New Tax Bill Released today

[Aseahawkfan]

Since this is a post on the "Tax Bill" I'll throw my 2cents in as a homeowner in Hawaii and a business owner. I LOVE IT!!!!
Keeps the mortgage deduction at a level where you can buy a house in the islands, which is about 1 million and up. We could of been smashed and seen the housing market crash real quick.
Keeps most of the State Property and Income Tax deductions.
Keeps the medical deductions for employees and owners.
Keeps the Section 179 Depreciation Deductions (the best thing in my lifetime to build a successful business)
and supposedly, although I can't find it, it throws in a 25% yearly tax credit for pass-through businesses (anyone except a "C" Corp) --

This bill is setup for parents, business owners, home-owners, all American's who don't itemize and yes, the 'rich' but compared to what first came out...it's night and day.

This Friday I had a end-of-year meeting with all my employees and they were all smiles when I told them they will get to keep a whole lot more of their wages, with the standard deduction doubling, employees should see $$$, once the IRS releases the new tax brackets.

This is the first thing Trump's done that makes sense as a economic move. No comment on the other 95%

Nice insight. That's what I like as well. More money in my pocket is always a good thing. I work for the money, no reason I shouldn't get more of it. To hear some of these folks tell it, only the rich are getting a break. That isn't true at all. If they truly understood how the corporate income tax rate works, they would know that it will not directly go into the pockets of corporate owners due to double taxation.

[RiverDog]

I would tax the living hell out of bad foods to pay for medicine. You want to eat a hot dog? 10% additional tax. You want potato chips cooked in oil and salt? 10% additional tax. You want to fatty meat? 10% additional tax. I would create a strong financial incentive to eat healthy.

I would do the penalty tax during the yearly physical which would be required. The tax would be on the individual and the parents of children who were obese. I would do it myself based on waist size like Japan and an overall measure of physical health according to blood tests.

Riverdog, you tell me what you do when the government refuses to let the bad choices fall on the people make them. You're telling me government managed medical care isn't going to last. There's no way the nation lets it go given how many people use it. Do you like general taxation with your money going to things you don't do like taking care of obese people sitting around an apartment rotting away? Or taking care of drug addicts that knew better than to take the drugs? How do you make the costs fall harder on the people making the bad decisions?

I don't do drugs. I don't drink alcohol. I invest and manage my money tightly not living beyond my means. I pay my car off quickly. About my only vice is overeating and I"m getting control of that and cutting weight. And no one can pull the total horsecrap card on me of growing up in a good home. I grew up poor from a broken home with addict parents. I chose not to follow their path because it was fairly obvious those types of behaviors have negative outcomes with no positives. Yet I'm told by some of these young folk that ghetto kids can't help but do crime or drugsbecause you know, they're poor. And some fat people are sad, so they can't help being fat. And other such BS stories.

I'd be glad to go to a system of personal accountability if I thought the government would actually do it, but that attitude doesn't win votes does it. Once the entitled generation figures out their poor planning left them in a bad way, along with the liberal system that taught them it's not their fault, and I bet they'll tax whoever they can to pay for their bad choices. I work around so many of these cream puff young folks that I expect that over-medicated (both by doctors and self-medication) group to go down hard as they age. Parenting skills are crap. The men are feminized and run by women. The women think any man that tries to teach their male children to be men is bad and they browbeat them until they stop. This coddled generation needs to be managed because their parents never taught them that life isn't fair and you need to work to have even the most moderate of lives.

Maybe I'm too much of a cynic, but that's what I see around these people. I have no faith that the payments for these people will be paid by the people that are making the bad choices. Instead I feel like I'll be getting slammed with taxes and attacks on my assets to pay for them if we don't put in place a system that makes the bad actors pay for their decisions.

So who decides what's healthy and what's not healthy? And you're concentrating on just the foods themselves. Portion size is another variable in a healthy diet. No doctor is going to tell a healthy individual that they can't eat a couple of servings of French fries per week.

It's a basic rub with me, ie the government acting as my mother might, telling me what I can and can't eat or drink via their taxation policy. It's none of their damn business.

[idhawkman]

Smoking is already taxed in the price of cigarettes. Vice taxes are easy.

I agree, that is already taxed in their price and without regards to the corporate shakedown of the manufacturers. That money is all spent and they don't know where to go to replace it though.

I would tax the living hell out of bad foods to pay for medicine. You want to eat a hot dog? 10% additional tax. You want potato chips cooked in oil and salt? 10% additional tax. You want to fatty meat? 10% additional tax. I would create a strong financial incentive to eat healthy.

Its impossible to do this because eating healthy is way more expensive than the 10% tax you are proposing now on junk. There's no need to look any further than this to figure out why American's are so obese and out of shape. Its just cheaper to eat unhealthy. If you don't believe me, fill your cart with a few vegetables and fruits from the produce section at the store and see what the price of healthy eating is.

I would do the penalty tax during the yearly physical which would be required. The tax would be on the individual and the parents of children who were obese. I would do it myself based on waist size like Japan and an overall measure of physical health according to blood tests.

Again, impossible to do. What are you going to do when the family can't afford the tax? Exterminate them? Can't get blood from a turnip.

I'd be glad to go to a system of personal accountability if I thought the government would actually do it, but that attitude doesn't win votes does it. Once the entitled generation figures out their poor planning left them in a bad way, along with the liberal system that taught them it's not their fault, and I bet they'll tax whoever they can to pay for their bad choices. I work around so many of these cream puff young folks that I expect that over-medicated (both by doctors and self-medication) group to go down hard as they age. Parenting skills are crap. The men are feminized and run by women. The women think any man that tries to teach their male children to be men is bad and they browbeat them until they stop. This coddled generation needs to be managed because their parents never taught them that life isn't fair and you need to work to have even the most moderate of lives.

If this ever happened, you'd be called heartless and not understanding of people's plight in the world. Reminds me of the story about the Gazelle and the Lion.

In Africa, if you are a Lion, you have to wake up and run if you want to eat that day. If you are a gazelle, you have to run if you don't want to be eaten.

Either way, in Africa, when you wake up you better be runnin'

Maybe what we do is ship them off to the jungle and teach the obese people to run. /sarcasm

[burrrton]

There's no need to look any further than this to figure out why American's are so obese and out of shape. Its just cheaper to eat unhealthy.

This is untrue, ID. The produce section of your local supermarket is a *bargain* compared to Carl's Jr. or KFC, and even compared to ready-to-eat options elsewhere in the store (chips, etc).

I was just shopping yesterday, as a matter of fact- I think my bag of apples and two bags of broccoli came to something like $5 total.

As I see it, we're unhealthy in this country because of two things:

1. We're lazy, and...
2. We have a ridiculous number of options for food.

Ordering a pizza or stopping by Taco Smell on the way home is easy- planning meals, buying the components, and preparing them is harder (but much, much cheaper).

[idhawkman]

This is untrue, ID. The produce section of your local supermarket is a *bargain* compared to Carl's Jr. or KFC, and even compared to ready-to-eat options elsewhere in the store (chips, etc).

I was just shopping yesterday, as a matter of fact- I think my bag of apples and two bags of broccoli came to something like $5 total.

As I see it, we're unhealthy in this country because of two things:

1. We're lazy, and...
2. We have a ridiculous number of options for food.

Ordering a pizza or stopping by Taco Smell on the way home is easy- planning meals, buying the components, and preparing them is harder (but much, much cheaper).

Maybe it depends on where you live but you couldn't get that here at those prices.

[RiverDog]

Price at the supermarket, at least in my case, is irrelevant. The difference between high prices and bargains makes up such a tiny part of our monthly expenses that I don't feel the need to bargain hunt. We'll go into known stores..Costco, Winco, and Walmart..and avoid those that we know we'd get ripped off...Albertson's, Safeway, and Yoke's...and just buy what we need regardless of price. Perhaps if I was shopping for a family of 10 it might make a difference, but it sure doesn't for me.

But the time to prepare healthy food is significant. Additionally, healthy food, in general, doesn't survive the cool and reheat process without a significant loss in flavor like a slice of pizza or a chicken drumstick.

One could make an argument that eating more unhealthy food started when mothers in the typical American started working outside their household as it put a huge time constraint on meal preperation.

But back to my original argument. It isn't so much the types of food you eat as how much you eat. We won't begin to solve the problem of obseity until we do something about portion sizes. And no matter what, I do not want the government dictating to me what I can eat or drink. Tobacco and alcohol tax I don't have as much of a problem with because they are not necessities. But if we head down the slippery slope of taxing general stores, it won't be too long before we'll be paying a surtax to have a piece of our own birthday cakes.

[burrrton]

Maybe it depends on where you live but you couldn't get that here at those prices.

Perhaps, but even if you live in a higher-cost-of-living area, the relative costs are similar- easy/convenient food is significantly more expensive than that which you prepare yourself (which makes sense intuitively, too).

For the cost of Panda Express for 4, you could literally buy a 10lb bag of Basmati and enough frozen chicken breasts to last a month.

The difference between high prices and bargains makes up such a tiny part of our monthly expenses that I don't feel the need to bargain hunt.

Not sure if you're responding to me or an argument ID made, but I'm not talking about bargain hunting vs full retail- I'm talking about the types of food we buy.

Vegetables (and fruits to a lesser but similar degree) are *dirt* cheap for the amount of tummy-filling goodness you get, and the same goes for most other components of healthy meals when you prepare them yourself.

One could make an argument that eating more unhealthy food started when mothers in the typical American started working outside their household as it put a huge time constraint on meal preperation.

Valid, but let's be clear: that's still a choice those mothers make. I don't blame them a bit myself, but I've seen many working Moms put a hot meal on the table 7 nights a week.

We won't begin to solve the problem of obseity until we do something about portion sizes.

Another good point- I'll add that to my two above.

[RiverDog]

RD said: "The difference between high prices and bargains makes up such a tiny part of our monthly expenses that I don't feel the need to bargain hunt."

Not sure if you're responding to me or an argument ID made, but I'm not talking about bargain hunting vs full retail- I'm talking about the types of food we buy.

Vegetables (and fruits to a lesser but similar degree) are *dirt* cheap for the amount of tummy-filling goodness you get, and the same goes for most other components of healthy meals when you prepare them yourself.

RD said "One could make an argument that eating more unhealthy food started when mothers in the typical American started working outside their household as it put a huge time constraint on meal preparation."

Valid, but let's be clear: that's still a choice those mothers make. I don't blame them a bit myself, but I've seen many working Moms put a hot meal on the table 7 nights a week.

Basically I was responding to IDHawk, but I was, or will, address yours as well. Food prices as a percentage of our monthly expenses is low, probably around 10% (transportation, housing, and utilities all exceed what we pay on our grocery bill). We are spoiled in this country in that there are societies where the bread winner spends his entire day's earnings to feed his family for that one day.

It simply isn't a factor in either your example or IDHawk's example. I'm not going to pay $1000/pound for a steak (I actually saw that advertized in a Costco flyer), but money is not a limiting factor whatsoever in what I buy and what I eat. I see stuff that I like that I'll buy in quanity when it goes on sale or see stuff that I like that the extra buck off lures me to buy it, but I do not make a conscious effort to economize in the grocery store.

I'm not excusing parents from their roles of providing their kids with a healthy diet, to the contrary, I agree with you and ASF about parents being negligent in this regard. What I am saying is that it's inevidable that there are times that sacrifices are going to be made as a result of the two income family that began in America in the 50's and 60's, and as a rule, it takes a longer time to prepare a healthy meal than it does an unhealthy one.

[burrrton]

It simply isn't a factor in either your example or IDHawk's example.

I guess I missed the gist of the conversation.

I'm simply addressing the attitude that it's hard/tough/impossible for America's "poor" to eat healthy due to the cost- it's not, and not by a long shot.

it takes a longer time to prepare a healthy meal than it does an unhealthy one.

Agreed 100%, and if all the objections to the admonitions of "Feed your kids healthy food" amounted to " But it's haaaaaaaaaard!", I'd find that relevant.

People don't want to admit they just don't want to put the time in, though- too many act like there are other barriers. There aren't.

[jshawaii22]

Here's a statistic that might explain why 'heath' is going away.

In 1970, 80% of married couples had at least one that was "stay at home", raise the kids, make the meals, etc.
In 2015, less than 15% were stay at home.
Over 90% of married women in Hawaii work at least 20 hours a week and 70% work full time or two jobs.

Makes it hard to think the kids would have the life we had growing up.

[Aseahawkfan]

So who decides what's healthy and what's not healthy? And you're concentrating on just the foods themselves. Portion size is another variable in a healthy diet. No doctor is going to tell a healthy individual that they can't eat a couple of servings of French fries per week.

It's a basic rub with me, ie the government acting as my mother might, telling me what I can and can't eat or drink via their taxation policy. It's none of their damn business.

It's their business if they're paying the medical bills. The effects of food are well-documented and easy to track. Yeah. A couple of servings of french fries with oil and salt is not good for you. One large from Wendy's or a Five guys fries is a quarter of your daily calories with very little nutritional value. A sedentary or low activity person shouldn't be eating fries more than maybe once month. They can shell out a little more money to help pay for all the french fry eaters on their way to healthy problems.

Maybe you can convince them to start letting people die like i want to do. I'd be ok with telling old folks, "Hey, you ate crap too long. We can't pay for all the clogged arteries and health problems from your crappy eating." If we're going to continue with medicare/medicaid and make it work, then the government is going to have to take an active interest in managing people's health. And health starts with diet. Bad diet and we get unhealthy people, especially as they get older. That's why we have so many old folks taking buckets of medication.

[burrrton]

A sedentary or low activity person shouldn't be eating fries more than maybe once month. They can shell out a little more money to help pay for all the french fry eaters on their way to healthy problems.

I'd be ok with telling old folks, "Hey, you ate crap too long. We can't pay for all the clogged arteries and health problems from your crappy eating."

LOL. Your healthcare system on Socialism, everyone. Thanks again, asea.

That's why we have so many old folks taking buckets of medication.

That, and they're old. LOL.

[Aseahawkfan]

One thing buurtton and I are in agreement on is eating healthy is far cheaper than eating unhealthy. It's total lie that it is more expensive to eat healthy.

When started I losing weight, I started buying healthy foods in bulk from the grocery store and preparing meals. It was so much cheaper than eating out and much, much healthier. It's easy to prepare lots of quality one pot meals that take almost no time. You cut out all the oil, butter, and use only the natural juices of meat with no calorie spices to season everything. Tastes great, costs less, and makes you feel so much better.

[Aseahawkfan]

LOL. Your healthcare system on Socialism, everyone. Thanks again, asea.

Isn't medicare/medicaid already socialism?

That, and they're old. LOL.

My grandmother took no medication into her 90s. She didn't drink, smoke, or eat a ton of unhealthy crap. She kept her weight in order. She maintained constant activity. I guess she should have to pay for all those old folks that smoke, drink, eat like crap, and let their weight get out of control. You like paying for those people now buurrtton? Your taxes do help pay for medicare/medicaid and other state sponsored programs.

Why not force people to make a choice? Either pay for medical yourself or the government starts requiring certain things to save costs.

[burrrton]

Isn't medicare/medicaid already socialism?

No. Our Capitalist system allows for safety nets (as well as public works and fire and police departments to save us from the next red herring most Socialists usually trot out- not that you're one of those, though).

Why not force people to make a choice? Either pay for medical yourself or the government starts requiring certain things to save costs.

Because that's taking a sh*t all over this little thing called "freedom".

Look, I get the logic behind what you're saying, but this is precisely why people want to keep as little Big Brother involvement in people's lives as possible. It inevitably, and nearly instantly as you've demonstrated, leads to Big Brother telling you what, when, and how much you can eat, and we both know it won't stop there.

That you apparently think that's reasonable is pretty scary if I'm being honest.

[RiverDog]

It's their business if they're paying the medical bills.

So if you sustain more severe injuries in an accident because you weren't wearing a seat belt or a motorcycle helmut, should you have to pay the difference, which could easily amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars? Or suppose you start a kitchen fire and burned down your house because you left the frying pan unattended with the burner on high? Should the rest of that insurance company's policy holders have to pay for your mistake in the form of premium increases? Or how about falling off your ladder because you were standing on the very top of it?

Life is full of humans making bad choices and the rest of society having to suffer the financial consequences. You start singling one of them out it would make all others fair game.

[RiverDog]

I'm simply addressing the attitude that it's hard/tough/impossible for America's "poor" to eat healthy due to the cost- it's not, and not by a long shot.

RD said: "...it takes a longer time to prepare a healthy meal than it does an unhealthy one."

Agreed 100%, and if all the objections to the admonitions of "Feed your kids healthy food" amounted to " But it's haaaaaaaaaard!", I'd find that relevant.

People don't want to admit they just don't want to put the time in, though- too many act like there are other barriers. There aren't.

I completely agree. I don't necessarily buy ASF's claim that it's cheaper to buy healthy than non healthy foods, especially if you factor into the cost preperation time. IMO cost is not the reason why Americans are eating unhealthy foods, especially for somene in my predicament where it's just me and my wife as the overall cost differential, if there is one, is irrelevant. We're just plain lazy or plain don't care.

[burrrton]

I don't necessarily buy ASF's claim that it's cheaper to buy healthy than non healthy foods, especially if you factor into the cost preperation time.

I must be missing the point of this discussion. I'm not sure why you keep looping this back to you- is someone concerned that people in your situation need help finding a way to get enough to eat?

[RiverDog]

I must be missing the point of this discussion. I'm not sure why you keep looping this back to you- is someone concerned that people in your situation need help finding a way to get enough to eat?

I think that ASF was trying to argue that it's cheaper to eat healthy foods. For my situation, it doesn't matter if it's cheaper or not, so it's a completely irrelevant point.

Additionally, IMO cost has very little to do as to why Americans don't eat a healthier diet. My opinion is that we are either too lazy or don't care about the long term effects of a good vs. poor diet. Flavor and ease of preperation matter more to us than cost.

Is that better?

[burrrton]

I think that ASF was trying to argue that it's cheaper to eat healthy foods. For my situation, it doesn't matter if it's cheaper or not, so it's a completely irrelevant point.

Well, ASF is correct, and that doesn't change if someone personally finds cost irrelevant- healthy meals are still the cheapest alternative whether one cares about cost or not.

Additionally, IMO cost has very little to do as to why Americans don't eat a healthier diet.

Agreed- in fact, it has *nothing* to do with it. If it did, we'd eat healthier.

My opinion is that we are either too lazy or don't care about the long term effects of a good vs. poor diet.

Agreed.

[Aseahawkfan]

So if you sustain more severe injuries in an accident because you weren't wearing a seat belt or a motorcycle helmut, should you have to pay the difference, which could easily amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars? Or suppose you start a kitchen fire and burned down your house because you left the frying pan unattended with the burner on high? Should the rest of that insurance company's policy holders have to pay for your mistake in the form of premium increases? Or how about falling off your ladder because you were standing on the very top of it?

Life is full of humans making bad choices and the rest of society having to suffer the financial consequences. You start singling one of them out it would make all others fair game.

What do you mean by this? You do pay more in higher insurance premiums. No matter whether it is a socialist system or a private system, you pay more if you screw up or make mistakes. I'm saying that if we are going to move to a socialist system, then we need to make the people that make the bad choices pay.

And taxes on particular foods accomplish exactly what you're illustrating. They make the people that want to engage in the bad behavior pay. They are what are known as voluntary taxes. I would prefer more voluntary taxes be used to pay for services like medicare/medicaid. General taxes create an environment where you take a certain amount from everyone where the worst decision makers generally end up being paid for by the best decision makers, voluntary taxes focus your taxes on those behaviors that cost the most. This makes is so that people that don't engage in those behaviors don't have to pay for those that do. They can avoid paying the taxes by not eating the crap, keeping their weight in order, and engaging in healthy behaviors.

Voluntary taxes allow people that choose to engage in sound decision making to avoid paying for those that don't. It is already used quite a lot all over. Liquor taxes, cigarette taxes, gas taxes, and the like. You can avoid paying them by avoiding the behaviors. I prefer that method because it allows for society to pay for the health-related costs of unhealthy behavior, while allowing people that avoid such behaviors to avoid the cost by engaging in healthy behaviors. I don't get why any conservative person would have a problem with it. You want to be a screw up that costs a lot of money in health problems, then you pay for it with higher taxes.

I've never been for outright banning of foods. I'm fine with vice taxes applied to unhealthy foods that are clearly proven to lead to long-term health problems like sugary drinks, candy, french fries, fatty beef, and the like. Food companies want to sell crap that cause people to be unhealthy, they can foot the cost for medicare/medicaid.

[Aseahawkfan]

I completely agree. I don't necessarily buy ASF's claim that it's cheaper to buy healthy than non healthy foods, especially if you factor into the cost preparation time. IMO cost is not the reason why Americans are eating unhealthy foods, especially for somene in my predicament where it's just me and my wife as the overall cost differential, if there is one, is irrelevant. We're just plain lazy or plain don't care.

I don't expect you to buy things that are not empirically provable. You can prove using math that it is more cost effective to eat healthier foods compared to a fast food or eating out all the time diet. This isn't even close to debatable.

As far as preparation time, how long does it take to throw some potatoes in a pot with some meat and spices, then let it cook for 20 minutes? A half hour?

As far as flavor, why should I have to pay for the health costs of your desire for flavor? If medicare/medicaid or my private insurance premiums are too high because you gotta eat your ribeye with a beer, that shouldn't be my cost. That's what I want to get to. Put the cost where it should go for heart disease, cancer, and the like.

[Aseahawkfan]

No. Our Capitalist system allows for safety nets (as well as public works and fire and police departments to save us from the next red herring most Socialists usually trot out- not that you're one of those, though).

It's a capitalist-socialist blend fueled by taxes on everything we do. It's not freedom to impose a tax that takes a certain percentage of every productive activity in the nation. It is an imposition and socialism through taxation. People should call it what it is. I'm not the most tax happy guy. That's why I prefer voluntary taxes I can avoid if I choose not to engage in the behavior or activity. Voluntary taxes are better at allowing an individual to exercise the free choice, while at the same time paying the social cost of unhealthy behaviors.

For whatever reason you're some strange conservative that rewords socialism into a manner you find palatable to your sensibilities rather than calling it what it is: socialism through taxation. Safety nets are socialized programs. The military, police, and the like are socialized. America like nearly every other modern economy is a blend of socialism and capitalism. America hasn't been a purely capitalist nation for a long, long time. Just as most European economies haven't been purely socialist for a long time. They are all a blend of socialist and capitalist economic principles.When social security and medicare/medicaid were created, they were viewed as socialist measures at that time. Pure socialism is awful, but so is pure capitalism. That's why modern economies blend the two because sometimes you need something socialized for equal delivery and loyalty to the entire nation, but most of the time you want the free market because it does just about everything else better.

I'll finish there with that tangent as I already know your stance on most of this. You are a textbook conservative. I've heard the excuses and tripe from that viewpoint for far too long. It is as full of crap with their justification of despotism through improper use of our military and excuses for corporate corruption and vileness as they use their money to exert a much larger government influence than they should. I'd like to see some real liberty back in this nation. Not just the feeling of being free because they can buy what they want and watch porn on their computer.

[RiverDog]

What do you mean by this? You do pay more in higher insurance premiums." "And taxes on particular foods accomplish exactly what you're illustrating."

As it stands now, if I make a poor decision and experience a serious injury while standing with one foot on the top step of a ladder and the other on a tree branch, a clearly unsafe act, I pay the same insurance premium as the person that experienced an injury while following all common sense safety precautions. An injury is an injury. It's a no fault insurance policy. I don't want someone, ie the government, to come in and pass judgement on my decision and determine a cause.

If we were to slap a on stuff like candy and soft drinks, I could be talked into it if it is framed as a sales or consumption tax. They are not part of basic necessities in the same manner as are most other items in the grocery cart. But I am not good with it if you are going to implement some sort of health tax and, for example, applied it based on something like fat content.

Once again, I do not want the government coming in and making decisions as to which foods are bad for you. Besides, as we already discussed, it's not bad to eat unhealthy foods, it's only bad if you eat ALOT of unhealthy foods. No doctor is going to tell a relatively normal person that they cannot take so much as a bite out of a double bacon cheeseburger, yet if you implement your junk food tax, that's exactly what will result.

Besides, how high of a tax are you going to have to implement on a food tax before it becomes a deterrent? How high do you have to raise the tax for it to compensate healthy eaters for their not having to pay for heart bypass surgeries?

I'm all for insisting that people paying for their 'crimes', ie their bad decisions, where it makes sense. But not to the point where it would require a George Orwell Big Brother-style government to manage it.

[burrrton]

This isn't even close to debatable.

I don't think he's debating that, considering he acknowledges it explicitly.

I think he's taking exception to the implication that he should care, given his circumstances. Maybe I'm *still* misunderstanding, though.

[burrrton]

I'd like to see some real liberty back in this nation.

You say this, then you turn around and b*tch that you think the government should be able to dictate what we eat?

[burrrton]

Aaaaaand... looks like the tax bill is going to pass today.

Cue the bed-wetting.

[RiverDog]

ASF said: [i]"I'd like to see some real liberty back in this nation."[/i ]

You say this, then you turn around and b*tch that you think the government should be able to dictate what we eat?

That's my major beef, ie the government deciding one of my basic necessities. The next thing you know, they'll be making sure that I pay a tax if I have sex without a condom.

Besides, think of the size of the governmental department that would be required to evaluate everything we could conceivably buy off a grocery shelf, give it some sort of health rating, then hire food Nazis to go around to every Pizza Hut and Granny's to make sure that every salad bar and lunch buffet is applying the appropriate tax to what people are buying.

[burrrton]

Besides, think of the size of the governmental department that would be required to evaluate everything we could conceivably buy off a grocery shelf, give it some sort of health rating, then hire food Nazis to go around to every Pizza Hut and Granny's to make sure that every salad bar and lunch buffet is applying the appropriate tax to what people are buying.

And how badly they'd f*ck it up.

[Aseahawkfan]

Now we get real world data collection on how the new tax bill will work for the economy. I like real world data over speculation always. Big win for Trump. If this helps the economy, I might have to deal with eight years of Trump. That extra money in my pocket will help me ignore his Twitter account and crazy talk. I'm sure he is making that bet on a majority of Americans. Giving people more money is always a great way to make them forget your shortcomings.

[jshawaii22]

He's not "giving the people more $$$"... the Tax Bill likely will allow most American's to actually keep more of what you work to earn. I don't want no handouts, but I have no objection to paying 'less taxes'.

We'll all know more when the new 2018 IRS payroll tax deductions spread sheets come out and we all get our first paychecks.

js

[RiverDog]

He's not "giving the people more $$$"... the Tax Bill likely will allow most American's to actually keep more of what you work to earn. I don't want no handouts, but I have no objection to paying 'less taxes'.

We'll all know more when the new 2018 IRS payroll tax deductions spread sheets come out and we all get our first paychecks.

js

It was just a figure of speech.

I'm pretty non committal over this tax bill. I don't think it was necessary and feel it was driven more by Republicans that are desperate to show America that they've done something with their majority in Congress and control of the Executive Branch than it was a reaction or solution to some pressing economic need.

[Aseahawkfan]

He's not "giving the people more $$$"... the Tax Bill likely will allow most American's to actually keep more of what you work to earn. I don't want no handouts, but I have no objection to paying 'less taxes'.

We'll all know more when the new 2018 IRS payroll tax deductions spread sheets come out and we all get our first paychecks.

js

Were they taking more of your money forcibly prior to the Repubs passing this bill and Trump signing it? Why yes they were. They are taken by force of law backed by a government that will garnish you or jail you if you don't pay them. So yes, just as the government takes your money, Trump and the Repubs are giving it back to you with a tax change enforced by law.

I get what you're saying. You did earn the money. Let's be real, taxes are no longer voluntary. They are taken. As I told burrton, taxes are socialism by taxation even if he doesn't want to see it. They are backed by force of law. They are taken from you at gunpoint. That person with the gun may not be in your face, but he's there if you push too hard against taxes. Bottom line is the government decides how much they will take from all the money you earn and in this instance how much they will allow you to keep if you prefer that term. That's why I say they decide what they take and what they give, you accept or pay the penalty and gain the benefit when the benevolent government decides to allow you to keep more of your money.

[Aseahawkfan]

It was just a figure of speech.

I'm pretty non committal over this tax bill. I don't think it was necessary and feel it was driven more by Republicans that are desperate to show America that they've done something with their majority in Congress and control of the Executive Branch than it was a reaction or solution to some pressing economic need.

I wish it were a figure of speech. I'm one of those people that doesn't like to lie to myself. I understand the pragmatic reasons for taxes, but taxes have reached the level of soft socialism. The level of taxes, fees, and the like that we pay is nothing more at this point than a smarter way to enact socialism on a large scale. Right now we are socio-capitalist as I term it as is most of the world. Socialist/Communist nations have learned from us and we from them where the governing body realizes you need a capitalist engine to build wealth, improve the standard of living, advance technology, and let human ambition, greed, and work drive your economy forward, while having socialist elements to smooth the bumps and provide needed services and products that you either don't want be pursued for profit like police services and national defense or that support your capitalist infrastructure with equal delivery like roads and the bureaucracy. I'm sure others see it differently than I, but that's how I see it.

[RiverDog]

Let's be real, taxes are no longer voluntary. They are taken. As I told burrton, taxes are socialism by taxation even if he doesn't want to see it. They are backed by force of law. They are taken from you at gunpoint. That person with the gun may not be in your face, but he's there if you push too hard against taxes. Bottom line is the government decides how much they will take from all the money you earn and in this instance how much they will allow you to keep if you prefer that term. That's why I say they decide what they take and what they give, you accept or pay the penalty and gain the benefit when the benevolent government decides to allow you to keep more of your money.

I guess it depends on what you consider voluntary. Sales tax is not voluntary. If you don't want to pay a sales tax, you don't buy the item. I can avoid paying sales tax altogether if I buy out of state or online. Gas taxes are voluntary. If you don't want to pay so much in taxes, walk or ride a bike, or if you want to avoid the tax altogether, buy an electric car. Consumption taxes are almost all voluntary or at least variable. That's the attractive part of a consumption tax: If you're having to cut your expenditures to make ends meet, you would be reducing the taxes you pay at the exact same time. Or if you hit a jackpot and start throwing money around like a drunken sailor, you'll be paying more in taxes. That seems fair to me.

I would love to see us get away from income taxes altogether and go to a consumption tax. There's a proposal out there, the National Retail Sales Tax, ie the Fair Tax, that has intrigued me for some time:

http://www.fairtaxnation.com/

I guess that's one of the reasons why I'm not as gung ho on this tax bill as some of the others as what I'd really like see happen is to go to a completely different tax structure.

[Aseahawkfan]

I guess it depends on what you consider voluntary. Sales tax is not voluntary. If you don't want to pay a sales tax, you don't buy the item. I can avoid paying sales tax altogether if I buy out of state or online. Gas taxes are voluntary. If you don't want to pay so much in taxes, walk or ride a bike, or if you want to avoid the tax altogether, buy an electric car. Consumption taxes are almost all voluntary or at least variable. That's the attractive part of a consumption tax: If you're having to cut your expenditures to make ends meet, you would be reducing the taxes you pay at the exact same time. Or if you hit a jackpot and start throwing money around like a drunken sailor, you'll be paying more in taxes. That seems fair to me.

I would love to see us get away from income taxes altogether and go to a consumption tax. There's a proposal out there, the National Retail Sales Tax, ie the Fair Tax, that has intrigued me for some time:

http://www.fairtaxnation.com/

I guess that's one of the reasons why I'm not as gung ho on this tax bill as some of the others as what I'd really like see happen is to go to a completely different tax structure.

I'd prefer consumption taxes too or directed taxes. It seems like at this point the government at all levels has lost their mind on taxes, fees, and just about everything involving economics. They take money for nearly every productive activity we do or every piece of property we own. You own a house, you have to pay property tax which is like rent to the government. You own a car, you have to pay tabs and gas fees. You own a business, you have to pay a bunch of taxes and fees just to operate the business. The government is always finding new ways to charge you for some human activity. If this isn't a backdoor way to implement socialism, I don't know what it is.

It's like the government said "We can't convince them to let us own all the businesses and property, so we'll just take a piece of all the businesses and property and all productive activity of any kind". It's just a smarter way to for the government to own everything. Let the horses run hard with capitalism because we're still getting our blood and meat from them with taxes.

[RiverDog]

I'd prefer consumption taxes too or directed taxes. It seems like at this point the government at all levels has lost their mind on taxes, fees, and just about everything involving economics. They take money for nearly every productive activity we do or every piece of property we own. You own a house, you have to pay property tax which is like rent to the government. You own a car, you have to pay tabs and gas fees. You own a business, you have to pay a bunch of taxes and fees just to operate the business. The government is always finding new ways to charge you for some human activity. If this isn't a backdoor way to implement socialism, I don't know what it is.

It's like the government said "We can't convince them to let us own all the businesses and property, so we'll just take a piece of all the businesses and property and all productive activity of any kind". It's just a smarter way to for the government to own everything. Let the horses run hard with capitalism because we're still getting our blood and meat from them with taxes.

There's a lot of things that's attractive about a consumption tax. One of them is that you eliminate an extremely invasive branch of government in the form of the IRS. Another is that everybody that sets foot on our soil pays the tax. If you're a tourist from Europe, you pay the tax. If you're an illegal looking to do this country harm, you pay the tax. Thirdly, you do not have to file a return. Gone is an entire industry of tax consultants.

But it will never come to pass in my lifetime. The only way enough politicians get behind this is if there's a groundswell movement that nominates a candidate that is fully committed to changing to a consumption tax.

[Aseahawkfan]

There's a lot of things that's attractive about a consumption tax. One of them is that you eliminate an extremely invasive branch of government in the form of the IRS. Another is that everybody that sets foot on our soil pays the tax. If you're a tourist from Europe, you pay the tax. If you're an illegal looking to do this country harm, you pay the tax. Thirdly, you do not have to file a return. Gone is an entire industry of tax consultants.

But it will never come to pass in my lifetime. The only way enough politicians get behind this is if there's a groundswell movement that nominates a candidate that is fully committed to changing to a consumption tax.

Exactly. It's too bad a consumption tax would likely require the government to have to pull back from it's push for world dominance disguised as what people like John McCain or the Clintons' call our "leadership place in the world" or what not. I have lost faith in the governments ability to follow our values and spend our money wisely. It's really both sides. You have the left wing thinking if we keep spending more and more money on social programs and education, those problems will be fixed when we already spend way more than other nations and it's not fixed. And the right wants to keep us involved in wars and foreign state building until we go bankrupt.

I'm not for closing our borders or some kind of extreme isolationism. I'd sure like us to let other nations have the same type of wars we did to build our nation until they consolidate and stabilize. Seems we never allow other nations to have their civil wars with one side winning without us sticking our heads in.

[RiverDog]

The only problem I could see with converting the US from an income tax to a consumption tax is that it would be extremely unfair to retired or about to retire individuals like myself that have accumulated large 401K and IRA accounts. If I wanted to pay for a new car or boat out of my Roth account in which I've already paid the tax, I'd have to pay an additional 22% federal sales tax. I'm sure that there's other examples of accumulated funds where taxes have already been paid that would be subjected to the tax. I'm not sure how they'd get around that. I could see court challenges arising if they didn't come up with some way to make an exception.