Tax changes / proposals - discussion

Tax changes / proposals - discussion


Finally, the tax cuts you’re talking about, much appreciated! To start, I want to be fair and you did say these are only highlights and their may be other tax cuts you’re referring to, but just going to look at each of these separately, not going to try to guess anymore about tax cuts you’re referring to. The bolded items are not tax cuts, so we can remove them from the discussion - it may be true that they’re incredible for small businesses, helped boom the economy, without them the economy would’ve collapsed into the dark ages, etc. But they still aren’t tax cuts, so not relevant to your original point that:

(emphasis added)

As for the others,

Looks like you’re referring to IRC Section 179 which was made permanent in 2015 (under Obama). The deduction had been extended year after year, often very late in the year, but was only done for one year at a time. Making the deduction permanent was helpful to small businesses trying to plan to expend capital. So, it definitely was helpful to small businesses that it was made permanent, but it wasn’t an additional tax cut per se. If you’re referring to 168(k) or another provision entirely, it would be nice to know so that we can have a meaningful discussion.

Just for perspective though, if you find this to be an important provision for small businesses, in the beginning of Bush’s presidency, the allowable deduction was $25k. When Bush left office, the allowable deduction was $250k. When Obama left office, the allowable deduction was $500k. The TCJA increased the limit to $1m. So…not like Obama did anything particularly special here with respect to the actual tax cut.

I don’t credit these increases to Bush, Obama, or Trump.

Assuming you’re referring to Qualified Small Business Stock, this was in fact permanently increased under Obama. But this is a reduction in income for people who invest in small businesses and sell their stock. These aren’t mom and pop stores that are benefiting from this. The people likely to benefit are the entrepreneurs and early investors in companies that sell for significant gains. While this may benefit small business by encouraging investment, the people directly benefiting from the tax cut are unlikely to be middle class (at least at the time they are benefiting from the tax cut). They’re way more likely to be the uber-wealthy, especially because, under Obama, they removed the AMT modification under this Section.

I (sort of) believe this exists, just not familiar with what you’re referring to, so can’t comment on it specifically.

I know you weren’t directing this at me, but just to counter in advance one of your ad-hominem attacks, from what I gather you and I are ideologically similar in terms of politics (more similar than meed and I at least), so, I’m not blinded by that.


Sure, but I already specified I wasn’t referencing the incentivized credits, which quite naturally were temporary. The entire point of those kind of incentives is to kick-start.

He shoots, and misses. Again.

Even if it was an arguable point, the ACA wasn’t part of the stimulus bill.

He shoots, and misses. Again.


Was it part of the stimulus bill ?



Actually, they’re not.

Didn’t intend to present that they all were. Was merely responding to meed’s inference that Obama didn’t do anything for Small Business.


It’s impossible to tell what you are referencing because you’re going in circles. You said the Obama tax cuts for the middle class were larger than Trump’s. I said that Obama’s biggest cuts were extensions of Bush tax cuts and the rest were temporary. You said you weren’t talking about the extensions, only the cuts from the stimulus. I said the biggest cut from the stimulus was the temporary making work pay credit. Now you’re saying you weren’t referencing that cut. How can you say that Obama cut taxes more for the middle class, then when I point out that they were temporary (your main complaint with Trump’s), you say you didn’t mean the temporary ones? If you didn’t mean the temporary ones, then stop counting them in your claim that Obama’s were larger. You’re playing both sides of the fence.

It is an arguable point, which is why you are using some weird classification (“it’s not part of the stimulus”) to dismiss it. If you’re going to claim Obama was better on taxes than Trump, you can’t pick and chose what tax laws he signed. You have to take them all.

If you’re not claiming that, if you’re just claiming that Obama’s stimulus was better than Trump’s tax cut, okay. If you’re just claiming that Obama’s stimulus was better than Trump’s tax cut for the middle class, okay. Those are both fair points worth arguing, but because Trump’s tax cuts are so new, it’s hard to say which is better.

It is much easier to take Obama’s tax record overall and point out that it was worse than Trump’s is right now because Trump hasn’t passed any tax increases, unlike Obama who passed a bunch, and in the minds of many GOP voters, severely hamstrung the economy with them.


This thread has been a vivid display of the wisdom of the founding fathers. The federal government was to be limited to tariffs not taxes. Just enough to provide for the defense of the nation not to attempt solve all the failings of man. The federal taxes have caused so much dissension and delusion. Rich man vs poor man. That a certain race or gender should have advantages over others. That the government should provide for the weak and infirm, a task better provided by churches and charitable organizations. Taxes where to be levied by States and local governments providing more effective use of the funds and better oversight.





Not to mention that the original tariff revenue-raising structure was so HORRENDOUSLY regressive, the American people rose up en masse and demanded the implementation of a progressive federal income tax.

Power to the people.


OK my American history is a tad rusty but …

who did what when?


No, it merely looks that way when you’re so busy spinning.


Not only did I never make that claim, I have repeatedly corrected you for falsely insinuating I did.

Exactly, because the extension of just the Middle-class tax cuts was not part of the stimulus bill.

And you were wrong.

True, because I posted from the getgo I wasn’t including the incentivized credits.

Except I didn’t.

You can check my OP that is WAAAAY upthread. I posted that the tax cuts as part of the stimulus bill were larger (for the Middle-class) than the tax cuts (for the Middle-class) in the recent GOP tax bill, therefore they were even less likely to be noticed by the vast majority of the American people, which has been shown by recent polling to be exactly the case.

Pretty straightforward.

I really think the problem is you need to take more time and READ and COMPREHEND what others have posted before responding.


The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution required ratification by three fourths of the states.

Power to the people.


Back to PelosiLand


Ah yes, you prefer to ignore the will of more than three fourths of the American people’s vote, and instead be governed by a plutocratic oligarchy who don’t want to pay their fair share of taxes.

In an 1813 letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents… There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class… The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendancy.”

  1. I can’t find any information that “people rose up en masse” to demand income taxes.
    You make it sound like there were significant protests.
    eta : yes many people did support an income tax as an alternative to tarrifs. But I’m questioning the idea that “people rose up en masse” to “demand” it.

  2. 3/4 of state legislatures approving something is not the same as 3/4 of people voting for it.
    Today the Republicans are a mere 5 states away from controlling 3/4 of the state legislatures… yet the popular presidential vote marginally leans Democrat.


Oh they did and there were. You think it was easy to get more than two-thirds of the House and more than two-thirds of the Senate to vote for the 16th Amendment which was aggressively opposed by the Rich & Corporate(originally charters).

Well, in the form of representative democracy, they did.



I can’t find any old timey turn of the century photos with men in smart suits of the day and signs reading “tax us more” “I want to pay part of my wages to the government”

I mean its possible as given about that time the populist movement and Socialist party were at their peaks.

And I agree that at the time people favored income tax (soak the rich) over tarrifs (tax my beer) which was really the choice. It wasn’t pro income tax as much as dislike of the tarrifs we had.

But rising “up in masse to demand” it is a couple levels above supporting one tax structure over another.

Or … what do you consider “rising up in masse to demand” something? Does the occupy Wallstreet movement fit that bill as far as you’re concerned?




What swayed it was the woman’s vote. Soon the woman’s vote was going to be the majority. The legislators realized this and voted for their (woman’s) vote. The inevitability of the Nineteenth Amendment was the influence of the sixteenth amendment.


I knew it, those darn women!


Is this not your quote?