You answer your first question with your last statement.
I don't think it really impeded anything, but I don't think it had any benefit either. It was an unnecessary regulation put in place to stop a non existent bogey man.
If that happened then they would have been in violation of current law, so I seriously doubt that would have happened. Companies can't conspire together to raise prices. And if I'm one of those big companies, I would be extremely excited for one of the other companies to try that. It would mean my customer base would grow by hundreds of thousands since customers would leave the other company and Netflix would pull it's services from that company.
Companies do that shit all the time. And customers wouldn’t have the option to move because of limited ISP options in markets.
I think they raised the child deduction from $1000 to $2000 and the hold outs want $3000.
I’m still pissed at how pass throughs aren’t getting the same benefit as big C-Corps.
The issue is Rubio. It got increased to $2,000 but that amount wouldn't be available to certain families. It could be reduced to as low as $1,100
That's a you problem. My taxes should be reduced, so I'm fine with it.
I think Mike Lee is pissed too. They can't lose but 2 votes and Corker is out no matter what.The issue is Rubio. It got increased to $2,000 but that amount wouldn't be available to certain families. It could be reduced to as low as $1,100
That's a you problem. My taxes should be reduced, so I'm fine with it.
That always gets me too. How in the hell is it a refund if you get back more than you paid in?
But I’m a jobs creator. Most small businesses are. Big C-Corps will use the savings to spread around the top executives and buy more company shares. Big business is largely at full employment. Small business is struggling and freed up tax dollars allow them to invest in human capital along with PP&E.The issue is Rubio. It got increased to $2,000 but that amount wouldn't be available to certain families. It could be reduced to as low as $1,100
That's a you problem. My taxes should be reduced, so I'm fine with it.
If you understood this board, you'd understand that was a joke. Would it help if you got a better deal? Sure, but the majority of people are going to get some relief from this bill. I'm happy about the relief I'm getting. I'm not going to bitch about the amount of relief I'm getting. No matter what the bill says, someone is always going to be unhappy. It's never going to be enough for some people. Why do nothing just because you can't satisfy everyone?
That's a very cynical way to view the world.
I think it could be downsized, but some of the things they do are necessary. I guess you could just fold those things into other agencies. If I'm going to get rid of an agency, I'm going after the department of education first.
So why rush a bill through for a political win? Let’s spend a little longer getting it right.
People have been saying "let's spend a little longer" for decades. Some group will always say the bill isn't right and we should just spend a little longer getting it right. That train of thought is why nothing ever gets solved in DC. It's never going to be perfect. And you haven't even argued that the bill is bad because it hurts you, you've been arguing it's bad because it doesn't help you more. That's a ridiculous train of thought.
I’ll be more direct. The bill is bad because it is being rushed. The SALT caps are bad. It’s too top heavy for corporations. It creates $1.5B extra debt. It’s only being written by one side of the political aisle. It sucked when Dems didn’t include Pubs and it sucks now.
I don't really think it's being rushed, but that's really a subjective thing. Would it make you feel better if they waited another month or would that still be "rushed"?
My solution for that is to get rid of all deductions. That would make the playing field level.
It decreases projected revenue by $1.5B. The spending causes debt.
That's how life is today unfortunately. It would be nice if both sides could come together, but it's not going to happen.
Ok, so how long would a good time period be? We've been talking about tax reform for decades. Should we talk about it for a few more decades?
I know it's not that simple. I'm just saying that would be the best solution.
Then decrease spending. Pay for what you can afford.
Yes, just like Dems had the chance to be different in the beginning of the Obama administration. It's just a cycle back and forth. There is no difference between the two parties. I hope it stops as well. I also hope I win the lottery even though I don't buy tickets. I'm guessing I'll win the lottery before they work together.
The only way I would ever support a consumption tax is if we fully repeal the 16th amendment. Otherwise we would end up with a consumption tax AND and income tax. That is why I was not in favor of Herman Cain's 9-9-9, because it would eventually end up 9-9-30, etc.
