Skip to comments.
The GOP’s hidden 46% tax bracket(pure class envy, stick it to the rich mentality)
Politico ^
| 11-2-2017
| Danny Vitik
Posted on 11/03/2017 9:40:15 AM PDT by mtrott
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
As Rush is right now saying, this is the way Democrats think and operate. I'm honestly disgusted and angry that these Republicans don't have any convictions, much less the courage of, to just say, yes we are cutting taxes on everyone. Also, they don't actually believe in free market capitalism and that tax cuts will spur economic growth sufficient to fund the government without milking the "rich". Nor do they seem to show ANY interest in actually cutting federal spending, which I thought was a hallmark of Republican philosophy. I certainly hope Brady's tricky, hidden ploy is called out and eliminated before Congress votes on a final bill.
1
posted on
11/03/2017 9:40:15 AM PDT
by
mtrott
To: mtrott
We can’t have it both ways, folks. We elected a president who was very much a populist, not a conservative — and who would probably sign half of the items in the Democrat Party’s platform from the 1970s into law.
2
posted on
11/03/2017 9:49:26 AM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
("Tell them to stand!" -- President Trump, 9/23/2017)
To: mtrott
Keep the 20%, should be 20% for all, and scrap the rest.
Not line item veto but almost every part of the tax reform should be a separate bill.
3
posted on
11/03/2017 9:49:34 AM PDT
by
Leep
(Less talk more ACTiON!)
To: mtrott
The GOPe want their corporate tax cuts and need to “pay for” them.
4
posted on
11/03/2017 9:53:42 AM PDT
by
lodi90
To: lodi90
The GOPe want their corporate tax cuts and need to pay for them.
Yes. They've adopted the "all money belongs to the government" attitude that the leftiest of liberals have. They probably think we should be grateful to them if some of us wind up keeping more of our own earnings, like children getting increases in their allowances.
5
posted on
11/03/2017 10:01:43 AM PDT
by
LostInBayport
(When there are more people riding in the cart than there are pulling it, the cart stops moving...)
To: mtrott
The devil is always in the details. If true, this is pretty disturbing. The question is - how do you evaluate the "If true" condition? I would like to see journalists who footnote their claim with cites to locations within a draft document or citation to specific details. This piece is devoid of links or references which would allow the reader to evaluate the truth of the claims.
To: Alberta's Child
Amen. But didn’t we say this during the campaign?
The tax bill is ok, and great in some respects ( business tax). It needs to be passed.
To: Wally_Kalbacken
Here's the fine print:
Heres how it would work: After the first $1 million in taxable income, the government would impose a 6 percent surcharge on every dollar earned, until it made up for the tax benefits that the rich receive from the low tax rate on that first $45,000. That surcharge remains until the government has clawed back the full $12,420 [the new standard deduction], which would occur at about $1.2 million in taxable income.
They're basically reducing/eliminating the standard deduction on taxpayers who earn more than $1 million.
The impact of this change is likely to be negligible. I suspect most people in this income range are smart enough to figure out how to avoid paying even the 39.6% tax, let along the "effective" 45%.
8
posted on
11/03/2017 10:13:03 AM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
("Tell them to stand!" -- President Trump, 9/23/2017)
To: lodi90
“The GOPe want their corporate tax cuts and need to pay for them.”
It HAS to be revenue neutral to the joke of an almost budget they passed last week.
That way they can pass the “tax cut” (LOL) via reconciliation with 50 votes plus Pence in the Senate.
9
posted on
11/03/2017 10:13:18 AM PDT
by
Mariner
(War Criminal #18)
To: theoilpainter
“It needs to be passed.”
Would you be as anxious for its passage if YOUR taxes were going up by several thousand dollars per year?
That’s what is going to happen to several million middle class taxpayers on the coasts. You know, the people that are already supporting the federal government.
10
posted on
11/03/2017 10:16:04 AM PDT
by
Mariner
(War Criminal #18)
To: Mariner
My taxes will go up. I live in CA and pay substantial state taxes.
But good policy is good policy. There is no reason why the rest of American should subsidize CA.
To: theoilpainter
You mean all those people with government jobs that create the appearance of blue states paying more in taxes than red states?
12
posted on
11/03/2017 10:25:02 AM PDT
by
Codeflier
(Thank you for speaking truth to power President Trump)
To: theoilpainter
“There is no reason why the rest of American should subsidize CA.”
That’s Stockholm Syndrome.
CA Taxpayers pay more federal income tax than any other state, both in total and per capita.
Additionally, the CA taxpayer sends more money to DC than comes back from DC in Federal expenditures of any and every kind. The same can be said of New York and New Jersey.
These three states subsidize most of the other, red states.
Edify yourself. And quit feeling guilty for getting raped.
13
posted on
11/03/2017 10:26:17 AM PDT
by
Mariner
(War Criminal #18)
To: mtrott
Terribly unfair and destructive. Many small business owners are targeted with this bracket. These people create jobs, yet this high tax rate, combined with Obamacare, legal liabilities, enormous state and local taxes, plus normal economic risk remove any incentive to invest, grow and hire.
14
posted on
11/03/2017 10:26:20 AM PDT
by
BetJay
To: theoilpainter
There is no reason why the rest of American should subsidize CA.
There might, MIGHT, be a silver lining for those of us in Taxachusetts/Massataxes.
There is going to be a ballot question next year to amend the state constitution to create a progressive income tax (it failed the last four tries). They are selling it as a "millionaire's tax", but once it is enacted it can easily be adjusted to tax the middle class. Maybe the loss of deducting state taxes on the federal form will prompt the voters to put the kibosh on yet another state tax increase.
And if they don't, I agree with your point: why should the rest of America subsidize Massachusetts voters who tax themselves to death?
15
posted on
11/03/2017 10:28:15 AM PDT
by
LostInBayport
(When there are more people riding in the cart than there are pulling it, the cart stops moving...)
To: mtrott
If you're going to tax us by percentage, tax by one percentage and make sure everyone pays that amount.
20% of the rich and 20% of the poor. Right now you have the top 5% earners paying 80% of the tax, and that's simply discrimination.
16
posted on
11/03/2017 10:33:34 AM PDT
by
TexasGunLover
("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
To: Codeflier
Taxes are very high in CA. Trust me. They are high because CA is a failed state. Why should the rest of you pay for it?
If Blue state voters want to be governed by Dems, let them pay for it.
To: Alberta's Child
The people elected him, not the Chamber of Commerce. There’s nothing left to conserve, the baby boomers gave it all away.
Now it’s time for a strong does of pragmatic nationalism.
To: mtrott
As a strict purist, Rush is of course correct. But how about we get the tax code onto first base before we start railing against it and hope the follow-up tax bill is smaller and makes philosophical changes as well.
This tax plan isn’t great, but it is workable in the sense that there will be modifications made. My fear is that, like repeal of Obamcare, everyone will get all knotted up and nothing will happen — again.
19
posted on
11/03/2017 10:43:46 AM PDT
by
Obadiah
To: theoilpainter
CA is already a huge net payor of federal taxes. This just increases the amount we subsidize everyone else.
20
posted on
11/03/2017 10:44:49 AM PDT
by
socalgop
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson