Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, December 06, 2017

Andrew Van Dam, Washington Post: Our main takeaway: The Trump plan and the 2003 Bush cuts were harder on the middle class than anything else in our sample, with both giving outsize benefit to those earning more than $100,000 a year in the first year after implementation. ... The Tax Policy Center forecast the second round of Bush cuts to shift heavily toward the benefit of wealthy taxpayers. Those earning more than $500,000 went from taking home 24 percent of the overall cut in 2004 to pocketing 50 percent in 2006. But even by that metric, the current House and Senate plans might have Bush beat when it comes to shifting money to the wealthy.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

So long as the dumb rubes keep sending these ---------- back into Congress to further ass rape them and give their money to the 1% the extent of the egregiousness of their 1% kneel and bobbing will continue to grow.

The GOP has perfected the art of selling "tax cuts" that go 85% to the 1% as a tax cut for everyone. The dumb bunnies just eat it up... freedumb, jayzuz or some other bumper sticker slogan for why they vote for congresscritters who only serve the 1%.

#1 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-06 09:08 AM | Reply

I had a FB discussion last night with a retiree, excited about the tax cut. After I did the math, it turned out he'll be getting 50 cents a month.

He's still excited, claiming my math was some kind of agenda among tax preparers.

#2 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-06 09:11 AM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

When the crap hits the fan we will have an election and put a Democrat in office to fix the disaster who will also be blamed for the disaster by the same people who create the disaster. Storm warnings up, expect a bubble and then a collapse. The smartest money will know when to sell, the rest of us will suffer. Wall St. owns the Republican Party. They run the same scam over and over and conservatives fall for it every time because in this era you have to be stupid to buy into the conservative play book. How many times can you guys fall for this?

#3 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-06 09:26 AM | Reply

"The smartest money will know when to sell, the rest of us will suffer. "

Absolutely.

The Mnuchin and Cohns of the world will sell short between order and launch.

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-06 09:28 AM | Reply

The tax plan looks like it will help me quite a bit, personally, the senate bill at least, mainly because I have high medical bills, despite having insurance, and an above average number of children. I am also very much against both bills.

It clearly does 2 things: Helps the wealthy and punishes people who live in states with high taxes. The latter group largely didn't vote for Trump.

#5 | Posted by LEgregius at 2017-12-06 09:41 AM | Reply

"Wall St. owns the Republican Party."

And the Dems are different how???...Other than in the fact that they've convinced you that they are different, when they really aren't?

#6 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 10:54 AM | Reply

"It clearly does 2 things: Helps the wealthy and punishes people who live in states with high taxes. The latter group largely didn't vote for Trump."

Devil's advocate here, but I'm not sure how you can justify high tax states being able to fund their state-funded pet projects at the expense of federal receipts. It would seem to me this would be one of those times when some people simply aren't paying their "fair share."

#7 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 10:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- And the Dems are different how???..

They would never have proposed this permanent corporate tax cut, nor set their heart to destroying every protection set up after GW's Great Recession.... just for starters.

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-06 11:01 AM | Reply

Helps the wealthy and punishes people who live in states with high taxes. The latter group largely didn't vote for Trump.

#5 | Posted by LEgregius at 2017-12-06 09:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

So the wing dings are using the tax code to pick winners and losers something the wing dings constantly criticize when taxes are raised.

#9 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-06 11:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Wall St. owns the Republican Party."
And the Dems are different how???...Other than in the fact that they've convinced you that they are different, when they really aren't?

#6 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

No massive tax cut for Wall Street.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Regulations rather than Deregulating

How dumb are you?

#10 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-12-06 11:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

And the Dems are different how?

The GOP tax scam.

Killing ACA.

Reversing overtime laws.

Consumer protection agency.

Do you need more?

#11 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-06 11:13 AM | Reply

"They would never have proposed this permanent corporate tax cut, nor set their heart to destroying every protection set up after GW's Great Recession.... just for starters."

Really?

Is that because Dems don't cut taxes?

#12 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 11:29 AM | Reply

" It would seem to me this would be one of those times when some people simply aren't paying their "fair share.""

Interesting you would want to balance the books now, and not when the blue states are the givers and the red states are the takers.

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-06 11:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Combining the stock market gains this year and the low unemployment there are, thankfully, many more wealthy than before.

#14 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-12-06 11:35 AM | Reply

"Combining the stock market gains this year and the low unemployment there are, thankfully, many more wealthy than before." - #14 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-12-06 11:35 AM

Thank you, President Obama.

#15 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-06 11:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If you don't think that the Dems are owned by the wealthy, you're high. You need to go who see who was actually funding Hillary's campaign, which brought in and spent far more than Trump.

I will say it again, the Dems are owned by the wealthy. They may throw out a few scraps to make it seem like they support some romanticized idea of the working class, but in reality they're smart enough to know that it's not the working class that drives this country. It's the wealthy. And at the end of the day, if you try and screw the wealthy, you really end up screwing everyone. Even if everyone else's lacks the intellectual capacity to grasp that concept.

#16 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 11:36 AM | Reply

"Interesting you would want to balance the books now, and not when the blue states are the givers and the red states are the takers."

Totally, but that's still not as much as they should be paying, because they get to deduct expenses that were paid out to the state. They should be paying more, shouldn't they?

#17 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 11:37 AM | Reply

"Is that because Dems don't cut taxes?" - #12 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 11:29 AM

Indiscriminately cutting taxes is not a panacea, and is actually counter-productive in a country such as the USA.

#18 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-06 11:39 AM | Reply

"They should be paying more, shouldn't they?" - #17 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 11:37 AM

Most should be paying more.

Mostly those who can most afford it.

The wealthy.

#19 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-06 11:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Indiscriminately cutting taxes is not a panacea, and is actually counter-productive in a country such as the USA."

The exact same could be said about indiscriminately raising taxes as well, no?

"Most should be paying more. Mostly those who can most afford it."

So then why wouldn't this be something you support. This IS going to make the wealthy pay more.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 11:47 AM | Reply

thankfully, many more wealthy than before.

#14 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

And many many more homeless on the streets to be tinkled on.

#21 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-06 11:52 AM | Reply

"The exact same could be said about indiscriminately raising taxes as well, no?" - #20 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 11:47 AM

Nope.

"This IS going to make the wealthy pay more."

No it isn't, Donald Trump, er, I mean madbomber.

#22 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-06 11:57 AM | Reply

Really?
Is that because Dems don't cut taxes?

#12 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

And that is how we know you are a partisan liar.

Obama cut taxes for 98% of working households.

Did you not notice? Or perhaps you are just in denial. Or perhaps you are one of the poor foolish saps that fell for Russian Facebook propaganda.

#23 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-06 11:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It would seem to me this would be one of those times when some people simply aren't paying their "fair share."

#7 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Still trotting this line of garbage out, I see.

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 12:02 PM | Reply

They may throw out a few scraps to make it seem like they support some romanticized idea of the working class, but in reality they're smart enough to know that it's not the working class that drives this country. It's the wealthy. And at the end of the day, if you try and screw the wealthy, you really end up screwing everyone. Even if everyone else's lacks the intellectual capacity to grasp that concept.

#16 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

LOL

And you claim you aren't a sycophantic useful idiot LOLOLOLOLOLOL

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 12:04 PM | Reply

And the Dems are different how???

The Dems controlled Congress and the Presidency in 2009-2010. Did they pass this bill?

#26 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-06 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"This IS going to make the wealthy pay more."

Total nonsense.

What's that lie based on?

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-06 12:19 PM | Reply

Payroll taxes went back up after they were reduced. Instead of making the payroll tax reduction permanent, it was allowed to reset.

2% of income of the lower and middle class is nothing to disregard.

#28 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-12-06 12:41 PM | Reply

"Nope."

OK...explain.

"And that is how we know you are a partisan liar."

You know I'm a liar because I asked a question? Explain.

"Obama cut taxes for 98% of working households."

What is a "working household?" Is that a household containing one or more individuals who trade their time for labor? And if tax cuts are a good thing, then why the resistance?

"Still trotting this line of garbage out, I see."

Still unable to explain why this isn't the case, I see.

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 12:53 PM | Reply

"What's that lie based on?"

I'm using my nugget...maybe you can show me where I'm wrong.

The taxpayer in California has been able to deduct taxes paid to the state. Given that CA's tax rates are progressive, that means that high income earners have been able to deduct a lot of money from their federal tax bills. They will now have to pay both the high CA state rate (tops out at 13.3%), but also pay their full share of the federal taxes as well.

Mathematically, that means they will pay more. If this isn't the case, I'd like to know why it isn't.

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 01:00 PM | Reply

"OK...explain." - #29 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 12:53 PM

Asking to have it explained means you'd never understand it even if I tried.

#31 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-06 01:26 PM | Reply

"I'm using my nugget..." - #30 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 01:00 PM

Nugget: A lump of fried chicken in which the entire KFC franchise is based around
Explains much.

#32 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-06 01:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Still unable to explain why this isn't the case, I see.

#29 | Posted by madbomber

It's been explained to you by multiple posters multiple times.

Blue states float red states by taking less than they put in. Red states whine about commie blue states but gladly take their money in order to make their "governing" model work.

You're also being a disingenuous hack in that if it were your idol, a rich person, you'd be arguing they pay too much because they get less in return than people who pay much less.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 01:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"This IS going to make the wealthy pay more."

Total nonsense.

What's that lie based on?

#27 | Posted by Danforth

The world's most famous liar said so. Dummies still believe him.

#34 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-06 01:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- You're also being a disingenuous hack

And that's actually his best quality.

The parties are not the same in more ways than one can count. Just because the GOP has their way with Citizens United doesn't mean Dems haven't pushed for campaign finance reform.

#35 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-06 03:29 PM | Reply

"Asking to have it explained means you'd never understand it even if I tried."

Read: I don't really understand economics, so I'm just going to deflect.

I have a BSBA in International Business and an MBA in Economic Strategy. How about you?

#36 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 03:39 PM | Reply

"I don't really understand economics, so I'm just going to deflect." - #36 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 03:39 PM

From your keyboard to the world.

"I have a BSBA in International Business and an MBA in Economic Strategy."

I do find it amusing (and instructive) how anonymous posters on Internet news blogs can magically (and conveniently) produce just the very personal experience they need to miraculously (and, again, oh-so conveniently) "prove" whatever point it is they think they're making without the need to produce anything corroborating what they've claimed.

#37 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-06 03:42 PM | Reply

"Blue states float red states by taking less than they put in. Red states whine about commie blue states but gladly take their money in order to make their "governing" model work."

Got it. Blue states pay more. Something I acknowledged in all the way back in #17. What I'm asking is why they don't owe more, as they are currently able to defer a lot of money they would have otherwise owed to the Federal Government, because they are allowed to deduct taxes paid to the state.

Should these taxpayers be allowed to pay less simply because their state already provides more revenues to the Federal Government than what FEDGOV provides them?

#38 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 03:44 PM | Reply

"I do find it amusing (and instructive) how anonymous posters on Internet news blogs can magically (and conveniently) produce just the very personal experience they need to miraculously (and, again, oh-so conveniently) "prove" whatever point it is they think they're making without the need to produce anything corroborating what they've claimed."

And I can tell within seconds who has actually taken an economics course and who is learning economics from HuffPo and Mother Jones.

Guess which one you've identified yourself as?

#39 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 03:46 PM | Reply

And the Dems are different how???...Other than in the fact that they've convinced you that they are different, when they really aren't?

#6 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-12-06 10:54 AM | REPLY

Nobody convinced me of anything. I look at voting records and read the bills they propose. If you can't tell the difference between the parties then why don't you vote Democrat with us? if you are right it wont matter anyway.

#40 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-12-06 03:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Madbomber, if I live in CA and pay $10k in State/City taxes and I deduct that $10k as I itemized, let's say my taxable income is $100,000.

But, if I can't deduct the $10k, my taxable income is $110,000.

So, I guess I'm being taxed on more of my income - meaning more revenue to the Federal Govt?

#41 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-12-06 03:51 PM | Reply

"And I can tell within seconds who has actually taken an economics course and who is learning economics from HuffPo and Mother Jones." - #39 | Posted by anonymous Internet poster "madbomber" at 2017-12-06 03:46 PM

Guess what you've identified yourself as?

#42 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-06 03:51 PM | Reply

"You're also being a disingenuous hack in that if it were your idol, a rich person, you'd be arguing they pay too much because they get less in return than people who pay much less."

Go back and re-read #7.

So, in reality, I think that taxpayers should be able to deduct the taxes they pay to the state...even if the deduction is limited to a certain amount. Otherwise, the combined ta rates simply get to a point where it no longer benefits an individual to trade his time for an income.

What I was trying to do is point out the blatant hypocrisy by those who claim that the rich need to pay more, even if they are shouldering both your an mine fair share, while at the same time claiming that the same logic doesn't apply at the state level, given that those states are ideologically like-minded for most progressives.

If you had a little integrity, you'd be arguing that the taxpayers in places like CA and NY need to pay their fair share. Instead, you're saying that the taxes that they would otherwise owe should be forgiven. This is why I don't trust progressives...you're as much out for yourself, and probably moreso, than any rich person.

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 03:51 PM | Reply

"Guess what you've identified yourself as?"

I don't think you possess the intellect to objectively make that determination.

I'm not sure you possess the intellect to make ANY objective determination...

#44 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 03:53 PM | Reply

"I don't think ..." - #44 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 03:53 PM

On that we can agree.

#45 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-06 04:02 PM | Reply

I have a BSBA in International Business and an MBA in Economic Strategy. How about you?

#36 | Posted by madbomber

From where? Trump University?

I didn't realize blaming the poor for struggling under and economic system controlled by the rich was an "economic strategy".

#46 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-06 04:05 PM | Reply

If you had a little integrity, you'd be arguing that the taxpayers in places like CA and NY need to pay their fair share.

#43 | Posted by madbomber

Blue states ALREADY support the red ones dummy. You want to mooch MORE?

#47 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-06 04:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"fair share"

That's not even a concept you believe in, MadB.

So it's dishonest to use it in your argument.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 04:07 PM | Reply

"From where? Trump University?" - #46 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-06 04:05 PM

Bob Jones.

#49 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-06 04:08 PM | Reply

"If you had a little integrity, you'd be arguing that the taxpayers in places like CA and NY"

Isn't that where the rich people live, the ones who already pay their fair share and then some?

So you mean the non-rich on CA and NY aren't paying enough.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 04:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I have a BSBA in International Business and an MBA in Economic Strategy.

So that explains why you're always so neatly toed on the line.

#51 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 04:43 PM | Reply

This tax bill argues against itself. They lower the rate on pass-through income arguing that income shouldn't be taxed twice and simultaneously remove the deduction for state and local taxes which makes all earned income get taxed twice OR MORE.

#52 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-12-06 04:43 PM | Reply

What I was trying to do is point out the blatant hypocrisy by those who claim that the rich need to pay more, even if they are shouldering both your an mine fair share, while at the same time claiming that the same logic doesn't apply at the state level, given that those states are ideologically like-minded for most progressives.

No s---.

And my point is that the hypocrisy argument is a logical fallacy.

BTW do people living in red states not deduct their state and local taxes? Is there some statute in the tax code that I'm unaware of that limits this to just blue states?

If you had a little integrity, you'd be arguing that the taxpayers in places like CA and NY need to pay their fair share. Instead, you're saying that the taxes that they would otherwise owe should be forgiven.

They are paying their fair share and using less of it too.

This is why I don't trust progressives...you're as much out for yourself, and probably moreso, than any rich person.

No, you're just so gone in sycophant land you look for slights and victimhood where it doesn't exist.

People in red states can also write off their state and local taxes if they have enough itemized deductions to make it worth their while.

So if you're wealthy and living in a red state, you're sitting much prettier than being wealthy in a blue state, no?

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 04:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I have a BSBA in International Business and an MBA in Economic Strategy."

And I, for one, think you picked up on the BS part really well.

#54 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-06 05:35 PM | Reply

Those aren't economics degrees. Those are business degrees.

It's like you think you know about literature because you know how a printing press operates.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 05:40 PM | Reply

"And that is how we know you are a partisan liar."

You know I'm a liar because I asked a question?
Explain.

Why? Because you really don't have a Bachelors Degree and really don't understand how that question makes you makes you an insincere liar?

#56 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-06 05:51 PM | Reply

I see Madbomber has no answer to #26.

#57 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-06 05:56 PM | Reply

What I was trying to do is point out the blatant hypocrisy by those who claim that the rich need to pay more, even if they are shouldering both your an mine fair share, while at the same time claiming that the same logic doesn't apply at the state level, given that those states are ideologically like-minded for most progressives.
#43 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

This is an idiotic argument as has been pointed out time and time again.

Yes, they pay more per person that middle class and poor class people.

But they also benefit infinitely more from the system too.

If your home is worth $100,000, you won't pay the fire department $500,000 to put out a fire.

But if your home is worth $50,000,000, you'll pony up that $500,000 real quick to save your home.

#58 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-12-06 06:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

What I was trying to do is point out the blatant hypocrisy

That's quite the economics education you had, that taught you "Tu Quoque" was a valid economic argument...

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 06:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Rush Limbaugh has f-cked this country up good.

#60 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-12-06 07:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The red state/blue state argument is dumb. No state is 100% red or 100% blue. Not even close. Therefore it's mostly a meaningless comparison.

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 07:26 PM | Reply

Should these taxpayers be allowed to pay less simply because their state already provides more revenues to the Federal Government than what FEDGOV provides them?
#38 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Yes. Or give us more representation. This nation is built on exactly the idea of fair taxes. Blue states pay way more federal taxes with much less return per dollar and even less per capita.

#62 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-12-06 07:36 PM | Reply

"Blue states ALREADY support the red ones dummy. You want to mooch MORE?"

Yes. Just like you want the rich to pay more.

You're starting to sound like me...I guess I'm starting to sound like you.

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 10:29 PM | Reply

"Those aren't economics degrees. Those are business degrees."

Which can only be received by taking a certain number of economics classes. Five, in my case for undergrad. Three for Grad.

And if you, or speak, or Donnerboy, or any of the rest had a degree in economics, then this would be a very different discussion. Instead it's me trying to explain to evangelicals how science and reason doesn't support their faith.

"Yes. Or give us more representation. This nation is built on exactly the idea of fair taxes."

From reading these posts, it appears that "fair" is a subjective concept. I'll reiterate that this is an academic argument only, at least on my part. I'd just like to get to the bottom of why so many think it's OK to levy much higher taxes on one segment of society, but when a similar situation applies to another, it's some kind of travesty.

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 10:37 PM | Reply

"That's quite the economics education you had, that taught you "Tu Quoque" was a valid economic argument..."

It's more of a common sense reaction...although I'm sure it's totally different to you.

#65 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 10:48 PM | Reply

The red state/blue state argument is dumb. No state is 100% red or 100% blue. Not even close. Therefore it's mostly a meaningless comparison.

#61 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I don't think red/blue in this case refers to the electorate but to the government and policy angles they enact.

Also, the more extreme the Repub/"Conservative" side states lie the higher on the list they tend to rank in fed dollar spent vs contributed (think Alabama and Mississippi type red state).

#66 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 10:57 PM | Reply

You're starting to sound like me...I guess I'm starting to sound like you.
#63 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Except the state/local tax deduction is available to all to use, red or blue.

Many tax breaks/perks enjoyed by the wealthy aren't used by all or really attainable by all (ie capital gains tax).

#67 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 11:00 PM | Reply

"Many tax breaks/perks enjoyed by the wealthy aren't used by all or really attainable by all (ie capital gains tax)."

Could you say the same about low income earners? What do you think the percentages look like for the amount contributed by the bottom two quintiles relative to what the bottom two quintiles receive in benefits?

#68 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 07:36 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort