caryking said:With that thinking, let's assume I agree with you. Can't we also say that corporate taxes are regressive as well?Civilized said:caryking said:Civ, I'm not keeping up with this entire back and forth…. That said, as we keep talking about tax programs, let's not forget that massive change in taxes, with the last plan. That Trump tax plan eliminated the deduction of State taxes. So, everyone's taxes could have gone up, except for the offset deductions.Civilized said:packgrad said:Civilized said:packgrad said:Civilized said:packgrad said:
But Trump and Elon...What happened to them?
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 13, 2025
pic.twitter.com/M9ER0I8Y34
EXACTLY. Great analogy but good Lord what a terrible comparison for Trump and Musk.
Bill Clinton balanced the budget by raising taxes on the rich and on corporations, without deleting any key, high-ROI institutions, and by taking a bipartisan approach to controlling expenses on major government programs like welfare.
That is the absolute antithesis of what Trump and Musk are doing.
So why exactly are we completely axing worthwhile pursuits like the CFPB and USAID? Clinton created the roadmap. Trump and Musk aren't following it.
How exactly is President Musk going to balance the budget by cutting taxes $4.5T for corporations and his rich buddies over the next decade?
Bwahahahah. President Musk. You're such a clown "weird American's daddy" guy. Bipartisan efforts are a thing of the past. Too many are mentally ill like you. Your party leadership understands there is no benefit to their power grab to try to work together with Trump for bipartisan solutions. They can just say things like the billions of waste already found in 3 weeks are Pennies in the couch and mindless minions like you will hyperventilate in repeating it over and over.
Republicans have always efforted for bipartisan solutions with Dems. That has not been reciprocated. Republicans should continue to wisen up and govern with the mandate they were given and stop trying to search for bipartisan solutions with a party with historically poor ratings. I doubt they will, but I can hope.
I also love how you pretend to have ANY knowledge on what the ROI is for USAID or CFPB. Lol.
So you agree Trump and Musk's approach has nothing in common with Clinton's.
Got it.
Again, that's just stupid, head in the sand, derangement because Trump/Elon. "Nothing in common" lol.
No it's just obvious logic.
The backbone of Clinton's plan was raising taxes on the rich and corporations. Start there. That is night-and-day from Trump's plan to cut taxes on the rich and corporations.
Clinton raised direct revenue significantly while fostering economic growth, which further grew revenue. Trump is proposing to cut direct federal government revenue (taxes) and implement tariffs which carry the obvious risk of shrinking or stagnating the economy (even less revenue).
Clinton also took a bipartisan approach to cut cost from massive government programs while avoiding the unnecessary chaos that Trump and Musk are creating by immediately deleting entire small departments.
It's obvious how they're extraordinarily different.
In what meaningful ways do you think they're similar?
People, that are in the higher income bracket, actually saw a slight increase in their taxes. I know it cost me more. So, I'm a huge believer in the aspect, of the tax plan, as it cost tax payers, of a given State, more, if a State has high taxes.
Unfortunately, I'm hearing that is on the chopping block, for the new tax plan…
One more thing… help me understand how tariffs are anymore of a tax on the people, than taxes (bolded above) a business directly?
Tariffs are quite regressive.
Appropriately taxing higher income brackets and corporations is quite progressive.
No. If anything, corporate taxes have a mixed effect, but they are normally considered more progressive than regressive.
More profitable companies have an increased tax burden, and companies are often owned by higher earners/wealthier individuals in either direct ownership or stock ownership scenarios. That's clearly progressive.
To the extent that there is a trickle-down effect to workers, they can have regressive elements to them but nobody considers them to be just flatly regressive.
