The Democrat Utopia

Lorewarn said:
Just speaking for myself here, but I don't think I'm going to be encouraged in any way by your ideal Republican DINO candidate's nominations for ICE.You still, after all this time, haven't given any answer as to what good will actually come from winning these elections by becoming 00s Republicans, and only see the winning of the election as the goal.
Click to expand...


There is of course no evidence that Democrats are hungry for a Mitt Romney to call himself a Democrat and beat the more right wing Republican, an election he could easily lose because that's not what Democrats are hungry for at all. 

 
JJ Husker said:
More info on how tax cuts are funded for those here still struggling with the concept. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-12/trump-tax-bill-would-boost-rich-cut-poor-incomes-cbo-says
 

Spoiler- numbers in article provided by the CBO. And for those who don’t know what the income deciles are….

1- under $15k

2- 15-25k

3- 25-35k

4- 35-50k

5- 50-75k

6- 75-100k

7- 100-125k

8- 125-150k

9- 150-200k

10- over $200k
Click to expand...
Can’t read it paywall, but for willing to know.  Tax cuts are not “funded”.  

 
Archy1221 said:
Can’t read it paywall, but for willing to know.  Tax cuts are not “funded”.  
Click to expand...
In a nutshell, the CBO numbers in the article state that decile 1 will lose about $1600 annually. It also will cost people in deciles 2 & 3 more annually. #4 breaks about even and 5 thru 9 will make/save a little bit of money while those earning $200k plus in the 10th decile will come out $12,000 ahead.

So effectively, the bottom 3 deciles are “funding” tax cuts, primarily for the top 10th decile. The CBO did take into account the Snap money and medicaid money the lower income people would be losing when they calculated this.

You really need to get beyond your pet peeve of not wanting to consider this “funding”. I understand your point but that is effectively how the tax cuts for the wealthy are able to be implemented. This reconciliation bill reduces taxes for the richest while driving up costs for the lowest 3 deciles.

 
JJ Husker said:
In a nutshell, the CBO numbers in the article state that decile 1 will lose about $1600 annually. It also will cost people in deciles 2 & 3 more annually. #4 breaks about even and 5 thru 9 will make/save a little bit of money while those earning $200k plus in the 10th decile will come out $12,000 ahead.
Click to expand...
How will be people lose $1600 annually when they don’t pay federal taxes?  
 

Plus, isn’t this bill just extending the current rates?   

 
Archy1221 said:
How will be people lose $1600 annually when they don’t pay federal taxes?  
 

Plus, isn’t this bill just extending the current rates?   
Click to expand...
Because they are losing Snap and Medicaid benefits. We should probably assume that they will still have to buy food and get medical care, both of which will now cost them more. I mean at least until they die from starvation or lack of medical care.

Thank goodness the people making over $200k per year will pocket another $12,000 per year though. If my math is correct, that additional $12k/yr is 80% of the total $15k max income of that 1st decile group. I wonder which is more valuable and needed. $1,600 in additional expenses to somebody making $15,000 or less, or a $12,000 tax break for somebody making over $200k?

Honestly I don’t know if the bill has new, more extensive tax cuts or if it just renews the same existing rates. My guess is, it does include new deeper tax cuts for the wealthiest because the CBO is claiming the 10th decile will save an additional $12k/yr.  I can’t imagine the CBO would compare it to anything other than what is currently happening.  But I do know that the bill includes new cuts for Snap and Medicaid benefits that will definitely impact the poorest in our country.

But sure, one approach is to just say they don’t pay any tax now so screw ‘em.

 
@Archy1221

Per AI….

Tax brackets are the layers of income that are taxed at different rates. In a progressive tax system like the US, the tax rate increases as your income enters higher brackets. This means you only pay the lowest rate on the portion of your income that falls within the lowest bracket. For example, if you're a single filer with $15,000 in taxable income, the first $11,600 is taxed at 10%, and the remaining $3,400 is taxed at the next bracket's rate (12%). 
 

In other words, the people you claim don’t pay any tax, are paying the exact same rate you are on your first $15,000 of income. Sure there are standard deductions etc. but those also apply to everyone. There isn’t a zero percent tax bracket.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JJ Husker said:
In other words, the people you claim don’t pay any tax, are paying the exact same rate you are on your first $15,000 of income. Sure there are standard deductions etc. but those also apply to everyone. There isn’t a zero percent tax bracket
Click to expand...
Yeah I think most competent adults understand how the tax system works and I have always talked about effective tax rates because that’s all that matters.  
 

One could could have a 100% tax rate on income over $100 billion but with tax deductions get that down to 50%.   Doesn’t mean the person is paying 100% tax on that income above $100 billion. 
 

Roughly or slightly over 40%  of the population does not pay federal income income tax.  

 
Archy1221 said:
Yeah I think most competent adults understand how the tax system works and I have always talked about effective tax rates because that’s all that matters.  
 

One could could have a 100% tax rate on income over $100 billion but with tax deductions get that down to 50%.   Doesn’t mean the person is paying 100% tax on that income above $100 billion. 
 

Roughly or slightly over 40%  of the population does not pay federal income income tax.  
Click to expand...
And the other slightly under 60% of the population, including me and you, are also not paying any federal income tax on that same amount of income as the 40%.

So what is your point? I guess your point is, you do think people making under $50k should pay more tax while those over $200k should pay less. Not shocking I guess.

It does beg the question though, how do you raise the tax rate on those 40% folks without also raising it on everyone?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JJ Husker said:
So what is your point? I guess your point is, you do think people making under $50k should pay more tax while those over $200k should pay less. Not shocking I guess
Click to expand...
It’s the same point I’ve stated to you MULTIPLE times now.   You can’t give an additional federal tax deductions to someone who has a $0 effective tax rate.   

 
Archy1221 said:
It’s the same point I’ve stated to you MULTIPLE times now.   You can’t give an additional federal tax deductions to someone who has a $0 effective tax rate.   
Click to expand...
Yeah but wouldn’t you like to see them pay some minimum level of tax? You’re overly concerned that they pay nothing so how do we fix that and stop you from b!^@hing about it?

You seem to be okay with taking away their Snap benefits and Medicaid benefits but that’s not really tax revenue. And you won’t consider their increased cost of living as funding tax cuts for the rich so how much more blood do you have to get out of the turnips until you begin to act like they’re actual citizens just as worthy as you?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top