General politics

[ashbury]

To help pay for the rich people's tax cuts, the middle class will have their taxes more than doubled in five years.

Source? I haven't seen mention of either that much, or that soon. But details are only just emerging, and I could have missed it.

 

Here's typical of what I've been seeing: https://slate.com/business/2017/11/the-sneaky-ways-republicans-would-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class.html

 

BTW, I started to comment that this thread title is "General Politics" and we have just witnessed the spectacle of a General pleading guilty to lying to the FBI.

[drjim]

To help pay for the rich people's tax cuts, the middle class will have their taxes more than doubled in five years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and since it will add 1 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years, now they are going to make cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to try and offset it.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-eyes-post-tax-cut-changes-to-welfare-medicare-and-social-security/ar-BBG1mXp?li=BBnb7Kz

 

Trump becoming president is even more of a nightmare than I thought it would be.

This is standard Republican fare, it has little to do with Trump specifically.

 

On this issue, I think a Hillary presidency would likely have led to a Republican blowout in 2020 and the tax cut would have been worse and more permanent.

 

If the Dems can retake everything by 2020, as they should, they can reverse most of this.

[jimmer]

 

Source? I haven't seen mention of either that much, or that soon. But details are only just emerging, and I could have missed it.

 

Here's typical of what I've been seeing: https://slate.com/business/2017/11/the-sneaky-ways-republicans-would-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class.html

 

BTW, I started to comment that this thread title is "General Politics" and we have just witnessed the spectacle of a General pleading guilty to lying to the FBI.

It will effect families who make something like 65K to like 150K, going from 12% to 25% (the new tax brackets). Of course, they make sure to make this take effect after the next general elections.  In the meantime, the people who would likely vote for Trump will get tax breaks and praise his name and then if he gets re-elected, THEN the tax rates kick in and it's like 'Uh, Der, what happened Gomer.' 

 

Of course, the genius of it is the medical rates probably go up for the people who are getting tax cuts now, and then Medicaid, medicare and Social Security benefits will go down in the future along with their tax rates going up in the future.

 

So Yay, Republians!  And goodbye to the middle class.

 

 

“The beating heart of our plan is a tax cut for working families,” Trump said this week. “That’s what it is. We’re going to make sure that you keep more of your hard-earned money. We’re going to make sure, also, that you have a job that you want.”

This is not true. Indeed, families in the middle of the income distribution would on average see no benefit from the plan as of 2027, whereas families at the top would be paying far less in taxes and many families at the bottom would actually be paying more. One reason is that the legislation changes the way that the tax brackets get adjusted year after year to account for the effect of inflation. More families would get pushed into higher tax brackets sooner under the Republican plan, so they would end up paying more in taxes, even though the marginal rates would be lower. In addition, Republicans have gone after a number of provisions in the current code—the state and local tax deduction and the medical expense deduction, for instance—that help many middle-class and upper-middle-class families.'

[ashbury]

It will effect families who make something like 65K to like 150K, going from 12% to 25% (the new tax brackets).

As it happens, I saw a new article in the meantime with some useful details: https://www.yahoo.com/news/does-senate-tax-plan-mean-170504099.html

 

This table from it sheds light on your example:

 

 

At 65K the marginal rate (i.e. the rate on the last dollar earned) for joint filers goes down from 15% to 12%. At 150K it goes down from 25% to 24%. I could have missed one, but I don't see an income level in between these values (or anywhere really, except $400K to $416K) where income is taxed at a higher rate.

 

Since one's tax bill is computed from tax tables that use all the brackets below one's marginal rate, and since the standard deduction is going up not down (except maybe for really large families), most taxpayers not itemizing would seem to come out slightly ahead. I don't see any scenario where one's marginal rate would zoom from 12% to 25%.

 

Now, someone like me in a high state-tax state who itemizes^* will need to do the math to find out. But it's said that the majority of taxpayers take the standard deduction. As I learned in 2016, people like me don't count very much in electoral calculus.

 

You know I'm not in favor of this bill by any stretch. I am just concerned with claiming that vast numbers of middle class taxpayers will see an increase, and then getting that argument cut out from under us just in time for election season.

 

Finally, as for 2027 or whenever certain provisions expire or phase out, I'm not interested at this time: 1) people will vote with their current experience in 2018, and 2) there will be one or more changes in occupant of the Oval Office and/or the makeup of Congress by tax year 2027, giving plenty of time for further legislation to modify or negate these effects before they even happen. (Just look at how original projections for Obamacare in 2020 are starting to shape up in light of recent mutilations to that law. All projections come with a giant grain of salt - use as directed.)

 

^{* _{Technically my dear wife is the one who itemizes and computes}** _{and presents me a completed tax return to sign.}}

 

^{_{** Technically technically TurboTax does most of the heavy lifting.}}

[ashbury]

Addendum: OK, I see a source saying that the House version of the bill had only 4 brackets. That would probably be the genesis of your statement above. However, at this point it looks like reconciliation will resemble the Senate bill more than the House's - there was some speculation I heard that the House might even simply vote the Senate bill verbatim, but that sentiment probably has eroded a day later. We'll just have to stay tuned.

[drjim]

Another accusation against Franken. Democratic Senators on record calling for him to step aside.

 

Time for Franken to go. Get out.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Just for ****s and giggles, I think Franken should resign on the same day Moore is sworn in

 

That'll show 'em!!!

[Mike Sixel]

He's toast now that at least five US Senators have called for him to be gone. He should have taken the high road, and resigned. He'll be replaced by a Democrat. He could have done much more good for this country by resigning and helping the Dems establish some moral high ground. Now? He's just another disgraced harrasser who refused to resign until he was forced out. Hubris.....hubris always seems to win with the powerful.

[Squirrel]

There is a LOT of excuse making and resistance for change in this area, so much so I don't think many, women included, understand how deep this runs and how acceptable it had become from the small to the large. So many people still give the 'Oh lighten up, you're being too sensitive' crap to too many things. And there are some who truly believe it's a 'man's right' to treat everyone this way ... and some of that is religion based and I've had my experiences with that, too. I get eye rolls from my (male) colleagues at work when I mention it makes me uncomfortable to walk into a conductor's room, at his invitation and he's half dressed, in his underwear. No woman conductor has ever assumed this is okay behavior. This is how it has been for far too long. And when major stuff goes down, the pressure to 'go along' is strong and women have had little recourse and no voice and blamed for the behavior of men. I won't be satisfied until the clean up goes all the way to the White House.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

There is a LOT of excuse making and resistance for change in this area, so much so I don't think many, women included, understand how deep this runs and how acceptable it had become from the small to the large. So many people still give the 'Oh lighten up, you're being too sensitive' crap to too many things. And there are some who truly believe it's a 'man's right' to treat everyone this way ... and some of that is religion based and I've had my experiences with that, too. I get eye rolls from my (male) colleagues at work when I mention it makes me uncomfortable to walk into a conductor's room, at his invitation and he's half dressed, in his underwear. No woman conductor has ever assumed this is okay behavior. This is how it has been for far too long. And when major stuff goes down, the pressure to 'go along' is strong and women have had little recourse and no voice and blamed for the behavior of men. I won't be satisfied until the clean up goes all the way to the White House.

In general, I like your comment, but I'm not sure what excuse making you are referring to.

 

Men who are paying attention and honest with themselves know how deep this problem goes, and I'm glad this stuff is finally coming out. Question for you. What do you tell the 70 year old lady who says "lighten up, sweetie pie" to women who are coming out? You may call that question an excuse, but I'm also interested in an answer as I'm sure many others are.

[Mike Sixel]

My new US Senator just announced he expects my old US Senator to resign tomorrow.....MN is a governor appoints successor state. I hope Dayton has been talking to Rybak for the past week or two.....

[Squirrel]

 

In general, I like your comment, but I'm not sure what excuse making you are referring to.

Men who are paying attention and honest with themselves know how deep this problem goes, and I'm glad this stuff is finally coming out. Question for you. What do you tell the 70 year old lady who says "lighten up, sweetie pie" to women who are coming out? You may call that question an excuse, but I'm also interested in an answer as I'm sure many others are.

Don't assume I blame only men for this problem; this is a societal problem. I'm not even sure 'blame' is the right word to use. And don't get defensive and feel the need to point out 'not all men are like this.' I know that. And both men and women have been 'conditioned' for a long time what is and isn't acceptable behavior and both have participated in and perpetrated poor and sometimes illegal behavior, and maybe largely not even understanding the harm that is caused or even that it's wrong. But if there is to be change, the large onus of that falls to the ones in power and to the large majority of perpetrators, which are men. It's not really a very good example to point to an 'exception of the rule' as a means to address the whole. That, imho, is part of the 'excuse making' even if not your intent.

[Craig Arko]

Remind me; how many religious doctrines in practice today treat man and woman on an equal footing? I'm sure there must be some; native cultures?

[ashbury]

Remind me; how many religious doctrines in practice today treat man and woman on an equal footing? I'm sure there must be some; native cultures?

At Plimoth Plantation the other day, Native American speakers referred to a matriarchy in the pre-Pilgrim society. I don't know how that bears on "today" as you asked.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Don't assume I just blame only men for this problem; this is a societal problem. And don't get defensive and feel the need to point out 'not all men are like this.' I know that. And both men and women have been 'conditioned' for a long time what is and isn't acceptable behavior and both have participated in and perpetrated poor and sometimes illegal behavior, and maybe largely not even understanding the harm that is caused or even that it's wrong. But if there is to be change, the large onus of that falls to the ones in power, and the large majority of perpetrators, which are men. It's not really a very good example to point to an 'exception of the rule' as a means to address the whole. That, imho, is part of the 'excuse making' even if not your intent.

Still not sure I am following. If you are calling the 70 year old lady admonishing the younger women an exception, I'm not sure that's accurate. Seems to me partly generational and not uncommon to see those folks in the comments sections. Also, lost in all this is the degrees of difference between what 90 year old wheelchair-bound president Bush does patting women on the behind, compared with men in power standing half dressed ordering women to their private rooms. That is wrong and they know it. What happened to you is absolutely wrong and possibly assault. What happens to a woman getting an unwanted pat is also wrong but I'm not sure the amount of injury there. Franken should be held accountable. Are you saying Roy Moore should also be held accountable? How would you go about holding him accountable?

 

Edit: bringing up Roy Moore was not a clumsy attempt to change subject, in case it was read that way, but a way of asking how people intend to hold him accountable

[Mr. Brooks]

Moore won't be held accountable.

He represents a party, region, and religion that not only thinks his behavior is okay, but thinks it is exactly the type of behavior that makes you a "real" man.

 

I'm sure I'll get pushback not to generalize, but the proof is in the pudding. He'll win in a landslide.

 

Also, regarding Franken, I'm glad we got clarification on how many sexual assaults is too many. Seven. Six or less, apologize and you're good, seven, you gotta go.

[drjim]

Moore won't be held accountable.

He represents a party, region, and religion that not only thinks his behavior is okay, but thinks it is exactly the type of behavior that makes you a "real" man.

 

I'm sure I'll get pushback not to generalize, but the proof is in the pudding. He'll win in a landslide.

 

Also, regarding Franken, I'm glad we got clarification on how many sexual assaults is too many. Seven. Six or less, apologize and you're good, seven, you gotta go.

Moore might win, but it won't be a landslide. There is a lot of outrage on all sides against him. A Republican Senator just gave money to his challenger.

 

Regarding Franken, I think it was timing more than number. Contrary to others, I actually think he got bounced pretty quickly. There should be a process.

[Mr. Brooks]

Moore might win, but it won't be a landslide. There is a lot of outrage on all sides against him. A Republican Senator just gave money to his challenger.

 

Regarding Franken, I think it was timing more than number. Contrary to others, I actually think he got bounced pretty quickly. There should be a process.

It depends on how you define "landslide".

I predict he wins by a minimum of 7 points, with 9 or 10 a slight but not insignificant possibility.

 

To me, that's a landslide. Especially considering all the circumstances.

[Mr. Brooks]

And regardless, if his behavior wasn't accepted, he'd lose by 60 points. But, he won't, and that is my point.

[drjim]

It depends on how you define "landslide".

I predict he wins by a minimum of 7 points, with 9 or 10 a slight but not insignificant possibility.

 

To me, that's a landslide. Especially considering all the circumstances.

That would be a landslide. I personally think Jones wins.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Also, regarding Franken, I'm glad we got clarification on how many sexual assaults is too many. Seven. Six or less, apologize and you're good, seven, you gotta go.

Pretty embarrassing to look back now at Franken playing the "I can't remember" card. 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

That would be a landslide. I personally think Jones wins.

 

Really? Based on what? Even in liberal Atlanta, the democrat won by a whopping 759 votes or so. The people of the South have been told for 40 years that democrats are worse than Satan. That kind of thing, repeating it over and over, works very well. Just ask Russian's or 1930s Germans, or most anyone that hears the same thing from parents, teachers, journalists, and preachers......over and over.

[drjim]

Really? Based on what? Even in liberal Atlanta, the democrat won by a whopping 759 votes or so. The people of the South have been told for 40 years that democrats are worse than Satan. That kind of thing, repeating it over and over, works very well. Just ask Russian's or 1930s Germans, or most anyone that hears the same thing from parents, teachers, journalists, and preachers......over and over.

Polls have been really close for weeks. I think they are overcounting Rs in the sample too. Special elections have lower turnout and I suspect Ds will be more motivated at crunch time.

 

Not saying it will happen for sure, just the feeling I have.

[Mr. Brooks]

Polls have been really close for weeks. I think they are overcounting Rs in the sample too. Special elections have lower turnout and I suspect Ds will be more motivated at crunch time.

 

Not saying it will happen for sure, just the feeling I have.

The polls in the Presidential Election showed us that when one of the candidates is a gross human, the polls can't be trusted.

 

People say one thing when they have to say it to another person. In the privacy of the voting booth, it's another story.

[Badsmerf]

The polls in the Presidential Election showed us that when one of the candidates is a gross human, the polls can't be trusted.

People say one thing when they have to say it to another person. In the privacy of the voting booth, it's another story.

Not exactly. Polls showed it would be close. Clinton had the advantage for sure, but it wasn't a sure thing. Even at 25% odds (and it was more like 35-40% I think) that is pretty good betting odds. Plus, they all have a margin of error. And, Clinton won the popular vote by about 3% (calling them points is dumb). So the polls weren't bad, the interpretation was. Credit fivethirtyeight for their great analysis.

[Mr. Brooks]

Not exactly. Polls showed it would be close. Clinton had the advantage for sure, but it wasn't a sure thing. Even at 25% odds (and it was more like 35-40% I think) that is pretty good betting odds. Plus, they all have a margin of error. And, Clinton won the popular vote by about 3% (calling them points is dumb). So the polls weren't bad, the interpretation was. Credit fivethirtyeight for their great analysis.

Most polls had Clinton as a near lock. Trump won decidedly.

 

538's analysis was spot on only because they predicted the polls were wrong.

[drjim]

The polls in the Presidential Election showed us that when one of the candidates is a gross human, the polls can't be trusted.

 

People say one thing when they have to say it to another person. In the privacy of the voting booth, it's another story.

There's not much evidence of your second point. In fact, it might even be slightly the other direction.

 

The Presidential polls ended up being off by about a point, unfortunately it was the wrong direction in the wrong states. Those calling it a near lock for Clinton were bad interpretation of data. There were always too many undecideds for that level of certainty.

 

Recent elections have shown Ds are a little underrepresented in polls, if anything. How that plays in Alabama remains to be seen.

[Mr. Brooks]

There's not much evidence of your second point. In fact, it might even be slightly the other direction.

 

The Presidential polls ended up being off by about a point, unfortunately it was the wrong direction in the wrong states. Those calling it a near lock for Clinton were bad interpretation of data. There were always too many undecideds for that level of certainty.

 

Recent elections have shown Ds are a little underrepresented in polls, if anything. How that plays in Alabama remains to be seen.

I'm referring to the polls in the states that mattered.

 

If I recall, the election thread here was pretty unanimously saying that Trump wouldn't win, right up until he did.

 

We'll find out soon, and in this case I desperately hope to be wrong.

[drjim]

Glad Franken did the right thing.

 

Looks like Tina Smith is the most likely replacement. I hope they have enough sense to install a placeholder and not try to pick the long term successor.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Today is a great day for the Democratic senators, including Klobuchar, who pressured Franken to resign.

 

 

 

 

 

Now what?