Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, February 27, 2025

Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen write for Axios about the simple math that doesn't add up in Washington. Spoiler alert, the Republicans' $5 trillion in tax cuts proposal will not lower the debt.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The US government spent more during President Donald Trump's first month in office than it did during the same period a year ago, in a sign his cost-slashing effort has yet to reduce the nation's heavy fiscal obligations, a Reuters analysis of federal data shows reut.rs/3EWYnQO[image or embed]

-- Reuters (@reuters.com) February 26, 2025 at 9:40 AM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Interesting analysis today in WSJ regarding the existing 2017 tax cut program:
-rick folks received tax cuts which amounted to a greater percentage of their income than did the less well off, and the bottom rung of taxpayers got nearly no tax break
-there are no signs that the tax cuts generated any new jobs
-the small amount of additional income most Americans saw was greatly offset by the additional debt brought on by the tax cuts
-the tax cuts did NOT pay for themselves
-extending the tax cuts will cost trillions over the next ten years
-in the end, the 2017 tax cuts were simply tax cuts for rich folks--nothing more or less

Tune in over the coming months when Americans will be treated to the same lies, e.g., all Americans will benefit greatly, the cuts will pay for themselves, they are needed for economic growth in the US, blah, blah, blah...

#1 | Posted by catdog at 2025-02-27 09:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Just more rip offs of the middle class to feed the unending greed of the park my boat inside my boat rich.

#2 | Posted by Nixon at 2025-02-27 05:46 PM | Reply

-the middle class gave up almost all their deductions which raised the tax bill for many.

#3 | Posted by zarnon at 2025-02-28 01:08 AM | Reply

#3 Just wait till this bill passes... the middle class will lose again.

Here is what is proposed for the chopping block:

-child and dependent care credits
-american opportunity and lifetime learning credits for college costs
-student loan interest deduction
-mortgage interest
-medicaid
-food stamps

"The word Medicaid is not even in this bill. This bill doesn't even mention the word Medicaid a single time," House Majority Leader Steve Scalise

The press should have immediately followed up with what will be cut then. He wouldn't answer it. This is the game they play all the time.

And the bill on its face increases the debt by $2.5 TRILLION.

Actual conservatives are demanding spending cuts. Trumpturds are going to lie to get the tax cuts passed. As GOP senators insist on making the tax cuts permanent, one idea supported by the Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Crapo of Idaho is to simply use a different accounting process. It involves essentially treating the tax cuts as what's called "existing policy," which would mean they are not a new cost, and therefore would not need to be offset by cuts elsewhere.

Nowhere in the bill is their promises of no taxes on social security, overtime or tips.

Funny how that was overlooked.

#4 | Posted by Nixon at 2025-02-28 09:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Lots of whining, but no solutions.

A good start would be the implementation of a VAT. Like pretty much every other western country.

"-rick folks received tax cuts which amounted to a greater percentage of their income than did the less well off, and the bottom rung of taxpayers got nearly no tax break"

How do you give tax breaks to those who don't pay taxes in the first place. More importantly, why would you give tax breaks? Is there a deficit or not?

#5 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-02-28 10:42 AM | Reply

"simple math that doesn't add up in Washington"

That's because it's being added up in Moscow.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-02-28 10:52 AM | Reply

"How do you give tax breaks to those who don't pay taxes in the first place."

You mean like Amazon, paying no Federal income taxes.
How do we give them a bigger tax cut than that?
Easy. Give them a rebate.

""Instead of paying $16.4 billion in taxes, as the new 21 percent corporate tax rate requires, these companies enjoyed a net corporate tax rebate of $4.3 billion" publicintegrity.org

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-02-28 10:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" How do you give tax breaks to those who don't pay taxes in the first place. "

First step: admit there are other taxes besides income taxes.

Also, admit that 6% to 8% of constructive use of upfront money, compounded annually, is worth a lot more than a 2% average 25year-maturity bond, aka Social Security.

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-28 10:59 AM | Reply

"More importantly, why would you give tax breaks?"

There's a prevalent right-wing mythology that tax breaks for the rich frees up capital, which the rich use to create jobs for the non-rich.

It's not true, obviously. But it's been the prevailing economic paradigm throughout your paycheck earning years.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-02-28 11:07 AM | Reply

" Lots of whining, but no solutions"

How about letting Elons tax cuts expire? How about we make a rule no new tax cuts until we balance the budget?

There's a solution for you!

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-28 11:17 AM | Reply

"Lots of whining, but no solutions."

No solutions?
Maybe you could start by defining the problem.
Thanks!

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-02-28 11:20 AM | Reply

Is there a deficit or not?

#5 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Yes. There is a deficit.

But deficits only matter when Democrats are in charge.

#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-02-28 11:21 AM | Reply

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
--Republican Alternate Fact since 2002

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-02-28 11:23 AM | Reply

"Is there a deficit or not?"

More important:

If you're running an annual deficit budget, and you write a tax code continuing tax cuts...

...are 100% of those "cuts" based on new borrowing, or not??? (Narrator: "Yes, they are, kids!")

Bottom line: Republicans want to borrow another $4-$5 Trillion, to give it away in tax breaks. All of this national turmoil...all to give the richest in the world a multi-trillion dollar tax cut.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-28 11:27 AM | Reply

#7

Sure. You can get rid of the tax incentives. Amazon has been able to reduce its tax bill by investing in renewable energy, research and development, and tax breaks for employee stock compensation. You could certainly get rid of all of those and push AMZ closer to 21%.

#15 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-02-28 11:55 AM | Reply

"First step: admit there are other taxes besides income taxes."

What other taxes are going to contribute to reducing the federal deficit? Other than federal taxes?

#16 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-02-28 11:56 AM | Reply

"What other taxes are going to contribute to reducing the federal deficit?"

Well...all of them. Every one adds a positive number to the income line.

"Other than federal taxes?"

That's MY point: anyone who gets a W-2, changes their tires, or buys a 6-pack pays federal taxes.

You, for some reason, have to pretend they pay NO federal taxes. The fact remains: roughly 70 of workers pay more in PAYROLL taxes over their lifetimes than INCOME taxes. And, as I pointed out, a tax cut gives 6%-8% annual compounded "constructive use of money", compared to SS, which is the equivalent of a 2%, 25yr bond.

Currently, in the equation, my payroll taxes subsidize your upfront tax cuts.

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-28 12:02 PM | Reply

"How do you give tax breaks to those who don't pay taxes in the first place."

"You can get rid of the tax incentives."

Holy ----. You figured it out.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-02-28 12:12 PM | Reply

-Well...all of them. Every one adds a positive number to the income line.

my state income taxes
my property taxes
my sales taxes
my social security and medicare taxes

all of those helps the bottom line at the US Treasury?

We aren't talking about the budget deficit of my local school district, city, or even my state.

what do you mean "all of them"?

#19 | Posted by eberly at 2025-02-28 12:13 PM | Reply

"How about letting Elons tax cuts expire? How about we make a rule no new tax cuts until we balance the budget?"

How about we raise taxes? Implement a VAT? Eliminate most, if not all tax deductions?

Not sure how true it is, but I've read that the SS problem could be solved by raising payroll taxes by 1.55%. That doesn't seem like much if you want to save social security.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-02-28 12:14 PM | Reply

"what do you mean "all of them"?"

Yeah. That's what I don't understand.

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-02-28 12:15 PM | Reply

"How about we raise taxes?"

You already said that:

"You can get rid of the tax incentives."

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-02-28 12:16 PM | Reply

"You, for some reason, have to pretend they pay NO federal taxes. The fact remains: roughly 70 of workers pay more in PAYROLL taxes over their lifetimes than INCOME taxes. And, as I pointed out, a tax cut gives 6%-8% annual compounded "constructive use of money", compared to SS, which is the equivalent of a 2%, 25yr bond."

OK.

To what degree will adjusting payroll taxes impact the federal deficit? Like I said, and increase of 1.55% would shore up SS. What would that do to the federal budget? Maybe reduce the shortfall requirements for SS funding? I don't know.

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-02-28 12:17 PM | Reply

" How about we raise taxes?"

Let's do that.

"Implement a VAT?"

And replace our only progressive tax, with a regressive tax? Hard no. How about addressing the obvious: the middle class is being threatened, while Peter and Mark and Elon don't need another round of tax giveaways.

Quick question, to see if you understand the equation: does more than half of the newly borrowed trillions and trillions of dollars in the proposed tax code go to the worlds wealthiest 1/10 of one percent?

Yes or no?

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-28 12:18 PM | Reply

"Holy ----. You figured it out."

Yeah. End them for everyone.

hell, the average tax rate for the bottom 50% of income earners was 3.1% with a total average federal income tax bill of $504.

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-02-28 12:21 PM | Reply

" What would that do to the federal budget? Maybe reduce the shortfall requirements"

Yes! That's how math works!

And let's be serious: there would be no "shortfall", if trustees had socked the money away instead of blowing it in real time.

Instead, workers get an IOU for a 25 year bond at 2%, and you get upfront tax cuts, giving you "constructive use of the money" on day one.

The latter is much more valuable than the former. Even you know that.

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-28 12:25 PM | Reply

"And replace our only progressive tax, with a regressive tax? Hard no. How about addressing the obvious: the middle class is being threatened, while Peter and Mark and Elon don't need another round of tax giveaways."

I'm just curious. Every western nation, every European nation utilizes the VAT. Where I live, it is 19%. The other two places I spend an appreciable amount of time are Norway (25%), and Albania (20%).

I just find it odd that you would say "hard no" to a policy that was employed across all of the US's peers.

#27 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-02-28 12:26 PM | Reply

"Yes or no?"

No.

Of course not.

#28 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-02-28 12:26 PM | Reply

" the average tax rate for the bottom 50% of income earners was 3.1%"

+15.3% for payroll taxes. Those are also federal taxes, and they spend just as well as income taxes.

And, as usual, you're ignoring the portion of spending for things like tires or six packs which include federal taxes.

It's easy to make a philosophical point, when you set an alternate reality to start.

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-28 12:28 PM | Reply

"hell, the average tax rate for the bottom 50% of income earners was 3.1% with a total average federal income tax bill of $504."

Uh huh.

How much average tax do you think should be extracted, from people making an average income of $16,258?

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-02-28 12:30 PM | Reply

" I just find it odd that you would say "hard no" to a policy that was employed across all of the US's peers."

Those usually come hand-in-hand with some societal benefit, like universal health coverage. Nothing like that is being offered here, other than giving trillions to Peter and Mark and Elon.

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-28 12:30 PM | Reply

"Quick question, to see if you understand the equation: does more than half of the newly borrowed trillions and trillions of dollars in the proposed tax code go to the worlds wealthiest 1/10 of one percent?"

This is absolutely stunning to me, but not as stunning as the not "Peter and Mark and Elon"s who think this is good for them. Who push for it. Who support it. What are they thinking?

#32 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-28 12:34 PM | Reply

"+15.3% for payroll taxes. Those are also federal taxes, and they spend just as well as income taxes."

So, walk me though how payroll tax adjustments will affect the federal deficit. I think it could some, but not appreciably. The point of payroll taxes is not to cover shortfalls in federal spending. It's for SS and Medicare. So why wouldn't you just stabilize those programs and find additional methods of stabilizing the federal deficit. Like a VAT?

#33 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-02-28 12:37 PM | Reply

"So, walk me though how payroll tax adjustments will affect the federal deficit."

Sure thing.

search.brave.com

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-02-28 12:41 PM | Reply

" a total average federal income tax bill of $504."

Remember welfare? It's now in the tax code, on the 1040. It's called the Earned Income Credit.

Back when I was a child, if the family up the street paid $1000 a year in income taxes, they were marked as having paid income taxes ... Because, of course, they paid income taxes. If that couple also got $100 a month in welfare, because they had three kids, they would still be marked as having paid income taxes. And why? Because, of course, they'd paid income taxes.

Today, that same scenario would be marked "doesn't pay income taxes", despite the fact they do. And that's because lots of child rearing credits, which used to be paid out separately, are now on the 1040.

Basically, Republicans wrote child rearing credits into the tax code on a Tuesday, so they could go out Wednesday complaining less people "pay income taxes".

Look at the American opportunity credit. The child tax credit. The additional child tax credit. The child care credit. Head of Household status. All new additions to the 1040 in the last few decades. And all put on the 1040, in part for talking points.

#35 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-28 12:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Holy fcck!
If you're not watching Zelenskyy, Trump, and that asshat Vance you are missing Trump lose his mind and be a total -------!

#36 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-28 12:44 PM | Reply

"How much average tax do you think should be extracted, from people making an average income of $16,258?"

Single: $1,719

Married filing Jointly: $1,160

Head of Household: $1,160

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-02-28 12:44 PM | Reply

#34

I don't understand what you are trying to show me. What in what you presented has anything to do with payroll tax adjustments?

#38 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-02-28 12:48 PM | Reply

"Those usually come hand-in-hand with some societal benefit, like universal health coverage. Nothing like that is being offered here, other than giving trillions to Peter and Mark and Elon."

How would implementation of a VAT be giving them a dime?

#39 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-02-28 12:49 PM | Reply

Anyone who refuses to include a total tax burden an individual or family faces when discussing this topic is a liar and not worth debating.

#40 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-02-28 12:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"$16,258"

Payroll taxes: $2,487

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-28 12:53 PM | Reply

#41

State tax?

Property Tax?

Sales Tax?

Which of these would contribute to lowering the federal deficit?

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-02-28 12:56 PM | Reply

"How would implementation of a VAT be giving them a dime?"

Writing tax cuts, or renewing expiring cuts while running a deficit budget is ALL NEW BORROWING. You agree, right? I've asked.

Frankly, a VAT would give these a***ipes more cover to borrow EVEN MORE.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-28 12:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Every western nation, every European nation utilizes the VAT. Where I live, it is 19%.
- mad

California already pays 9.75% in many counties.

#44 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-02-28 12:58 PM | Reply

#42

Any and every source of revenue "contributes". Why are you pretending an income tax dollar is somehow more valuable than a dollar of payroll taxes or a dollar of excise taxes?

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-28 12:58 PM | Reply

"I don't understand what you are trying to show me."

You never even try.
Learned helplessness is your Safe Space.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-02-28 01:00 PM | Reply

"Anyone who refuses to include a total tax burden an individual or family faces when discussing this topic is a liar and not worth debating."

Not when the question at hand has to do with the federal deficit.

If it just has to do with what your emotional disposition to what constitutes "fairness," then it is simple. Low-income earners have a special place and should be subsidized by higher income earners.

#47 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-02-28 01:03 PM | Reply

"You never even try."

I think you tried some Chat GPT ---- and posted whatever was spit out. If what you posted contained any mention of adjustments to FICA taxes, it was well hidden.

#48 | Posted by madbomber at 2025-02-28 01:04 PM | Reply

State tax?

Property Tax?

Sales Tax?

Which of these would contribute to lowering the federal deficit?

#42 | Posted by madbomber a

The federal government doesn't send money to states for housing? for roads? for healthcare? for education? If a state raises and lowers their taxes how does that effect their share of federal spending?

The federal government doesn't tax cigarettes? or alcohol? or gasoline? the federal government doesn't tax corporations who pass those taxes onto consumers?

Well, either

Gee, you're dumb

or

Gee, you're a lying hack.

Since I know for certain that this point has been made to you many many times, you must be a lying hack.

You have been informed and educated. Be a better person.

Truth Hurts

#49 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-02-28 01:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Low-income earners have a special place and should be subsidized by higher income earners."

Is Amazon a low income earner?

"Amazon paid a tax rate of just 1.2% last year, versus 14% for average Americans"
From 2019.
www.cbsnews.com

Amazon Reports 6 Percent Tax Rate on $35 Billion of US Income
From 2022. itep.org

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-02-28 01:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort