Trump is claiming that his tax reform plan "won't benefit me, believe me." Anyone who believes that probably shouldn't be walking around without a minder. The Trump Tax Grab is a huge giveaway to the rich.
There should be absolutely no movement on this until Trump releases all of his tax returns. Experts should then dissect them and see just how Trump will benefit from this particular grift.
But don't worry, the Trumpanzees have his back. Despite the clear evidence that Trump lies more than a busy used-car salesman, they'll believe every word that he says.
Trump said that Puerto Rico is "an island in the middle of the ocean." Has he looked at a fucking map in his life? It is not exactly next door, but it's not two thousand miles away. But he's still focused on the NFL. That's one thing about Trump: He never misses an opportunity to stoke the fires of divisiveness and hatred. If Trump's not a Russian saboteur, he's doing a grand impression of one.
There's been a fair amount of thought over the years that the decrease in crime rates that began in the nineties correlates to the legalization of abortion in the seventies. I wonder how much of the reported uptick in the crime rates correlates to the push to make abortions impossible to get.
Cat Pawtector!
3 hours ago
15 comments:
Of course it'll benefit the rich.
More importantly, it'll make others pay their "fair share".
It's crap, just like the system we have now.
Until we go to a flat tax, or something like it, and NO deductions (that the rich get to use, and most folks don't) then it will continue to be unfair, no matter if we use the old system or this new, proposed one.
At the end of the day, the richest folks pay the majority of the taxes...nearly any change will benefit them more than any other group.
Flat tax = giveaway to the rich...
Consumption tax = giveaway to the rich...
In both cases, without a refundable tax credit for the first $50,000 or so, we're just rewarding the wealthy.
No bubblegum, the richest don't pay the majority of taxes. Most pay less than their employees, many pay no tax at all.
Just ask Warren Buffet who pays more in taxes.
The rich pay tax. That’s why they keep trying to sell us on the flat tax, which is going to make me pay a shitload more. And I make low six figures.
They’re probably trying to illuminate the estate tax, too. When you get something that’s worth that much for free, it is income and you should pay tax on it.
Republicans should push for the confiscatory tax rates espoused and practiced by Ike. Spreading the dough around (plus USA 'last man standing' >WWII) is what brings prosperity, not our present plutocratic 'democracy' where government is a corporate sock puppet. Add to that a 1/2 of 1% sales tax on Wall St and prosperity is just around the corner, a chicken in every pot, a new new deal and every man a king. Get nice like Ike, GOP, it could save your mean old man's party. Isn't riches for all more fun, really, than racism, sexism, class warfare and grinding the faces of the poor? Please give it a try.
I've been thinking about that abortion thing, also.
And as for the taxes, companies don't hire Americans when you cut their taxes. They hired Americans back when the top marginal rate was between 70 and 90 percent, and very high earners had the choice of plowing their profits back into their companies or surrendering them to the treasury.
-Doug in Oakland
Just look at what did with an effective ninty-two percent tax on everything over four hundred thousand: an interstate highway system, satellite weather and communications network, rockets to the moon. What's that run to with inflation, one point three mil?
Low six figures, three, is middle class, and you are going to get fucked.
I can honestly say that in my life NO tax plan from ANY administration has put money in my pocket. ALL of the of them have been, "Lucky you! We are not taking as much money from you as we could if we wanted to. Enjoy your tax break."
CP: Why should folks making 50 large pay no taxes?
I'm curious as to what your logic is.
DO they use less government? Less roads? less military?
Or is it "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?
Margaret Sanger would be proud of your inference re: the relationship between availability of abortion and crime rates.
I'll give you credit for being more honest than many/most other self described liberals, but I still think it's a pretty disgusting train of thought.
David, I don't really care if you think it's a disgusting train of thought. My experience has been that when conservatives think something is "disgusting", there's often substance to the point they don't like.
Misfit,
You're absolutely correct. There is something in the substance of the point that I dislike...
It's the implication that the poor and minorities, especially inner city African Americans, (who are overwhelmingly the consumers of "cheap, safe, legal and available" abortions), would be better off dead, or "unborn" to put it in the parlance of the time. Or that society would be better off without them, maybe that's the message instead. Either way, you're right, I don't like it.
If you're comfortable with that, kudos to you for honesty. I've seen some folks on the news recently who feel the same way.
Not going to quit reading your blog, as I like your content, and your presentation, but I believe strongly that you're advocating for the wrong type of solution to higher crime.
Children whose births were not welcomed by their parents will figure out that they were not wanted. I can't imagine that is conducive to a healthy maturation.
The implication that my comment was aimed at minorities is your conclusion and yours along.
FWIW, in ten years, I've only asked one person to go away. That was a person who persisted in personal attacks.
Children whose births were not welcomed by their parents will figure out that they were not wanted.
I can speak to that.
Post a Comment