Why cut taxes?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Our CEO sent out an email today saying that ~145K employees will be getting a $1,000 bonus by the end of the year because of the tax cuts. I don't get one.

Dude, that is a ripoff. You deserve your handout!

[Moliere]

The rich deserve to keep more of their money! The poor things.

From the WSJ:

If only there were a way for the bottom 50% to vote people into office that would represent them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Addison]

Our CEO sent out an email today saying that ~145K employees will be getting a $1,000 bonus by the end of the year because of the tax cuts. I don't get one.

[beefytee]

The rich deserve to keep more of their money! The poor things.

From the WSJ:

How does actual income level look for these?

I'm just wondering what is causing the difference. Is the Bottom 50% income still going up, just not as fast as the Top 1%?

It is a problem either way. I'm just curious.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The rich deserve to keep more of their money! The poor things.

From the WSJ:

[creekster]

Clint Eastwood is a Russian Hacker!?!

I tell you, no one is safe.

[Uncle Ted]

Just FTR, that is not really Clint Eastwood. Lest some be vexed and annoyed.

Clint Eastwood is a Russian Hacker!?!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Just FTR, that is not really Clint Eastwood. Lest some be vexed and annoyed.

More fake news from Uncle Ted.

[creekster]

Apparently Clint doesn't care that he is paying more taxes (and people will die)...

Embedded Tweet

Just FTR, that is not really Clint Eastwood. Lest some be vexed and annoyed.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Apparently Clint doesn't care that he is paying more taxes (and people will die)...

Embedded Tweet

Bar none!

[Uncle Ted]

Apparently Clint doesn't care that he is paying more taxes (and people will die)...

Embedded Tweet

[creekster]

There are lots of tax breaks like that. I'm not sure what you point is. I would like to see a much simpler tax code that eliminates breaks that favor few.



Entitlements typically means SS/Medicare and federal employee pensions, i.e. benefits that are required to be paid in the future by law. Discretionary spending is year to year budget and appropriations. Definitions aside, I agree with you point completely. Non-defense discretionary spending is complained about far too much for its influence on our fiscal crisis. From foreign aid to food stamps to the Dept of Education, these aren't the things that are bankrupting us. We should obviously strive to make non-defense discretionary spending more efficient, but any talk of solving the budget crisis without defense and entitlement spending is empty. I hate the term grand bargain, but that's what it is going to take. A group of people from both sides that agree to real reform in entitlements coupled with a real reduction in defense spending. Only when both sides feel like they lost are we going to win.

In general I agree with this. Even though I agree with some fo Trump's foreign policy changes (as discussed elsewhere, a good example was the approach to ISIS which seems to have worked fairly well, even if there had to be some cooperation with those freaking Russians to do it), I generally fear them because we simply cannot afford any more wars or entanglements. We cant even afford the ones we are currently in. We need to retrench and to do so significantly.

[Jeff Lebowski]

There are lots of tax breaks like that. I'm not sure what you point is. I would like to see a much simpler tax code that eliminates breaks that favor few.

In my experience, when people refer to a tax cut as some kind of "handout" it is generally in the context of a cut that seems unfairly biased to a particular group or demographic. Handout is probably the wrong word, but I understand the sentiment.

Of course, it would be impossible to come up with a cut that people universally accept as fair.

[Omaha 680]

What if there is a tax break that only benefits one group?

There are lots of tax breaks like that. I'm not sure what you point is. I would like to see a much simpler tax code that eliminates breaks that favor few.

When Paul Ryan took the house leadership, I watched an interview where he said that the government we basically an army, retirement plan(social security) and a health plan(Medicare).

So all of the barking about entitlements is just that. All of the rest of the budget (and entitlements) was an insignificant amount in the big picture.

So unless Congress is willing to attack military spending, Medicare, or social security, (and they aren't)...nothing of real significance will happen will lowering spending.

Entitlements typically means SS/Medicare and federal employee pensions, i.e. benefits that are required to be paid in the future by law. Discretionary spending is year to year budget and appropriations. Definitions aside, I agree with you point completely. Non-defense discretionary spending is complained about far too much for its influence on our fiscal crisis. From foreign aid to food stamps to the Dept of Education, these aren't the things that are bankrupting us. We should obviously strive to make non-defense discretionary spending more efficient, but any talk of solving the budget crisis without defense and entitlement spending is empty. I hate the term grand bargain, but that's what it is going to take. A group of people from both sides that agree to real reform in entitlements coupled with a real reduction in defense spending. Only when both sides feel like they lost are we going to win.

[Topper]

When Paul Ryan took the house leadership, I watched an interview where he said that the government we basically an army, retirement plan(social security) and a health plan(Medicare).

So all of the barking about entitlements is just that. All of the rest of the budget (and entitlements) was an insignificant amount in the big picture.

So unless Congress is willing to attack military spending, Medicare, or social security, (and they aren't)...nothing of real significance will happen will lowering spending.

This is true. The only remaining area to cut are federal employees but those cuts won't be enough to balance the budget. There is no political will to cut any of these areas.