Senate bill is looking pretty good for us now....
« prev   poltics

6
7

Senate bill is looking pretty good for us now....

By anonymous following x   2017 Dec 2, 8:39am 2,667 views   134 comments   watch   quote     share    


#poltics All the changes helped my $200k dual income family.... even though we won’t itemized anymore. Losing the SALT deduction and home equity loan interest deduction make it impossible to itemize now... but atleast the lower brackets and ability to get a $2000 tax credit for our child offset any higher taxes due to not being able to itemize.

Hopefully the house passes this thing with minimal changes since the property tax deduction survived. The house bill was horrible for upper middle class earners in blue states. This softens the blow. There’s about a $3000 difference now between the senate and house bills for us.

It’s still stupid all these tax changes and it’s basically a wash for our family all said and done. Just glad we didn’t stretch and buy a really expensive house.... those people in our income level are getting screwed if they can’t combine those interest payments with SALT for a fat deduction.

« First    « Previous     Comments 81 - 120 of 134     Next »     Last »

81   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 2:37pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

HappyGilmore says
Again, so we're clear. You advocate that ones' career opportunities are substantially based on the birth lottery. That is not unusual for Republicans.

I advocate for a merit based system where the best and brightest have the opportunity to get ahead even if they are born into a poor family.



Sure, some people are born to non-wealthy parents. Like Oprah, Michael Jordan, or Steve Jobs? The "best and brightest" have found ways. Schools often offer full rides to those with special talent.

America is a ladder of opportunity, and economic mobility is high as long as you work hard and make the right decisions.

Free loan money to anyone who can sign a FAFSA form is the exact opposite of a meritocracy.
82   Sniper   ignore (8)   2017 Dec 4, 2:45pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

RC2006 says
You forgot to include apartment, food, vacations, party money, and so on which at least triples the cost. How can one just be expect to go to school and study?


Yes, the horror to be expected to learn something in between all the partying. It's so unfair!
83   socal2   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 2:52pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

HappyGilmore says
I advocate for a merit based system where the best and brightest have the opportunity to get ahead even if they are born into a poor family.


Sounds great. But the government doesn't have a great track record of making up for absent fathers and broken homes which is the biggest driver of poverty, crime and ignorance in our country.

The best thing the government could do is to try and reverse the skyrocketing rate of women having children out of wedlock. Abortion, contraception and sex education is more available now than in any time in the history of the human species. Yet more kids than ever are being born to single mothers and poverty. Could it be that our government has incentivized this behavior with well meaning welfare (including student loan) policies?

The cynic in me thinks the Democrats want more poor immigrants and poor kids from broken families for votes and power.
84   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 2:57pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

socal2 says
The cynic in me thinks the Democrats want more poor immigrants and poor kids from broken families for votes and power.


You're not being cynical. Those are just the facts. Lyndon B. Johnson said this himself when he proposed the Great Society initiative when he was supposedly heard saying "I'll Have Those N*****s Voting Democratic for 200 Years" by one of his top aides.

When Government takes the place of the nuclear family, what you get is welfare dependency and a reliable voting bloc.

Just take a look at the Democrat core voting block. Poor blacks and Hispanics are a key part of it.
85   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 3:09pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Sniper says

There you go, median cost in the US is like $9,900 a year. Where's all these big costs.


That's tuition only. Double that for room and board.
86   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 3:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Goran_K says
Sure, some people are born to non-wealthy parents. Like Oprah, Michael Jordan, or Steve Jobs? The "best and brightest" have found ways. Schools often offer full rides to those with special talent.

America is a ladder of opportunity, and economic mobility is high as long as you work hard and make the right decisions.


The exception doesn't prove the rule. That is about as dishonest a sentence as I've ever seen.
87   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 3:14pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

socal2 says
The best thing the government could do is to try and reverse the skyrocketing rate of women having children out of wedlock


I agree. There is a VERY strong correlation between being poor and having out of wedlock children. Let's enact policies that reduce wealth inequality to reduce out of wedlock children.

socal2 says
The cynic in me thinks the Democrats want more poor immigrants and poor kids from broken families for votes and power.


You're not alone, but in reality Dems want fewer poor people. It's Reps who enact policy after policy that creates more poor. Reps want to drive down wages by killing unions. Reps want to enact regressive tax plans.
88   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 3:20pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

HappyGilmore says
The exception doesn't prove the rule.


Exceptions?

The Brookings Institute, which is a left leaning research institute btw went over decades of demographic data and found you only have to do 3 things to not end up perpetually poor in the United States.

1. Graduate high school.
2. Get a job.
3. Get married before children.

Those 3 commonalities universally always lead to people not only NOT being poor, but being solidly middle class in America.
89   Satoshi_Nakamoto   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 4:02pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

HappyGilmore says
You're not alone, but in reality Dems want fewer poor people.


If this was the case they would be strongly against mass immigration of poor people from 3rd world countries. But all we see from donkeys is constant clamouring for sanctuary and amnesty for illegals.
90   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 4:13pm   ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

KimJongUn says
If this was the case they would be strongly against mass immigration of poor people from 3rd world countries. But all we see from donkeys is constant clamouring for sanctuary and amnesty for illegals.


Exactly. Sanctuary Cities actually promote keeping illegals poor, and destitute. They have zero economic mobility, depend on the sanctuary government for basic needs, and if the DNC has it's way, they'll be given the right to vote. DNC playbook 101.
91   anon_3b28c   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 5:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

KimJongUn says
If this was the case they would be strongly against mass immigration of poor people from 3rd world countries. But all we see from donkeys is constant clamouring for sanctuary and amnesty for illegals.


It's telling that you have to misrepresent in order to make an argument. If you had a stronger position, you wouldn't have to.

Dems don't want mass immigration of poor people. Dems want illegals that are here and their children to be treated with respect.
92   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 5:37pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_3b28c says
Dems don't want mass immigration of poor people. Dems want illegals that are here and their children to be treated with respect.

If you don't deport illegal, and set up 'sanctuary' cities where they won't fear to be deported, then first you are obviously in favor of illegal immigration and you are also sending a huge signal for poor people to come there. So you are de facto in favor of mass immigration.
If you think deporting people is a lack of respect, then you are de facto in favor of mass immigration.
93   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 5:41pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_3b28c says
Dems want illegals that are here and their children to be treated with respect.


I think most dems tolerate illegal immigrants because they want cheap landscapers and nannies.
i.e. they want semi slave workers that are cheaper than citizens, and won't complain about how they are treated.
This is hardly a sign of respect.
94   FortWayne   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 5:56pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

It didn’t fail, it saved America in the 80s.
It was known as a great recovery. You should know your history.

HappyGilmore says
BlueSardine says
Libbies take note. :
In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt called for “bold, persistent experimentation” and said: “It is common sense to take a method and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”


Newsflash--trickle down has been tried already. And it failed.
95   Satoshi_Nakamoto   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 6:03pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_3b28c says
It's telling that you have to misrepresent in order to make an argument. If you had a stronger position, you wouldn't have to.


Bullshit: I didn't misrepresent anything. This is exactly how it is: donkeys are in favor in illegal immigration and against immigration enforcement, both on the border itself and inside the country. The first is evident from their opposition to "the wall", the second - from their insistance on sanctuary policies.
96   bob2356   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 5, 5:45am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (3)     quote      

Heraclitusstudent says

If you don't deport illegal, and set up 'sanctuary' cities where they won't fear to be deported, then first you are obviously in favor of illegal immigration


What a crock of shit. Cities don't deport people, immigration is federal law. Sanctuary cities just don't do ICE's job for them.

If you don't stand up and demand people hiring illegals be put in jail then you are obviously in favor of illegal immigration. No jobs, no illegals Where are the raids on the big food processors like tyson and smithfeild since trump has taken office? Where are the raids on the big agri operations? Republican lawmakers fire up the base like you about illegals but constantly block any reform that would be meaningful. You are being played by people who are laughing all the way to the bank at how gullible you are.

Bread and circus. Works every time.
97   bob2356   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 5, 5:49am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

FortWayne says
It didn’t fail, it saved America in the 80s.
It was known as a great recovery. You should know your history.


America was saved in the 80's by cheap oil prices, tripling the number of women in the work force, and 70 million baby boomers moving into the workplace while becoming consumers. You should know your history.
98   anon_8f378   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 5, 7:09am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

KimJongUn says
Bullshit: I didn't misrepresent anything. This is exactly how it is: donkeys are in favor in illegal immigration and against immigration enforcement, both on the border itself and inside the country. The first is evident from their opposition to "the wall", the second - from their insistance on sanctuary policies.


Dems are against boondoggle, huge wastes of money that will do nothing to curb illegal immigration.

Like Bob said--if you want to stop illegals, take away their jobs. Which means throwing a few CEOs in jail that are hiring them. It's very simple and costs almost nothing.
99   HEYYOU   ignore (4)   2017 Dec 5, 12:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Dec. 5 2017, Do we have a tax increase bill yet?
100   Patrick   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 5, 7:27pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_8f378 says
Like Bob said--if you want to stop illegals, take away their jobs. Which means throwing a few CEOs in jail that are hiring them. It's very simple and costs almost nothing.


I agree.

I don't blame illegals as much as I blame their employers. The employers of illegals are the ultimate source of the problem.

We need mandatory prison time for the employers of illegals.
101   errc   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 5, 7:36pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (3)     quote      

Patrick says
anon_8f378 says
Like Bob said--if you want to stop illegals, take away their jobs. Which means throwing a few CEOs in jail that are hiring them. It's very simple and costs almost nothing.


I agree.

I don't blame illegals as much as I blame their employers. The employers of illegals are the ultimate source of the problem.

We need mandatory prison time for the employers of illegals.


Well with Republicans in absolute control of all levels of government, this should be very simple to implement, no?
102   Satoshi_Nakamoto   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 5, 7:37pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_8f378 says
Like Bob said--if you want to stop illegals, take away their jobs. Which means throwing a few CEOs in jail that are hiring them. It's very simple and costs almost nothing.


Rest assured, if this starts to happen, donkeys will pass sanctuary amendment for these fucks too. As in "refuse to enforce the law" (added for the thick in the head anon fucks who take everything literally).
103   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 6, 8:32am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

HappyGilmore says

Newsflash--trickle down has been tried already. And it failed.


Trickle down worked just fine, it just trickled down to China, India, Mexico, etc. due to our free trade policies.
104   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 6, 8:34am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

HappyGilmore says
Again, so we're clear. You advocate that ones' career opportunities are substantially based on the birth lottery. That is not unusual for Republicans.

I advocate for a merit based system where the best and brightest have the opportunity to get ahead even if they are born into a poor family.


There is no birth lottery. That's an excuse socialist use for trying to redistribute other people's wealth, it's what the Soviet Union used as an excuse to implement Communism and it lead to 100,000,000+ dead people in the 20th century. You're literally advocating for death, I advocate for life.

There is a giant capitalist market out there where anyone can make it just fine if they 1) Graduate high school, 2) Get a job, and 3) Don't have kids before marriage. The data proves that's all anyone has to do to make it in America. Just make good sound decisions.
106   anon_4f8fe   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 6, 2:06pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Goran_K says
There is no birth lottery.


OK, then I take full credit for being smarter than you.

FP
107   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 6, 3:47pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Goran_K says

There is no birth lottery. That's an excuse socialist use for trying to redistribute other people's wealth, it's what the Soviet Union used as an excuse to implement Communism and it lead to 100,000,000+ dead people in the 20th century. You're literally advocating for death, I advocate for life.


No, there absolutely is a birth lottery. Anyone who says otherwise is either very naïve or purposely disingenuous. I'll let others decide which you are.

Do you have any links or source material backing up your claim that the Soviet Union used birth lottery as an excuse to implement communism?
108   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 6, 3:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Try that again HappyGilmore, without the personal attack.
109   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 6, 4:00pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Goran_K says
Try that again HappyGilmore, without the personal attack.


There was no personal attack there. Just a moderator that is completely biased and suppressing free speech

Please point out what you consider a personal attack
111   anon_3b28c   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 6, 4:20pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Goran_K says

There is no birth lottery. That's an excuse socialist use for trying to redistribute other people's wealth, it's what the Soviet Union used as an excuse to implement Communism and it lead to 100,000,000+ dead people in the 20th century. You're literally advocating for death, I advocate for life.


No, there absolutely is a birth lottery. Anyone who says otherwise is either very naïve or purposely disingenuous.

Do you have any links or source material backing up your claim that the Soviet Union used birth lottery as an excuse to implement communism?
112   Rew   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 6, 4:21pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (3)     quote      

So, just because someone pays "nothing" in taxes, they have no voice in how our progressive tax system is implemented, and where the money to fund the government comes from?
113   Rew   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 6, 4:24pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (3)     quote      

Goran_K says
Try that again HappyGilmore, without the personal attack.


So an accusation that you are misinformed or have some other overriding belief/agenda is jail worthy?

Or was it the part where Happy asked you to back up your claims with sources? :)
114   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 6, 4:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Rew says
So, just because someone pays "nothing" in taxes, they have no voice in how our progressive tax system is implemented, and where the money to fund the government comes from?


Why should they?

Why should someone who contributes nothing to the tax system have a say in how the money is spent?

They don't let 10 year olds vote on laws or vote for politicians.
115   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 6, 4:37pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Rew says
So an accusation that you are misinformed or have some other overriding belief/agenda is jail worthy?

Or was it the part where Happy asked you to back up your claims with sources? :)


The asking for facts part was fine, the "anyone who thinks this is very naïve or purposely disingenuous, I'll let others judge which you are" is a personal attack.

Rules are pretty simple to follow IMO.
116   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 6, 4:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Goran_K says
The asking for facts part was fine, the "anyone who thinks this is very naïve or purposely disingenuous, I'll let others judge which you are" is a personal attack.


How is that a personal attack?? Ridiculous.
117   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 6, 4:40pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Goran_K says
Why should they?

Why should someone who contributes nothing to the tax system have a say in how the money is spent?


Because of the Constitution? Ever heard of it?
118   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 6, 4:41pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Still waiting for the sources on Russia.
119   Rew   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 6, 4:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (3)     quote      

Goran_K says
They don't let 10 year olds vote on laws or vote for politicians.


Anyone eligible to vote has a voice on anything up for debate.

Or shall we apply your logic out further to abortion and birth control?

She, the "zero tax payer" (who I guarantee is paying taxes of some form) absolutely gets a say. It influences all the people, community, and culture around her. (edit: I missed the big one, "It's the economy stupid". (disclaimer, that's an actual quote, not a slight at Moderator in Chief Goran))
120   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 6, 5:06pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

HappyGilmore says
Because of the Constitution? Ever heard of it?


Sure.

But I'm talking on a purely water cooler level. Does it seem fair that people who contribute nothing to the system get to vote on how money is spent? Seems pretty unfair.

« First    « Previous     Comments 81 - 120 of 134     Next »     Last »


Comment as anon_9bcb5 or log in at top of page: