me off that conservatives in high tax states are fighting the GOP tax bill because they will lose their State Tax exemptions. Why should they get a deduction because they choose to elect leaders that tax them into oblivion? Just because those states charge their citizens a high tax, why should my tax dollars go to reimbursing them for part of that tax?
-
Every dubious fact Trump spews (and I admit there are some) finds it way into the MSM, including FOX to be hashed and rehashed for weeks. Anything he says that might make some sense ends up on FOX, where liberals never hear it. So it's no wonder liberals think everything he says is untrue. That is all they are fed.
For instance, I read for months in the MSM that the Repbulican tax proposals were going to kill the private IRA, even though Trump was denying it. Guess what? Nothing is happening to the private IRA, as Trump promised, and the press has become silent on that point.
Now, they are busy pointing out all the ways people will be losing tax deductions, while only briefly mentioning that the reason is that the new, higher standard deduction will more than compensate for the lost deductions (in most cases). Yes, people with half million dollar mortgages will lose some of their deduction, but I thought libs hated those folks anyway. Except that the Lib leaders ARE them.
And it REALLY pisses me off that conservatives in high tax states are fighting the GOP tax bill because they will lose their State Tax exemptions. Why should they get a deduction because they choose to elect leaders that tax them into oblivion? Just because those states charge their citizens a high tax, why should my tax dollars go to reimbursing them for part of that tax?
Conservatives in high tax states are, for all intents and purposes, disenfranchised. They aren't the ones electing the tax and spenders.
-
Conservatives in high tax states are, for all intents and purposes, disenfranchised. They aren't the ones electing the tax and spenders.
True, but they are some of the ones that are trying to defeat tax reform because it infringes on their tax deductions, when their taxes have nothing to do with the rest of the country.
They are perfectly justified in taxing themselves, but they have no right to expect the rest of the country to subsidize those taxes.
-
True, but they are some of the ones that are trying to defeat tax reform because it infringes on their tax deductions, when their taxes have nothing to do with the rest of the country.
They are perfectly justified in taxing themselves, but they have no right to expect the rest of the country to subsidize those taxes.
You think it's right to be forced to pay federal tax based on money you don't get to spend, and is in effect confiscated?
-
There are a whole bunch of taxed on tax income and investment around. The most notorious is the inheritance tax. Once could consider all sales taxes as double taxation as well. You made your money, the feds/state(except a couple) taxed your income, you then spent that money and paid tax on what was left after the feds/state took their cut. Other examples as well, in the investment portfolio and special taxes on certain other income.
-
You think it's right to be forced to pay federal tax based on money you don't get to spend, and is in effect confiscated?
You do get to spend that money. You spend it on the goods and services your State provides you and your fellow State citizens. You benefit from that. I don't. If you don't like it, then vote the taxers out of office, or move. You choose where you want to live.
-
True, but they are some of the ones that are trying to defeat tax reform because it infringes on their tax deductions, when their taxes have nothing to do with the rest of the country.
They are perfectly justified in taxing themselves, but they have no right to expect the rest of the country to subsidize those taxes.
While I have concerns about the tax plan, as a high earner in a stupid high tax state (CA), I am fully supportive of the removal of the State Income Tax deduction, the only possible way more fiscally responsible government is possible in MA, NY, CA and such is for the citizens to suffer the full cost of their stupid leadership and half-baked ideas.
'Gimp
-
True, but they are some of the ones that are trying to defeat tax reform because it infringes on their tax deductions, when their taxes have nothing to do with the rest of the country.
They are perfectly justified in taxing themselves, but they have no right to expect the rest of the country to subsidize those taxes.
Your language, just like the language of Paul Ryan, is the language of the left. Your premise is that the government owns the fruits of our labor, and a deduction ("loophole" to people like you and Ryan) takes from the mouth of FedGov. How twisted.
You aren't subsidizing shit when someone takes a tax deduction to which they are lawfully entitled. Many of us live where the jobs are, and don't have the portability of moving to no-tax states. I've lived in 4 high-tax states, three of which are manufacturing-rich states, and I work for manufacturers.
I'm currently in Wisconsin - in 2013 (last stat I saw) it was the top manufacturing state in the nation, with 795 manufacturing jobs per 10,000 people. Similar results with the rest of the rust belt - Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Kansas.
Wisconsin has been lead by Democrats and Socialists for decades. I was part of the effort to make Wisconsin purple with brief shades of red, with Scott Walker and a Republican legislature. I'm on the tax Committee and Public Policy Committee of professional and statewide manufacturing group. Taxes have been going down, but the ability to turn a rust-belt state into a no-tax or low-tax state is extremely difficult if not impossible.
Maybe I can say federal taxes from our Wisconsin manufacturing jobs are subsidizing the sloth in your state.
I'm sick of Republicans buying into the divisive language of the left, whether it's class envy or tax policy.
-
Taking it a step further, I am in the process of developing several start-ups with a couple friends and we are simply not starting any businesses in CA, choosing nearby NV instead with one in WY due to superior privacy laws there. We won't directly employ anyone here, we won't have offices here, nothing.
Going even further, my partner on one and I will actually move our tax homes to NV as soon as practical to further remove ourselves from the CA burden and opposition to business.
I have literally dozens of friends who have started and run successful businesses who have left or will be leaving CA altogether for NV, AZ, WY and TX (and one to Puerto Rico) - I am not willing to go that far given the unique flying environment I enjoy here, but as soon as practical I will live 6 months and a day NOT in CA.
'Gimp
-
Taking it a step further, I am in the process of developing several start-ups with a couple friends and we are simply not starting any businesses in CA, choosing nearby NV instead with one in WY due to superior privacy laws there. We won't directly employ anyone here, we won't have offices here, nothing.
Going even further, my partner on one and I will actually move our tax homes to NV as soon as practical to further remove ourselves from the CA burden and opposition to business.
I have literally dozens of friends who have started and run successful businesses who have left or will be leaving CA altogether for NV, AZ, WY and TX (and one to Puerto Rico) - I am not willing to go that far given the unique flying environment I enjoy here, but as soon as practical I will live 6 months and a day NOT in CA.
'Gimp
That's awesome. It's a move I would recommend to my clients presuming it's an industry with little employment or need for specialized infrastructure.
It would not work if you were in manufacturing (and employing many workers), at least not in Wyoming. That workforce doesn't exist there.
An educated manufacturing workforce exists in Wisconsin. That's why Taiwanese manufacturing giant Foxconn is building a $10 billion, 20 million square foot manufacturing facility right here in Southeast Wisconsin. (Point of comparison - the Pentagon is 6.5 million square feet.). It will employ 13,000 employees directly, with countless construction, supplier, mining, and infrastructure jobs.
-
That's awesome. It's a move I would recommend to my clients presuming it's an industry with little employment or need for specialized infrastructure.
It would not work if you were in manufacturing (and employing many workers), at least not in Wyoming. That workforce doesn't exist there.
An educated manufacturing workforce exists in Wisconsin. That's why Taiwanese manufacturing giant Foxconn is building a $10 billion, 20 million square foot manufacturing facility right here in Southeast Wisconsin. (Point of comparison - the Pentagon is 6.5 million square feet.). It will employ 13,000 employees directly, with countless construction, supplier, mining, and infrastructure jobs.
None involve new manufacturing, will be sourcing existing product lines or creating private label stuff from existing suppliers (domestic for most, international for one) - there will be zero direct infrastructure or employment in the People's Republic of Kalifornia.
'Gimp
-
I grew up in CA, went to college there, and tried to live and work there for quite a long time. By 1994, I could see the handwriting on the wall, even in mostly conservative Ventura county. I took my investments, and my family and left. It's a small speck in an otherwise large ocean of money, but I had to go. However, CA is still one of the world's largest economies, and although they are shrinking a bit, there's still trillions invested there. Makes me wonder what the next 20 years will bring.
CA is also branching out in their power to control independent destinies. It shocks me how much people are willing to give up to live there, and how many poor people they can support(or can't support, as their budget is in shambles) who do very little productively.
-
Your language, just like the language of Paul Ryan, is the language of the left. Your premise is that the government owns the fruits of our labor, and a deduction ("loophole" to people like you and Ryan) takes from the mouth of FedGov. How twisted.
Sorry, but I stopped reading after this much.
You and I have agreed on almost everything in the past, but I take a different path than you on this one topic, and all of a sudden, I am the Devil incarnate.
I hate to say this Stan, but Fuck You too.
You cannot convince me that high tax States have a right to subsidize their citizens by taking Federal deductions for your State taxes. It might be a legal deduction, but I don't think it should be. That deduction was only added as a mechanism to buy votes. Right out of the progressive playbook. If you want to give your taxes to your State, then great, but you still need to be bound to pay the same Federal Taxes that I do.
-
Sorry, but I stopped reading after this much.
You and I have agreed on almost everything in the past, but I take a different path than you on this one topic, and all of a sudden, I am the Devil incarnate.
I hate to say this Stan, but Fuck You too.
You cannot convince me that high tax States have a right to subsidize their citizens by taking Federal deductions for your State taxes. It might be a legal deduction, but I don't think it should be. That deduction was only added as a mechanism to buy votes. Right out of the progressive playbook. If you want to give your taxes to your State, then great, but you still need to be bound to pay the same Federal Taxes that I do.
So what you're saying is that we all need to pay our "fair share." Hmmm, who's playbook does that come from?
-
Sorry, but I stopped reading after this much.
You and I have agreed on almost everything in the past, but I take a different path than you on this one topic, and all of a sudden, I am the Devil incarnate.
I hate to say this Stan, but Fuck You too.
You cannot convince me that high tax States have a right to subsidize their citizens by taking Federal deductions for your State taxes. It might be a legal deduction, but I don't think it should be. That deduction was only added as a mechanism to buy votes. Right out of the progressive playbook. If you want to give your taxes to your State, then great, but you still need to be bound to pay the same Federal Taxes that I do.
This only affects people in the 100K+ brackets, which also tend to be concentrated in the high tax, high COL states. You know, the ones who are already being killed by the federal rates because they have to demand higher salaries to live in the expensive areas.
-
This only affects people in the 100K+ brackets, which also tend to be concentrated in the high tax, high COL states. You know, the ones who are already being killed by the federal rates because they have to demand higher salaries to live in the expensive areas.
We are all being killed by high Federal rates. But just because some people live in a State that chooses to tax the shit out of them doesn't mean you should pay less tax than those in low tax states.
But thanks for not resorting to name calling and insults.
As for Stan, YES, I do think Federal tax should be fair. Which is completely different than the liberal mantra of everyone paying their "fair share, which has nothing to do with fairness. Let me ask you, Stan, Other than greed, why do you think your State taxes deserve to be deductible on your Federal return?
I could discuss this in further depth, but I don't like the tone the discussion took.
-
We are all being killed by high Federal rates. But just because some people live in a State that chooses to tax the shit out of them doesn't mean you should pay less tax than those in low tax states.
But thanks for not resorting to name calling and insults.
As for Stan, YES, I do think Federal tax should be fair. Which is completely different than the liberal mantra of everyone paying their "fair share, which has nothing to do with fairness. Let me ask you, Stan, Other than greed, why do you think your State taxes deserve to be deductible on your Federal return?
I could discuss this in further depth, but I don't like the tone the discussion took.
The state tax deduction has been in the Code since the inception of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, and was even in the law in 1862 when the Congress tried to impose its first income tax to fund the Civil War.
There is a public policy position that a citizen's income shouldn't be taxed twice. In other words, if the federal government taxed a citizen's disposable income, income confiscated at the state level is no longer available as disposable income, and shouldn't be subject to double taxation.
Further, it's not just one's home state income tax. S Corps and Partnerships that operate in multiple states require their owners to file tax returns in most of those states, or file "composite" returns for the business income. I have two clients that file in 26 and 38 jurisdictions respectively. This is not at all uncommon for manufacturers, wholesalers, or distributors that have "nexus" in multiple states.
These state taxes are not deductible as business expenses on the S or LLC returns. They are treated in all respects as itemized deductions on the S Corp shareholder or LLC member's Schedule A. Those business state income tax payments will be lost deductions in this tax reform, effectively increasing the taxable income on the businesses. And if these businesses are not those eligible for the reduced flow through rate, such as professional service firms, there will be no reduced tax rate to offset the increase in income. It will be a net tax increase for the owners of those businesses.
It's not greed, it's fairness. For 104 years state tax deductions were an integral part of the Tax Code. Now Paul Ryan is calling such things "loopholes", which makes him no different than leftists such as Chuck Schumer and even Republicans choosing to demagogue this issue.
-
The state tax deduction has been in the Code since the inception of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, and was even in the law in 1862 when the Congress tried to impose its first income tax to fund the Civil War.
Longevity of a policy is not a valid argument. If it were, institutions like slavery could be justified. The "it's always been that way" doesn't persuade me.
There is a public policy position that a citizen's income shouldn't be taxed twice. In other words, if the federal government taxed a citizen's disposable income, income confiscated at the state level is no longer available as disposable income, and shouldn't be subject to double taxation.
The result of said policy is that tax payers of low-tax states subsidize the common Federal benefits (such as national defense) of the high-tax state taxpayers. Is that fair?
Also, if there is some public policy against taxing income twice, how to explain taxes on C corporate profits? If there is a way to get money out of a corporation without it being taxed twice, I'd like to know.
Further, it's not just one's home state income tax. S Corps and Partnerships that operate in multiple states require their owners to file tax returns in most of those states, or file "composite" returns for the business income. I have two clients that file in 26 and 38 jurisdictions respectively. This is not at all uncommon for manufacturers, wholesalers, or distributors that have "nexus" in multiple states.
These state taxes are not deductible as business expenses on the S or LLC returns. They are treated in all respects as itemized deductions on the S Corp shareholder or LLC member's Schedule A. Those business state income tax payments will be lost deductions in this tax reform, effectively increasing the taxable income on the businesses. And if these businesses are not those eligible for the reduced flow through rate, such as professional service firms, there will be no reduced tax rate to offset the increase in income. It will be a net tax increase for the owners of those businesses.
It's not greed, it's fairness. For 104 years state tax deductions were an integral part of the Tax Code. Now Paul Ryan is calling such things "loopholes", which makes him no different than leftists such as Chuck Schumer and even Republicans choosing to demagogue this issue.
While I sympathize with those problems, wasn't there a demand for tax rate reductions to somewhat ameliorate any increase in taxes due to loss of the deductions? Certainly the C corporations sound like they are getting some relief by lower tax rates in exchange for the loss of such deductions.
-
Longevity of a policy is not a valid argument. If it were, institutions like slavery could be justified. The "it's always been that way" doesn't persuade me.
The result of said policy is that tax payers of low-tax states subsidize the common Federal benefits (such as national defense) of the high-tax state taxpayers. Is that fair?
Also, if there is some public policy against taxing income twice, how to explain taxes on C corporate profits? If there is a way to get money out of a corporation without it being taxed twice, I'd like to know.
While I sympathize with those problems, wasn't there a demand for tax rate reductions to somewhat ameliorate any increase in taxes due to loss of the deductions? Certainly the C corporations sound like they are getting some relief by lower tax rates in exchange for the loss of such deductions.
Relax, Jim. My first paragraph wasn't an argument. It was a prologue. That's why I wrote in paragraph format. You really need to read the entire post. And your slavery analogy is ridiculous.
I'm unpersuaded about the "subsidized" argument. It is historically and legally inaccurate. While I'm an Anti-Federalist at heart, our tax policy is and has always been designed to transfer power from the States to the Federal Government.
Article I, section 9, of the Constitution: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.”
This clause has been made invalid by the wording of the Sixteenth Amendment.
Sixteenth Amendment revising Article I, section 9, of the Constitution: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
As for fairness, nothing is fair with the Internal Revenue Code. The progressive tax system is the ultimate in unfairness. I'm amused by the adoption by the right of the language of the left when it come to fairness, when the day after Tax Reform passes, it will remain as unfair as it is today. I know of what I speak. I've read the entire House bill.
As for double taxation, again, stop jumping to the extreme. I was speaking about the public policy that supports the state tax deduction for individuals. A C Corporation is a legal fiction, and has its own taxing scheme. There are valid reasons C Corporations exist, despite the cost of double taxation. If you wish to escape the scourge of double taxation, there are means to do so. My rate is $500/hr.
Yes, there is a rate reduction for certain flow through business income. However, the House bill H.R. 1 would not give any preferential rates (and thus tax business profits at the regular ordinary income rates) for businesses performing services in the fields of law, accounting, consulting, engineering, financial services, or performing arts. Sec. 1004. The Senate bills add to the House list: health, architecture, actuarial science, athletics, brokerage services.
The demagogues continue to laughably call this "simplification."
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
Congress continues to fuck up “tax reform.” The proposed Senate bill has a “trigger” that if revenue goals aren’t met, there will be “automatic” tax increases. So regardless of whether lower tax receipts are due to a future recession, war, or whatever, these cowards can stand aside and watch US taxpayers turn over more of their hard earned money. No discussion of automatic SPENDING CUTS.
Not a one of them is acting in our interests. Not a one.
-
Congress continues to fuck up “tax reform.” The proposed Senate bill has a “trigger” that if revenue goals aren’t met, there will be “automatic” tax increases. So regardless of whether lower tax receipts are due to a future recession, war, or whatever, these cowards can stand aside and watch US taxpayers turn over more of their hard earned money. No discussion of automatic SPENDING CUTS.
Not a one of them is acting in our interests. Not a one.
It's going to get shot down in the senate anyway.
-
It's going to get shot down in the senate anyway.
No, this is IN the Senate bill. Amendment brought to you by Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and James Lankford (R-OK). Read S. 1.
Fucktards.
-
No, this is IN the Senate bill. Amendment brought to you by Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and James Lankford (R-OK). Read S. 1.
Fucktards.
What I meant was I foresee this getting voted down at the last minute.
-
What I meant was I foresee this getting voted down at the last minute.
It’s getting legs.
Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) said it was “An ugly necessity for us to get this done.”
Sen. John Kennedy R-LA said on 11/28 that he would “rather drink weed killer” than vote for a bill that increases taxes. The next day, 11/29, he said he was willing to compromise.
Sen. Thom Tillis R-NC said he is not a “hard no” on a tax bill that includes a trigger.
-
It’s getting legs.
Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) said it was “An ugly necessity for us to get this done.”
Sen. John Kennedy R-LA said on 11/28 that he would “rather drink weed killer” than vote for a bill that increases taxes. The next day, 11/29, he said he was willing to compromise.
Sen. Thom Tillis R-NC said he is not a “hard no” on a tax bill that includes a trigger.
A "necessity" pushed by whom? I'd like to grab those guys by their pussies...
-
McCain said he won't vote NO.
-
A "necessity" pushed by whom? I'd like to grab those guys by their pussies...
Yep. So when people are extolling the necessity to pass this pile of crap masquerading as “Tax Reform,” watch what the other hand is doing.
-
Yep. So when people are extolling the necessity to pass this pile of crap masquerading as “Tax Reform,” watch what the other hand is doing.
I don't have to watch it, I can feel it in my pocket.
-
Congress continues to fuck up “tax reform.” The proposed Senate bill has a “trigger” that if revenue goals aren’t met, there will be “automatic” tax increases. So regardless of whether lower tax receipts are due to a future recession, war, or whatever, these cowards can stand aside and watch US taxpayers turn over more of their hard earned money. No discussion of automatic SPENDING CUTS.
Not a one of them is acting in our interests. Not a one.
And by like I don't mean I like it. I like the way you trashed it.
-
The estate tax is the funny one. The Founders put it in themselves, its old. The reasoning was (at the time) that they didn't want landed aristocracies like the ones they left in England. As it is the tax only hits a tiny minority of households. But hey, bring on the Aristocracies! After all, they all contribute to the Republican cause.
-
The estate tax is the funny one. The Founders put it in themselves, its old. The reasoning was (at the time) that they didn't want landed aristocracies like the ones they left in England. As it is the tax only hits a tiny minority of households. But hey, bring on the Aristocracies! After all, they all contribute to the Republican cause.
The Founders were around in 1916? Damn, they aged well.
As for aristocracies, screw you. Who are you to say how much people should be able give to others?
My widower father-in-law died 18 months after he retired in 1998. Back then the estate tax exemption was $625,000, with a top rate of 55%.
He was a professor in the college of education at an Illinois University. His aristocratic estate included a debt-free ranch home on a quarter acre lot, two vehicles, modest life insurance, and a vested balance in the State University Retirement System. The SURS amount was his defined contribution retirement plan. It was also income taxable to his heirs - my wife and her sister.
After massive income tax and estate tax on the sum of those assets, the girls received less than 50% of what he owned. Probably 45% after state income taxes. He made me executor. It was one of the most painful thing I’ve ever done.
I’ve had cash-poor clients have to sell their farm land or businesses just to pay the estate taxes. The estate tax is effectively a forced leveraged buyout of taxpayers assets.
The estate tax is immoral and is designed to enrich the government, not stop aristocracies.
-
Facts keep getting in the way of the perfesser's twisted understanding of history.
-
The communist professor HATES anyone who succeeds, rise above the pack, doesn’t buy his chickenshit, progressive, pablum and dares to speak unapproved opinions.
It’s no wonder he thinks a tax created in 1916 is all about protecting republicans. He has been indoctrinated by professors with as little grasp on truth and reality as himself.
-
The estate tax is the funny one. The Founders put it in themselves, its old. The reasoning was (at the time) that they didn't want landed aristocracies like the ones they left in England. As it is the tax only hits a tiny minority of households. But hey, bring on the Aristocracies! After all, they all contribute to the Republican cause.
Yes, the founders noted that aristocracy was perpetuated by inheritance, but they really didn't follow through on the ideas that people like Franklin suggested, probably because in the end what mattered to them was that the wealth of aristocracies originated by force rather than by dint of their own efforts and fair trade with others.
Here's a 12 minute read on the subject, which notes that there were temporary Federal inheritance taxes prior to 1916 (this from a conservative source):
"Estate Taxes: An Historical Perspective"
http://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/estate-taxes-historical-perspective (http://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/estate-taxes-historical-perspective)
-
What I meant was I foresee this getting voted down at the last minute.
It looks like this provision is out, and that Corker and Flake are also out, but they should have 50 votes in the Senate to pass a bill. Ron Johnson became a yes vote overnight.
With McCain and Collins apparently becoming yes votes, I’m scared to death to see what they gave those two libtards.
-
No one in govt is ever talking about spending reductions. This more than taxes is what will bring down the US.
-
No one in govt is ever talking about spending reductions. This more than taxes is what will bring down the US.
Yep. Scary. This is a SWAMP thing, and even Trump is on board with it. They want to create more government dependency, and spending is how they do it. Both parties.
-
Well you guys must be overjoyed. The steaming pile of excrement posing as a tax reform bill just passed the Senate.
-
Well you guys must be overjoyed. The steaming pile of excrement posing as a tax reform bill just passed the Senate.
I'm not thrilled with the bill. I don't think it's perfect and I would've liked to see the Rubio amendment on child tax credit get passed. That said, this bill is still a step in the right direction. Lowering the corporate tax rate is a good thing since we have one of the highest in the world. I'd like more of Stan's thoughts on why he doesn't like it, though.
What about this bill do you not like? As for the passage of the bill, I'm not interested in hearing anything from liberals about how there were hand written notes in the margins, how there were zero Democrats that voted for it, how legislators had almost no time to read it (which is untrue). After how the Democrats handled the ACA passage, they have zero room to complain about this bill.
-
Well you guys must be overjoyed. The steaming pile of excrement posing as a tax reform bill just passed the Senate.
You are right. I am overjoyed that it passed the Senate and will now go to the House for reconciliation.
I am also overjoyed that ABC had to eat crow because of their fake news story. Libs ate it up and believed every word of the original lie because,
well, just because it looked bad for Trump. That seems to be the new standard for what libs stand for.
At least with Obama, we stood against everything he stood for, because we stood against everything he stood for, not because we hated him.
-
Well you guys must be overjoyed. The steaming pile of excrement posing as a tax reform bill just passed the Senate.
Funny, millions have said the same about Obama's "signature legislation" posing as a health care bill.
-
Funny, millions have said the same about Obama's "signature legislation" posing as a health care bill.
You mean the bill (Afordable Healthcare Act, aka Obamacare) that was so good it had to be passed in the middle of the night using reconciliation? That same bill that no republicans backed it? The same bill that democrats voting on it didn't even bother to read it? The same bill that it's architect stated it had to be done like this because of the stupidity of the American voter?
That bill?
-
You mean the bill (Afordable Healthcare Act, aka Obamacare) that was so good it had to be passed in the middle of the night using reconciliation? That same bill that no republicans backed it? The same bill that democrats voting on it didn't even bother to read it? The same bill that it's architect stated it had to be done like this because of the stupidity of the American voter?
That bill?
No, that's not right. I think it was the one where the Speaker of the House said that it had to be passed so that people could see what was in it.
-
The Senate tax bill includes an end of the personal mandate (also known as the SCOTUSASSFUCK).
"Many experts and health-care groups warn that repeal will destabilize ObamaCare markets, leading to premium increases or insurers simply dropping out of certain areas."
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/362838-senate-gop-repeals-obamacare-mandate
OMG, the IRONY!!!!
-
At least with Obama, we stood against everything he stood for, because we stood against everything he stood for, not because we hated him.
I"m not a fan of blaming the prev admin, but I'm going to steal this and use it as my own. It is just SOOOOO accurate. He was a despicable guy, who could be charming to the ends of the earth. But is policy in office was just horrible and divisive(you didn't build that, they can come, but sit at the back of the bus, if I had a son, etc).
-
No, that's not right. I think it was the one where the Speaker of the House said that it had to be passed so that people could see what was in it.
LOL! I'm sure Nancy Pelosi would like to have that quote back. But what happened then isn't all that much different than the way the latest tax bill has proceeded.
-
LOL! I'm sure Nancy Pelosi would like to have that quote back. But what happened then isn't all that much different than the way the latest tax bill has proceeded.
You are right. The Rs took a page out of the Ds playbook.
btw, welcome back. Haven't heard from you for a while. Hopefully, you and Asechrest will hang around to help keep this place from sounding like an echo chamber. It was getting to the point that we had to start fighting with each other because of lack of viable targets.
-
You are right. The Rs took a page out of the Ds playbook.
Pretty sure the playbook has been written by both sides! ;)
btw, welcome back. Haven't heard from you for a while. Hopefully, you and Asechrest will hang around to help keep this place from sounding like an echo chamber. It was getting to the point that we had to start fighting with each other because of lack of viable targets.
Thanks. Lot of travel over the last few months, read a lot, just haven't posted, maybe just lost interest or suffered from political burnout. Happy to serve as a foil and point out the errors of that vast right-wing conspiracy! ;)
-
Well that was a bust :)
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/06/568818578/democrat-pushes-vote-on-trump-impeachment-dont-expect-it-to-succeed
Texas Democrat Al Green forced a House vote on the impeachment of President Trump Wednesday, but a broad bipartisan majority voted down the effort.
The effort failed on a 364-58 vote, with 4 Democrats voting present. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer sided with Republicans in tabling Green's articles.