Senate Tax Bill will hurt Mormon tithe payers

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Taxes, like any money that is owed, is for things we already agreed to pay for. It isn't their own money. It is like going to a fancy restaurant, eating the most expensive meal, then refusing to pay for it. I've been poor, and I've been middle class. Middle class is better. I have always paid my taxes. Plus I've always been grateful that I have the ability and desire to live in country with as many advantages that I have.

Feel free to pay more than you need to. 

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

It has NEVER worked that way. There is no way in Hell that a rich person can buy enough to effect the economy of a large nation should as ours.

SEE

 

Detroit was the epitome of Ted’s thinking. How’s their economy? He helped created dozens of businesses? Who invested in them? True about cosumers but they will come only if there is a demand to buy what the businesses sell. Their purchases are important but the only risk thry take is not liking what they buy. The only ones in the cycle of businesses who take huge risks are the investors and business owners. And nobody I know works for a poor person.

Edited December 1, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You oversimplify everything as if the economy is in a neutral state and only changes to the tax code influence it. The increase in benefits came during a recession which also influenced things.

Saying tax cuts always end a sluggish economy (a new goal post you just brought in for some reason) is like saying sluggish economies always eventually stop being sluggish. Was it the tax cuts or other factors? You also sing the praises of the GWB tax changes but real GDP growth after you adjust for inflation was not that good during those years. Compared to the Clinton and Reagan years the economy was anemic. They were better the time his father’s years but there was minor recession during his presidency so it is not really his fault.

The idea that the wealthy “job creators” having more money spurs economic growth is also a myth. It is silly on the face of it. I have more money therefore I should hire more people? Please.....you hire more people because you need them not because you have more money as if John Doe, job creator, is paying his employee salaries out of his tax return.

Let me further the simplicity and say you still have not piinted out any federal tax cut made which was followed by decrease or stagnated industrial productivty or decreased or stagnated revenue to the government. 

Interesting. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Don’t forget the Clinton Foundation. I believe they could have avoided the Death Tax with that. 

Foundations in general yes. It amuses me that people complain about the Clinton foundations pettier problems and ignore Trump’s legal fund/noncharitable Foundation/slush fund.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Let me further the simplicity and say you still have not piinted out any federal tax cut made which was followed by decrease or stagnated industrial productivty or decreased or stagnated revenue to the government. 

Interesting. 

I posted a lengthy response to that and the difficulties in tracing the cause and effect relationship. You either did not read it or did not understand it.

Interesting.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Foundations in general yes. It amuses me that people complain about the Clinton foundations pettier problems and ignore Trump’s legal fund/noncharitable Foundation/slush fund.

 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I posted a lengthy response to that and the difficulties in tracing the cause and effect relationship. You either did not read it or did not understand it.

Interesting.

Boo to the Trump foundation. Is that good? And aren’t the Clintons opposed to tax cuts for the super rich? 

I read you post and yet you have yet to point to any time when revenues to the federal government decreased after a federal tax cut. So give me some credit. That much I do understand. 

Edited December 2, 2017 by Darren10

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

 

Boo to the Trump foundation. Is that good? And aren’t the Clintons opposed to tax cuts for the super rich? 

I read you post and yet you have yet to point to any time when revenues to the federal government decreased after a federal tax cut. So give me some credit. That much I do understand. 

I have no idea what the Clintons are for at this point. Their days in politics, God willing, are finally over and good riddance. They lost. Some people continue to beat on them as a distraction as if they still have relevance. Following the example of Dunce in Chief who seems to believe the election is still ongoing. Why do people keep bringing it up? Do they need dead horses to beat that badly?

Okay fine, I will play your game even though it proves nothing. In 2001 Congress under GWB passed a tax cut. That year federal tax revenue was 1.99 trillion. In 2002, 2003, and 2004 tax revenue dipped with the low in 2003 at around 1.72 trillion.

There. Conclusive proof that lowering taxes does not always increase revenue. Before you run off to show that there are other factors involved in that dip (and there were) remembet that you are the one who demanded this specific data. I argued it proved nothing. You demanded it as if it did prove something and would be a major blow in defeating your argument. So, did I just crush your worldview?

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have no idea what the Clintons are for at this point. Their days in politics, God willing, are finally over and good riddance. They lost. Some people continue to beat on them as a distraction as if they still have relevance. Following the example of Dunce in Chief who seems to believe the election is still ongoing. Why do people keep bringing it up? Do they need dead horses to beat that badly?

Okay fine, I will play your game even though it proves nothing. In 2001 Congress under GWB passed a tax cut. That year federal tax revenue was 1.99 trillion. In 2002, 2003, and 2004 tax revenue dipped with the low in 2003 at around 1.72 trillion.

There. Conclusive proof that lowering taxes does not always increase revenue. Before you run off to show that there are other factors involved in that dip (and there were) remembet that you are the one who demanded this specific data. I argued it proved nothing. You demanded it as if it did prove something and would be a major blow in defeating your argument. So, did I just crush your worldview?

They represent taxing the rich, including ridding the Death Tax while Republicans want to help the rich by getting rid of the Death Tax. It’s ironic. True the Clintons’ political days may be numbered but who’ll replace thrm? Milliobaire Bernie Sanders? Millionaire Elizabeth Warren? You don’t think thry shelter their wealth? It’s a hypocritical charade they play. It’s a game their side plays which even got Senator Hatch to nearly curse. 

Yup, Hatch was really worked up there.

Thank you for the info on 2003-2004. Yes, you crushed it. (Dude, of course here’s other factors involved. It’s must that taxes is a significant one of them). 

 

Edited December 2, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You oversimplify everything as if the economy is in a neutral state and only changes to the tax code influence it. The increase in benefits came during a recession which also influenced things.

Saying tax cuts always end a sluggish economy (a new goal post you just brought in for some reason) is like saying sluggish economies always eventually stop being sluggish. Was it the tax cuts or other factors? You also sing the praises of the GWB tax changes but real GDP growth after you adjust for inflation was not that good during those years. Compared to the Clinton and Reagan years the economy was anemic. They were better the time his father’s years but there was minor recession during his presidency so it is not really his fault.

The idea that the wealthy “job creators” having more money spurs economic growth is also a myth. It is silly on the face of it. I have more money therefore I should hire more people? Please.....you hire more people because you need them not because you have more money as if John Doe, job creator, is paying his employee salaries out of his tax return.

Now, for this point of view. 

No, people will not hire simply because they have more money but they cannot hire, even when needed when they have no money to hire. This is why many jobs were converted from full time to part time and 94 million people ceased to seek employment under the extra taxes of Obamacare. This improved during the last couple of years of his administration but not nearly the overall growth under the Bush administration. 

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/economy/gdp/index.htm

Quote

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - U.S. economic growth surged in the third quarter at the fastest pace in nearly two decades, the government said Thursday, but even President Bush admitted that was unlikely to be sustained.

 

Edited December 2, 2017 by Darren10

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Feel free to pay more than you need to. 

Why? If you ask me for $10 and I give you $10.  You are getting exactly what you asked for. Do you make it a habit of overpaying for things?

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Detroit was the epitome of Ted’s thinking. How’s their economy? He helped created dozens of businesses? Who invested in them? True about cosumers but they will come only if there is a demand to buy what the businesses sell. Their purchases are important but the only risk thry take is not liking what they buy. The only ones in the cycle of businesses who take huge risks are the investors and business owners. And nobody I know works for a poor person.

Henry Ford was a jerk in many ways. He didn't invent the automobile, or the assembly line. What he did do, at least at first, was to pay his workers enough to buy his automobiles. He made the middle class and himself very wealthy in the process.

Investors make investments to make a profit. It is irrelevant to the process of how it used to make that profit. Without customers with the money to buy their goods/services those investor loose money. During the Great Depression the store shelves were stuffed full.

 

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Why? If you ask me for $10 and I give you $10.  You are getting exactly what you asked for. Do you make it a habit of overpaying for things?

 

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Henry Ford was a jerk in many ways. He didn't invent the automobile, or the assembly line. What he did do, at least at first, was to pay his workers enough to buy his automobiles. He made the middle class and himself very wealthy in the process.

Investors make investments to make a profit. It is irrelevant to the process of how it used to make that profit. Without customers with the money to buy their goods/services those investor loose money. During the Great Depression the store shelves were stuffed full.

 

You should pay more because it’s good to pay taxes and it’s not your money anyway. So no tax reductions for you.

The difference between Henry Ford and Detroit was thst Henry’s choice was voluntary, Detroit’s was forced. 

Investors need capital to invest. I strongly suspect that Ted worked with rich folk to get the investments he needed to found dozens of companies.

 

Edited December 2, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Now that the bill passed the Senate, here’s wha5 seems to be a good take of what’s in it and what isn’t and where it goes from here.this is from a conservative perspective.

Quote

The House version eliminated the death tax entirely. The Senate bill doesn’t, but it more than doubles the threshold to above eleven million dollars, so that’s at least something. We’ll have to see which idea makes it into the final language.

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/12/02/celebrating-senate-tax-bill-passage-premature/

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Darren10 said:

 

You should pay more because it’s good to pay taxes and it’s not your money anyway. So no tax reductions for you.

The difference between Henry Ford and Detroit was thst Henry’s choice was voluntary, Detroit’s was forced. 

Investors need capital to invest. I strongly suspect that Ted worked with rich folk to get the investments he needed to found dozens of companies.

 

So you are disagreeing with the Savior and it is actually not lawful to pay tribute unto Caesar because taxation is theft?

We do not need more investor capital right now. We have more then we know what to do with.

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, Darren10 said:

They represent taxing the rich, including ridding the Death Tax while Republicans want to help the rich by getting rid of the Death Tax. It’s ironic. True the Clintons’ political days may be numbered but who’ll replace thrm? Milliobaire Bernie Sanders? Millionaire Elizabeth Warren? You don’t think thry shelter their wealth? It’s a hypocritical charade they play. It’s a game their side plays which even got Senator Hatch to nearly curse. 

Yup, Hatch was really worked up there.

Thank you for the info on 2003-2004. Yes, you crushed it. (Dude, of course here’s other factors involved. It’s must that taxes is a significant one of them). 

 

Sheltering your money from taxation is what you do. If it is legal and not unethical I do not have a problem with it. The people who design tax law need to adjust tax law to make it as fair as possible. They have done a mediocre job so far and this tax change is worse.

Also, I will throw in my usual caveat that we could probably cut taxes and increase revenue if the federal government just funded the IRS and caught more tax cheats. Money thrown to the IRS does pay for itself. For some reason political donors and members of Congress do not support this simple solution. A suspicious person would wonder why.  

[Gray]

On 12/1/2017 at 5:48 PM, Darren10 said:

Detroit was the epitome of Ted’s thinking. How’s their economy? He helped created dozens of businesses? Who invested in them? True about cosumers but they will come only if there is a demand to buy what the businesses sell. Their purchases are important but the only risk thry take is not liking what they buy. The only ones in the cycle of businesses who take huge risks are the investors and business owners. And nobody I know works for a poor person.

They tried a tax scheme like this in Kansas. The results were disastrous.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

So you are disagreeing with the Savior and it is actually not lawful to pay tribute unto Caesar because taxation is theft?

We do not need more investor capital right now. We have more then we know what to do with.

Especially if the corporate tax rate us cut and money is repatrionized. That'll I crease the capital. By the way, my point was that rich people invest in companies, not that capital exists.

I already told you I don't follow the Savior so now I'll go on my merry and find new ways to ignore the Savior. What did he know about economics anyway. 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Sheltering your money from taxation is what you do. If it is legal and not unethical I do not have a problem with it. The people who design tax law need to adjust tax law to make it as fair as possible. They have done a mediocre job so far and this tax change is worse.

Also, I will throw in my usual caveat that we could probably cut taxes and increase revenue if the federal government just funded the IRS and caught more tax cheats. Money thrown to the IRS does pay for itself. For some reason political donors and members of Congress do not support this simple solution. A suspicious person would wonder why.  

Yes, fund government more to crack down more to raise government revenue. Thinking at its best. 

Do you think the Clintons are ethical? And if Bernie and Warren Don't lime tax sheltering for the super rich then Don't shelter their taxes since they are bith super rich. It's that easy. 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I got a certain Savior to ignore while I carry out my schemes. 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

They tried a tax scheme like this in Kansas. The results were disastrous.

I know (but not as disastrous as you may think). That's why I specified *federal* tax cuts.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Especially if the corporate tax rate us cut and money is repatrionized. That'll I crease the capital. By the way, my point was that rich people invest in companies, not that capital exists.

I already told you I don't follow the Savior so now I'll go on my merry and find new ways to ignore the Savior. What did he know about economics anyway. 

Yes, fund government more to crack down more to raise government revenue. Thinking at its best. 

Do you think the Clintons are ethical? And if Bernie and Warren Don't lime tax sheltering for the super rich then Don't shelter their taxes since they are bith super rich. It's that easy. 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I got a certain Savior to ignore while I carry out my schemes. 

It is thinking at its best. Every study done shows that every dollar spent on the IRS raises much more than a dollar. In fact it is about 50% higher in most stidoes at least. That is basically free money we are not collecting the government is already supposed to get that comes from people inadvertantly or maliciously cheating. I see only one group that would want to oppose this. Tax cheats! And I do not care about them.

Why are you constantly whining about the Clintons as if that is relevant. I do not know of their finances are ethical or if they are ethical or whatever you are trying to ask. I have never in my lifetime seen such a pathetic obsession with the loser of a presidential election. Dukakis, McCain, Romney, Dole, Gore, Perot, all were forgotten quickly and went on to other things. What is it about the Clintons that some people are unwilling to just let them fade into obscurity. Or is everyone so embarrassed by Trump they hope bringing up Clinton will make him look better by comparison (not working btw).

[bsjkki]

So...based on the new calculator...if I filed my taxes for 2017 based on this tax plan...I would lose. But...in 2018, I will come out ahead. It comes down to dependents over age 17 and losing personal exemptions. As I lose dependents, the tax plan benefits me more. 

http://taxplancalculator.com/

[The Nehor]

I think I will pay somewhere between five hundred and a thousand dollars less.

[Darren10]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is thinking at its best. Every study done shows that every dollar spent on the IRS raises much more than a dollar. In fact it is about 50% higher in most stidoes at least. That is basically free money we are not collecting the government is already supposed to get that comes from people inadvertantly or maliciously cheating. I see only one group that would want to oppose this. Tax cheats! And I do not care about them.

Why are you constantly whining about the Clintons as if that is relevant. I do not know of their finances are ethical or if they are ethical or whatever you are trying to ask. I have never in my lifetime seen such a pathetic obsession with the loser of a presidential election. Dukakis, McCain, Romney, Dole, Gore, Perot, all were forgotten quickly and went on to other things. What is it about the Clintons that some people are unwilling to just let them fade into obscurity. Or is everyone so embarrassed by Trump they hope bringing up Clinton will make him look better by comparison (not working btw).

“I see only one group that would want to oppose this. Tax cheats! And I do not care about them.”

Yes you do care about them. You want to catch them and make them pay their taxes. This will make Jesus happy with you and thus it is your moral duty to do so. You’re quite blind if you can only see them as the only group opposed to thr IRS generating as much as a 50% wealth increase for everyone, but don’t let that stop your moral quest. Salvation awaits!  

How comes it we are not all filthy stinkin’ rich? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/04/obamas-budget-raises-tax-revenue-by-1-trillion/6020357/

How comes it the IRS itself does not have enough money? https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/national-taxpayer-advocate-delivers-2012-annual-report-to-congress

How comes it the wealthy pay more in taxes after tax cuts? 

Quote

The second, and more critical conclusion from Table 1 is that the next four years of the Bush Presidency after the 2003 reduction in tax rates saw a 44% increase in Federal tax revenues from $1.782 trillion to $2.568 trillion.  That’s correct – a 44% increase in revenues after the so-called “tax break for the wealthy.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/22/after-bush-tax-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/#7c8a80e058d5

You’re not...you’re not... you’re not using fudged numbers are you? 

Seriously, can I have a source, or all your sources for, “Every study done shows that every dollar spent on the IRS raises much more than a dollar. In fact it is about 50% higher in most stidoes at least.”?

Edited December 3, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

I love a good outcome.

Oops! Network “Chief Political Analyst” Inadvertently Promotes GOP Governing Principle

Quote

“Any tax savings that i might get from this unfair and mean spirited gop tax bill i will donate to charities to help the poor and vulnerable. Who is with me?”

I am! Oh, wait, I forgot to ignore the Savior. Following the Savior’s teachings is for tax raisers. 

Edited December 3, 2017 by Darren10

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Darren10 said:

“I see only one group that would want to oppose this. Tax cheats! And I do not care about them.”

Yes you do care about them. You want to catch them and make them pay their taxes. This will make Jesus happy with you and thus it is your moral duty to do so. You’re quite blind if you can only see them as the only group opposed to thr IRS generating as much as a 50% wealth increase for everyone, but don’t let that stop your moral quest. Salvation awaits!  

How comes it we are not all filthy stinkin’ rich? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/04/obamas-budget-raises-tax-revenue-by-1-trillion/6020357/

How comes it the IRS itself does not have enough money? https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/national-taxpayer-advocate-delivers-2012-annual-report-to-congress

How comes it the wealthy pay more in taxes after tax cuts? 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/22/after-bush-tax-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/#7c8a80e058d5

You’re not...you’re not... you’re not using fudged numbers are you? 

Seriously, can I have a source, or all your sources for, “Every study done shows that every dollar spent on the IRS raises much more than a dollar. In fact it is about 50% higher in most stidoes at least.”?

I was not using fudged numbers. I was answering your inane CFR that made no sense demanding a year after a tax cut where overall government revenue fell while specifically and repeatedly saying it proved nothing. Now you are taking a data point in those figures and trying to shoot me down suggesting I found the figures conclusive proof when I specifically said they prove nothing because of the many other factors involved. So I am not going to bother continuing that discussion. 

And no, I am not going to go digging for the reports I read a while back about funding the IRS and its effect on revenue. When people are searching out good data in an effort to make themselves right there is a point in providing it. When people search out data with the objective to prove themselves right data is pointless. On the big wide internet you can always find some source that agrees with you and can provide a convincing rationale to placate those that agree with them. It is easy. It does not have to have evidence or even be logical. I have neither the time nor the disposition to discredit every Google search result you found.

Nehor out!

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I was not using fudged numbers. I was answering your inane CFR that made no sense demanding a year after a tax cut where overall government revenue fell while specifically and repeatedly saying it proved nothing. Now you are taking a data point in those figures and trying to shoot me down suggesting I found the figures conclusive proof when I specifically said they prove nothing because of the many other factors involved. So I am not going to bother continuing that discussion. 

And no, I am not going to go digging for the reports I read a while back about funding the IRS and its effect on revenue. When people are searching out good data in an effort to make themselves right there is a point in providing it. When people search out data with the objective to prove themselves right data is pointless. On the big wide internet you can always find some source that agrees with you and can provide a convincing rationale to placate those that agree with them. It is easy. It does not have to have evidence or even be logical. I have neither the time nor the disposition to discredit every Google search result you found.

Nehor out!

Take care. Focus on your Sunday.