The House Bill Would Mean a Tax Hike for Millions of Seniors. Learn More

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 20,638
Registered: ‎11-09-2011

Re: We need a massive upgrade of our infrastructure

Message 1 of 44 (40 Views)

Earning money in America is not possible without our infrastructure and the more you earn, the more benefit you derive from that infrastructure.

 

Republicans since 1980 have short-changed support for infrastructure in order to allow those getting the greatest benefit to pay much less for their use of the infrastructure.

 

Repealing the Reagan taxscam does nothing more than restore the balance between benefits from and support of the infrastructure.

 

Since the Reagan Taxscam, real income for the bottom 99% of Americans has first stagnated and then regressed so workers today have the same real wage as workers did in 1964. Those benefiting from the Taxscam have seen THEIR incomes increase astronomically and it's not JUST the CEOs. People occupying senior management positions today are getting THIRTY TIMES the amounts paid to their counterparts just 37 years ago.

 

That's where the money went that SHOULD have been going to maintain our infrastructure.

Time has come to get that money BACK WHERE IT BELONGS.

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 12,554
Registered: ‎02-28-2008

Re: We need a massive upgrade of our infrastructure

Message 2 of 44 (41 Views)

ChasKy53 wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

 


The purpose for the Trump tax bill (in my mind) is to run a short term deficit (cutting taxes) to let businesses and individuals keep more of THEIR OWN money. Businesses having more money will have the funds to expand and even hire more people (who in turn will pay taxes). People who have more of THEIR OWN money will spend more money providing growth to the businesses they support. Ultimately, as more companies bring their foreign holdings to the U.S., that will contribute to our economy as well as decreasing the debt.

 

So, your entire premise is WRONG.


But small businesses are mostly against this tax plan because they are not big enough to take advantage the vast majority of the tax savings that Trump and the Republicans boast about. So much of your premise is WRONG.


I love this idea of "keeping more of your own money".  Yes but the government will have to run up the defit 1.3 Trillion $ to do it. It would be easier if you just stopped paying your rent instead of not paying for the military or farm subsidies. 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,645
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: We need a massive upgrade of our infrastructure

Message 3 of 44 (43 Views)

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

 


The purpose for the Trump tax bill (in my mind) is to run a short term deficit (cutting taxes) to let businesses and individuals keep more of THEIR OWN money. Businesses having more money will have the funds to expand and even hire more people (who in turn will pay taxes). People who have more of THEIR OWN money will spend more money providing growth to the businesses they support. Ultimately, as more companies bring their foreign holdings to the U.S., that will contribute to our economy as well as decreasing the debt.

 

So, your entire premise is WRONG.


But small businesses are mostly against this tax plan because they are not big enough to take advantage the vast majority of the tax savings that Trump and the Republicans boast about. So much of your premise is WRONG.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,645
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: We need a massive upgrade of our infrastructure

Message 4 of 44 (43 Views)

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

 


I see many of the liberals are quite confused AGAIN. Trump's plan cuts all peoples taxes EXCEPT those paying none right now. I wouldn't ever dream that a liberal would ever understand this concept.


You are wrong. Trump's plan does not cut taxes for all except those that pay none. As usual reality is giving you trouble.


You are wrong again. Show me any income group currently paying income taxes that won't get a reduction in taxes. I don't include special cases that may have current high deductions for some purpose that is being eliminated.

 

As usual, it is difficult for liberals to become less dependent on government.


There are more people in RED states on some kind of government assistance that there are in Blue states so your comment about it being difficult for Liberals  to become less dependent on government is bull.

 

Ask AARP why they stand against this bogus tax proposal. They seem to understand how many people will pay more .............. but you seem grossly uninformed, as usual.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 12,554
Registered: ‎02-28-2008

Re: We need a massive upgrade of our infrastructure

Message 5 of 44 (45 Views)

ChasKy53 wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

CriticalThinking wrote:

I don't understand where NH is on this issue. During the campaign, he said he wanted Trump to reduce the deficit. I advised him Trump is not a republican, he's a big government spender, so we will NOT see deficit reduction during a Trump presidency.


You are again confusing deficit and debt. My concern has always been debt. I would like to see deficits lower or non existent but if the real goal is decreasing the national debt, then it is worth a short term deficit. That HAS and always was my position.


Trump's tax plan will increase the deficit and thus the debt, so according to what you claim, you shouldn't be supporting Trump.


The deficit is only for one year. That is the definition of deficit. Debt is the accumulation of all deficits, positive or negative. Many liberals don't understand this concept at all so are confused by how running a deficit in the short term could actually improve the debt over several years. I support Trump and this is exactly what he's doing.  How many times do I have to explain this to liberals?


Cutting taxes for the wealthy and it resulting in only short term deficit and no debt is a fallacy. Promote it all you want but don't expect rational people to buy it.


The $1.3Trillion they are adding to the deficit is over 10 years and there are no plans to have it repaid (or the existing deficit) in that time. It is not like they are borrowing today and paying it back in a year. 

 

If you liked the sequester, you are going to LOVE the cuts to military spending in the next five years. 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,645
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: We need a massive upgrade of our infrastructure

Message 6 of 44 (48 Views)

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

CriticalThinking wrote:

I don't understand where NH is on this issue. During the campaign, he said he wanted Trump to reduce the deficit. I advised him Trump is not a republican, he's a big government spender, so we will NOT see deficit reduction during a Trump presidency.


You are again confusing deficit and debt. My concern has always been debt. I would like to see deficits lower or non existent but if the real goal is decreasing the national debt, then it is worth a short term deficit. That HAS and always was my position.


Trump's tax plan will increase the deficit and thus the debt, so according to what you claim, you shouldn't be supporting Trump.


The deficit is only for one year. That is the definition of deficit. Debt is the accumulation of all deficits, positive or negative. Many liberals don't understand this concept at all so are confused by how running a deficit in the short term could actually improve the debt over several years. I support Trump and this is exactly what he's doing.  How many times do I have to explain this to liberals?


Cutting taxes for the wealthy and it resulting in only short term deficit and no debt is a fallacy. Promote it all you want but don't expect rational people to buy it.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 12,554
Registered: ‎02-28-2008

Re: We need a massive upgrade of our infrastructure

Message 7 of 44 (52 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

Stock prices reflect the money of the investors, not the companies.


Do you think stock prices indicate business does not have enough money?

Sigh, there is something really disheartening about being required to explain how the capital markets work to conservatives (again).

 

When corporations need money to  expand they could  issue another round  of stock offering. If stock prices are high, this is an inexpensive way of raising capital.  In effect, it signals them that they issue new stock at a high price per share. 

 

Corporate profits are at record highs. Corporate stock prices are at record highs. Corporations have not used their current profits to raise wages or hire new workers, why would they do this with increased money from lower taxes?   In short, Republicans do not understand economics, only how to create deficits

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: We need a massive upgrade of our infrastructure

Message 8 of 44 (60 Views)

MIseker wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

Richva wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

I see many of the liberals are quite confused AGAIN. Trump's plan cuts all peoples taxes EXCEPT those paying none right now. I wouldn't ever dream that a liberal would ever understand this concept.


Does this mean you agree the whole purpose of the Trump Tax Bill is to cut  taxes and raise the deficit?


The purpose for the Trump tax bill (in my mind) is to run a short term deficit (cutting taxes) to let businesses and individuals keep more of THEIR OWN money. Businesses having more money will have the funds to expand and even hire more people (who in turn will pay taxes). People who have more of THEIR OWN money will spend more money providing growth to the businesses they support. Ultimately, as more companies bring their foreign holdings to the U.S., that will contribute to our economy as well as decreasing the debt.

 

So, your entire premise is WRONG.


Do you think stock prices indicate business does not have enough money?


Stock prices reflect the money of the investors, not the companies.

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 8,174
Registered: ‎11-18-2009

Re: We need a massive upgrade of our infrastructure

Message 9 of 44 (67 Views)

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

Richva wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

I see many of the liberals are quite confused AGAIN. Trump's plan cuts all peoples taxes EXCEPT those paying none right now. I wouldn't ever dream that a liberal would ever understand this concept.


Does this mean you agree the whole purpose of the Trump Tax Bill is to cut  taxes and raise the deficit?


The purpose for the Trump tax bill (in my mind) is to run a short term deficit (cutting taxes) to let businesses and individuals keep more of THEIR OWN money. Businesses having more money will have the funds to expand and even hire more people (who in turn will pay taxes). People who have more of THEIR OWN money will spend more money providing growth to the businesses they support. Ultimately, as more companies bring their foreign holdings to the U.S., that will contribute to our economy as well as decreasing the debt.

 

So, your entire premise is WRONG.


Do you think stock prices indicate business does not have enough money?

So it begins.
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 31,631
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: We need a massive upgrade of our infrastructure

Message 10 of 44 (82 Views)

Olderscout66 wrote:

If GOPNRA really wanted to REFORM taxes, they'd eliminate the special treatment of investment income, increasing Federal Revenues by $13.4Trillion over the next decade with 99% of the "contribution" coming from the wealthiest 1%.

 

About the National Debt: President Obama took the deficit from $1.4TRILLION and an economy in shambles that could not sustain a tax increase to a final deficit of $416Billion,  29% of the mess jrbush handed him.  What GOPNRA keeps omitting in their mock fiscal conservatism is the new debt added by Reagan continues to cost $194Billion to service and the debt added by jrbush costs $234Billion to maintain, that's $3.424TRILLION included in the debt increase while Obama was President.


The blame for the financial disaster you like to blame on Bush is of course open to discussion. The push for home ownership whether it could be afforded or not, supported by government money and influence was a major factor. Yes, there are lessons to be learned from that but let's not limit the lessons to partisan divisions.

 

As to investment income - of course look at it but let us not forget that there are benefits given so as to encourage investment which grows the economy and benefits all including the Treasury.