Tax changes / proposals - discussion

Tax changes / proposals - discussion


What, am I running an online remedial history course now ?

It began with farmer groups like the Northwestern Alliance, the Southern Alliance, and the National Colored Farmers Alliance. In the early 1890s they were being ripped-off by high fees from grain elevator operators for storage and high fees from railroads to ship their crops. They were paying high tariffs on much of the equipment they had to buy, like farm machinery, making it far more expensive. They were heavily in debt purchasing expensive land and expensive equipment, and stuck with high interest rates on that debt.

They eventually banded together and produced a policy platform of demands, such as the elimination of high tariffs, the enactment of a progressive federal income tax, the dissolution of national banks to be replaced by regional sub‐treasuries that could underwrite low-interest farm loans utilizing their crops as collateral, and the direct election of senators. These are some of the demands which were known as the ‘Ocala Demands’.

In the next election, their Alliance took over the majorities of 8 state legislatures, elected governors in 4 different states, and sent 44 representatives to the U.S. House and elected 2 to the U.S. Senate. These successes led to the development of a national party, which allowed them to enact much of their agenda into law.

Sorry, I don’t have any video.

Because repealing the tariff regime and replacing it with a progressive income tax LOWERED their taxes.

Well yes, as I posted, the tariff regime was horrendously regressive and oppressive, and they wanted a much fairer system. It was both.



It was a reference back to my previous post in regards to the tax cuts in the stimulus bill being larger than the tax cuts in the GOP bill, in regards to the Middle-class.


And I addressed that point in the second half of my post you just quoted, so quit using “DUH READING COMPREHENSION” as a crutch in your argument.

I also pointed out that the temporary Making Work Pay credit was the biggest cut for the middle class from the stimulus bill. You said I was wrong. If that wasn’t, what was?


I disagree that you’ve done anything to substantiate the claim that “the American people rose up en masse to demand” an income tax.

Clearly the 16th amendment was passed and there was support for that. But that is not necessarily evidence of “the American people [rising] up en masse to demand” it.

What year was that?


Why do you keep beating that poor dead horse ?

For the Umpteenth time, I had already specified in my OP that I was NOT referencing the incentivized credits, as they were intended to be temporary, yet you insist on repeatedly emphasizing that the ‘Making Work Pay’ credit was only temporary.

So, what is the point of jumping through the hoop of its relative size when it was excluded from the getgo ?


Well, if you don’t think protests leading all the way to the formation of a national party which eventually resulted in an amendment to the constitution and many other parts of an agenda being enacted is substantial, then to each his own I guess.

Began in 1892.


What protests?

We’re not debating whether or not the support was “substantial”. It was. I’m questioning if “the American people rose up en masse to demand” it.

e.g. There is currently substantial support in the USA for legalization of medical marijuana. I would not say that the people have “rose up en masse to demand” it.

OK so what are you talking aobut?

I think you’re talking about the # of seats that the Populist party held.

Which year did they have 44 seats?

Or are you talking about 8 seats one year, 11 another year… etc and summing up all the seats they ever had and not accounting for the same 6 guys holding the same seats 3-4 sessions in a row??


Also, stop being an ass.


Because you ARE referencing the incentivized credits when you say that Obama’s tax cuts from the stimulus bill were larger for the middle class than Trump’s. The largest tax cut for the middle class in Obama’s stimulus was the Making Work Pay tax credit. That is a fact. It was temporary. That is a fact. You are using Obama’s temporary cuts to prove your point (that Obama did more for the middle class) on one post and dismissing Trump’s cuts because they are temporary in another post. I’m simply pointing that out. It doesn’t invalidate your point, it just makes you look like a partisan that doesn’t hold his own guy to the same standards as the other guy. I’m guilty of it sometimes too (even though Trump isn’t really my guy - I didn’t vote for him).

Like I said in an earlier post, your argument that Obama’s stimulus tax cuts were better for the middle class than Trump’s tax cuts is a legitimate point. It may even be true (but it’s too early to tell). But that doesn’t make my point, that Obama’s tax laws over the course of his whole administration were likely worse for the middle class than Trump’s tax laws will be (also too early to tell). My point is a perfectly legitimate counterpoint to yours, whether you like it or not.



Geez, yet another person who doesn’t read what is posted.

The Populist Party was later, and only part of the Alliance went on to be part of the Populist Party, another part supported the Democratic Party.

Why am I having to explain readily-available historic facts ?

Not to mention, since it’s now come to juvenile name-calling, I don’t see the value in my jumping through hoops. Look it up yourself.



In my OP, I SPECIFICALLY excluded the temporary tax breaks that would expire.

You keep making the same false charge over and over again. Are you some kind of bot ?


Yet in this post You say you never made the claim Obama’s tax cuts for the middle class were larger than Trump’s?

Do you see the problem and why people think you are going in circles?


Obama’s tax cuts from the stimulus were $288 billion and that included the Making Work Pay credit. Trump’s tax cuts were $1.5 trillion. When you take the largest tax cut for the middle class out of Obama’s stimulus (you’re saying you’re not counting it), how can you still claim that he gave a bigger cut to the middle class?

I already pointed this out several days ago:


So the ALLIANCE had 44 seats starting in 1892. But that was before the Populist party.
And this is all readily available historical facts…

Who among this ALLIANCE had a seat in congress in 1892 which was all before the Populist party?

If this is all readily available historical fact then we should all be able to see this readily available over on wikipedia.

which 1892 was this?


I think its more like a figure 8 with a stop here or there to imply we’re all idiots cause we don’t see the obvious truth in everything he says.


Is this debate club cage match really that helpful, guys?



I never claimed “Obama’s tax cuts for the middle class were larger than Trump’s”

I posted that the non-temporary tax cuts for the Middle-class within the stimulus bill were larger than the tax cuts for the Middle-class in the GOP tax bill.

The only “problem” I see is that you’re not paying attention.


Hate to break it to ya, but more than 90% of that $1.5 trillion went to the Rich & Corporate, and less than 10% went to the Middle-class. AND they’re TEMPORARY. AND there are MILLIONS of American taxpayers who got NOTHING. AND there are MILLIONS MORE American taxpayers who got a TAX INCREASE.

He shoots, he misses. Again.


Those who ran on the Alliance Platform. They were not an official party (yet), so they had to be on the ballot under one of the parties, but they were elected based upon their campaigning on the Alliance Platform.

A) For the Umpteenth time, Wikipedia is opinion.

B) Exactly what did you want to “see” ?


a) you think the list of members of 52nd congress that I linked to is “opinion”?
b) facts, proof, details, consistent information, civil discourse… more than I ever expect from you.