Paul Ryan Believes President Trump will Support Medicare And SS Cuts To Balance Budget

But we're talking about the gov't specifically targeting dissenters to hit with higher taxes. How would a libertarian justify that?

Right libertarians as a monolith seem to find inherent fairness in victors' justice. Same logic that extends from their belief that the guy who got rich (totally by his objective merits and to the detriment of no one) has the right to exploit, union bust, wage suppress, etc.

As long as you delude yourself into thinking everything is meritocratic, ethical dilemmas melt away as tangential and impermanent.
 
Hey - cut medicare and SS but let's make dark money political donations tax deductible -

The tax overhaul bill offers a potentially much bigger loophole – one that political operatives will try to drive right through. It would politicize a different set of tax-exempt groups: 501(c)(3) charity organizations, where donors can take tax deductions for their contributions.


"This is going to create, possibly, tax-deductible electioneering," Franz said. [...]


As originally drafted, the repeal provision applied only to religious organizations. But House Republicans broadened it to apply toall501(c)(3) entities.


So SCOTUS allows unlimited money in elections and now Congress moves to make it tax deductible. I guess Sheldon Adelson, Koch Bros and Mercer spending tens if not hundreds of millions per Presidential cycle want a tax break on it.


LOL its blatant feeding at the troth

Basic tax law says that in order for an expense to be a deduction is has to be spent "with a reasonable intention of making a profit".

This means if you give your wife a whole bunch of cash to follow her hobby it is not deductable.

I guess at least these fat cats are being honest in the pursuit of manipulation the system to line their pockets.
 
Theoretically, and I don't support this, if they really did kill the ACA and wanted to reform medicare they should get rid of the net investment tax on capital gains of 3.8%.
 
Where the heck did you read that??? The system works as deduction from your gross income on both sides. So federal implements it's tax brackets on the 100k as does the provincial. It doesn't calculate one then charges tax on the remainder. Both federal and provincial are deducting income tax on the 100'k from your example

Yes. I overly simplified the mechanics (I mentioned the deduction component earlier and you disliked how i phrased it so I went away from that). In short, your federal system also takes your provincial tax burden into consideration. They don't set the federal system independent from the provincial one.




Yes, federal collects more (from high income earners that actually itemize) by cutting out deductions but it does not handcuff the state from raising taxes on their level to offset. The fear comes from wealth flight in roughly 6 high tax and income states because they just don't want to pay the additional state levies - that's the basis of it, state collects less federal income, but pays out less itemized deductibles, the top 10-15 percent now recieves less back in deductibles (offsetted by whatever gains they get in income reduction) still doesn't prevent states from being able to raise revenue to pay for social programs -- like Canada. Alberta pays a ton into federal taxes, receives no equalization payments, and funds all of its social programs

Unless I'm missing something like states actually get a federal check back from salt deductions?

You keep talking about wealth fleeing fear, which is not what I'm talking about.

Our states don't collect any federal income and they don't get a federal check back from SALT deductions.

We have 2 completely separate tax codes but they pay for the same program. State taxes and federal taxes both pay for the same program. Let's take Medicare, a federal program, States opt in and they pay a percentage while the fed pays another percentage. The state taxes pay for the state portion, the federal taxes pay for the federal portion - but it's the same federal program.

If the fed reduces their contribution, the state will have to pick up the slack with state taxes. Every state has to do this independently. So, State A's need is $100B and the states pay 60% while the fed pays 40% while State B's need is $50B with the same percentage allocation. So when the fed cuts its percentage (40 --> 30%), both states have to cover a greater percentage (60-->70%). Every state that has Medicaid is in the same boat. Every state with a school system is in the same boat. Whenever the fed cuts its percentage to these programs the state has to cover a greater percentage.

Now, because this is done on a national level, the fed isn't just affecting high tax states. Even low tax states will experience the same percentage increase in their financial burden. A state with no income tax will still have to cover a greater percentage of their Medicare costs, their education costs, etc. So, the extra money will have to come from those state residents, even if they don't have state taxes.

Now, normally you get a deduction for state taxes which fund your local portion of the programs and the fed funds their portion by taxing the remainder of your income. With the new proposal, you pay local taxes to cover the state portion of Medicare. But you don't get a deduction for it. You are now paying taxes on the money you spent to fund the state portion of the program. Plus you're still funding the federal portion of the program at a higher rate because you have lost a deduction. However, even though the federal government is taxing more of your money, the fed is cutting the program while you are technically paying more money to them.

This affects every single state the exact same way. Red and Blue. Because they are all partnered with the fed on Medicare, Medicaid, Education, infrastructure, etc. So, every state is going to see it's local costs go up and every resident of every state is going to be paying more in taxes while getting less from the federal government for it.

So, a red state will not want a bunch of people showing up from blue states because it means more people using infrastructure, more people using the school system. And since the fed is paying less money into those programs, all of the red states will have to cover a greater percentage of the programs for a greater number of people. The only person who wins is the fed - they take in more money (the tax revenue that used to be deducted) but contribute less to the system (by cutting their percentage contribution to the programs the revenue is funding).

That's simplified to a large degree.
 
Cool story, previously banned bro.

Why do you keep saying I am a previous ban? It's not true, and it's not an argument of any kind....
tenor.gif
 
Right libertarians as a monolith seem to find inherent fairness in victors' justice. Same logic that extends from their belief that the guy who got rich (totally by his objective merits and to the detriment of no one) has the right to exploit, union bust, wage suppress, etc.

As long as you delude yourself into thinking everything is meritocratic, ethical dilemmas melt away as tangential and impermanent.

That works on an emotional level and answers the question of how people who profess to be right-wing libertarians can support positions that seem so obviously opposed to their principles. But it doesn't justify those positions within their framework. People like Farmer have completely ditched their stated beliefs, revealing that it's just tribalism all the way down. I mean, no one would actually claim that it's good that the gov't tries to harm citizens who don't support their continuing in power, or at least no one would consistently hold that position.

In that sense, Trump's election has been good. Really clarifies what rational Americans are up against.
 
Why do you keep saying I am a previous ban? It's not true, and it's not an argument of any kind....
tenor.gif

Yeah, he said the same thing to me yesterday and I was confused, so I just shrugged it off.
 
We're still at war with three different countries, and not one congressman from that article mentioned anything about it.
Money has been syphoning out of this country to fund these wars for the past two decades.

Wake up America!!!!!
Its as if killing innocent people in foreign countries just doesn't get them off anymore, now they have to work on systematically killing the most vulnerable in our own country.
 
Its as if killing innocent people in foreign countries just doesn't get them off anymore, now they have to work on systematically killing the most vulnerable in our own country.

I lol'd. And then immediately got a sinking feeling in my stomach.
 
Does the GOP care about anyone other then the rich? So much for compassion.
 
Does the GOP care about anyone other then the rich? So much for compassion.

For a lot of them, I don't think it's even about who or what they're for, if you're talking about regular voters. It's what they're against. But what I wonder is how they get to that point, where their political preferences are entirely driven by hatred for half of the country.
 
For a lot of them, I don't think it's even about who or what they're for, if you're talking about regular voters. It's what they're against. But what I wonder is how they get to that point, where their political preferences are entirely driven by hatred for half of the country.

I would put it more on simple selfishness and avarice, as opposed to contempt for the poor. Of course their acre those contemptuous of the poor, like the Paul Ryan wing, but I think for more it's simply a matter of "I know who put me into office."
 
LOL its blatant feeding at the troth

Basic tax law says that in order for an expense to be a deduction is has to be spent "with a reasonable intention of making a profit".

This means if you give your wife a whole bunch of cash to follow her hobby it is not deductable.

I guess at least these fat cats are being honest in the pursuit of manipulation the system to line their pockets.

I have long found it refreshing when plutocrats and boot licking corporate politicians are at least honest about their intentions to legislate exclusively and unrepentantly in their own economic interest.

But I'm starting to realize that I found that refreshing because I just kind of assumed people would give a shit and bury the mother fuckers.
 
LOL Remember Trump was going to go after those elites and eliminate hedge fund loophole, raise taxes on the 1%, rebuild our collapsing infrastructure etc. Instead he's a gilded age let them eat cake elite

Can't wait until 2018 an enormous storm is coming. Democrats are wildly motivated to register their hatred for Trump, moderates are disgusted, and his base is depressed by failure to deliver. I predict both houses of congress go to Democrats.
 
I'm certain the part about getting 60 votes is impossible is true, but my gut says getting 50 will be a heavy lift is true too.

Social security is really popular with a fairly large segment of the GOP voter base. People who are getting social security or close to getting it want to keep it and that's why Republican plans to gut it are always future dated.

hiya kpt018,

yep.

that's why i'm not worried that senior entitlements will be cut or privatized - just like i'm not worried that a woman's right to choose is going to eliminated - the GOP might nibble at the edges, but in four to eight years, the Democrats will just broaden the programs in tiny increments.

my parents are GOP to the core (though i don't consider them conservatives) but they'd flip to Blue before i could hit "post reply" if their entitlements were threatened, just like a huge majority of seniors.

this poll is from 2011, but i'd imagine that the numbers are pretty much the same today;

5dv5zsq94eaigjerc3gleg.gif


in the end, even conservative-tea party-freedom caucus folks discover their inner liberal when the rubber meets the road, though their path to enlightenment can seem confusing at times...

Govnt-Keep-Ur-Hands-of-my-Medicare.jpg


- IGIT
 
...People like Farmer have completely ditched their stated beliefs, revealing that it's just tribalism all the way down...

hello and g'evening Jack,

this, to me, has been the most interesting revelation of the Trump Presidency - really - by far.

a complete abandonment of the righteous moral high ground of the Reagan era.

the total discarding of the debt hawk hysteria that the GOP rank and file mustered against both President Clinton and Obama.

and all of it seems "AOK" to the GOP electorate.

its very incredible to me.

- IGIT
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,651
Messages
55,432,212
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty
Back
Top