Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

On a thousand different occasions over many years, Jay Leno proved that Americans who are questioned on the street don't know the answers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Nobody here has shown me any evidence to support their opinions that the Tax plan is bad for working class Americans. I agree it doesn't do anything especially good for most of them, but I don't see what's so bad either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Nobody here has shown me any evidence to support their opinions that the Tax plan is bad for working class Americans. I agree it doesn't do anything especially good for most of them, but I don't see what's so bad either.

---

I googled: Is the Tax plan bad for working class Americans? One of the Christmas Eve themed answers was “How The GOP Tax Plan Scrooges Middle Class, Retired And Poor”. But there are many more articles on the subject for you to choose to read. Or not. Your choice. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Nobody here has shown me any evidence to support their opinions that the Tax plan is bad for working class Americans. I agree it doesn't do anything especially good for most of them, but I don't see what's so bad either.

---

I googled: Is the Tax plan bad for working class Americans? One of the Christmas Eve themed answers was “How The GOP Tax Plan Scrooges Middle Class, Retired And Poor”. But there are many more articles on the subject for you to choose to read. Or not. Your choice. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2017/11/29/how-the-gop-tax-plan-scrooge
s-middle-class-retired-and-poor/#5801e9966c1e

---

Jack has the IQ of a peanut. I applaud your patience SECOND when dealing with him.


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Jack has the IQ of a peanut.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Jack has the IQ of a peanut.

---

[citation needed]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Bernie Fans Love Republican Tax Plan
Liberals Love Trump's Tax Plan... When Told It's Bernie Sanders' Plan.

---

a Bernie “supporter” or a “Liberal” has to be willfully ignorant.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Jack has the IQ of a peanut.

---

[citation needed]

---

I think 6ixStringJack is smart enough to understand the guy who won a Nobel Prize in Economics, Paul Krugman, who wrote this Christmas Eve about the reasons wages will NOT be changing quickly despite the tax cut. You'll have to go to the original article to see the citations and two figures illustration purposes the time what's happening to the money, but here are the words:

Trickle Down? Not Now, and Not for a While at Best (Wonkish)
www.nytimes.com/2017/12/24/opinion/trickle-down-not-now-and-not-for-a-
while-at-best-wonkish.html

Paul Krugman DEC. 24, 2017

“You all just got a lot richer,” Trump reportedly told guests at Mar-a-Lago. But Republicans will nonetheless keep insisting that the corporate tax cut that is the main item in the tax bill is really for the benefit of workers. They will be aided in this claim by some recent corporate announcements of bonuses or wage hikes that they attribute to the tax cut.

It’s nonsense, of course. Think of the motivation: lots of companies are raising wages at least a bit in the face of tight labor markets; pretending that it’s because of the tax cut is a cheap way to curry favor with an administration that has no hesitation about using regulatory and antitrust decisions to reward friends and punish enemies. It’s basically Carrier all over: make a Trump-friendly splash by declaring that he persuaded you to save jobs, then lay off lots of workers after the cameras have moved on.

But there’s a larger point here: even if you believe economic analyses that suggest corporate tax cuts are good for wages, it shouldn’t happen right away. Any trickle-down should come about because the tax cuts lead to higher investment, which leads over time to a larger capital stock – and it’s the increase in the capital stock, which may take many years, that leads to the wage rise.

I keep finding it helpful to use a diagram representing the economy corporate tax-cutters imagine we have: a one-sector economy with no monopoly power, open to inflows of foreign capital. (Adding the reality of monopoly rents, noncorporate capital, and nontraded goods all reduce the extent of trickle-down.) This stylized economy looks like Figure 1:
Figure 1

The downward-sloping line is the marginal product of capital, which is equal (in this model) to the pre-tax rate of return r. The after-tax return is r(1-t), where t is the tax rate.

Given an initial capital stock K, GDP is the integral of the area under the r curve up to K. Of this, rK goes to pre-tax profits, of which the government takes a share t and the rest goes to after-tax profits. What’s left, the triangle at the top, is wages.

Now suppose the corporate tax rate is cut to a lower level t’. This raises the after-tax rate of return for any given capital stock. The country faces a long-run supply curve for capital; this curve would be horizontal for a small open economy, is surely upward-sloping for the United States. Still, over time the capital stock rises to K’. This in turn leads to higher wages:
Figure 2

The crucial words, however, are “over time.” For a variety of reasons it would take a number of years for the capital stock to rise to its long-run level. And in the short run we wouldn’t expect wages to rise at all. Certainly not in the first week after the tax cut!

So if you suspect that these corporate announcements are political theater, not real economic events, the very models tax-cut enthusiasts like to cite back you up. There will be negligible wage effects of the tax cut in 2018; for the first few years, it’s basically all Mar-a-Lago.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
It should be stated that I have said several times that I don't see anything that particularly helps the working class in the tax bill. Only that I don't see anything close to the horror stories the Left is saying either.

That being said, I DO see where it helps the rich disproportionately more than anybody else. I guess we'll just see what happens when that happens.


Ball is in your court, Second. You going to put your money where your mouth is when you reap the benefits? Cause there's not a damn thing I can do about it from down here.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
It should be stated that I have said several times that I don't see anything that particularly helps the working class in the tax bill. Only that I don't see anything close to the horror stories the Left is saying either.

That being said, I DO see where it helps the rich disproportionately more than anybody else. I guess we'll just see what happens when that happens.

Ball is in your court, Second. You going to put your money where your mouth is when you reap the benefits? Cause there's not a damn thing I can do about it from down here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
there was no competition, the rest of the industrialized world having been bombed to rubble, during FDR's War. . . .

So over 80% of Americans will get larger paychecks due to lower taxes now. That's a bigger boom for workers than Bobo or Slick ever gave.

---

Your analysis missed something really big. You won't be able to explain it away, either, unless you start imagining fake stories about Civil Engineers opposing the GOP.

The American Society of Civil Engineers did an analysis of what will happen by 2025. Trump will still be President. To get his $1.5 trillion tax cut, Trump will do $3.9 trillion in damage to the American economy. This is how that happens:

Families bringing home less than $25,000 a year will see an average tax cut of $60 next year, compared with those earning more than $733,000, who would average $51,000 in savings, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Whether a family gets $60 or $51,000, not one penny of the money will pay for the $2,064 billion shortfall in infrastructure spending. The lucky families won’t be taking their $60 and purchasing a new road or sewage treatment plant. And not paying for the things that Civil Engineers build will cause:

1) $3.9 trillion in losses to the U.S. GDP by 2025;
2) $7 trillion in lost business sales by 2025; and
3) 2.5 million lost American jobs in 2025.
4) On top of those costs, hardworking American families will lose upwards of $3,400 in disposable income each year.
www.infrastructurereportcard.org/the-impact/economic-impact/

---

Lettuce sea about these Tax Cuts. I'll use Tax tables from 2016 because I don't have 2017 or 2018.
Family of 4 with 25,000 has 2,500 taxable income and Fed Tax of $251. Cutting this by $60 is a 23.9% Tax Cut.
With 733,000 income has Fed Tax of $237,528. Cutting this by 51,000 is less than 21.5% Tax Cut.
Not sure I understand your complaint, or implication of unfairness. Clarify?

---

If Congress spends $1.5 trillion on tax cuts, it won't have that $1.5 trillion to spend on "infrastructure". Not spending on the repair of "infrastructure" will cost $3.9 trillion in losses to the U.S. GDP by 2025, Trump's last year. Clear enough?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
We Can't Make It Here
James McMurtry
www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/mcmurtry-james/we-cant-make-it-here-20595.
html

There's a Vietnam Vet with a cardboard sign
Sitting there by the left turn line
The flag on his wheelchair flapping in the breeze
One leg missing and both hands free

No one's paying much mind to him
The V.A. budget's just stretched so thin
And now there's more coming back from the Mideast war
We can't make it here anymore

And that big ol' building was the textile mill
That fed our kids and it paid our bills
But they turned us out and they closed the doors
'Cause we can't make it here anymore

You see those pallets piled up on the loading dock
They're just gonna sit there 'til they rot
'Cause there's nothing to ship, nothing to pack
Just busted concrete and rusted tracks

Empty storefronts around the square
There's a needle in the gutter and glass everywhere
You don't come down here unless you're looking to score
We can't make it here anymore

The bar's still open but man it's slow
The tip jar's light and the register's low
The bartender don't have much to say
The regular crowd gets thinner each day

Some have maxed out all their credit cards
Some are working two jobs and living in cars
Minimum wage won't pay for a roof, won't pay for a drink
If you gotta have proof just try it yourself Mr. C.E.O.
See how far $5.15 an hour will go
Take a part time job at one your stores
I bet you can't make it here anymore

And there's a high school girl with a bourgeois dream
Just like the pictures in the magazine
She found on the floor of the laundromat
A woman with kids can forget all that

If she comes up pregnant what'll she do
Forget the career and forget about school
Can she live on faith? Live on hope?
High on Jesus or hooked on dope
When it's way too late to just say no
You can't make it here anymore

Now I'm stocking shirts in the Wal-Mart store
Just like the ones we made before
'Cept this one came from Singapore
I guess we can't make it here anymore

Should I hate a people for the shade of their skin
Or the shape of their eyes or the shape I'm in
Should I hate 'em for having our jobs today
No I hate the men sent the jobs away

I can see them all now, they haunt my dreams
All lily white and squeaky clean
They've never known want, they'll never know need
Their shit don't stink and their kids won't bleed
Their kids won't bleed in their damn little war
And we can't make it here anymore

Will I work for food, will I die for oil
Will kill for power and to us the spoils
The billionaires get to pay less tax
The working poor get to fall through the cracks

So let 'em eat jellybeans let 'em eat cake
Let 'em eat shit, whatever it takes
They can join the Air Force or join the Corps
If they can't make it here anymore

So that's how it is, that's what we got
If the president wants to admit it or not
You can read it in the paper, read it on the wall
Hear it on the wind if you're listening at all
Get out of that limo, look us in the eye
Call us on the cell phone tell us all why

In Dayton Ohio or Portland Maine
Or a cotton gin out on the great high plains
That's done closed down along with the school
And the hospital and the swimming pool

Dust devils dance in the noonday heat
There's rats in the alley and trash in the street
Gang graffiti on a boxcar door
We can't make it here anymore

We Can't Make It Here lyrics © Bug Music O/B/O Short Trip Music

---

Quote:

---

One of the Senators voting against the Tax Bill was Bernie, just in case you need that explained to you, AURaptor. I never can know how little you know.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

One of the Senators voting against the Tax Bill was Bernie, just in case you need that explained to you, AURaptor. I never can know how little you know.

---

@second - of COURSE he voted against it , you imbecile ! I know so much more than you can imagine... but that's not the issue here. It's the 'dumb-masses' , who likely WERE Bernie supporters ( one girl in particular ) who don't know what in the hell they're for.

2 different videos, 2 different groups, same conclusion. Meanwhile, you offer up a Lay Leno video ? Really ? As proof of what, exactly ? I doubt very much that Jay's put out 1000 such videos, or even talked to 1000 folks on these ' man on the street' interviews. Most of , if not all were likely staged. C'mon, it's Jay Leno. Everyone knew he was a comedian, back when he was doing this stuff... don't be that naive.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

One of the Senators voting against the Tax Bill was Bernie, just in case you need that explained to you, AURaptor. I never can know how little you know.

---

@second - of COURSE he voted against it , you imbecile ! I know so much more than you can imagine... but that's not the issue here. It's the 'dumb-masses' , who likely WERE Bernie supporters ( one girl in particular ) who don't know what in the hell they're for.

2 different videos, 2 different groups, same conclusion. Meanwhile, you offer up a Lay Leno video ? Really ? As proof of what, exactly ? I doubt very much that Jay's put out 1000 such videos, or even talked to 1000 folks on these ' man on the street' interviews. Most of , if not all were likely staged. C'mon, it's Jay Leno. Everyone knew he was a comedian, back when he was doing this stuff... don't be that naive.


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

In the aftermath of the American Revolution, liberals began to argue, in opposition to the older view that “public virtue is the only foundation of republics,” in the words of John Adams, that a proper system of constitutional checks and balances would “make it advantageous even for bad men to act for the public good,” as James Wilson put it. According to John Taylor, “an avaricious society can form a government able to defend itself against the avarice of its members” by enlisting the “interest of vice…on the side of virtue.” Virtue lay in the “principles of government,” Taylor argued, not in the “evanescent qualities of individuals.” The institutions and “principles of a society may be virtuous, though the individuals composing it are vicious.”

The trouble with this agreeable paradox of a virtuous society based on vicious individuals is that liberals didn’t really mean it. They took for granted a good deal more in the way of private virtue than they were willing to acknowledge. Even today, liberals who adhere to this minimal view of citizenship smuggle a certain amount of citizenship between the cracks of their free-market ideology. Milton Friedman himself admits that a liberal society requires a “minimum degree of literacy and knowledge,” along with a “widespread acceptance of some common set of values.” It is not clear that our society can meet even these minimal conditions, as things stand today; but it has always been clear, in any case, that a liberal society needs more virtue than Friedman allows for. A system that relies so heavily on the concept of rights presupposes individuals who respect the rights of others, if only because they expect others to respect their own rights in return. The market itself, the central institution of a liberal society, presupposes, at the very least, sharp-eyed, calculating, and dear-headed individuals — paragons of rational choice. It presupposes not just self-interest but enlightened self-interest. It was for this reason that 19th-century liberals attached so much importance to the family. The obligation to support a wife and children, in their view, would discipline possessive individualism and transform the potential gambler, speculator, dandy, or confidence man into a conscientious provider. Having abandoned the old republican ideal of citizenship along with the republican indictment of luxury, liberals lacked any grounds on which to appeal to individuals to subordinate private interest to the public good. But at least they could appeal to the higher selfishness of marriage and parenthood. They could ask, if not for the suspension of self-interest, for its elevation and refinement.

The hope that rising expectations would lead men and women to invest their ambitions in their offspring was destined to be disappointed in the long run. The more closely capitalism came to be identified with immediate gratification and planned obsolescence, the more relentlessly it wore away the moral foundations of family life. The rising divorce rate, already a source of alarm in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, seemed to reflect a growing impatience with the constraints imposed by long-term responsibilities and commitments. The passion to get ahead had begun to imply the right to make a fresh start whenever earlier commitments became unduly burdensome. Material abundance weakened the economic as well as the moral foundations of the “well-ordered family state” admired by nineteenth-century liberals. The family business gave way to the corporation, the family farm (more slowly and painfully) to a collectivized agriculture ultimately controlled by the same banking houses that had engineered the consolidation of industry. The agrarian uprising of the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s proved to be the first round in a long, losing struggle to save the family farm, enshrined in American mythology, even today, as the sine qua non of a good society but subjected in practice to a ruinous cycle of mechanization, indebtedness, and overproduction.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So the problem with democracy is capitalism.

---

Quote:

---

If we can surmount the false polarizations now generated by the politics of gender and race, we may find that the real divisions are still those of class. “Back to basics” could mean a return to class warfare (since it is precisely the basics that our elites reject as hopelessly outmoded) or at least to a politics in which class became the overriding issue. Needless to say, the elites that set the tone of American politics, even when they disagree about everything else, have a common stake in suppressing a politics of class. Much will depend on whether communitarians continue to acquiesce in this attempt to keep class issues out of politics or whether they will come to see that gross inequalities, as populists have always understood, are incompatible with any form of community that would now be recognized as desirable and that everything depends, therefore, on closing the gap between elites and the rest of the nation.

---

Quote:

---

The majority think they are getting an okay deal

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
We will never get a fair deal if the winning prezidential candidates are alwayz rich or supported by the rich.

I had hope for chanje with Obama, but it wuz too eazy for him to blow it. Even if he had good intentionz at the beginning, being surrounded by rich peeple during hiz campane, then appointing the rich to hiz cabinet and being obstructed by The Party uv the Rich disillusioned me.

It'll be sum time after cowz, pigz and chickenz rize up and overthrow the Meat Lordz that the downtrodden human cattle realize they can win by sheer numberz.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
In case you forgot that Second was obscenely rich and that he's going to benefit because of how stupid the 99% are, two posts above this you can read his daily reminder to us of those alleged facts for 12-26-2017.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
It will never pass so long as there are at least 34 GOP Senators.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
It will never pass so long as there are at least 34 GOP Senators.

---

Why didn't it ever pass when there wasn't?

Simple.

Democrats don't really want it either. They just get the benefit of pretending that they do.

---

Quote:

---

In case you forgot that Second was obscenely rich ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

In case you forgot that Second was obscenely rich ...

---

So is G. When I look at what G defends (the wealthy, low or no inheritance tax) plus his lack of real-world knowledge about the state of the economy (he had no idea that many more young people were living with "mom and dad") and his being here day and night... clearly, he's not working a job that he worries about losing .... I think my guess that he inherited his dad's company - and a position in it where he doesn't have to produce .... is pretty close to the mark.

Unlike SECOND's use of being rich as a badge of "I know about the rich because I am one", G stays pretty quiet about his financial situation, but he's clearly a guy with no money worries.

---

Quote:

---

The majority know that they're getting screwed. That's why they voted for Trump: to turn over the tables of the money-changers in the temple. If that doesn't happen, there will be another election.

ETA: And when people get tired of being ping-ponged between Tweedledum and Tweedledee ... oh, THAT will be the day!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:


So thanks to Bill in ninety-nine,
Who shipped our jobs out down the line...
...Strings attached, we come to blows.
No, we won't make it here no more.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
It will never pass so long as there are at least 34 GOP Senators.

---

Why didn't it ever pass when there wasn't?

Simple.

Democrats don't really want it either. They just get the benefit of pretending that they do.

---

There you go again. Already giving your instantaneous surrender to your doom. What year did the GOP control less than 1/3 of the Senate?

Edited an hour later: Times up, 6ixStringJack. You fail. I'll answer my own question: during the Great Depression, when Democrats cleaned up the rank stupidity of the GOP, and during the booming '60s, the time when Trump thinks America was great and he was not yet a fat glutton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_States_ove
r_time

In 1933, the Roosevelt administration established a national minimum wage. However, the US Supreme Court, full of Republicans, declared the act unconstitutional, and the minimum wage was abolished. Roosevelt had to wait for Republican Justices on the Supreme Court to die before he could sign another minimum wage law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
It will never pass so long as there are at least 34 GOP Senators.

---

Why didn't it ever pass when there wasn't?

Simple.

Democrats don't really want it either. They just get the benefit of pretending that they do.

---

There you go again. Already giving your instantaneous surrender to your doom. What year did the GOP control less than 1/3 of the Senate?

Edited an hour later: Times up, 6ixStringJack. You fail. I'll answer my own question: during the Great Depression, when Democrats cleaned up the rank stupidity of the GOP, and during the booming '60s, the time when Trump thinks America was great and he was not yet a fat glutton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_States_ove
r_time

In 1933, the Roosevelt administration established a national minimum wage. However, the US Supreme Court, full of Republicans, declared the act unconstitutional, and the minimum wage was abolished. Roosevelt had to wait for Republican Justices on the Supreme Court to die before he could sign another minimum wage law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States
y

---

LOL. You fail, smartass. But nice try on the history lesson though.

Google the 89th Congress.

Hope daddy didn't pay too much for that Ivy League edumacation.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
It will never pass so long as there are at least 34 GOP Senators.

---

Why didn't it ever pass when there wasn't?

Simple.

Democrats don't really want it either. They just get the benefit of pretending that they do.

---

There you go again. Already giving your instantaneous surrender to your doom. What year did the GOP control less than 1/3 of the Senate?

Edited an hour later: Times up, 6ixStringJack. You fail. I'll answer my own question: during the Great Depression, when Democrats cleaned up the rank stupidity of the GOP, and during the booming '60s, the time when Trump thinks America was great and he was not yet a fat glutton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_States_ove
r_time

In 1933, the Roosevelt administration established a national minimum wage. However, the US Supreme Court, full of Republicans, declared the act unconstitutional, and the minimum wage was abolished. Roosevelt had to wait for Republican Justices on the Supreme Court to die before he could sign another minimum wage law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States
y

---

LOL. You fail, smartass. But nice try on the history lesson though.

Google the 89th Congress.

Hope daddy didn't pay too much for that Ivy League edumacation.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

?????
He already mentioned the 60s, which included 1965/1966.

Whutchu taukkin about, Willis?

---

Quote:

---

Times up, 6ixStringJack. You fail. I'll answer my own question: during the Great Depression,

---

Quote:

---

Unlike SECOND's use of being rich as a badge of "I know about the rich because I am one", G stays pretty quiet about his financial situation, but he's clearly a guy with no money worries.- SIGNY

You forgot that I'm short, fat and smelly too.- G

---

Quote:

---

Um, Granny? We already had this conversation and I already corrected your intended insults ("Daddy's business..."), or don't you remember?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Wow... is that true JSF?

That's not something I read before. I certainly don't see how that benefits the working class at all.

Doesn't bother me one way or the other, personally. I'm 38 years old and I've never had close to enough things to itemize that I wouldn't get more out of the standard deduction.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Buffett's disingenuous claims that he pays less taxes than his secretary is all the reason in the world why his comments on this matter are meaningless.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Buffett's disingenuous claims that he pays less taxes than his secretary is all the reason in the world why his comments on this matter are meaningless.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Wow... is that true JSF?

That's not something I read before. I certainly don't see how that benefits the working class at all.

Doesn't bother me one way or the other, personally. I'm 38 years old and I've never had close to enough things to itemize that I wouldn't get more out of the standard deduction.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

I heard the news report that 2 States had their Governors sign urgent quick laws to allow their residents to pay their property tax early, so it could be before Dec 31. I think NY and NJ.
I never heard of Governments that did not allow taxes to be paid early. How stupid is that? Free money for the coffers early, less I terest to pay, etc.

OTOH, can you imagine the chaos in Property Tax Offices this week?

In terms of overall benefits of Tax Reform, the simpler the better. Which means less or fewer different kinds of deductions, which would be the case here.
In terms of specific application, consider examples of 2 different taxpayers. 1 is similar to you, or even barely had a benefit of itemizing. 2 is carrying a Million Dollar home. The standard deduction and personal exemptions were raised, one of them doubled - that is for everybody, regardless of Income bracket. By trading an increased Universal deduction and exemptions with elimination of property tax deductible, which party gets the greater benefit? How about a family with one house but more kids? Or somebody not owning property? Those benefitting the greatest from property tax deductible were likely higher income, with more property values. The hard working shlub did not benefit as much, if at all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Here's hoping Indiana ups their pitiful $1k deduction soon since they recently fucked us all with a large local tax where I live. State and Local income taxes have always hit me the hardest no matter where I lived.

---