Winning: $1.50 extra each paycheck

[Btowner]

What is Paul Ryan thinking? Over the weekend, he had this tweet. After getting ridiculed, he deleted the tweet. Winning =  $1.50 a week or $6 per month or $78 per year?

 

 

 

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2018/02/03/ryan-tweets-about-1-50-paycheck-boost-then-deletes-it.html

 

[Starkiller]

I’m sure the millionaires and billionaires all got comparable $1.50 per week bumps in their post-tax incomes, too...

[IsntLifeFunny]

We are fucked. 

[Starkiller]

53 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

We are fucked. 

The real problem is that the Republican masses are happy to get $1.50 per week while the rich reap the real rewards. They think it’s good. 

 

And woe be unto any Democrat who might dare take away that $1.50 in an effort to undo those tax cuts!

[OILERMAN]

1 hour ago, BigTT said:

You guys should donate your salary to the feds

How about to massive corporate tax cuts instead? 

[IsntLifeFunny]

Just now, BigTT said:

Hero derp derp deep state diddly derp derp

 

[OILERMAN]

 

[Starkiller]

2 hours ago, BigTT said:

Mine went up over $300 this month.  My money....NOT the Governments...

You like the military? You like public roads? You like clean water? Pay taxes...

[reo]

5 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

You like the military? You like public roads? You like clean water? Pay taxes...

Although true, this argument tactic doesn't really work. Sad to say.

[reo]

20 minutes ago, Soxcat said:

In Starkiller's mind that $1.50 is preventing us from having public roads, clean water and a military. 

Sox has no problem with the $1.50. It's more that he thinks it should be a lot more and the $26M that the Koch brothers got should be a lot less or preferably they pay more.

 

Jack up the rich's taxes up close to what we pay and you could cut that person's taxes to the bone. 

Edited February 6, 2018 by reo

[Starkiller]

16 minutes ago, Soxcat said:

I'm not against everyone paying their fair share of taxes.  The question is what is fair?  If the main focus is income re-distribution .... no.  Everyone paying the same %..... yes.

I’m all for making the wealthy pay more, too...

 

After all, I assume that’s what you mean by paying the same. So Warren Buffett and his secretary should pay the same percentage on their tax bills. I say tax ALL income (wages, bonuses, capital gains, dividends, etc) the same.

 

We have been doing wealth re-distribution since Reagan got into office. That’s why fewer and fewer people have more and more of the money...

[Starkiller]

1 minute ago, BigTT said:

Don't like welfare...start there.

Ok, you pay for the military. I’ll pay for the welfare. It all balances out...

[begooode]

So we have a revolving credit balance of xxx billion in a given year and we just reduced our minimum payment?

 

Some of tax savings will go back into the economy for goods & services, certainly, but no economist was able to make the numbers work out favorably, iirc.  And now there's concern that the impact to the deficit is happening faster than expected -- impacting borrowing rates -- plus, new worries of over inflation?  I dunno man

 

http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/06/investing/dow-jones-tax-cut-inflation-trump/index.html

 

[Starkiller]

30 minutes ago, Soxcat said:

By the way, does everyone know our government is almost 40% of our GDP?  Let that sink in some. About the same as Russia actually.  So when we discuss these things keep in mind we are already spending a massive amount of our wealth on our government spending.

And? Why is that a problem?

 

How is it better if seniors all pay for private insurance instead of paying Medicare? Shifting X dollars from public spending to private (pretending the costs don’t go up for the sake of profit) isn’t going to make the economy better.

 

 

Quote

You see liberals have this mental concept that we aren't even close to where we should be as far as the size of our government.  They want way more control and would love to have over 50% of the population on the government role. 

 

No with that said why do we make this so hard?  Decide how big we want the government to be (37%?) and make that stick.  That sets the spending budget.  We can only use 37% of our GDP value for government spending and all that is left is fighting over what goes where.  Oh, the tax structure is also now set.  We need revenue to match the 37%.  But wait, I thought all the middle class people and poor paid all the taxes now?  Well, they pay a small % of that 37% now.  Businesses, corporations and the rich pay that now. 

 

Either way we would then have a system where money doesn't grow on trees anymore and budgets can't be set at whatever.  You want a new program you now have to take from an old program to pay for it.  Maybe then people will understand which side of the bread gets buttered.  As in maybe they will appreciate who is paying the 37%.  If we don't support economic growth and become business friendly we won't have the revenue to pay for the 37%.  Now who pays?  Right now there is a bottomless pit and libs think they can just reach in and take. 

You can’t just pick some arbitrary number out of your ass and expect government to match it. They have tasks to perform and they have to be big enough to perform those tasks.

 

The government needs to do things that corporations don’t want to do because they aren’t profitable. Or they shouldn’t be doing because they don’t have the interest of the public in mind. There are plenty of things that private corporate interests can accomplish better than government, but that doesn’t mean everything.

 

Should we get rid of the military and just let Boeing and Lockheed and all the military contractors do the fighting themselves? Should we stop building public roads and let companies just build whatever roads they want and jam toll booths wherever they want? Should we shutter the State Department and let international conglomerates handle all of our diplomatic priorities? 

 

Government is bad when it is badly managed. And Republicans always manage it badly because they inherently hate the government. Whether it’s Dubya hiring a guy fired from running horse shows to manage FEMA, or getting rid of regulations that keep people's drinking water clean, or Trump's cavalcade of inept cabinet members, or defunding the Consumer Protection Bureau, or whatever the hell else is next, you guys make people hate government because you guys turn it to shit.

 

It is never perfect under Dems but at least they want it to work for the people. Democrats tend to value government service because it is supposed to be for the benefit of the people. Republicans love corporations and profits. You guys look down on people who want to serve the public interest. It’s no wonder you can’t ever manage to keep the government running effectively.

[Cyrus]

41 minutes ago, Soxcat said:

I'm not against everyone paying their fair share of taxes.  The question is what is fair?  If the main focus is income re-distribution .... no.  Everyone paying the same %..... yes.

Secretary at a High School, certainly fits the definition of middle class. $6.25 a month pay increase from a bill touted to be "middle class tax relief". 

 

I was personally for a corporate tax reduction (not necessarily to almost 20%, but not far off). However the messaging for this bill was incredibly dishonest. Many Americans will probably see a marginal increase in take home pay and will feel bilked. Not only that, but a lot of these Republican leaders are totally clueless about what the middle class looks like, and how they've been pinched over the years even when families are finding ways to get moms back to work to pay the bill. To be bragging about stuff like this should say something about the disconnect.

 

As a Christian, you should be somewhat skeptical of the wealthy, and you should certainly not glamorize the rich (as many conservatives often do). They don't need more advocates, they have a disproportionate amount of influence, far more than your average person. You should be concerned with the poor and marginalized. That doesn't mean that they need institutionalized government programs, but when considering the economic framework holistically, you should consider what your advocacy for "fairness" really looks like. (especially when these things come with cuts to programs helping the poor).

 

Take a look at some of GK Chesterton's writing and ideas on economic theory.