Big Beautiful Bill: Implications for Pain...

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
The lowest is affected primarily by sales tax, gas tax and others like homeowners.

When do poor people not have to pay sales tax?

That sales tax has a much greater impact if you have no money.

And yes income taxes affect the middle class. That is not the point.

In fact it is prudent to note that the middle class taxes also go to pay for the rich taxes, as the majority of the super rich have access and utilize tax loopholes such that they pay almost nothing relative to the middle class.

In fact if you take into account the effective rates, the rich only pay 28%, middle class 20% and the poor 3.5%. So it is not as progressive as you think and apparently multiple think tanks consider the US system to be "barely progressive".

If you want everyone to really pay their share then the tax system should be more progressive so the rich and super rich pay their share based on not how much $$$ they pay but on equitable evaluation.

OR...

keep the current tax rates, get rid of the regressive taxes such as sales tax, and get rid of all tax loopholes so that the ultra wealthy really do pay 37% tax rate (average taxed rate for the ultra wealthy is 27% paid, not 37% rate due to write offs, loopholes).
 
Ducttape said:
The lowest is affected primarily by sales tax, gas tax and others like homeowners.

When do poor people not have to pay sales tax?

That sales tax has a much greater impact if you have no money.

And yes income taxes affect the middle class. That is not the point.

In fact it is prudent to note that the middle class taxes also go to pay for the rich taxes, as the majority of the super rich have access and utilize tax loopholes such that they pay almost nothing relative to the middle class.

In fact if you take into account the effective rates, the rich only pay 28%, middle class 20% and the poor 3.5%. So it is not as progressive as you think and apparently multiple think tanks consider the US system to be "barely progressive".

If you want everyone to really pay their share then the tax system should be more progressive so the rich and super rich pay their share based on not how much $$$ they pay but on equitable evaluation.

OR...

keep the current tax rates, get rid of the regressive taxes such as sales tax, and get rid of all tax loopholes so that the ultra wealthy really do pay 37% tax rate (average taxed rate for the ultra wealthy is 27% paid, not 37% rate due to write offs, loopholes).
Click to expand...
Average ultra wealthy tax of 27% huh...probably likely due to an average of the varying marginal rates rather than loopholes. Curious, what are the loopholes for the wealthy ever leftist decries? We're all pretty wealthy on here and I'm not aware of any special loopholes for us. What income level are you talking about and what loopholes do they have access to? And for the record, I’m ok with getting rid of sales tax. You finally have a good idea 😉
 
Last edited:
I think the big "loophole" that the media talks about is the fact that you don't pay taxes on money you earn if you reinvest it all in your business. And of course, they want to tax unrealized capital gains, which is about as crazy as you can get.
 
BobBarker said:
It is mostly just unrealized capital gains which is not feasible to tax. If I make $1M extra, then I spend a $1M putting another office in, I don’t think that is feasible to tax either.
Click to expand...
Agree taxing unrealized gains has been discussed and is obviously an idiotic idea, same with taxing business reinvestment.

The biggest loophole for the ultra-wealthy which is still wide open is the current practice of living off of loans. Musk, Bezos etc don't tend to sell stock when they need money. They get a loan from a large bank and use stock as collateral. This effectively eliminates capital gains taxes for the uber-wealthy in a way that we mere mortals will never access.
 
BoardingDoc said:
Agree taxing unrealized gains has been discussed and is obviously an idiotic idea, same with taxing business reinvestment.

The biggest loophole for the ultra-wealthy which is still wide open is the current practice of living off of loans. Musk, Bezos etc don't tend to sell stock when they need money. They get a loan from a large bank and use stock as collateral. This effectively eliminates capital gains taxes for the uber-wealthy in a way that we mere mortals will never access.
Click to expand...
But they still have to pay off the loan so what’s the advantage?

And how is that any different than me getting a loan/mortgage on a million dollar house? I don’t have that money in cash but I may have it in the market yet I don’t have to sell my portfolio and incur capital gains taxes to buy a house
 
clubdeac said:
But they still have to pay off the loan so what’s the advantage?

And how is that any different than me getting a loan/mortgage on a million dollar house? I don’t have that money in cash but I may have it in the market yet I don’t have to sell my portfolio and incur capital gains taxes to buy a house
Click to expand...
That’s where the step-up basis comes in and why it should be eliminated. They have have the assets and reputation to secure an extremely low interest rate, they pay the loan off slowly over time if at all, then when they die their heirs inherit those unrealized gains tax-free and their estate can pay off all the loans.
 
clubdeac said:
But they still have to pay off the loan so what’s the advantage?

And how is that any different than me getting a loan/mortgage on a million dollar house? I don’t have that money in cash but I may have it in the market yet I don’t have to sell my portfolio and incur capital gains taxes to buy a house
Click to expand...
They don't have to pay off the loan. The estate does when they die. At that point, however, the step up rule for the estate kicks in and any stock appreciation is inherited at current value which eliminates any capital gains on that stock value which would have been paid had it been sold while the original owner was alive. Sufficient stock is then sold to pay off the loan without paying capital gains. The process then repeats itself.

This is entirely different from a mortgage or other conventional loan where the interest and principal is being paid by post tax dollars in some form or another, as all interest payments on these unique types of loans are generally paid with yet more loan money. They obviously lose some money on those interest payments, however, this is 1: miniscule compared to the taxes they would pay and 2: that interest money is going to a bank and not to the govt which then loses all that tax revenue.

If you want to read more about this, just look up the buy borrow die strategy.
 
clubdeac said:
Average ultra wealthy tax of 27% huh...probably likely due to an average of the varying marginal rates rather than loopholes. Curious, what are the loopholes for the wealthy ever leftist decries? We're all pretty wealthy on here and I'm not aware of any special loopholes for us. What income level are you talking about and what loopholes do they have access to? And for the record, I’m ok with getting rid of sales tax. You finally have a good idea 😉
Click to expand...
to say again and again and again, the majority on this forum really arent the target. even with how much you make ie a lot more than me, it doesnt scratch the surface of the ultra rich and their tax deductions are not available to you.


"buy, borrow and die".

most of the ultra rich use capital gains. only 50% is taxable and only after selling and the taxed rate is lower than if it were income.
thats why CEOs get a huge portion of their salary from stocks. Musk, Gates, Zuckerburg, Ellison, Page, Balmer = salaries totalled $3/mo. three dollars per month of those combined. Bezos had a salary of $81k/mo and he is the outlier.


even worse, most dont sell. they take out loans against that stock and live off of the loans, with a low payback rate and that they do not have to pay taxes on.


they write off a lot of their taxes with business investments. they write off a lot of taxes with dubious charitable donations which in turn will sometimes become salaries for their friends and families.

they take out bonds against investment income and then declare bankruptcy or take the loaner to court and ultimately have their loans forgiven.

they buy sports teams then write off that money, all while building equity, then take out loans on that equity for daily living.


now i am not saying that taxing the ultra rich will solve the budget issue. congress and the executive need to get their act in gear, but it is not the dems. it is both parties clearly as the budgets have worsened during both repub and dem administrations.



fwiw, these have always been my idea. i have talked for decades about income inequality.


thanks for coming around to them tho!
 
BoardingDoc said:
They don't have to pay off the loan. The estate does when they die. At that point, however, the step up rule for the estate kicks in and any stock appreciation is inherited at current value which eliminates any capital gains on that stock value which would have been paid had it been sold while the original owner was alive. Sufficient stock is then sold to pay off the loan without paying capital gains. The process then repeats itself.

This is entirely different from a mortgage or other conventional loan where the interest and principal is being paid by post tax dollars in some form or another, as all interest payments on these unique types of loans are generally paid with yet more loan money. They obviously lose some money on those interest payments, however, this is 1: miniscule compared to the taxes they would pay and 2: that interest money is going to a bank and not to the govt which then loses all that tax revenue.

If you want to read more about this, just look up the buy borrow die strategy.
Click to expand...
How much does Amazon pay in taxes?
 
hyperalgesia said:
If Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk pay zero income tax because they reinvest all their income in their respective companies, maybe you would feel better knowing their companies pay a lot in taxes?
Click to expand...
Ahh, gotcha. I mean, sure. That would make a difference. I specifically said above that taxing income that's reinvested into a company is a nonsensical approach to this issue. That said, that obviously isn't how they're spending a large amount of their money or else they wouldn't have multiple mansions / planes / yachts etc. They also wouldn't have any need to make use of the above tax loophole that I (and others) explained above.

To be clear: I don't care that these guys are buying mega mansions and yachts. Good for them. I'm just saying that if literally every other person other than the mega rich needs to pay their ~22% capital gains taxes in order to buy their fancy things, these guys do too.
 
BoardingDoc said:
Ahh, gotcha. I mean, sure. That would make a difference. I specifically said above that taxing income that's reinvested into a company is a nonsensical approach to this issue. That said, that obviously isn't how they're spending a large amount of their money or else they wouldn't have multiple mansions / planes / yachts etc. They also wouldn't have any need to make use of the above tax loophole that I (and others) explained above.

To be clear: I don't care that these guys are buying mega mansions and yachts. Good for them. I'm just saying that if literally every other person other than the mega rich needs to pay their ~22% capital gains taxes in order to buy their fancy things, these guys do too.
Click to expand...
With regard to the "step-up basis", I'm inclined to leave it as is. Many countries have no capital gains taxes at all because the returns were the result of investment. I would like to go in that direction.

I actually kind of disagree with you about taxing money that's reinvested in your company. The ultimate loophole to me, that favors the rich is deductions. Everything from investing in your business to donating to your favorite charity, whether that's the Catholic Church, Harvard, or BLM, should have no bearing on your taxes.

I also think that tax breaks on donations have had a devastating impact on our culture, basically corrupting the concept of charity.
 
BoardingDoc said:
They don't have to pay off the loan. The estate does when they die. At that point, however, the step up rule for the estate kicks in and any stock appreciation is inherited at current value which eliminates any capital gains on that stock value which would have been paid had it been sold while the original owner was alive. Sufficient stock is then sold to pay off the loan without paying capital gains. The process then repeats itself.

This is entirely different from a mortgage or other conventional loan where the interest and principal is being paid by post tax dollars in some form or another, as all interest payments on these unique types of loans are generally paid with yet more loan money. They obviously lose some money on those interest payments, however, this is 1: miniscule compared to the taxes they would pay and 2: that interest money is going to a bank and not to the govt which then loses all that tax revenue.

If you want to read more about this, just look up the buy borrow die strategy.
Click to expand...
So I read up on this. In theory I see what you're saying but in principle I don't see how it really works.

Let's say I don't work but I have a $5 mil portfolio. I take out a securities based line of credit against my portfolio for $250k at an interest rate of 4.31%, current SOFR which covers my living expenses for the year. Is it true one only has to pay back interest on these loans and can allow the principle to sit? Even then how does one pay that if all their money is wrapped up in stocks?
 
clubdeac said:
So I read up on this. In theory I see what you're saying but in principle I don't see how it really works.

Let's say I don't work but I have a $5 mil portfolio. I take out a securities based line of credit against my portfolio for $250k at an interest rate of 4.31%, current SOFR which covers my living expenses for the year. Is it true one only has to pay back interest on these loans and can allow the principle to sit? Even then how does one pay that if all their money is wrapped up in stocks?
Click to expand...

So in your retirement scenario, you're using a 5% SWR. That's a bit higher than history has generally shown is actually safe, but irrelevant for this discussion. I mention it only because SWRs above 4% scare me personally and we're about to nerd out on finance so I'm throwing that non-sequitur out there.

Average rate of return accounting for inflation is around 7% / yr historically.
Assume you take out a 5 year loan, and withdraw 1.25M. Rate is 4.31 as you said above. Compounded monthly. You'll have paid just under 300k in interest at the end of 5 years. For the sake of easy math, lets assume you pay the interest back from the loan you get and spend the rest.
Assuming 7% ROR for your stock, your stock will have increased in value from 5M to 7.012M in that time.

At the end of 5 years: You have a 7.012M portfolio and you owe 1.25M.
Year 5: borrow another 1.25M. --> at year ten, you have a 9.806M portfolio and 2.5M in debt.
Year 10: borrow another 1.25M --> at year 15 you have a 13.710M portfolio and 3.75M in debt
--> year 20 you have 19.1M in stock and 5M in debt.


Comparison:
You sell 250k in stock each year and live on that.
Reality: you sell 250k/0.8 to account for your long term cap gains --> 312.5k
After paying those taxes and accounting for your decreased portfolio balance effect on growth, your portfolio value at 5 years is 5.74M, 10 years is 7M, 15 years is 8.843M and 20 years is 11.438M.
Calculation: (5m - 312.5k)*1.07 = yr 1 --> (yr 1-312.5k)*1.07 = yr2 etc etc....

Both scenarios you die at the end.

Scenario 1: you pass 19.1M in stock and 5M in debt along. The 19.1M in stock can be sold TAX FREE because of the step up basis rule. Your estate is worth 14.1M.

Scenario 2: Your estate is worth 11.438M.

Keep in mind, this is with a 5M portfolio. Chump change compared to the portfolios of the people who commonly use this strategy. The tax savings can be ... large.

Hopefully this clarifies things a bit.
 
Last edited:
BoardingDoc said:
So in your retirement scenario, you're using a 5% SWR. That's a bit higher than history has generally shown is actually safe, but irrelevant for this discussion. I mention it only because SWRs above 4% scare me personally and we're about to nerd out on finance so I'm throwing that non-sequitur out there.

Average rate of return accounting for inflation is around 7% / yr historically.
Assume you take out a 5 year loan, and withdraw 1.25M. Rate is 4.31 as you said above. Compounded monthly. You'll have paid just under 142k in interest at the end of 5 years. For the sake of easy math, lets assume you pay the interest back from the loan you get and spend the rest.
Assuming 7% ROR for your stock, your stock will have increased in value from 5M to 7.012M in that time.

At the end of 5 years: You have a 7.012M portfolio and you owe 1.25M.
Year 5: borrow another 1.25M. --> at year ten, you have a 9.806M portfolio and 2.5M in debt.
Year 10: borrow another 1.25M --> at year 15 you have a 13.710M portfolio and 3.75M in debt
--> year 20 you have 19.1M in stock and 5M in debt.


Comparison:
You sell 250k in stock each year and live on that.
Reality: you sell 250k/0.8 to account for your long term cap gains --> 312.5k
After paying those taxes and accounting for your decreased portfolio balance effect on growth, your portfolio value at 5 years is 5.74M, 10 years is 7M, 15 years is 8.843M and 20 years is 11.438M.
Calculation: (5m - 312.5k)*1.07 = yr 1 --> (yr 1-312.5k)*1.07 = yr2 etc etc....

Both scenarios you die at the end.

Scenario 1: you pass 19.1M in stock and 5M in debt along. The 19.1M in stock can be sold TAX FREE because of the step up basis rule. Your estate is worth 14.1M.

Scenario 2: Your estate is worth 11.438M.

Keep in mind, this is with a 5M portfolio. Chump change compared to the portfolios of the people who commonly use this strategy. The tax savings can be ... large.

Hopefully this clarifies things a bit.
Click to expand...
ok I see what you're saying. So you pay off the interest with the money you've borrowed. However isn't a 4.31 rate compounded monthly closer to about $300k at the end of 5 yrs, not 142k. Somewhat irrelevant. Also, this is assuming the marked goes up. If one has a down year as we've experienced, this could be a risky scenario. Unless of course you keep the withdrawal less than 3-4% in which case you're probably fine. Interesting. Thanks for the info
 
clubdeac said:
ok I see what you're saying. So you pay off the interest with the money you've borrowed. However isn't a 4.31 rate compounded monthly closer to about $300k at the end of 5 yrs, not 142k. Somewhat irrelevant. Also, this is assuming the marked goes up. If one has a down year as we've experienced, this could be a risky scenario. Unless of course you keep the withdrawal less than 3-4% in which case you're probably fine. Interesting. Thanks for the info
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct! I plugged in the calculation for interest paid as if you were paying back the entire 1.25M loan over 5 years and not simply paying the interest on the untouched principal. Editing my earlier post.

Also, yes, this assumes the market goes up which is why this strategy really depends on the amount that a portfolio can take a hit. If you're spending a large percentage of the portfolio per year, this is much more susceptible to market volatility. When the portfolio is sufficiently large or the loan amount is comparatively small, it allows for much easier weathering of market fluctuations.
 
i should add that Musk paid 0.00 in taxes in 2024.

tesla paid 0.00 in taxes in 2024. and 2023. and 2022. and 2021.

combined that with, using the same numbers, tesla made 4,400,000,000.00 in that time period

and got 1,000,000 in tax refunds

i dont have exact numbers, but tesla (and more prominently SpaceX) did get govt subsidies and loans and benefit from items such as EV credits.
 
Ducttape said:
i should add that Musk paid 0.00 in taxes in 2024.

tesla paid 0.00 in taxes in 2024. and 2023. and 2022. and 2021.

combined that with, using the same numbers, tesla made 4,400,000,000.00 in that time period

and got 1,000,000 in tax refunds

i dont have exact numbers, but tesla (and more prominently SpaceX) did get govt subsidies and loans and benefit from items such as EV credits.
Click to expand...
Do you want to eliminate tax deductions for business expenses?

I wouldn't mind doing that but I think it's not great for economic growth.
 
there is nothing in this bill that helps us out. this is a wealth transfer from all other classes to the ultrarich.

and if you are browsing this forum - you are not in the ultrarich class.
 
clubdeac said:
Honestly I don’t believe the estimates. Plus any Republican led bill will result in less spending than any Democratic bill. That’s a fact. Dems wouldn’t cut ****. Just increase entitlements and taxes to make up for the shortfall and then argue they were “saving money” During my working yrs thus far I’ve already given away 2-3 million on wasteful spending. It’s sickening. No idea why anyone in our position would be fine with that
Click to expand...
This is just plain denial. Literally the last ten recessions 9 of 10 have been done by republicans and the democrats have to clean up their acts. I don't wanna hear how republicans are so responsible with the economy when we're one quarter away from an recession again in trump's term already. Spending on Americans with social programs like Medicare will never be the problem. Assuming people on these programs are lazy, is just plain conservative weirdness. This bill will most likely had more debt than its being reported. Right now its 4 trillion dollars and you can read it here. We defunded science and cut student loans for billionaires and hurting minority people but hey! stay in denial

www.crfb.org

Breaking Down the One Big Beautiful Bill | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

2025-06-04-Note: (06/23/2025) Some categorizations and numbers in the Ways and Means' section of the table below have been updated to more accurately reflect the bill's potential impact.
www.crfb.org www.crfb.org
www.belfercenter.org

The Historical Puzzle of US Economic Performance under Democrats vs. Republicans

We have heard much about the puzzle that US economic performance under President Joe Biden has been much stronger than voters perceive it to be. But the current episode is just one instance of a bigger historical puzzle: the US economy has since World War II consistently done better under...
www.belfercenter.org www.belfercenter.org
 
hyperalgesia said:
Dead wrong, it prevents a massive tax hike on all of us.
Click to expand...
Literally ive seen people hating on biden because of taxes and yet people dont realize we were under trumps plan this entire time. Do actual research but lets be real here. You won't care or understand but hey here read maybe. Come on, lie to us why it wont increase taxes on the working class

www.nbcnews.com

Who would win and who would lose in Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill'

Businesses and higher-income households would be some of the biggest beneficiaries from tax cuts partly paid for with cuts to health insurance for lower-income households.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
itep.org

Corporate Tax Avoidance in the First Five Years of the Trump Tax Law

The Trump tax law overhaul cut the federal corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, but during the first five years it has been in effect, most profitable corporations paid considerably less than that.
itep.org itep.org
 
buddababa said:
that's cuz the tax cuts were about to expire, so i mean that potential massive tax hike was DJT's own doing....
Click to expand...
Beside the point.

You can think of it as a prevented tax hike or as a tax cut, because of Trump or in spite of Trump, it's irrelevant. The bill decreases the taxes WE (all Americans) otherwise would pay if it weren't passed. So it's good for us.

If you want to pay the taxes you otherwise would have paid without this bill, there is a way to send money to the Treasury. Be my guest.
 
hyperalgesia said:
Beside the point.

You can think of it as a prevented tax hike or as a tax cut, because of Trump or in spite of Trump, it's irrelevant. The bill decreases the taxes WE (all Americans) otherwise would pay if it weren't passed. So it's good for us.

If you want to pay the taxes you otherwise would have paid without this bill, there is a way to send money to the Treasury. Be my guest.
Click to expand...
Prove it then. Show us how it is going to help us.. Facts don't care about your feelings. Yall disappoint me with your ignorance. It's literally favored for corporations only. And polls everywhere show it is heavily disliked by a majority of Americans. Your attitude is not for the American people. Its for yourself only. I just wish you'd be more honest instead of lying straight to us.

abcnews.go.com

Polls show Americans largely oppose Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' but are more split on Medicaid, immigration specifics

Polling taken across the past month shows that Americans largely disapprove of the "One Big Beautiful Bill" – but are more split on some of its provisions.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
 
Ducttape said:
there is nothing in this bill that helps us out. this is a wealth transfer from all other classes to the ultrarich.

and if you are browsing this forum - you are not in the ultrarich class.
Click to expand...
i dont hate the increase in the SALT deduction to 40K. that will help me

but yeah, this will definitely throw us into another recession. lather, rinse, repeat.

tax cuts ---> deficits ----> recession ----> democrats right the ship -----. republicans get elected and enact more tax cuts......
 
psyduck____ said:
Prove it then. Show us how it is going to help us.. Facts don't care about your feelings. Yall disappoint me with your ignorance. It's literally favored for corporations only. And polls everywhere show it is heavily disliked by a majority of Americans. Your attitude is not for the American people. Its for yourself only. I just wish you'd be more honest instead of lying straight to us.

abcnews.go.com

Polls show Americans largely oppose Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' but are more split on Medicaid, immigration specifics

Polling taken across the past month shows that Americans largely disapprove of the "One Big Beautiful Bill" – but are more split on some of its provisions.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
Click to expand...
Instead of reading polls, you should look up how the Trump tax bill lowered taxes for all incomes.
 
psyduck____ said:
This is just plain denial. Literally the last ten recessions 9 of 10 have been done by republicans and the democrats have to clean up their acts. I don't wanna hear how republicans are so responsible with the economy when we're one quarter away from an recession again in trump's term already. Spending on Americans with social programs like Medicare will never be the problem. Assuming people on these programs are lazy, is just plain conservative weirdness. This bill will most likely had more debt than its being reported. Right now its 4 trillion dollars and you can read it here. We defunded science and cut student loans for billionaires and hurting minority people but hey! stay in denial

www.crfb.org

Breaking Down the One Big Beautiful Bill | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

2025-06-04-Note: (06/23/2025) Some categorizations and numbers in the Ways and Means' section of the table below have been updated to more accurately reflect the bill's potential impact.
www.crfb.org www.crfb.org
Click to expand...
SSdoc33 said:
of course you dont. you probably dont pay a big mortgage or live in a state with an income tax.
Click to expand...
He rents like the rest of us smart multimillion dollar FIRE pros. Time to get on board buddy
 
BoardingDoc said:
Only if you make <500k. From my understanding of things, once you hit 600k+ income it resets back to a 10k deduction. in between 500 and 600k it's prorated
Click to expand...
i acutally dont understand all of this. where exactly did you read it?
 
psyduck____ said:
This is just plain denial. Literally the last ten recessions 9 of 10 have been done by republicans and the democrats have to clean up their acts. I don't wanna hear how republicans are so responsible with the economy when we're one quarter away from an recession again in trump's term already. Spending on Americans with social programs like Medicare will never be the problem. Assuming people on these programs are lazy, is just plain conservative weirdness. This bill will most likely had more debt than its being reported. Right now its 4 trillion dollars and you can read it here. We defunded science and cut student loans for billionaires and hurting minority people but hey! stay in denial

www.crfb.org

Breaking Down the One Big Beautiful Bill | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

2025-06-04-Note: (06/23/2025) Some categorizations and numbers in the Ways and Means' section of the table below have been updated to more accurately reflect the bill's potential impact.
www.crfb.org www.crfb.org
Click to expand...
I would love a budget neutral bill but honestly the only way to significantly make a dent in the deficit is to make marked cuts in our entitlement programs including Medicare, Medicaid and social security. No one will do this because it’s political suicide. 3 trillion over 10 yrs isn’t egregious considering Obama added 9 trillion during his two terms and Biden 7 trillion during his single term.

Dems don’t like the current bill bc they say it includes too many cuts. These are absolutely necessary if you’re seriously going to address the deficit
 
clubdeac said:
I would love a budget neutral bill but honestly the only way to significantly make a dent in the deficit is to make marked cuts in our entitlement programs including Medicare, Medicaid and social security. No one will do this because it’s political suicide. 3 trillion over 10 yrs isn’t egregious considering Obama added 9 trillion during his two terms and Biden 7 trillion during his single term.

Dems don’t like the current bill bc they say it includes too many cuts. These are absolutely necessary if you’re seriously going to address the deficit
Click to expand...
Like what cutting student loans?? Medicare? USAID? yk cutting that kills 14 million people. Literally bill clinton balanced the budget and then GWB ruined it and caused the great recession of 2008. Obama came in and fixed it and then trump again ruins everything by mishandling covid which iden ofc has to clean up. Literally 60 percent of the debt is caused by republicans and its more than n0% if you ignore the covid stuff biden had to sign to stabilize the economy. Believe what you wanna believe but calling social programs that help people out of poverty or help them succeed in life, entitlement program is just plain disgusting and republican program. The funniest part of all this is that republicans rely more on these programs and cutting it will indirectly kill their votes. So be my guest and believe the propaganda you losers consume. Yall will have to learn the hard way or maybe never. You're not for the American people. You're for yourself and not worth respecting.
 
SSdoc33 said:
yeah, uh. i have a wife and 3 kids. you guys dont. nobody is FIREing anything when there are mani-pedis to get done and starbucks daily. but im not bitter....
Click to expand...
I hear you man, 46, kids 3 and 7, don’t forget the Amazon packages on your doorstep daily…
 
Dr. Ice said:
I hear you man, 46, kids 3 and 7, don’t forget the Amazon packages on your doorstep daily…
Click to expand...
if i want to be pissed off, i will look at the "recent orders" tab
 
clubdeac said:
I would love a budget neutral bill but honestly the only way to significantly make a dent in the deficit is to make marked cuts in our entitlement programs including Medicare, Medicaid and social security. No one will do this because it’s political suicide. 3 trillion over 10 yrs isn’t egregious considering Obama added 9 trillion during his two terms and Biden 7 trillion during his single term.

Dems don’t like the current bill bc they say it includes too many cuts. These are absolutely necessary if you’re seriously going to address the deficit
Click to expand...
If we're going to seriously address the deficit, maybe we shouldn't be handing out $5 trillion in tax cuts. We could have just paid for the stuff that was cut with that money. Instead, we're demolishing the most productive parts of government. Every $1 of NIH funding generates $2.56 within a year. It's always gathered bipartisan support before because it's an amazing deal for the US. Trump made sure to correct that and hand China the lead in science. You can do the same math for the rest of the cuts. I care about cutting the deficit, but I'm not blind to the facts. Republicans have added more to the debt than Democrats for decades, yet somehow you will still blame the Dems.
 
SSdoc33 said:
i acutally dont understand all of this. where exactly did you read it?
Click to expand...
The WSJ had a good article on it a few days ago. Here's an internet archive copy to get around the paywall.


If you don't feel like reading the article, here's the TLDR:
The SALT deduction is currently 10k
New proposal is 40k up to an AGI of 500k per household.
If you make more than 500k, they decrease your SALT deduction by a certain percentage for each dollar over 500k that you earn. Once you hit 600k, you're back down at 10k which is the floor. You don't keep going lower if you earn say, 2M.
 
BoardingDoc said:
The WSJ had a good article on it a few days ago. Here's an internet archive copy to get around the paywall.


If you don't feel like reading the article, here's the TLDR:
The SALT deduction is currently 10k
New proposal is 40k up to an AGI of 500k per household.
If you make more than 500k, they decrease your SALT deduction by a certain percentage for each dollar over 500k that you earn. Once you hit 600k, you're back down at 10k which is the floor. You don't keep going lower if you earn say, 2M.
Click to expand...
That absolutely sucks. Putting a 10k cap on SALT increased my taxes substantially
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

drusso
Oregon Passes Bill to Restrict Private Equity: Implications for Pain?
Replies
5
Views
669
Status Sciaticus
Status Sciaticus
drusso
Culture of Cover-Ups: Implications for Pain?
Replies
48
Views
2K
drusso
drusso
drusso
Closing Medicaid/SOS Loophole: Implications for Pain?
Replies
14
Views
1K
SgtThunderfistMD
SgtThunderfistMD
drusso
Stryker BVNA Product has Landed. Implications for Pain?
Replies
21
Views
2K
Taus
T
drusso
Casey Means, MD, for Surgeon General...Implications for Pain?
2
Replies
79
Views
3K
Ducttape
D
Top