Republicans press Biden to downsize $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief plan

[pedro01]

4 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

There's validity to the GOP's stance that the $1400 dollar check should be means tested and only the most needy get it. By ruling out those that don't need it, you could slash this $1.9 trillion by a considerable amount but the main issue is the time it would take to work out the deserving from the not-so-deserving.
Biden wants things moving now and understands timing is of the essence. 
And yes it is hypocritical of the GOP to question the money when they backed so much tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. 

 

It's pretty easy - COVID relief in a single, 1 page bill.

 

All the rest in another bill.

[Credo]

9 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

I  actually think this check isn't the way to go. There are much better ways to make sure money gets to the right people. Ones in need. Many don't really need this check.

When you start doing a massive means testing of money, it starts taking a lot of time and is labor intensive.  As a general principle, much of this money is being given to stimulate the economy, not just to help those 'in need'.   

I think one of the lessons from the Obama era is that too little just doesn't jump start things very well.  If this money comes as things start opening, it could have a major impact on the economy.   

I have big plans for my check!  I suspect it will not go as far as I think, so I'll dip into my savings cuz I am gonna' have a good time when this <deleted> ends!

 

[Tug]

Me to credo I’m contplating replacing my trusty Toyota fj cruser I’d save it for part of a down payment on a new truck here in the USA probably a Jeep Gladiator sport s with max tow I’d be stimulating the economy! Lol or that’s what I’m telling myself lol

[J Town]

I'm not sure if this is a testament to how out of touch the whole government is, but a married couple making $300k/year do NOT need a stimulus check. That's the current threshold.

[newnative]

    Seems like there is room for compromise between the two proposals.  They could keep the $1400 amount and lower the cutoff point on receiving it.  I think the lower income levels that the Republican moderates have proposed make sense.  

[John Drake]

As American citizen living in Thailand, I still pay taxes into the US government. I am most certainly within my rights to argue for or against any public policy, especially one that directly effects me concerning a stimulus check.

[simple1]

"Whatever the real goal of this GOP proposal — given its paltry scale, it’s probably meant to create the impression that Republicans would do something at a time of multiple crises, while giving them a way to claim Biden is reneging on his “unity” promise — Democrats simply can’t chase them down this rabbit hole."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/01/gop-gerrymandering-biden-agenda-stimulus/?utm_campaign=wp_opinions_pm&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_popns

[billd766]

On 2/1/2021 at 8:13 AM, placeholder said:

That would be a valid point if most senators depended upon their salaries to get by.

In 2019 the Senators salary (only without any added bits) was $174,000 with no increases since 2009.

 

https://www.senate.gov/senators/SenateSalariesSince1789.htm

 

2018	$174,000 per annum
2019	$174,000 per annum
2020	$174,000 per annum
2021	$174,000 per annum

[CharlieH]

Off topic and petty bickering removed.

 

If you are going to use childish namecalling references, dont be surprised if all your content disappears.

[Credo]

10 hours ago, J Town said:

I'm not sure if this is a testament to how out of touch the whole government is, but a married couple making $300k/year do NOT need a stimulus check. That's the current threshold.

There isn't an easy way to figure out who deserves or needs a stimulus check and who doesn't.  I certainly know people who earned more than the permissible amount in 2019, but were laid off for much of 2020.   Sadly, some of those rather wealthy people can't even begin to keep up with the mortgage or car payment.   

There are also people who were below the level in 2019 but will be well above it in 2020, but the stimulus is based on taxes.   

 

[Thomas J]

On 2/1/2021 at 4:53 PM, johnnybangkok said:

And yes it is hypocritical of the GOP to question the money when they backed so much tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.

First of it corporations don't pay taxes.  Their customers do.  As a person who owned 4 different business a tax is an expense.  It is no different than rent, wages, utilities, insurance, or any other expense.  So whatever "tax" is paid by the corporation gets added to the cost of the goods or services the corporation is providing.  When you go to a store here in Thailand do you pay the VAT.  No, the company is the one who sends the VAT to the government.  But you say, no it is added on my bill.  You think that is any different with an income tax, or property tax that the corporation has to write the check for.  They wrote the check but you paid for it. 

 

Secondly,  here is a graph of "who pays taxes"  The vast majority of the federal income tax is paid by the upper 10% of wage earners.  Now when you hear that they received the lions share of the tax cut yes that is true but that is because they pay the lions share of the taxes. 47% of U.S. tax filers pay zero.  You can't cut taxes for someone who doesn't pay any.  The bottom tax groups got a larger percentage of the tax cuts but since their income is lower the total dollar amount is also lower.  Note the bottom 50% pay only 3.4 % of the Federal Income taxes.  So even if you cut them by 100% it would still be small. 

 

https://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

https://www.kiplinger.com/article/taxes/t054-c000-s001-how-you-rank-as-a-taxpayer.html

 

 

 

[johnnybangkok]

59 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

First of it corporations don't pay taxes.  Their customers do.  As a person who owned 4 different business a tax is an expense.  It is no different than rent, wages, utilities, insurance, or any other expense.  So whatever "tax" is paid by the corporation gets added to the cost of the goods or services the corporation is providing.  When you go to a store here in Thailand do you pay the VAT.  No, the company is the one who sends the VAT to the government.  But you say, no it is added on my bill.  You think that is any different with an income tax, or property tax that the corporation has to write the check for.  They wrote the check but you paid for it. 

 

Secondly,  here is a graph of "who pays taxes"  The vast majority of the federal income tax is paid by the upper 10% of wage earners.  Now when you hear that they received the lions share of the tax cut yes that is true but that is because they pay the lions share of the taxes. 47% of U.S. tax filers pay zero.  You can't cut taxes for someone who doesn't pay any.  The bottom tax groups got a larger percentage of the tax cuts but since their income is lower the total dollar amount is also lower.  Note the bottom 50% pay only 3.4 % of the Federal Income taxes.  So even if you cut them by 100% it would still be small. 

 

https://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

https://www.kiplinger.com/article/taxes/t054-c000-s001-how-you-rank-as-a-taxpayer.html

 

 

 

Having owned and run many businesses myself I don't agree with the point you are making, stating 'So whatever "tax" is paid by the corporation gets added to the cost of the goods or services the corporation is providing'. That may be true in a transactional business of buying and selling goods (although I will still argue market prices will dictate their options) but in the service sector this isn't the case.
If I provide a service and charge X% for that service, a tax cut usually doesn't mean I pass that saving on to my client. Vice versa, if corporation tax goes up, unless all my competitors start charging X + increase% (which the customer rarely agrees to) then you shoulder the increase. Granted there are write offs with the likes of VAT etc but with corporation tax you take the increase and usually pocket the decrees. This goes to the heart of 'trickle down economics' wherein the idea is that the money gained is then spent on increasing the size of business, paying better salaries and/or investing in development, whereas the reality for the big guys in particular is it usually goes into buying back stock and paying better dividends to stock holders or the CEO gets himself another yacht.

Most succesful Western ecomonies (with the US being the prominent one) have the abilty to decress national debt quite easily as was seen in the Clinton era (the last time the deficit was decreased) when he went back to basics by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.  

$28 trillion sounds a great deal but as been pointed out, as a percentage of GDP it can be managed but there is no nice way of doing it; corporations have to start coughing up more, tax cheats have to be clamped down on and the wealthiest have to create more as the have always done. It was Reagan who decided it was a good idea to give the rich and corporations a break and every GOP government since has followed suit like a lapdog besotted with their master.

No one is talking about huge increase here but companies can certainly afford to pay more than 21% (especially when they can deduct so much and so many fiddle their liabilities with off-shore tax dodges) and the rich can afford a higher top rate than 37%, considering again all their right offs, tax havens and the fact they don't pay that top rate on all their income.

[Scott]

A post without a citation has been removed along with replies.  

 

[Jeffr2]

17 hours ago, billd766 said:

In 2019 the Senators salary (only without any added bits) was $174,000 with no increases since 2009.

 

https://www.senate.gov/senators/SenateSalariesSince1789.htm

 

2018	$174,000 per annum
2019	$174,000 per annum
2020	$174,000 per annum
2021	$174,000 per annum

Interesting.  But I bet they get substantial allowances for all sorts of things.  Just guessing.

 

It's not a lot of money, but...it's a lot of money! LOL. 

[J Town]

4 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Interesting.  But I bet they get substantial allowances for all sorts of things.  Just guessing.

 

It's not a lot of money, but...it's a lot of money! LOL. 

Originally, NO one in US government service received ANY salary. Progress?

[Jeffr2]

9 minutes ago, J Town said:

Originally, NO one in US government service received ANY salary. Progress?

Change is desperately need.  The political system is broken and congress is worthless.  Time to take the money out of it.  And install term limits.  2 terms and you're out.

[J Town]

Just now, Jeffr2 said:

Change is desperately need.  The political system is broken and congress is worthless.  Time to take the money out of it.  And install term limits.  2 terms and you're out.

The Virginia General Assembly recently passed a resolution supporting an amendment to overturn Citizens United. The 22nd state to do so. There is growing support to amend the constitution to rid US politics of this hateful SCOTUS decision, and with the current administration we could make this happen.

[Credo]

59 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Change is desperately need.  The political system is broken and congress is worthless.  Time to take the money out of it.  And install term limits.  2 terms and you're out.

It takes a fair amount of time for congress people to learn the ins and outs of how things work.  It takes even longer to write a bill that adequately does what it is designed to do.   Term limits would see congress quickly filled with the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene.  Fortunately, because of the more seasoned members of Congress, they have some sway over the impetuous newcomers.   

Another objection I have is that it will not make congress more efficient.  If anything the steep learning curve will make them more inefficient.  It will make the President more powerful and as we witnessed over the past 4 years, that is something that is not good.   

The US is a big nation with a great deal of diversity.  It will never be easy to govern and the ability to ensure fairness requires knowledge and expertise.   

 

The point with this very big bill is that conservatives think it is too big and they historically, don't like big government.   The Democrats disagree and the lesson learned from the economists about the big recession and the stimulus at that time is that it was helpful, but too small to be really effective.  Had it been bigger, the recovery would have been quicker.   

Biden is listening to the economists and the needs of the people.  The conservatives are listening to, I don't know, voices from 1800 maybe.

 

[cdemundo]

On 2/1/2021 at 1:40 AM, Jeffr2 said:

I  actually think this check isn't the way to go. There are much better ways to make sure money gets to the right people. Ones in need. Many don't really need this check.

I just heard on TV a lady from a deficit reduction group say that past experience indicates that increased food stamps actually helps those in need and puts money into the economy quickly.  You can't put food stamps in the bank.

[cdemundo]

On 2/1/2021 at 11:25 AM, Credo said:

As a general principle, much of this money is being given to stimulate the economy, not just to help those 'in need'. 

Yes, I think that is point that is missed in many conversations.

Also, determining "need" takes time, which is a major consideration.

Generally, there is some truth to the idea that "a rising tide raises all boats".

 

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, J Town said:

Originally, NO one in US government service received ANY salary. Progress?

Well, if you think only the wealthy should govern, not so much.

[Thomas J]

5 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Change is desperately need.  The political system is broken and congress is worthless.  Time to take the money out of it.  And install term limits.  2 terms and you're out.

While I agree change is desperately needed I am not certain term limits would just not change the monkeys in the cage.  Consider there are term limits for president.  What has that brought the USA.  Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and now Biden.  Hardly the best and brightest.  Only GW Bush, and Trump ever were engaged in activities outside of the government and GW only to a limited extent. At present, government does not attract the best and brightest talent.  It does attract those who either seeking glamour, power or enriching themselves through influence peddling.

In business you intensify performance.  Management that achieves goals and objectives get bonuses and promotions.  Management that fails gets fired. Right now the incentive in office is to get re-elected and parlay your influence into money either in the form of selling influence or later becoming a lobbyist.  Until somehow the interests of the elected officials are tied to the betterment of the American people they will continue to operate in their own self interest.  Term limits I am afraid would be just changing the deck chairs on the Titanic. 

[onthedarkside]

The recent discussion in this thread has strayed pretty far off-topic into issues such as tax policy, federal deficits, Senators' salaries, etc.... Further off-topic posts will be removed. Let's try to stay on-topic.

 

The topic of the thread is:

 

Republicans press Biden to downsize $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief plan

[Thomas J]

On 2/1/2021 at 8:19 AM, bunnydrops said:

I think Biden should make a counter offer and limit the the people that receive payouts. The rich do not need it. I am for most of the rest.

The 600 billion from the Republicans is an insult from the party that gave 1.3 trillion over 10 years permanent tax break to corps.

In terms of "need" that is a founding principal of Communism. Karl Marx  the Communist Manifesto.  Somehow being equal isn't good enough.  Those that produce, save, invest, and are thrifty don't need it.  Those that potentially that don't produce, save, invest or are foolish with their money "need it"  So you incentify  the behaviors that are bad and punish those that are prudent.  Try that with your own children and see how it works out. 

With respect to corporate tax breaks.  I don't know why people are of the opinion that they can shift the burden of taxes to corporations and it does not show up in the prices they pay.  If a business lets say a gasoline distributor gets a price increase of 5 cents per gallon, do you really believe they just absorb it and don't pass it on.  If the cost to truck their gasoline goes up, you think they don't have to pass that along.  Corporations don't pay taxes, they write the checks from the money they receive from their customers.  Additionally, whether the corporate tax is 15%, 25% or 50%  corporate income is taxed twice.  If I own 10% of a company's stock and that company is charged $1 million in taxes, I am in effect paying that $100,000 in taxes.  When the company distributes their earnings to me in the form of a dividend, THE SAME INCOME IS TAXED AGAIN.  I now pay tax on my dividend income.  You also have to remember, if you have two companies one based in the USA and one in Switzerland and they both make watches.  The company in the USA is taxed at 21% on its income, while the Swiss only 8.5%.  The Swiss company can undercut the USA company on prices taking jobs away from Americans.  High taxes are an incentive to leave the USA, not expand, or not locate in the USA to begin with.  If you don't believe that, just look at the flood of companies fleeing California.  They aren't heading to New York.  They are relocating in Texas.  Companies have to do that in order to match the cost structure of their competitors. 

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, Thomas J said:

In terms of "need" that is a founding principal of Communism. Karl Marx  the Communist Manifesto.  Somehow being equal isn't good enough.  Those that produce, save, invest, and are thrifty don't need it.  Those that potentially that don't produce, save, invest or are foolish with their money "need it"  So you incentify  the behaviors that are bad and punish those that are prudent.  Try that with your own children and see how it works out. 

With respect to corporate tax breaks.  I don't know why people are of the opinion that they can shift the burden of taxes to corporations and it does not show up in the prices they pay.  If a business lets say a gasoline distributor gets a price increase of 5 cents per gallon, do you really believe they just absorb it and don't pass it on.  If the cost to truck their gasoline goes up, you think they don't have to pass that along.  Corporations don't pay taxes, they write the checks from the money they receive from their customers.  Additionally, whether the corporate tax is 15%, 25% or 50%  corporate income is taxed twice.  If I own 10% of a company's stock and that company is charged $1 million in taxes, I am in effect paying that $100,000 in taxes.  When the company distributes their earnings to me in the form of a dividend, THE SAME INCOME IS TAXED AGAIN.  I now pay tax on my dividend income.  You also have to remember, if you have two companies one based in the USA and one in Switzerland and they both make watches.  The company in the USA is taxed at 21% on its income, while the Swiss only 8.5%.  The Swiss company can undercut the USA company on prices taking jobs away from Americans.  High taxes are an incentive to leave the USA, not expand, or not locate in the USA to begin with.  If you don't believe that, just look at the flood of companies fleeing California.  They aren't heading to New York.  They are relocating in Texas.  Companies have to do that in order to match the cost structure of their competitors. 

"Many shareholders of corporate stock, such as retirement accounts, educational institutions, and religious organizations, are exempt from income tax. US domestic law imposes a 30 percent withholding tax on dividends distributed to foreign shareholders, but many are exempted from this tax under bilateral tax treaties. The earnings distributed to these shareholders are therefore not double-taxed. By some recent estimates, the share of U.S. corporate stock held in taxable accounts has fallen from more than 80 percent in 1965 to about 25 percent today (Rosenthal and Austin, 2016)."

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/corporate-income-double-taxed

 

Politifact checked this claim of Bernies Sanders. It found that he only slightly overestimated the decline in corporate taxes. Politifact said it was 10% instead of 9%.

"In 1952, the corporate income tax accounted for 33 percent of all federal tax revenue. Today, despite record-breaking profits, corporate taxes bring in less than 9 percent."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/aug/28/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-tax-share-paid-corporations-ha/

 

 

Since 1952, corporate profits as a share of the economy have risen dramatically (from 5.5 percent to 8.5 percent), while corporate tax revenues as a share of the economy have plummeted (from 5.9 percent to just 1.9 percent).

https://www.epi.org/publication/corporate-profits-are-way-up-corporate-taxes-are-way-down/

 

By the way, these numbers all predate the corporate tax slashing bill passed in 2017.

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Well lets see, Trump has 22,450  employees and Trump organization $665 million in sales.  GW was president of a for profit Texas Rangers agree that was a 'birthright" position.   By contrast. Bill Clinton only job in private life if you can call it that was as a professor at the University of Arkansas.  Never worked for a for profit company, never hired an employee, never had to make a profit.  Barack Obama worked as a community organizer before entering politics.  Never started a company, ran a company, held a management position in a company never hired an employee and never had to make a profit. Joe Biden never worked a day outside of government.  Never had to do anything other than suckle the breast of the taxpayer.  

Yep pretty dismal business record compared to the stellar accomplishments in business compared to Clinton, Biden, and Obama.  

Gee. The fact that Trump inherited about half a billion dollars plus multiple bailouts from his father has nothing to do with his "success"? In fact, if it weren't for the Apprentice, which wasn't his creation, he'd have gone bankrupt long since. 

“The Apprentice” may have (temporarily) saved Trump from financial ruin

At the time The Apprentice debuted in 2004, many of Trump’s business ventures were hemorrhaging millions, and he was about to lose his ability to exploit a loophole in US tax code that let him avoid paying taxes for years.

But then The Apprentice swooped in, which not only kept Trump’s finances afloat but also rescued his brand from the brink of irrelevance. Trump hosted the show—filmed on a makeshift boardroom set within Trump Tower—from 2004 until 2015, when he announced a run for US president. 

https://qz.com/1909776/how-the-apprentice-saved-trump-from-financial-ruin/

 

Also, lots of those workers were illegal aliens. Which Trump's businesses somehow belatedly discovered after he became President.

[Thomas J]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Since 1952, corporate profits as a share of the economy have risen dramatically (from 5.5 percent to 8.5 percent), while corporate tax revenues as a share of the economy have plummeted (from 5.9 percent to just 1.9 percent)

And so what does that have to do with the price of tea in China.  Which part of Corporations don't pay tax don't you get.  A tax is a cost of doing business.  They have to pass it along.  Just like any other expense.  If that was not true, then why not just have corporations pay all the income tax burdens and the individuals none.   Companies making money is not a bad thing.  It is a good thing.  A company that is profitable wants to expand and it has the resources to do it.  Rob them of that by taxes both the incentive to expand is diminished plus they now lack the money paid in taxes to pay for any expansion.  Here is a simple income/expense statement.  Please tell me which of the expenses as a business owner I CAN JUST IGNORE AND NOT PASS ALONG.  I either pass those costs along or my profits are diminished.   You seem to be of the illusion that somehow corporations just "eat" the taxes and there is no impact on pricing.  As previously mentioned, the USA does not operate in a vacuum.  If a USA company has to compete with a foreign one with lower tax rates it is at a huge competitive disadvantage.  Like it or not, the best thing for any country is to encourage businesses to locate within its border have low tax rates and encourage job creation.  People working have money, they pay taxes and buy things.  Corporations starved of income don't come, don't expand, don't hire people. Worst of all outcomes. 

 

 

[Thomas J]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

he fact that Trump inherited about half a billion dollars plus multiple bailouts from his father has nothing to do with his "success"? 

None of that has anything to do with the fact that Biden, Obama, and Clinton all have ZERO business experience. He still had far far far more financial success and business experience than the three of them combined. 

 

[Sujo]

24 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Well lets see, Trump has 22,450  employees and Trump organization $665 million in sales.  GW was president of a for profit Texas Rangers agree that was a 'birthright" position.   By contrast. Bill Clinton only job in private life if you can call it that was as a professor at the University of Arkansas.  Never worked for a for profit company, never hired an employee, never had to make a profit.  Barack Obama worked as a community organizer before entering politics.  Never started a company, ran a company, held a management position in a company never hired an employee and never had to make a profit. Joe Biden never worked a day outside of government.  Never had to do anything other than suckle the breast of the taxpayer.  

Yep pretty dismal business record compared to the stellar accomplishments in business compared to Clinton, Biden, and Obama.  

running a country is not a business and has been proven it cannot be run like a business.

 

But trump has so many failed businesses he cannot even do that right.

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

None of that has anything to do with the fact that Biden, Obama, and Clinton all have ZERO business experience. He still had far far far more financial success and business experience than the three of them combined. 

 

And yet both left the country in better position than those other businessmen.

 

A country cannot, and should not be run like a business.