Explain This Bill Talk

[Husker_Du]

i've been super busy. i haven't taken the time to look up the details at all.

I see Trump pushing a giant bill, which everyone says will result in massive more debt, but that also apparently has the largest tax cuts in history.

Trump is also tweeting 'we need to stop government spending'

which has me like 'aren't you pushing this giant bill'?

i asked a buddy about it and he said that there is an enormous amount of federal spending that is mandated by congress that only they can reform.

idk what to think. fill me in. 

[ionel]

1 hour ago, Husker_Du said:

i've been super busy. i haven't taken the time to look up the details at all.

I see Trump pushing a giant bill, which everyone says will result in massive more debt, but that also apparently has the largest tax cuts in history.

Trump is also tweeting 'we need to stop government spending'

which has me like 'aren't you pushing this giant bill'?

i asked a buddy about it and he said that there is an enormous amount of federal spending that is mandated by congress that only they can reform.

idk what to think. fill me in. 

we are probably screwed ... or maybe only our grandchildren 

[uncle bernard]

11 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

i've been super busy. i haven't taken the time to look up the details at all.

I see Trump pushing a giant bill, which everyone says will result in massive more debt, but that also apparently has the largest tax cuts in history.

Trump is also tweeting 'we need to stop government spending'

which has me like 'aren't you pushing this giant bill'?

i asked a buddy about it and he said that there is an enormous amount of federal spending that is mandated by congress that only they can reform.

idk what to think. fill me in. 

This happens during every Republican administration. Dems spend too, but they don't pair that spending with massive tax cuts, primarily for the rich and corporations. The tax cuts are what blow up the deficit.

The "national debt" is just a political prop they use to advocate against spending on things they disagree with ideologically (healthcare, welfare, public research, etc...). They don't actually care about reducing it. If they did, they would pair spending cuts with tax increases. This is why, historically, the deficit always goes up under Republican administrations, while it usually shrinks under Democrats. 

Personally, I think focus on the debt is way overblown. The government budget does not function like a family budget. Anytime the government runs a surplus, that means they're sucking money out of the economy arbitrarily. Every cent, and more, should be spent back into the economy. My disagreement with the Republicans is how they do it, not that they do it. Trickle down doesn't work.

[ionel]

40 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

This happens during every Republican administration. Dems spend too, but they don't pair that spending with massive tax cuts, primarily for the rich and corporations. The tax cuts are what blow up the deficit.

Can you summarize or reference the % tax cuts for us? 

Edited Thursday at 01:37 PM by ionel

[red viking]

Basically, it sounds like the bill makes some cuts, all to programs that are already small or benefit poor people ( medicaid). Has some spending increases such as military and homeland security. 

The biggest component is MASSIVE tax decreases for billionaires that are way way way more than the net cuts. 

Doing the math, it adds trillions to the debt over next 10 yrs and basically transfers more money from the poor to the rich. 

[Offthemat]

Beware false prophets.

The new tax cuts are: no tax on tips; no tax on overtime; no tax on social security.  The bill makes the current tax rates, which were established during Trump’s first term and never challenged during Biden's, permanent.  
 

The Medicaid cuts are to illegal aliens and those who are capable of working but choose not to.  All children are still covered. 
 

The excess spending comes in part from continued funding for NGOs and Green New Deal Renewable Energy projects that have been started in Republican zones, their representatives not wanting to kill the cash cows even though it puts their constituents, and the country, in jeopardy.  The money that goes to NGOs mostly winds up in the pockets of operators or anti-American entities.  The Green Renewables are responsible for customers paying four times more for energy while receiving unreliable service.

The gov’t just spends too much.  Entire agencies and departments could be cut with no detriment to the country.  Entitlement rolls could be cleared of the undeserving.  The military spending could be pared with more efficiency.  Higher income earners could pay more taxes.  Yet, one of the most ridiculous statements made recently was that gov’t spending accounts for so much of the GDP that we can’t afford to stop borrowing money to maintain it.  Try that at home. 

[red viking]

8 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Beware false prophets.

The new tax cuts are: no tax on tips; no tax on overtime; no tax on social security.  The bill makes the current tax rates, which were established during Trump’s first term and never challenged during Biden's, permanent.  
 

The Medicaid cuts are to illegal aliens and those who are capable of working but choose not to.  All children are still covered. 
 

The excess spending comes in part from continued funding for NGOs and Green New Deal Renewable Energy projects that have been started in Republican zones, their representatives not wanting to kill the cash cows even though it puts their constituents, and the country, in jeopardy.  The money that goes to NGOs mostly winds up in the pockets of operators or anti-American entities.  The Green Renewables are responsible for customers paying four times more for energy while receiving unreliable service.

The gov’t just spends too much.  Entire agencies and departments could be cut with no detriment to the country.  Entitlement rolls could be cleared of the undeserving.  The military spending could be pared with more efficiency.  Higher income earners could pay more taxes.  Yet, one of the most ridiculous statements made recently was that gov’t spending accounts for so much of the GDP that we can’t afford to stop borrowing money to maintain it.  Try that at home. 

Those are cuts to already small programs except maybe medicaid. And saying it will only impact illegal aliens amd lazy people is a 100% lie. 

Bottom line is that you won't EVER control the overall budget without going after ss, military and medicare. It's that simple. 

[JimmySpeaks]

22 minutes ago, red viking said:

Those are cuts to already small programs except maybe medicaid. And saying it will only impact illegal aliens amd lazy people is a 100% lie. 

Bottom line is that you won't EVER control the overall budget without going after ss, military and medicare. It's that simple. 

How is cutting taxes on tips, SS, and overtime not helping the little guy?  

[red viking]

4 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

How is cutting taxes on tips, SS, and overtime not helping the little guy?  

They don't pay much in taxes anyway. I'd be fine with it if it was paid for elsewhere. 

[uncle bernard]

1 hour ago, ionel said:

Can you summarize or reference the % tax cuts for us? 

The biggest part is the extension of the 2017 tax cuts that were set to expire, summarized here (Trump's rates bolded:

10% up to $9,525, versus 10% up to $9,325 under existing law;

12% from $9,526 to $38,700, versus 15% on $9,326 to $37,950;

22% on $38,701 to $82,500, versus 25% on $37,951 to $91,900;

24% on $82,501 to $157,500, versus 28% on $91,901 to $191,650;

32% on $157,501 to $200,000, versus 33% on $191,651 to $416,700;

35% on $200,001 to $500,000, versus 35% on $416,701 to $418,400;

37% above $500,000, versus 2017’s 39.6% above $418,400.

Most of those benefits were concentrated in the top tax bracket. A 2% decrease on billions is a lot more than a 4% decrease on $100k.

Analysis of effects of the current bill:

"Extending the expiring 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) would decrease federal tax revenue by $4.5 trillion from 2025 through 2034. Long-run GDP would be 1.1 percent higher, offsetting $710 billion, or 16 percent, of the revenue losses. Long-run GNP (a measure of American incomes) would only rise by 0.4 percent, as some of the benefits of the tax cuts and larger economy go to foreigners in the form of higher interest payments on the debt."

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tax-cuts-2025-budget-reconciliation/

[Offthemat]

18 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Most of those benefits were concentrated in the top tax bracket. A 2% decrease on billions is a lot more than a 4% decrease on $100k.

So the taxpayer with $837,800 taxable income pays $293,230 to the federal gov’t. God only wants 10%. 

[red viking]

39 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

So the taxpayer with $837,800 taxable income pays $293,230 to the federal gov’t. God only wants 10%. 

Grndat, the REAL God, wants 34%

Edited Thursday at 03:59 PM by red viking

[1032004]

1 hour ago, uncle bernard said:

The biggest part is the extension of the 2017 tax cuts that were set to expire, summarized here (Trump's rates bolded:

10% up to $9,525, versus 10% up to $9,325 under existing law;

12% from $9,526 to $38,700, versus 15% on $9,326 to $37,950;

22% on $38,701 to $82,500, versus 25% on $37,951 to $91,900;

24% on $82,501 to $157,500, versus 28% on $91,901 to $191,650;

32% on $157,501 to $200,000, versus 33% on $191,651 to $416,700;

35% on $200,001 to $500,000, versus 35% on $416,701 to $418,400;

37% above $500,000, versus 2017’s 39.6% above $418,400.

Most of those benefits were concentrated in the top tax bracket. A 2% decrease on billions is a lot more than a 4% decrease on $100k.

Analysis of effects of the current bill:

"Extending the expiring 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) would decrease federal tax revenue by $4.5 trillion from 2025 through 2034. Long-run GDP would be 1.1 percent higher, offsetting $710 billion, or 16 percent, of the revenue losses. Long-run GNP (a measure of American incomes) would only rise by 0.4 percent, as some of the benefits of the tax cuts and larger economy go to foreigners in the form of higher interest payments on the debt."

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tax-cuts-2025-budget-reconciliation/

IMO, I don’t know if I consider just extending something that already exists as a “tax cut.”

I actually didn’t think most of the tax stuff seemed that bad and there was stuff that helps the middle and lower class.

My biggest complaint would be the significant increase on spending on things like the Defense budget, which would basically wipe out all the alleged cuts that DOGE found.

[mspart]

3 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

This happens during every Republican administration. Dems spend too, but they don't pair that spending with massive tax cuts, primarily for the rich and corporations. The tax cuts are what blow up the deficit.

I don't disagree with most of your post UB.   However, what is bolded is wrong.   It is the spending that blows up the deficit.   The government should not be trying to spend as much as possible, they should be spending as little as possible to comply with the requirements they have.   That is not what has happened in any budget discussion or bill in the last 25 years. 

mspart

[Caveira]

Side note.  And both sides do it.  It should be outlawed that you get x (x being small) minutes to review huge bills.  They should just be outlawed.   Make up a rule.  2 weeks or a month from final draft to review.   Slipping shyte in last min is bogus. 

[ionel]

2 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

The biggest part is the extension of the 2017 tax cuts that were set to expire, summarized here (Trump's rates bolded:

10% up to $9,525, versus 10% up to $9,325 under existing law;

12% from $9,526 to $38,700, versus 15% on $9,326 to $37,950;

22% on $38,701 to $82,500, versus 25% on $37,951 to $91,900;

24% on $82,501 to $157,500, versus 28% on $91,901 to $191,650;

32% on $157,501 to $200,000, versus 33% on $191,651 to $416,700;

35% on $200,001 to $500,000, versus 35% on $416,701 to $418,400;

37% above $500,000, versus 2017’s 39.6% above $418,400.

So ... First there is no new tax cuts they are just extending the status quo.  Second the lower income got the larger percentage cuts.   We should all be outraged.  

[uncle bernard]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

I don't disagree with most of your post UB.   However, what is bolded is wrong.   It is the spending that blows up the deficit.   The government should not be trying to spend as much as possible, they should be spending as little as possible to comply with the requirements they have.   That is not what has happened in any budget discussion or bill in the last 25 years. 

mspart

The tax cuts are what balloon the deficit *in this bill.* That's what they're actually changing. If they did nothing and let the cuts expire, the deficit would grow minimally. 

[uncle bernard]

1 hour ago, ionel said:

So ... First there is no new tax cuts they are just extending the status quo.  Second the lower income got the larger percentage cuts.   We should all be outraged.  

1) If you care about the deficit, then yes, you should be outraged. It's an extension of policy that increases the deficit when it was set to expire.

2) Don't be stupid. A 4% cut on the middle class is peanuts compared to a 2% cut to the top 1%. That's why we have a progressive tax system.

[uncle bernard]

2 hours ago, 1032004 said:

IMO, I don’t know if I consider just extending something that already exists as a “tax cut.”

I actually didn’t think most of the tax stuff seemed that bad and there was stuff that helps the middle and lower class.

My biggest complaint would be the significant increase on spending on things like the Defense budget, which would basically wipe out all the alleged cuts that DOGE found.

This stuff is fine, but the bulk of the tax savings go to the richest.

I consider it a tax cut because they were supposed to expire. They had to actively extend them. That's not functionally different than when they did it the first time.

[1032004]

6 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

This stuff is fine, but the bulk of the tax savings go to the richest.

I consider it a tax cut because they were supposed to expire. They had to actively extend them. That's not functionally different than when they did it the first time.

And if they let them expire the narrative from the MSM would probably be “Trump is raising taxes on the majority of Americans”

[Offthemat]

We’ve the most progressive taxes   In Europe the lower income levels pay significantly higher taxes. 

[uncle bernard]

4 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

And if they let them expire the narrative from the MSM would probably be “Trump is raising taxes on the majority of Americans”

True. That is exactly what they did to Obama when he let his own tax cuts expire. 

[ionel]

40 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

 

2) Don't be stupid. A 4% cut on the middle class is peanuts compared to a 2% cut to the top 1%. That's why we have a progressive tax system.

Learn math.  Taxes are based on % of income.  Fair tax cuts or tax increases are thus on a % basis.  If we had a flat tax then equal absolute dollar cuts or increases would make sense.  

[uncle bernard]

4 minutes ago, ionel said:

Learn math.  Taxes are based on % of income.  Fair tax cuts or tax increases are thus on a % basis.  If we had a flat tax then equal absolute dollar cuts or increases would make sense.  

Exactly.

So which has a bigger impact?

2% on $10 million

or 

4% on 100k

[red viking]

7 minutes ago, ionel said:

Learn math.  Taxes are based on % of income.  Fair tax cuts or tax increases are thus on a % basis.  If we had a flat tax then equal absolute dollar cuts or increases would make sense.  

He's crushing you.