Left's Unhinged Response To Trump Tax Cut Reveals Their Real Fear: What If It Works?
Taxes: As tax cuts become a reality, Democrats have gone ballistic, claiming that the GOP's sweeping tax plan will rob the middle class and the poor, line the pockets of the rich, and tank the economy. It's all false, class-warfare clap-trap, and they know it.
Following passage of the Republican tax reform, Democrat politicians and leftist media celebrities have become nearly unhinged, and that may be an understatement.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the tax cuts a "scam" and "simply theft, monumental, brazen theft from the American middle class and from every person who aspires to reach it." She added that it was "not a vote for an investment in growth or jobs," but "a vote to install a permanent plutocracy in our nation." Plutocracy?
Not to be outdone, former Democratic presidential candidate and millionaire socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont called it "a great day for the Koch brothers and other billionaire Republican campaign contributors who will see huge tax breaks for themselves while driving up the deficit by almost $1.5 trillion."
Celebrity leftists fared no better. "Woman, mother, grandmother, sister, daughter, you have betrayed us all," former comedian and TV host Rosie O'Donnell tweeted at Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who voted for the tax cut plan. "Dear god, ask for forgiveness, redeem your soul tomorrow."
She even offered her $2 million in cash to vote "no."
No Hidden Agenda: Get News From A Pro-Free Market, Pro-Growth Perspective
This is how desperate the left has become, and how divorced from reality. For all the talk of how tax cuts will line the pockets of the rich and destroy the economy, virtually no one in the mainstream of the economics profession, left or right, agrees.
The Tax Policy Center (TPC), a liberal think tank, noted that more than 80% of Americans will get tax cuts under the plan just passed. And the benefits will go to every income group, not "billionaires." This, by the way, is bolstered by other recent analyses by Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation and by the widely respected nonpartisan Tax Foundation.
TPC estimates an average tax cut of about $2,140 per person. By the way, some 16% of the richest Americans — those in the top 0.1% of incomes — will face an average tax increase of $387,610.
Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute, further crunching the TPC numbers, found that while the top 1% of incomes now pay 27% of all federal taxes, they will get just 21% of the tax cuts. The bottom 80%, including the middle class, pays only 33% of all taxes, but will take home 35% of the tax cuts.
Of the 12% who will face tax hikes, they're overwhelmingly among the rich — not the middle class.
So, no, it's not "tax cuts for the rich." That's a totally bogus argument.
For that matter, so are the arguments that tax cuts tank the economy. History is replete with examples of why that isn't true.
The tax cuts on corporations and small, pass-through businesses, along with letting companies immediately expense the cost of new equipment, should lead to more business investment. So should shrinking the death tax, which should encourage more small-business investment.
How much more is an open question, but the Heritage Foundation, which employs a widely used economic model, estimates that the tax cuts will tack on 2.2% to long-term GDP, or roughly $3,000 per household.
That estimate includes a 4.5% jump in capital investment, mainly in equipment, and a hefty 9.4% gain in business structures. Along with expected rises in both the number of jobs and hours worked, after-tax wages for the average worker will be 3.5% higher than they would have been without the tax cuts.
Others see more modest, yet still significant, gains. The Tax Foundation, for instance, forecasts a long-term permanent rise of 1.7% in GDP and 1.5% for wages. It also sees 339,000 new jobs.
These aren't pie-in-the sky guesses. As history clearly shows, growth-oriented tax cuts such as these almost always have major benefits for the economy and for average workers. During the 20th century, big tax cuts in the 1920s (Harding, Coolidge), 1960s (Kennedy) and 1980s (Reagan) all yielded major growth dividends for the U.S. economy.
What's more, those past major tax cuts were to varying degrees bipartisan. Sadly, not this time. Not one Democrat voted for them. Not one.
That's why the Democrats and progressive left have become so utterly unhinged. They've failed to stop the one thing that might deny them a chance to retake both houses of Congress in the 2018 midterm elections: an economic boom.
When the economy really begins cooking, with the economy growing close to 3%, hundreds of thousands of new jobs being created and workers seeing more in their paychecks, how will they explain that to their constituents?
RELATED:
The Coming Tax-Cut Boom
Who Says The GOP Tax Cuts Are Unpopular?
Corporate Tax Cuts Are Great For Companies, But They're Even Better For Workers
Click here for more Commentary and Opinion from Investor's Business Daily.
Tags
Who is online
52 visitors
Yes, and maybe the National Institute of Science and Technology should get massive federal funding infusion to advance the science of alchemy.
Comedy! The plan hinges on corporations doing the right thing.....and they have a good track record of doing that!......./s
The plan gives me my own money back....and I'm not Big Corp..
I take it you aren't getting to keep what you EARNED....based on your negativity on this subject.
If you're middle class, those cuts will expire in 5 years. Just in time for the GOP to blame Democrats if they take back congress and the presidency.
Fine with me. I have NO PROBLEM keeping what I've earned for 5 MORE years.
Are you losing in this "New Deal"....or just projecting Pelosi and Schumers ideology.
Funny thing I noticed yesterday....Schumer didn't shed one fucking tear over this so-called Uber "Bad for the Middle Class" tax thing.
I suppose it wasn't as bad as not letting in "Refugee's" that might be able to vote liberal in a few years.
Here's the other thing... without the advantage of writing off mortgage interest and taxes, the values of property cannot remain artificially inflated. The market will adjust to reflect the reality. Instead of using stagnant wages to buy property that you can use to write down your taxes, you'll find you are upside down financially. There's no benefit to buying a home if it becomes a money pit and a financial burden. That's just fiscal reality. Who will wingers blame for the lost value of their one durable asset?
Why should he? The tax cut benefits the rich, Schumer is rich, he'll get more out of it than you will and, you'll be paying him soon enough for all the breaks he's getting out of the deal. The thing is, he's trying to look out for your best interest, if you don't want to accept his help, that's your problem.
The Democrats of course, even though they had nothing to do with this bill.
Because....according to him and Pelosi....The so-called helpless, aren't getting what they should have.
Aren't Liberal types ALWAYS for the little guy. This should be Schumer's curtain call for crying. After all, This is going to hurt "Little Americans"....according to Liberals, unless "Americans" aren't worth crying over like Non-American refugee's were.
Could it be that America allows you to grow....so Chucky doesn't feel the pain of those that won't grow ?
$10 is a drop in the bucket for most households.
Apologies... meant to throw a K in there. With home prices and payments, that $10k isn't going to go far.
you must be rich...$10k goes very far for most earners.
If you are an average middle class person, you will not be getting ANYTHING back.
It is amazing that not only did they set this up so that everything goes into effect as soon as the president signs it but, that all of the individual cuts for the middle class and, below end two years AFTER the next general election. Hmmmm, can we say political ploy?
Of course you will. Open a link that doesn't come from Dailykos someday.
I guess you think 930 dollars is a whole lot but, you have to be in the middle of the middle class to get that.
Of course Trump and, his rich friends get the lions share.
Not to mention the repeal of the Estate Tax, that should net the Trump family millions, if not billions in savings. Nice for them, not so much for the AVERAGE American.
You have been watching to many Schumers and Pelosi's, along with all the so-called "Smart Guys and Gals" that can tell the future, speaking on the Lean Left MSM. Kinda like they were so sure during the election that Trump would fail then too.
As I understand what I have actually read, what you are saying is further out than that in reality. Gives republicans plenty of time to pass it forward further after this New "Change".
This is just the Start.
As the Liberals so Liberally say on the bad say, I will say on the "Good" side. We will see in a couple of years.
What is "Average" middle class ?
Your ideological ally posted a 100% false statement and you want to quibble with me for correcting him?
Who cares about how Trump might benefit, this bill wasn't written with him in mind.
Hope you know the new tax bill did not repeal the Estate Tax. It's been modified but it's still in there.
Before tax reform, few estates were subject to the estate tax, which applies to the transfer of property after someone dies. Now, even fewer people have to deal with it . The amount of money exempt from the tax -- previously set at $5.49 million for individuals, and at $10.98 million for married couples -- has been doubled.
Open up a link that doesn't come from fox news someday.
For a house?! Where are you living?!
Most corporation do the right thing. Most Corporations are small business and they treat their employees very well. They do a lot for their communities through work and donations.
This evil corporation bullshit needs to stop.
Supply Side does not work. The continual rising debt is the proof.
The coming tax cut boom? Credit prosperity is not prosperity.
Credit prosperity is at the heart of the last collapse. When Americans are overextended to be able to finance and participate in the economy, they've borrowed to the limit. That's when the bubble bursts and the correcting occurs.
The same thing happened at the start of the Great Depression and, at the start of the Great Recession, both times the Republicans were in charge.
It's emblematic of the working class need to maintain a standard of living that includes consumerism. While most people will not spend money they do not possess, many will spend money they haven't earned yet but anticipate earning in the future. It allows them to budget for essential purchases like cars and homes, but the maintaining for those purchases can be faulty. If the car breaks down for instance. If they have no warranty, they many not be able to afford the repairs, so they'll put that on a credit card. The monthly payment may be a budget buster. What if it's a hot water heater or major home repair not covered by insurance? Same thing. Finance a result. Major medical issues will derail the entire budget and then where is the family? This is where we are. This is where we were in 2008.
True. Except the last 'recession' originated in The Banks and Financial Markets. And----it was them that were 'bailed out' by the American taxpayers.
Errr... not so much. These numbers are for the first year. They diminish as years go by according to the TPC
More money in individual pockets translates to people spending more, keeping others employed and generating more taxes (both income and sales taxes).
Seems like every week I see an article somewhere about how the average American is nowhere near where they need to be in terms of saving for retirement. Funny how comments like yours tend to just encourage them to dig their hole deeper.
Good point.
yes, taking money out their pockets sure will help that equation.
Save more with less! says Hal
Save more with less! says Hal
Seriously, Sean? Can you point to where I said that?
Funny - I very much remember paying into FICA for 47 years. The Fed owes me Medicare & SSI based on MY contributions.
Spikegary: More money in individual pockets translates to people spending more, keeping others employed and generating more taxes (both income and sales taxes).
c4p: Exactly! It’s a great thing.
followed by:
c4p: How does us having more disposable income on hand because we have to pay a few dollars less in taxes dig our retirement hole deeper? Income taxes have nothing to do with FICA taxes we pay or the social security we receive. On the other hand , some of the extra dollars we get from a tax cut will inevitably go towards a persons 401k or IRA.
Skirting the CoC [ph]
That has to do with population, not that people didn't pay into it. FICA is paid for by both the individual and their employer. It is not an entitlement. FICA include SS, Medicaid and Medicare.
It is not a Ponzi scheme. It is ill prepared for the baby boomers. That is not the fault of those baby boomers who were paying in while other people benefited.
Also the gov uses the money collected from FICA for other purposes:
No, not a Ponzi scheme. Social Security is transparent. The perpetrator of a Ponzi scheme commits a crime by illegally pretending that he or she is investing peoples' money.
SS, like life insurance, depends on Actuarial Life Tables.
Not everyone who pays into FICA lives long enough to collect from it.
It's all about who dies and when...
Ida Fuller was an exception, but exactly the type of person FDR designed SS for.
It's funny to watch conservative/libertarians complain about Social Security and "welfare". Some of them seem to believe there is something they can do about it. Well, there is something, they can leave here and go start their own society on a deserted island. Short of that there is nothing they can do. Within the lifetimes of some people alive today, there is going to be much much much more welfare. Robots and automation will lead to permanent unemployment of 50% or more. People will paid full time salaries permanently even though they don't work. It is called universal basic income and it is inevitable, and those who want to complain about it have only capitalism to blame. In order to maximize profits, all sectors of work will be automated. Unless the population of the US is drastically reduced, and we are talking about a couple hundred million decrease, ubiquitous and permanent "welfare" will 'soon' arrive.
Keep whining about the family getting food stamps though, if it makes you feel better.
NO ONE gets food stamps unless they fall under the proscribed income levels. Or unless they cheat the system, in which case they should be caught and punished. Let's catch all the Wall St. cheats and tax cheats and private business white collar criminals while we're at it.
Let's tighten the belt by cracking down on welfare cheats, yes, but also end corporate welfare, and cut back the military budget.
With a capitalist economic system there will always be a lot of poor people. There has never been a time the poverty rate has been below 10%. Usually it is around 13-14% and anti-poverty programs by the government are what lowers it.
You want less welfare? Pay low wage workers more money.
It's funny to watch people act as if they can just decide to stop anti-poverty programs and that will be that.
The last study done found approximately 3.8% of food stamp fraud which means 96.2% are going to families that truly need it to survive. Sadly, the self righteous conservative Republicans (who 57% of use some form of government entitlement) seem to want to punish those who need it just to stop the tiny percentage that abuse the system.
"when the lens shifts to political ideology, the survey finds virtually no difference in the share of conservatives (57%), liberals (53%) or political moderates (53%) who have been assisted by at least one entitlement program."
Everyone wants it, because it is a necessity.
Anyway, your position will be made obsolete sometime in the next 50 years or so. "Welfare" will be everywhere as automation totally takes over. It will all probably drive you crazy (if you are young enough to still be around).
It is a Ponzi Scheme.
You can keep repeating that, but it is not.
A Ponzi scheme ( / ˈ p ɒ n . z i / ; also a Ponzi game ) [1] is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator generates returns for older investors through revenue paid by new investors, rather than from legitimate business activities or profit of financial trading.
The monies in FICA are invested in trusts which make interest. There is even surplus.
The Social Security tax revenue that is collected from current wage earners (i.e., anyone who has FICA taxes deducted from a paycheck) is put into the trusts, which in turn fund the monthly benefits to:
Costs associated with administering the plan also come directly from the trusts, but they're pretty minimal: less than one cent out of every dollar collected pays for administrative costs, according to the Social Security Administration.
The taxes collected can exceed the cost of current benefits. When this occurs, the money is put in the trusts and invested to pay for future program benefits.
That is not a ponzi scheme.
No one was talking about Welfare. That is an entitlement. We were talking about FICA, which we paid for, so it hardly a liberal item. If you bought life insurance and then when you died, and your spouse didn't get it because the the insurance company said, "Oh sorry, we had a bad year, no money for you", you would report them. Well we all pay FICA and it isn't welfare, so don't do this slight of hand thing, and change FICA into welfare.
Do you have something against welfare?
I think that as a stop gap, I have no issue with it. In NYC we have workfare. You are allowed to get welfare for 2 years and then during that period, you are supposed to get training to get a job, to get you off the roles. The only exception to that is single moms with school aged children and people with disabilities. They actually make up the minority of our roles. I don't think that welfare should be for life though.
I don't think anyone gets welfare for life. Unless they are disabled. There are people who know how to game the system though. The social service agencies should probably do a better job of cracking down on them.
That seems so easy to say and seems so easy to think that alone will make the difference. What actually happens is the more you're paid, the higher cost of living. Kind of like, 'which came first, the chicken or the hen?'.
For example, a garbage collector in NYC can make up to $77,000 a year and when it snows with overtime can make a whole lot more. Now that sounds pretty good for an old country boy in North Carolina, wishing he could make almost $80,000 to collect garbage, but he is only making $37,000 and that is top pay, which is pretty good, but $77,000 sure looks a whole lot better to him. But even with his $77,000 in NYC, the garbage collector is way down on the scale when it comes to pay or at least enough pay to pay the average rent for a NYC resident of $1600 and that is including the suburbs in that price. If you live in the right place you could be paying $3800 or more and with the average cost of a home in NYC including the suburbs in these calculations, they are going for around $500,000 or more, some not the best in the world costing $1,000,000.
Now that old garbage collector isn't going to be buying a house any time soon even in the suburbs, because with a house payment of around $3,000 a month including PMI, insurance and property taxes, not to mention he will be in the 25% tax bracket and paying around 15,000 Federal Income Taxes and $4,100 State Taxes, not to mention payroll taxes and any number of other taxes they can stick you with and it's not just a problem in NYC or even New York State, it's a problem everywhere in this country to some degree. Everything is relative. He'd have to get his food on the job and clothes too, because if I were to go to the trouble of adding all of these taxes, fees and everything we have to pay out every day, month and year, it just tires me to even think of it.
These figures don't even include the extremes on the high side. There is no extreme on the low side. The average home in New York State is nearly $500,000 to $750,000.
Now I'm not beating up on NYC or vicinity here. There's high cost in living everywhere relatively. The old boy making $37,000 in North Carolina is paying an average rent of around $1,000 in Charlotte NC for rent. That's not a whole lot less than NYC when you consider the garbage collector in Charlotte is making top pay just like the garbage collector in NYC, but it is half as much income to work with 62.5% of the cost for rent. Believe me, you don't want to go much lower than $1,000 a month unless you have a good security device on your car and apartment.
Where people make more money, it cost more to live. It's that old 'which came first thing again'. What's the solution? Hell, I don't know. I would say the government needs to tighten its belt, but then the cost of living goes down and the income goes down or is it the other way around. Sure doesn't look like it. Looks like maybe we've solve the question, 'which came first the cost of living or amount of income?' The government spent more than it had to cover it, so they raised the income to cover it with more tax money. What a vicious cycle!!!!
You obviously don't understand Social Security. The past investors have a trust fund of over $2.9 trillion, the benefits are not just being paid by current investors. The $2.9 trillion (so it didn't sit in a "lock box" being eaten away by inflation) has been borrowed and reinvested by the Federal Government. A large part of the $20 trillion the US government owes is owed to ourselves.
"Though U.S. government debt is perhaps the most widely held class of security in the world, as of the end of July 27.6% of the debt (about $5.48 trillion) is owed to another arm of the federal government itself. The single biggest creditors, in fact, are Social Security’s two trust funds, which together held more than $2.9 trillion in special non-traded Treasury securities, or 14.7% of the total debt. (Social Security revenues exceeded benefit payments for many years; the surplus was required by law to be invested in Treasuries.)"
So you're wrong, it's not a Ponzi scheme no matter how much you wish the right wing machine that's been lying to you wants it to be.
Well with Republicans running things we don't have to worry about people living longer. The life expectancy in the US has been dropping each year and will likely speed up as Republicans gut the affordable care act and tens of millions go uninsured because they can no longer afford it or are priced out of the market due to pre-existing conditions.
The social security trust fund is running out of money in the next 20 years because of the baby boomer generation which is causing a huge bubble in recipients but that in no way means it's a Ponzi scheme. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Try asking your grandparents who likely couldn't survive without it if they think it's a Ponzi scheme.
I will just wait to see what happens when I file and if my property taxes go up.
It won't be that your property taxes go up, it's that you will no longer be able to deduct what you pay in property, sales, or local taxes from your gross income on your new returns.
Wouldn't you hate to be John Hoeven? $2,702 is hardly worth casting his vote. He can make more than that with one insider trade.
.
So trumps plan to bringing jobs back to America is to allow corporations to ship jobs overseas with literally no penalty at all? Pathetic. What a lying bastard trump is.
Democrats are cutting their own throats.
First of all, none of them voted to cut the taxes of their constituents, which is going to be very hard to justify when running for reelection.
But the main thing is they have set the judgment bar so high that anything short of the apocalypse in the next few election cycles will look like a Republican triumph. Democratic politicians have said the tax bill would - literally - kill people and that it is the single worst piece of legislation . . . EVER!
So, even if the economy is merely ordinary, with minor negative aspects, the Democrats will be revealed as the hysterical fear-mongers that they are. Worse, why would anyone trust them to prognosticate on any topic?
To make matters worse, the bill isn't even signed yet, but within hours - even minutes - of its passage by Congress, several companies announced cash bonuses and salary increases to many thousands of employees as a result of the legislation. Democrats have already been exposed as panicked lunatics.
I see lots of, "Oh this tax plan is going to save me lots of money!!!", and lets assume that is true for a moment, (it isn't, but lets say it's true).
Trump has proposed and wants to increase military spending by 5.6%.
Trump wants to build his wall, which estimates put at ~15 billion dollars, (Bush built a FENCE, 150 miles long and it cost 2.1 billion dollars). Trump said just the other day that he wants to spend money on infrastructure all over the nation as well, (which is funny because he said that he was against it just a few months ago).
These are just two of the more discussed spending proposals made by trump...
So here is my question.. If trump wants to decrease the governments income, where is all this money going to come from for all the increased spending? Basic math...if you decrease your income, you cannot increase your spending, yet that is EXACTLY what trump is proposing.
Maybe taking financial advice from a guy that lost a billion dollars in ONE year and filed for bankruptcy 5 times wasn't the best idea.
It won't work. Didn't under Herbert Hoover, Ronald Reagan, or, the Bushes. Republicans are throwing the dice with little or no input from economists, historians, academia, democrats, independents, even Republicans.
This TAX SCAM was demanded of Republicans by their TOP DONORS who told them that "if they don't pass a Tax cut for Billionaires - don't call them asking for MONEY".
When are reasonable folks going to realize that at this MOMENT IN TIME, it is the Republicans who are "fu*king us"?