Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Millionaire Explains How GOP Tax Plan Enriches Him u0026 Screws You" video.

You complain about Trump but how transparent have the politicians been? Over time they created this complex 70,000 page tax code that made this situation. How transparent is the 70,000 page tax code?
2
"The worst tax that slams the poor is the FICA tax. People making under $20,000 pay the most as a percentage. It is insane." FICA taxes are payroll taxes. The payroll tax is the dumbest tax ever created. It literally punishes business owners for giving people raises. I find it amazing how people cannot agree to remove the payroll tax. The left complains about low wages but support a tax that punishes businesses for giving out higher wages.
2
" You should care about the president's willingness to disclose his tax information, because it: 1) Would establish whether or not he's been truthful about his financial success and business acumen. Maybe you don't care if politicians are lying to the voters about themselves, but most people do." I care about policy. Politicians make a lot of claims. I really don't care. I look at policy, not their personal life. How far do you want to dig? Do you want to know if they wear women's underwear? Do you want to know who they lost their virginity to? "Would show any financial conflicts of interest that he has, and point to ulterior motives that he may have for wanting certain legislation passed. " I still look at policies. And this can be controlled with limited government. You limit government by keeping it as local as possible. "The tax code, convoluted as it is, is still far more transparent than Trump has been with his taxes." Which doesn't bother me. Again, I do not care about Trump's personal finances. I care about his economic policies.
2
"et's say that a politician publicly supports a certain tax plan, with the promise that it will be great for blue collar working class families, but a look at their finances shows that the tax plan would personally benefit them millions of dollars. That wouldn't make you at all suspicious of their claim that the plan will benefit working families?" There are a few sides to this. 1. Will it benefit me and the rest of society? 2. This is why I support limited government 3. This is why we have term limits. If it benefits him then fine. If it also benefits society then who cares? If not we have term limits on presidents and should for congress. Also, as I said with limited government, we can see if taxes are benefiting society more. . "Transparency and simplicity/ease of comprehension are two completely different things. That's why I mocked you right out of the gate. You always do this sort of thing, taking off on your own completely irrelevant rants that miss the point of the original topic at hand. It's kind of your M.O." I did not go on a rant as it is relevant. You do not like how Trump is refusing to release his tax plan. My idea is this, it should not matter. If we had a limited federal government with more state and local governments then what Trump supports does not matter. If the tax code at the federal level was set at a flat tax than he is restricted. There is no need to look at his tax returns. However, with the way our system is and the complexity of it you want to look at Trump's tax returns to see if he has a special interest. Well, why not the tax returns of all 535 voting members of congress? Why stop at the presidency? You do know Congress controls the purse? You may mock me but I find it odd how you are so concerned about Trump but not the 535 members of congress who actually write the tax laws.
2
TestMeatDollSteak, I got the point. Now why are you not asking for the tax returns of the 535 voting members of congress? What does Bernie Sanders of Nancy Pelosi have to gain by voting against this bill? What does Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have to gain by voting for it? You are so set on the president who did not even write this bill.
2
"Rich people almost always want more money." And how do they get it? By providing consumers with goods and services they demand. "Reducing their taxes will not force them to invest since they can make more money by not investing back in the economy. " That makes zero sense. How did they get that money to begin with? Think about that. "Ever heard of speculation? Ever heard of globalism? Mix that with deregulations and... You get WW2" What? "You need taxes, government investments and regulations to, well, regulate the economy.." I agree you need government, but you need to be able to control government and see if you are getting your money's worth. You do that by keeping government as local as possible.
2
We can push for a flat income tax and a consumption tax at the federal level. Nice and easy.
1
$11 million is value, not income. Think of land and farming. When land is valued at $10,000 an acre in some places that drives up cost a lot. Now include the home, sheds, equipment, livestock, etc. it can reach $11 million. My grandpa has 366 acres of farm land. From that alone you are at $3.6 million. Now do you think farmers are rich? As for small businesses you own a business, that can be based on number of employees You have a business with 10 employees but produces a lot of wealth, that can be valued at $11 million. In all, all I have seen is how leftists on this channel do not understand basic economics.
1
"By the way, how does having a potential mis-understanding about the tax code mean that ''you do not understand basic economics?'' " I understand the difference between income and wealth. You can have a business worth $11 million and have low income. That is the issue. They are taxing wealth where the business does not have that income available to pay the tax.
1
Another "I hate rich people" video but an ultra leftist.
1
StrikeWing17971, it is a constant attack of the rich by the left. What is ironic is that attacking the rich gives them these powers. You look towards democrats to "tax the rich", so they do, on surface. But while doing it they push for a 70,000 page tax code filled with loopholes that this guy described that ended up benefiting the rich. Trump brought this up several times in his debates with Clinton and in his speeches. The democrats are all about "taxing the rich" but give them loopholes instead. I am for a flat income tax with a consumption tax. Equal all the way around with no room for corruption. Also, it is transparent where a 70,000 page tax code isn't. Tell me, did you know all of the facts this guy presented before he did?
1
Why, why does it matter? Who actually writes the law? Congress. So are you going to demand the returns of the 535 voting members of congress? And are you going to crunch the numbers and compare laws (meaning actually reading them) to see how much they would have paid under the new one compared to the old one? If not then it is a moot point.
1
David Angelo on eEconomics showed the flaws in our tax code by showing two simple examples. The complex code created by both democrats and republicans in the past has led to this. A simplified tax code is fair and transparent. That is why we need to do it. The second you start pushing for an unfair tax system such as a progressive tax you get situations like these where politicians create tax codes that on the surface tax the rich a lot, but in the end they pay lower rates.
1
TestMeatDollSteak, what was wrong with what I said? I support a federal flat income tax with a consumption tax. Equal, transparent, and free from corruption. Many on the left support a "progressive" tax which opens the doorway to a complex tax code that leads to the situation this man showed in this tax return. You complain about corruption in politics and an unfair tax code that favors the rich, but then support policies that lead to that.
1
"A flat income tax is insanely biased towards the rich." Why? "so you can give more money to people who already have more than enough? " I am not giving money to anyone. I am letting them keep what they earned.
1
" the end result of the tax code is the issue. " How do you get to the end result? You do not know without understanding the complexity. "Let's say that the flat tax is 25%, which is about what the millionaire in the video paid in taxes in 2015. Who is going to be more adversely affected by losing a quarter of their income, someone who earns 1.3 million per year, or someone who earns 25,000 per year?" That is a question you cannot ask because both individuals have different financial responsibilities. Why is that guy rich? Maybe he runs a business where that person making $25,000 a year simply pays rent and bills. That rich person runs a company and if you tax him more that is less money for him to invest. Or maybe less money to donate, or pass on to his family, or have it sit in a bank where the bank can loan out to the next business owner. The thought process of "the rich have enough money so tax them more" is the wrong thought process to have. They have different lifestyles and responsibilities. Now you may say a rich person may not invest money, may not donate, may not put it in banks. And I would agree. But on the same line of thinking there are poor people who do refuse to work and do take advantage of our welfare system. So do you scrap the whole thing due to a select few? "Now, how do you fund the govt and not raise the deficit? Lemme guess, by cutting every social program that benefits lower income people?" You have to cut, period. And not so much cut, but let the local governments run it so they can micromanage it. Even at that there is more to this than just taxes and spending. You have economic growth involved as well.
1
"You have legislators and experts read the entirety of the proposal, hold open hearings, debate the code, consult tax lawyers, do math...you know, everything that the GOP hasn't done with their current proposal. " Who assigns these "experts"? And you are going to trust legislatures? Even though the entire tax code is released for the public, it is around 70,000 pages long. Have you read it? Have you done the math? Why do you trust legislatures? What experts do you trust and why? To me a flat tax is simple. It is also transparent to where politicians do not put in some small loophole that gets hidden in the mess to where only the rich know where it is at.
1
"The question of who can be trusted to interpret the code is different from how one goes about getting to the bottom of the code" They are related. Who do you trust? To me it is people I am connected to more, and with government that is the local officials. There are arguments to be made for complex tax codes, but why, and how? And, who can you trust? To me it comes down to this, at the federal level keep it simple, a flat tax with a consumption tax. Why? Because we are a nation of 320+ million people and the vast majority of members of congress we cannot vote for. And with our size it is hard to manage our government. At the local level, however, you can start getting into a more specialized tax code. Why? Because you at the local community can see if government is actually working for you and if you are getting your money's worth in government spending. " Obviously, with anything that human beings are involved in, you're never going to be able to eliminate the influence of partisanship, corruption, self-interest, etc. " But you can alleviate it. To me you do that by keeping government as local as possible. You say have legislatures debate the topic. Now how many can you vote for federally? Now how many can you vote for locally? Also, at the local level you can attend town hall meetings and be more involved. "he "flat tax" might be simple to comprehend on its face, but its ramifications are just as complicated" It is not as you are keeping it simple at the massive level and allow the states and local government to micromanage the economy.
1
"- Firstly, I'd just like to make the point that we're hugely off topic from my original comment" We are not as we are talking about the tax code here. I support a flat tax and I gave my reasons why. You wanted a tax code to be debated and discussed by "experts" and legislatures and I showed you the issues with that. "which pertains to Trump's lack of transparency." If that is the topic then it is related. To start, I do not care about Trump's tax return. He gets audited with his income level. Next, I want transparency in the government and in my opinion that comes from a simplified tax code. "Pointing to the convoluted nature of our current tax code does not somehow excuse Trump's opacity with respect to his finances. He's been opaque on this issue even by Washington standards -- he's the only president in modern history to withhold his tax information from the public. So I'd like you to acknowledge that, please. " Ok, I will. I do not care. He is audited because of his financial status. If he releases it what does that do? What will that mean? Nothing to me. He wants tax reform. That is all I care about. "Who do we trust to interpret the tax code, when most voters are not experts and will never spend the time reading the code? The short answer is: no one specific person" I agree 100%. "Ideally, you want as many non-partisan and dispassionate economists and tax experts to view and debate the proposal as possible. That's going to be as much the case with your flat tax as it is with any other proposal. " I agree. To me there is not one ideal form of taxes. That is why I support leaving it to the states. In fact prior to 1913 the federal tax was a tax on the states. The idea was to tax the states equally based on populations and let the states handle the finer details of the tax codes. I do not support that because of varying economies, even though there is a correlation between population and GDP. But a flat income tax is a nice substitute. " That's also going to be as much the case at the local level as it is at the federal level, so I don't really see how what you're imagining makes any of this any easier. " It makes it easier because economics is a highly debated topic. What is the best tax code, and why? You can get 100 economists in the room and none of them will agree. So to me is to let the states handle it locally. They can adjust based on their needs and if something does work two things happen 1. it is isolated in that state 2. they can change it much easier "Personally, my first and foremost concern is that my tax dollars go to the things that the govt tells me they are going towards, and not into their own pockets, for example. Corruption is going to be an issue at any level of govt you care to look at, so again, I'm not sure I'm seeing how your scenario solves anything. " The more local government is the more control you have over it. Look up the video "Milton Friedman Crushes Man's Three Questions Like Dixie Cups". He explains that the more local government is the easier it is to see if you are getting your money's worth, especially if you are involved. I am highly active in my city. I met both candidates for mayor. I work for the school district and see how our schools are ran. I participate in activities with my community. And even at that just looking outside your window can tell you a lot. And if you do not like how your local government is being ran you can rally at town halls or simply move and remain a US citizen. There are several states I will never move at as I disagree with their governments. At the federal level though, can you go to Congress and state your opinion? I can't as it is too far away. But I can literally walk to my town hall in my city. If you disagree with a congress member can you vote for them? Chances are no. But you can all your local representatives. Corruptions is almost null at the local level.
1
Novusod, all things held constant I will support abolishing the payroll tax and raising the income tax. As for taxes on robots, you are hindering progress there. How about you just outlaw the tractor if you want to create more jobs.
1
"Who said I'm not concerned about or suspicious of the fucking Congress?! If I make a point about Trump's dubious lack of transparency, that somehow means I'm cool with everyone else's corruption?" You are targeting Trump when he isn't the one writing the tax bill to begin with, it is congress. Also, are you willing to look at 535 members of congress tax returns to form an opinion? "Every other president in modern history has made public their tax returns. Trump has not. " So what? And every other president in modern history has held a political office of some kind besides Trump. What's your point? "So it stands to reason that he has something to hide." Maybe, maybe not. What about the other members of congress? You know, the people who write the bill? "I see that you don't really want to talk about Trump's obvious corruption and sketchy lack of transparency" We can, but what you are saying does not fall in line with the actual issues. 1. Trump is not writing the bill, Congress is. You are not demanding the returns of Congress members but of Trump 2. I support a limited federal government to no matter how corrupt they can be their powers will be limited. A flat federal income tax will stop any kind of corruption 3. You feel that we can control the tax bill and see the ends of it with reading it and having "experts" and legislatures look at it. However, I told you that isn't that easy with a country of our size. Also, again, you are ignoring the tax returns of those legislatures and experts 4. And it comes back to Trump. When I pushed you on the issue you fall back to Trump. You ignore Congress, you ignore the experts, you focus on Trump. Again, Trump is not writing the tax bill. Congress is. " Yeah, great, if Trump paid the same amount of taxes as everyone else, due to a flat tax, then I wouldn't have had to make my post in the first place, but so fucking what?! " Because we do not have a flat tax. If he released his return people will complain about the write offs he made when that is not his fault, he is just following the law. Now let us ignore congress for a minute and focus on Trump. Say he released his return and you opposed the write offs he made and the rate he paid. But again, he is following the law. He signs this new tax bill. Are you going to read this tax bill and compare it to the old tax law to see if it changed the rate he would have paid? Be honest. And remember, we are ignoring congress here because if we add them it becomes much more complex. Are you going to read the 2016 tax law and look at Trump's 2016 tax return and compare the rate he paid then to what he would have paid under this new law? Are you going to crunch the numbers? "Does that somehow make corruption disappear, or mean that politicians can't have financial conflicts of interest anymore? " They can still be corrupt, but that restrictions places limits on them. If you say the federal tax has to be a flat tax, period, then they cannot create a tax code to benefit them. Same as Constitutional amendments place limits on government. Even if a politician is very religious they cannot establish one. I am wanting to place restrictions on government. "Either way, we don't have a flat tax, the Republicans aren't proposing a flat tax, the Democrats aren't proposing a flat tax, and Donald Trump is still even shadier than everyone else who has held his office in modern history! Your whole argument is fucking irrelevant!! " You are entitled to you opinion, but you are focusing on Trump, not the people actually writing the law. And again, are you willing to crunch the numbers to compare tax laws? Be honest.
1
I will ask again in a separate comment because this is key. If Trump released his 2015 tax return and you saw the rate, would you compare those numbers to what he would be paying under this new law? Would you read both tax laws and crunch the numbers? Be honest. If not then him releasing his tax return is a moot point because you are not even going to use the resources you have to check what is going on.
1
So he shows how complex the tax code is. Great, I agree. That is why at the federal level I support the simplified tax of a flat income tax and a consumption tax.
1
"Reducing tax rates does not encourage private investments, ever. Public investments does. I.e. october 1929." I remember that, and I remember the federal government tried to spend their way out of a recession. What happened? Slowest recovery following a recession ever. Ever other recession was met with hands off government and we recovered in less than 5 years, including the 1921 recession that was about as bad as the 1929 one.
1