Tax plan appears to be written by a rich kindergarten class

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by bambino

Small business is the engine of our economy. ALL small businesses got the same benefits as I did. DUH.

Which doesn’t change my point. Every one is going to have to sacrifice. If everyone is only looking out for themselves then we’ll never find the will to fix the problem.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Which doesn’t change my point. Every one is going to have to sacrifice. If everyone is only looking out for themselves then we’ll never find the will to fix the problem.

Huh? Sacrifice what? We the people have been sacrificing our wealth since 1913!!!!! We shouldn’t be paying Federal income taxes in the first place. Nor should we have fiat currency that’s backed by nothing. But hey, if you want to fund endless wars and send your hard earned wages to things you have no idea what or where they’re used, you go guy.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by bambino

Huh? Sacrifice what? We the people have been sacrificing our wealth since 1913!!!!! We shouldn’t be paying Federal income taxes in the first place. Nor should we have fiat currency that’s backed by nothing. But hey, if you want to fund endless wars and send your hard earned wages to things you have no idea what or where they’re used, you go guy.

I’m not even sure how to respond to this bunch of nonsense.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I’m not even sure how to respond to this bunch of nonsense.

Well, you tried. But you can’t figure it out.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by bambino

Well, you tried. But you can’t figure it out.

You are saying that we should not have a tax plan because we should not have income taxes at all. To argue the merits of income taxes is to argue the merits of funding the federal government in the first place. That seems to be a little off topic to me.

To stick to the topic at hand.

“Trump over the years has advocated spend 100 to grab 10 more in sales, hence all the Bankruptcies over his life and this beautiful tax bill reeks of this approach”

IMHO the government has taken this approach to our economy since the 2008 mortgage crisis. Printing money and making 0% interest loans can juice the economy just like lowering the tax rates does. Sooner or later the American public is going to be forced to pay the freight because the world economy will stop buying our bonds. This “big beautiful bill” will do nothing but exacerbate the problem and the party of fiscal austerity is asleep at the wheel.

[tommy156]

His tax plan isn't nearly as fucked up as the things tucked deep inside the bill. The fine print will basically make it ok for trump to defy any federal judge's ruling he doesn't like. The tax plan itself is the least of my worries.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by tommy156

His tax plan isn't nearly as fucked up as the things tucked deep inside the bill. The fine print will basically make it ok for trump to defy any federal judge's ruling he doesn't like. The tax plan itself is the least of my worries.

Tell us about the “fine print” Tommy. In detail!!!!


BAHAHAHA

[bambino]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

You are saying that we should not have a tax plan because we should not have income taxes at all. To argue the merits of income taxes is to argue the merits of funding the federal government in the first place. That seems to be a little off topic to me.

To stick to the topic at hand.

“Trump over the years has advocated spend 100 to grab 10 more in sales, hence all the Bankruptcies over his life and this beautiful tax bill reeks of this approach”

IMHO the government has taken this approach to our economy since the 2008 mortgage crisis. Printing money and making 0% interest loans can juice the economy just like lowering the tax rates does. Sooner or later the American public is going to be forced to pay the freight because the world economy will stop buying our bonds. This “big beautiful bill” will do nothing but exacerbate the problem and the party of fiscal austerity is asleep at the wheel.

Pssst, Federal Income tax isn’t in the Constitution. Neither is Fiat currency. Only Gold and Silver. Educate yourself before posting.

Thant you valued poster

[HDGristle]

Pssst. Actually, the constitution doesn't prohibit the federal government in that regard. The states, yes. And the Supreme Court has ruled on this as well. We also have Amendments.

This was covered in school. Luckily, the authors of the budget bill paid attention in school, kind of, and aren't making these wildly inaccurate and easily disprovable claims.

They just wrote a bill the Senate knew was DOA because of how it further balloons the deficit.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by bambino

Pssst, Federal Income tax isn’t in the Constitution. Neither is Fiat currency. Only Gold and Silver. Educate yourself before posting.

Thant you valued poster

Please allow me to correct your incorrect statements.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s...-amendment.asp

The 16th amendment to the constitution was enacted specifically to allow for the income tax.

The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1913. It allows Congress to levy a tax on income from any source without apportioning it among the states and without regard to the census.

The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to levy a tax on income from any source.

The change was supported generally by states in the South and West.

Prior to the 16th Amendment, the Constitution required direct taxes to be proportionate to each state's population. Most Federal revenues came from tariffs and excise taxes.

The first national income tax was enacted in 1894 but was struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). The 16th Amendment was passed in response to this court case.

The income tax is now the largest source of Federal government revenue.

https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Mon...e/const.htm#30

As for the issue of fiat currency the matter is not specifically enumerated in the constitution. However it is not forbidden either. Numerous courts have upheld the right of the congress to regulate the printing and distribution of paper money as well as other forms of currency.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Please allow me to correct your incorrect statements.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s...-amendment.asp

The 16th amendment to the constitution was enacted specifically to allow for the income tax.

The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1913. It allows Congress to levy a tax on income from any source without apportioning it among the states and without regard to the census.

The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to levy a tax on income from any source.

The change was supported generally by states in the South and West.

Prior to the 16th Amendment, the Constitution required direct taxes to be proportionate to each state's population. Most Federal revenues came from tariffs and excise taxes.

The first national income tax was enacted in 1894 but was struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). The 16th Amendment was passed in response to this court case.

The income tax is now the largest source of Federal government revenue.

https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Mon...e/const.htm#30

As for the issue of fiat currency the matter is not specifically enumerated in the constitution. However it is not forbidden either. Numerous courts have upheld the right of the congress to regulate the printing and distribution of paper money as well as other forms of currency.

Up to date, there are still some debates on whether the 16th Amendment is constitutional or not. America’s Founding Fathers who designed the constitution wanted the power between the federal government and the states to be balanced. Therefore, the national government was not allowed to collect taxes from individuals directly. This means that the government could still collect revenue from the states in accordance to population, but it would leave the method of collection to the states. The federal government would use other methods which were less intrusive such as excise taxes, tariffs, and consumption taxes. This way the amount that the government could collect by its own authority was limited.

Most of the Founding Fathers did not like the idea of taxing individuals. In fact, the taxing of individuals was regarded as a last resort option and could only be implemented during war or other emergencies. It was not until during the Civil War that the first income tax was imposed, and it was repealed soon afterwards. When the Amendment was adopted in 1913, it only applied to 2 percent of the labor force, with the highest rate being 7%. This primed the way for the government’s unlimited access to revenue.


Was the 16th actually ratified?

https://givemeliberty.org/features/t...otratified.htm


Constitutional money;

Read in conjunction with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and the obligation-of-contracts clause (Art. I, sec. 10, cl. 1), we can identify five monetary policies that are constitutionally requisite in the United States:

The basic unit is the dollar, a silver coin containing 371.25 grains of pure silver.
Only gold or silver coins and currency (specie-backed banknotes) can be legal tender.
No state may issue coins or currency.
No one may counterfeit U.S. Government-issued coins or currency.
Neither the states nor Congress may issue fiat money notes (‘bills of credit’).

[bambino]

I’ve seen a few claims making the rounds on the Big Beautiful Bill that require correction.

The first is that it doesn’t “codify the DOGE cuts.” A reconciliation bill, which is a budget bill that passes with 50 votes, is limited by senate rules to “mandatory” spending only — eg Medicaid and Food Stamps. The senate rules prevent it from cutting “discretionary” spending — eg the Department of Education or federal grants. The DOGE cuts are overwhelmingly discretionary, not mandatory. The bill saves more than 1.6 TRILLION in mandatory spending, including the largest-ever welfare reform. A remarkable achievement.

I’ve also seen claims the bill increases the deficit. This lie is based on a CBO accounting gimmick. Income tax rates from the 2017 tax cut are set to expire in September. They were always planned to be permanent. CBO says maintaining *current* rates adds to the deficit, but by definition leaving these income tax rates unchanged cannot add one penny to the deficit. The bill’s spending cuts REDUCE the deficit against the current law baseline, which is the only correct baseline to use.

Another fantastically false claim is that the bill spends trillions of dollars. This is just completely invented out of whole cloth. This is not a ten year budget bill—it doesn’t “fund” almost any operations of government, which are funded in the annual budget bills (which this is not). In other words, if this bill passed, but the annual budget bill did not, there would be no government funding. Under the math that critics are using, if we passed a one paragraph reconciliation bill that cut simply 50 billion in food stamp spending, they would say the bill “added” trillions in spending and debt because they are counting ALL the projected federal spending that exists entirely outside the scope of this legislation, which is of course preposterous. The only funding in the bill is for the President’s border and defense priorities, while enacting a net spending cut of over 1.6 TRILLION dollars.

The bill has two fiscal components: a massive tax cut and a massive spending cut.