First details emerge of GOP's sweeping tax bill

The Hill ^ | 11/02/2017 | NAOMI JAGODA AND SCOTT WONG

[Brown Deer]

See your still stuck on stupid.

There are indeed, a lot of them here. Maybe Jerry Brown dropped some of his LSD into the water supply.

Hey, Mike Baxter here for Outdoor Man with a special message for our customers in California. Our rockin' earthquake kits have come a long way since the 1970s, unlike your governor. Who for some mysterious reason is still Jerry Brown. You wouldn't drive a car from the '70s unless you're an idiot, but you let old governor moonbeam drive your whole state. That's just weird. Of course our customers in California aren't the only ones who live on a fault line. If you have a family, trust me, you're smack dab on top of one. And people can be even worse than earthquakes. And earthquake does its business, moves on. Doesn't stick around and say, "It's not my fault!" I really should be selling family-preparedness kits. They'd come with aspirin, ear plugs, and plenty of brown liquor. Because unlike California, if your family falls off in the ocean, somebody's gonna bitch, "Not fair, you got to go in first!"

[leakinInTheBlueSea]

Sure... ignore where I point out errors in your statements or methods, throw out an insult or two, then make a new argument or bring out a new source of data. The BEA PCPI estimates from the FRED are a completely
different beast than what you’ve been citing before (Census Bureau estimates based on data from the annual American Community Survey... the ~$65k median household income for CA you originally used). That same data shows CA per capita income for 2015 as $31,587 vs $29,979 for the U.S. as a whole (~5% higher). On the surface, that appears to support your assertions, and if the age/family demographics of every state were statistically identical, it would. However, while the Per capita income of CA is 5% higher than the national average, the mean family size (2010 Census data) is 10% larger in California (3.45) than the national average (3.14). Surely some of that difference is due to California being a younger state, with a corresponding higher percentage of minors under 15 not contributing at all to tax receipts. I fully expect that you will again ignore any salient points I’ve made and respond with a few insults... congrats.

[gleeaikin]

My late father was living in Jersey City in 1998. His house was valued at less than 1/2 of mine in another city but his property taxes were higher. I was shocked.

[EnquiringMind]

I'm far kinder and intelligent than you are

It's a shame, then, that you missed Grammar 101, as you don't sound "far intelligent" than I.

As for my "crap for brains": I do not allow cyber bullies to bother me; if I did I would use the abuse button, citing ad hominem attacks. An anonymous internet bully is, in my mind, a fat, smelly slob who produces spittle in the corners of his mouth when using CAPS to make a point.

[Brown Deer]

The BEA PCPI estimates from the FRED are a completely different beast than what you’ve been citing before...

What I cited before was census data FOR POPULATION, not income! Don't imply anything different, because I stated that several times to you!

What I stated and you cannot dispute, without somehow distorting manipulating data to your preferences, is that California pays about the same per capita in federal taxes, AND that although they only pay the same, the per capita income is significantly higher on average than the rest of the country.

For some reason, you want to filter out certain pieces of data, so that you can make an argument that says differently. Nope, I used the facts, and you are unable to dispute them, without filtering and manipulating data to your liking.

California, the LAWBREAKING SOCIALIST WELFARE state!

[leakinInTheBlueSea]

Either you are a troll, or illiterate. I previously stated the median family income that YOU cited in post 402 was from the CENSUS Bureau estimates based on American Community Survey data (EXACT match for their 2015 estimate). Either you provide the source and page number for that exact figure that YOU quoted and that I have previously requested your source on multiple occasions, or crawl back under your bridge... and please no websites without citations/sources/methods.

[nopardons]

Aaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww...poor widdle baby. You really should get some help for your projection complex and other mental problems.

[nopardons]

It's useless, sadly, to try to educated and/or correct the completely FALSE ideas some posters keep posting.

The only thing that you, I, and others, who know the facts, can do, it to post the info that puts a lie to the crap that the benighted posters keep posting.

I can't wait for all of those posting garbage and delighting in the harm being done to others, get hit by the now still hidden garbage that is most assuredly in this TAX INCREASE proposition.

[Brown Deer]

YOU INDEED ARE THE TROLL, DO NOT ADDRESS ME AGAIN!

[EnquiringMind]

Weak

[nopardons]

Yes, your are.

[TangledUpInBlue]

Well, as we now know, the rate proposed is 12% on cash repatriation. I can say for a fact, my company will not bring any money back at rate that high.

And we’d only be talking about $5 or $10M. Why pay $1M plus just for the privilege of bringing home money that’s already been taxed? We won’t do it.

It’s got to be in the single percentages I think.