What They Are Saying About Effects of Trump Tax Cuts on Insurance Industry

December 22, 2017

  • December 22, 2017 at 2:28 pm
    Agent says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 35
    Thumb down 34

    Congratulations to Insurance Journal for publishing a positive story about the Tax Reform that our great President pushed through despite all the naysayers that opposed it every step of the way.

    Hopefully, the markets will start upping their commission rate to agents after years of reducing commissions. That would be welcomed. Merry Christmas to all.

  • December 22, 2017 at 2:51 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 38
    Thumb down 25

    Here Here. Congratulation to the Insurance Journal for playing it relatively straight. While 80% of tax payers will see a reduction in their own taxes according to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, only 17% of Americans believe they are getting a tax cut.

    This is almost certainly due to dishonest reporting. Trump Hate is far more important than truth for most journalists these days.

    Although the Insurance Journal did have to put “huge win” in quotes, so they couldn’t refrain from some editorial content.

    • December 22, 2017 at 3:27 pm
      Agent says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 25
      Thumb down 24

      Craig, only a Progressive can view this bill with a negative opinion. They would rather a continuation of a stagnant economy, static wages, more entitlements for the lazy. Amazing.

      • December 25, 2017 at 1:36 pm
        Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 16

        Yeah…. 10 years is ‘temporary’. Riiiiight. Tell us all, oh Wise Man, which political party will block their renewal 10 years hence?

        Spreading lies is the liberal way of confusing The People into thinking they offer something better than freedom, the rule of law, and ethical conduct.

        • December 25, 2017 at 7:20 pm
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 9
          Thumb down 4

          Yes, by definition, 10 years is temporary.

          • December 25, 2017 at 7:25 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 9
            Thumb down 4

            And, genius, they expire in 2025.I’ve already said I won’t teach you to read and can’t teach you to think, but I’m also not interested in teaching you basic math.

          • December 26, 2017 at 8:21 am
            Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 7

            Here’s your first clue:

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/30/republicans-explain-why-their-tax-cuts-are-temporary-but-not-really-temporary/

            Of course, that’s prior to the revisions, so….

          • December 26, 2017 at 8:24 am
            Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
            Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 12

            Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

          • December 26, 2017 at 12:11 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 11
            Thumb down 4

            “But here’s the thing: After 2025, all individual tax cuts are set to expire.”

            2025-2018 < 10 yrs

            I could go into it more, but it's so old seeing people who are debatably mentally disabled screaming "Fake News Network, durrr, durrr" over and over.

            Like I said, I won't teach you math or how to read. Now report this to IJ, or go delete it yourself.

        • December 26, 2017 at 8:52 am
          Ron says:
          Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 13
          Thumb down 2

          “Tell us all, oh Wise Man, which political party will block their renewal 10 years hence?”

          Agreed. So why not just make them permanent and let the analysis of the impact on the debt be based in reality, not what is in the bill?

          It is obvious that this was a purely political ploy to minimize the true affect on the debt this bill will create and make sure it meets the Byrd Rule so they could pass with a simple majority.

          • December 27, 2017 at 4:56 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 2

            “Agreed. So why not just make them permanent and let the analysis of the impact on the debt be based in reality, not what is in the bill?”

            Because that would require democrat votes, and 60 votes, or the corporate tax rate, needed to make us competitive, would become temporary. The democrats will not compromise on that one, and it is needed. They gave the middle class tax cuts democrats agree with, and democrats will surely repass the tax cuts for the middle class as they did with Bush W’s tax cuts when Obama extended those. So there is literally no cause for concern at all.

            “It is obvious that this was a purely political ploy to minimize the true affect on the debt this bill will create and make sure it meets the Byrd Rule so they could pass with a simple majority.”

            And here we go with the conceptual based attacks against republicans again. If they get things done, they are questioned, and this was they only way they could pass their agenda by the way. If they don’t get things done, you then call them do nothing congress. Darned if they do. Darned if they don’t. It wasn’t a political ploy, it was working with what they had to get a tax plan passed that was fair, worked, and improved our competitive market with the corporate tax rate. You are such a whiny kid. You’re not even taking the argument as to whether the lower corporate tax rate will be beneficial, at all. You just side step it for class warfare, and keep saying what is a political ploy and isn’t. You sound like a tinfoil hat, and a moron.

          • December 27, 2017 at 5:12 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 2

            Also, the political ploy is in calling business rate reductions and corporate rate reductions radical,

            While also calling for them to be in the middle of the OCED (Bill Clinton) which is at 22% (and the rate approved by the senate and congress is 21%).

            The democrats do agree with the corporate tax rate reduction, they just want to blast the republicans, the far larger crime here.

            A reduction in the marginal rate from 37% from 39.6% is not a huge windful for the rich, and when they state that the middle class will be harmed in blue states, that is not the middle class. As I said prior, those in those states may well pay more, from losing the ability to deduct their property and local taxes.

            This is not a huge tax cut, and it is definitely growth oriented.

            You say you support lower taxes and spending, and then a simple cut, as well as a move to competitive tax rates which democrats normally agree with, you then accuse solely the republicans with playing political ploys because they did what was necessary to pass the plan?

            You are out of your mind. You fake independent, it isn’t ok. You don’t fool me.

        • December 27, 2017 at 5:02 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 7
          Thumb down 6

          Tax, my middle income employees are sure excited about having more money in their checks for the new year and for many years in the future. Time for the Progressives to hit the road. They had their chance, never proposed cutting taxes and reaped the consequences of their actions.

          • December 27, 2017 at 5:32 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 2

            We are likely going to do a bump in commission as well as the tax cuts for the middle income earners.

            I’ve said before my taxes will go down by $8,000. Others here perform about the same as me, and the same will happen for them as well as a boost to commission.

            They may well go from $90k to $105k earnings depending on what they earn now, as well as $8,000 less in taxes, or, rather, net zero taxes on income with a little bit of 401k contributions.

            So a net increase of $15-$20k in disposable income, and in my case, my wife will return to work this next year.

            It amazes me how little people who do this business management have a clue about the companies who employ them.

          • December 27, 2017 at 6:03 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 2

            Even more firms doing the same:

            http://www.coladaily.com/2017/12/27/nephron-gives-600-plus-employees-5-pay-raise-due-federal-tax-cuts/

            Also, what Ron doesn’t understand is that while not all firms will increase wages now, they will have extra capital, and over time, this will translate to wage increases as they pursue more investments and or projects.

            Those will come later, not instantly. Jobs cannot just increase over night, inclusive of wages. Other companies will have extra capital and they will all have to compete with other companies in the same boat.

            There will be more benefits than just the initial is what I’m getting at, in the long run this impact will be huge.

            If the companies want a part of that $5 trillion extra GDP projected, and that is a projection, it could easily be more, than they will need to compete against a plethora of businesses who will be fighting for a piece of it.

            Wages will go up, jobs will increase, as the rich compete and need workers to get their piece.

            This is part of what democrats don’t understand: In this respect, greed is what makes capitalism work.

          • December 28, 2017 at 5:56 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Obama cut taxes. Damn you are uninformed on literally every topic.

          • December 28, 2017 at 6:33 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            “Obama cut taxes. Damn you are uninformed on literally every topic.”

            No he didn’t. By extension of not expanding the child tax credit, which both his predecessors did, in line with how much middle class families were taxed and the brackets, he kept tax rates for the middle class too high for families compared to both Clinton and Bush W, who both still had taxes too high for the field of people I’m referring to getting back into the market. As I said numerous times, my taxes with my wife working would be $8k less. I will be at zero dollars in taxes with $97k in my end, and my wife at $30k, provided I do the right contributions on IRA’s. Under Obama my tax liability would be 8k just working on my own. So I don’t have to invest into a 401k, 8k a year, which I cannot always afford to do anyway and most the middle class cannot. $8k in that income range is critical. I don’t even have to invest much with her working, because day care expenses are now subtracted from AGI. In other words, $15,000 dollars is tax free. This income range depending on the state, is absolutely critical. There are many dual earning couples in the $60k both at $120k income as families with 3 kids in WA state. They would be behind by a similar amount. Either they work on their own, and get Obamacare credits, or they both work, don’t get that, don’t have daycare subtracted from AGI, lose their work experience in that process (since the 70’s when women take time out of work they are less likely to return and lose skills, they instead tend to stay out of the workforce) etc. These tax rates and the incomes they hit the most are crucial to get back to work, and Obama did for sure conversely raise taxes on this group by not changing brackets, and not extending tax credits to above $110k especially. You are in a blue state. You should have done and know this math. If you as a family earn $110k total you can barely afford a house. That $8k makes a huge difference, and Obama and other presidents failed at getting the LPR up in light of this. My other quote still stands. Since this issue has become worse, working age men have gone down from 95% in LPR to 84%. I say we can get that back up. That will help everyone. Your system makes sure they won’t return.

            You are the one uninformed, you have not done this math, and I’m sick of your bull type of arguing.

          • December 28, 2017 at 6:54 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            Right now where I live, with kids, if I want a 4 bedroom house if I buy low crap quality I have to spend $500k UW.

            With 4 kids that is pushing it.

            $600k is more likely. That $8k is a big deal to those here who bust their butt to get into the middle class, and yes, dual earning $120k families are the middle class here, as well as a single earner family at $97k.

            That’s $120k just to buy a house you dolt, and make payments of $3,000 per month.

            Or, you buy the house with a 5% down payment and pay FHA, $30,000 down and $3,800 a month.

            Just on the house payment UW. You have no idea what you advocate for and how much it destroys any hope of a middle class family.

            That’s not including when day care comes into play with 3 kids here. They only reason I pay $15,000 is that I pay half! It’s $30k UW.

            $2,500 per month. Those two alone would be $6,300 dollars, because many people who are middle class do not have a 20% down payment. That alone is enough to nearly bankrupt your typical family, or ensure they don’t buy a house.

            If you have two earners who graduated and make $120k, or say $45,000 making $90k, you think they can afford to live here without going into rural crap areas with a 2 hour drive through traffic? Every state has a form of this, every single blue state that is. These earners are the ones who need tax cuts. Those who already pay zero, and get their life handed to them, and free insurance, do not. They need incentive to join this middle class, not to be coerced into the lower class to be more comfortable that they will be ok with free healthcare etc.

            I am enraged at how little you know about this.

            You talk a big game about the poor, to hell with you!

            Your programs are why people live like that to begin with instead of join the middle class, get a good education, and become say an architect, an engineer, or a data software programmer, or a dental assistant, or a pharmaceutical, in WA State, all of these are easy to attain $60k plus incomes within 2 years of working in them and are widespread. If you’re going to tell me the poor here can’t get them, you’re plain flat out wrong. The issue is most people can’t live a life with them, and would rather live off the government, or, when they do move into those aspects of life they find out it’s much harder and more stressful than they thought and give up. You are breaking the back of the middle class.

            It should be tax credits for health insurance, and make sure it extends to these income groups. It should be encouragement to join the middle class, not assurance you will be ok even if you are work at low wage jobs. You are the immoral one, you, planet, Ron, and the others here who rob these people and claim you favor the middle class. I don’t buy it buddy! You don’t do the math and I do.

          • January 2, 2018 at 2:23 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            ht tp://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/how-progressive-obamas-tax-policy

            I don’t care about your fictitious scenarios. Don’t write them. Anecdoal nonsense is irrelevant even though you accept it as Truth. You can’t do math. I’ve proven that 2x in this thread alone. Andrew decided reality was the one thing they can’t accept here and deleted it, however your insults are fine apparently.

            What you say Ron does not understand is 100% wrong. The most influential book on economics in the last 30 years, Piketty’s Capital, shoots this down conclusively, as do numerous other articles based on his thesis. Don’t comment on it, you haven’t read them and couldn’t comprehend them. What do you don’t understand is the savings function and how it relates to capital, as well as any other economics.

    • December 24, 2017 at 1:18 pm
      UW says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 12
      Thumb down 12

      Most of the people receiving tax cuts are getting them temporarily, and will see an increase later. That’s on purpose to sell it and give the rubes something to repeat. 80% of the benefits of the cuts to do the top 1%. Medicare is for significantly despite campaign promises not to do so, and they are setting up cuts to Social Security. But, you don’t want that to be true, so nobody could possibly be against it.

      • December 27, 2017 at 5:13 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 3

        “Most of the people receiving tax cuts are getting them temporarily, and will see an increase later.”

        No they won’t. Bush W’s tax cuts were also temporary, and Obama repassed them.

        “That’s on purpose to sell it and give the rubes something to repeat.”

        No it’s not, not in the way you think. They did that in order to ALSO give the middle class tax cuts while doing what was necessary to make our corporate tax rate competitive (as per Bill Clinton, we are now in the Middle of the OCED rate, and only a few points off of Obama’s suggestion).

      • December 27, 2017 at 5:19 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 3

        “80% of the benefits of the cuts to do the top 1%.”

        Not as a percentage of tax savings compared to prior, compared to income. Considering about half of the population already didn’t pay taxes, this is to be expected that more money percentage of the total given back will go to the “wealthy” so to speak.

        “Medicare is for significantly despite campaign promises not to do so, and they are setting up cuts to Social Security.”

        No they aren’t, and wrong regarding Medicare. The point of cutting medicare is to do it in line with increasing GDP output, or rather cutting spending, because what you’re talking about are automatic cuts, but, they won’t kick into Medicare as long as other spending decreases. If democrats finally agree to cuts as the GDP expands by $5 trillion, then there will by necessity be more jobs and money for the middle class, the rich will need people to produce, and there will also be plenty to cut as the LPR goes up. That is also why child tax credits are increased so much. You say how the middle class doesn’t benefit, not all the middle class has need. Those who have need, (families) benefit a hell of a lot. I benefit to the tune of $8k. I’m not rich.

        “But, you don’t want that to be true, so nobody could possibly be against it.”

        Quite the contrary, you want to hate everything conservatives do.

    • December 29, 2017 at 1:05 pm
      Tom says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 2

      Craig, Trump hate exists because he lies flagrantly to the public at every opportunity and is an offensive and immature human being. He is currently being investigated by a special counsel for his campaign’s inappropriate relations with a foreign power. Trump hate is not a fever dream concocted by the media, it’s the consequences of his own actions. That is why he has the lowest approval in modern history.

  • December 22, 2017 at 9:32 pm
    Cut the Bias says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 25
    Thumb down 10

    Dow at all time high, near 100% employment levels, 3% GDP growth, etc.

    Why were these tax cuts necessary again?

    Where was this stagnant economy? You’re trying to tell me that if the same companies who are already enjoying record profits and have literally billions in the bank in cash can just keep a little more of their money, they will finally be able to afford raising wages?

    Cut the bull. There are plenty of fiscal conservatives calling this tax cut an absolute travesty. During times of growth and stability (now) is exactly when you want to start paying down the debt, lowering our deficit, not increasing both.

    Goodness gracious folks. If a Democrat were in power doing exactly the same thing, you would be citing the same CBO estimates that state this will be traumatic for the national debt…

    • December 26, 2017 at 10:21 am
      Agent says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 13
      Thumb down 18

      Hey Biased, if Democrats were in power, they would be advocating to raise taxes again and holding the economy down like they did for 8 straight years. Over 80% of taxpayers will get a tax cut to increase their income. There is nothing at all wrong with that. MAGA

    • December 26, 2017 at 12:13 pm
      UW says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 17
      Thumb down 8

      You are right. They don’t have any real economic ideology other than not wanting to pay taxes, it’s all BS to sell that. They were saying the economy was terrible, and then immediately said it was great when Trump took over, even in some cases citing data from Obama’s term. They are a joke.

      • December 26, 2017 at 12:38 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 15
        Thumb down 6

        i45 admitted it himself down in Mara Lago when he addressed his uber-wealthy friends, “You all just got a lot richer.”

    • December 27, 2017 at 5:25 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 1

      We are not even close to 100% employment.

      The unemployment rate does not take into consideration who has dropped out of the workforce. The single mother LPR rate is far lower than men, the LPR for women in their child rearing years is extremely low, the LPR rate for men who are in prime working ages (24-64) is low, etc. This is why I said that insisting on college when they can’t even get jobs is bad for kids as well.

      https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/long-term-trends-in-employment-by-age-group

      Women have been entering the workforce, and as a whole they are still 14% behind men. We can get more women to work. This increased LPR will help. We can get more men in the working age to work. It used to be at 95%, now it is at 84%. If we get men up by even 6% and women up to even 80%, (a 10% boost) we will have huge benefits to the economy.

      Also, the 3% GDP growth right now is likely a temporary affect from Trump and high optimism. Trump has not passed enough to change it, though he has deregulated a lot.

      We are not anywhere near 3% GDP growth yet, and haven’t been at all in the last 8 years for a regular number.

      We need to get our GDP growth up, our LPR up, and we need to get the economy going well again, as well as get people to participate in it instead of receive from it. The issue right now is that participation actually harms many, and the government, including Obama, is the reason why. The government is over bloated enough that people cannot survive working in the true middle class due to how much they are taxed (when they graduate, and get married, they actually as of now have huge harms and hard work with little reward and I have shown this numerous times).

      The government is not the solution, the government is the problem. Taxes needed to be way lower in my income range with kids and Obama should have done that. He didn’t. It may well have a lot to do with his GDP growth.

    • December 31, 2017 at 9:28 am
      Ian says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      The National Debt is fiction. It is in a currency that can be created out of nothing. If the bondholders wanted to redeem the bonds tomorrow, every one of them could be paid. They do not though. Why doesn’t anyone look at the assets the US Govt holds? National Parks? Real Estate?

      • January 4, 2018 at 2:33 pm
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Bondholders can’t just call on their debts, they are for a day amount of time, but you are right, the debt is mostly irrelevant, especially since so much of it is held by the government.

  • December 26, 2017 at 2:42 pm
    swede700 says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 16
    Thumb down 5

    I guess those darn senior citizens and the military should frickin’ get back to work, since they receive the great majority of entitlement money. They are apparently lazy to you.

    I’m also not sure where you get this “stagnant” economy nonsense, since the economy has been rising for 10 years. You should thank the previous President, considering the lag time on any economic decisions is generally longer than 10 months on average, and the current President hadn’t participated in any real economic decisions until last week (which, unfortunately, is going to widen the wealth gap even more than it already is, as it will not likely have any real impact on wages or job growth, since the jobs are already there, waiting to be taken).

    As far as the pass-throughs, we have experience on that here in Kansas….it did not go well, lest many have forgotten that quickly. It blew a gigantic hole in the budget from which we have yet to recover, as the state budget is going to be nearly a billion dollars in the red this fiscal year and our school system, which once was decent, is falling behind dramatically now. Just wait, and don’t be surprised if, 3 years from now, that $1.4T projected deficit become $2.3T.

    • December 26, 2017 at 3:35 pm
      Captain Planet says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 3

      You forgot about children and disabled people. They also make up a large portion of the entitlement recipients. But they don’t fit in the dog whistle.

      Thom Hartmann – “The tax bill is all about cutting income to the federal government and over a 10-year period the top one percent are going to gain five trillion dollars. The bottom 99 percent are going to lose three and a half trillion dollars. And the remaining one and a half trillion dollars will be added to the national debt.

      Also, we can give a five trillion dollar tax cut – they keep characterizing it as a one and a half trillion dollar tax cut: no that’s just the amount added to the debt – when you add the amount that they’re taking away from people who make less than a million dollars a year and giving to people who make more than a million dollars a year, it’s a five trillion dollar tax cut.

      Now, that’s the tax cut. That doesn’t deal with spending.”

      smh

      • December 27, 2017 at 7:36 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 3

        “You forgot about children and disabled people. They also make up a large portion of the entitlement recipients. But they don’t fit in the dog whistle. ”

        You two do indeed forget about them, conservatives give both more time and money on average to them than you do. You need to stop this whole conservatives are heartless monsters who hate all spending, even for children. They hate over bloated spending.

        Regardless, the conservatives are not against spending for the children and poor and vets. They are against a nanny state, which we are presently at, in which people cannot take care of themselves and need the government. 40% of GDP is what we spend local federal and state. You are out of your mind if you think this won’t harm folks across the spectrum.

        “Thom Hartmann – “The tax bill is all about cutting income to the federal government and over a 10-year period the top one percent are going to gain five trillion dollars. The bottom 99 percent are going to lose three and a half trillion dollars. And the remaining one and a half trillion dollars will be added to the national debt.
        Also, we can give a five trillion dollar tax cut – they keep characterizing it as a one and a half trillion dollar tax cut: no that’s just the amount added to the debt – when you add the amount that they’re taking away from people who make less than a million dollars a year and giving to people who make more than a million dollars a year, it’s a five trillion dollar tax cut.”

        You and your quote just assumed that the wealthiest 1% would get 100% of the GDP growth of 5 trillion. That is sheer insanity. You also fail to know much about the GDP.

        A 1 percentage-point difference in annual growth rates Over 30 years comparing an economy increasing at 2.7 percent, an economy growing at 3.7 percent annually will more than triple in size.

        I didn’t forget about the GDP, and ratios to how much the middle class tends to get. Even at present levels (which are at record lows, Obama apparently didn’t help the middle class at all), which mandate workers to participate (how the hell will the rich get $5 trillion with no additional paid workers?) the middle class get 45% of the revenues (the 60% average earn 45% of the total GDP)

        This means out of 5 trillion, if you go by 160,000,000 workers, they will get about 2.25 trillion of that. This far outweighs the lost $650 billion in revenues, and if you divide it equally among the 60% (which would never happen, but regardless is telling) it equates to $14,000 more of pay vs $4,000 of government provisions, and we have to assume some of that will go to more jobs. Let’s say that it’s 1 million jobs, and those people no longer need government assistance of say $4,000 per year, that’s 4 billion per year, or 40 billion over 10. With the families earning that much more spending can drop in line. The idea is to keep the economy providing, and the government as only an absolute necessity for the vulnerable.

        You people make me sick in your argument style. You demonize republicans who aim for a different method, and instead say it’s a different character trait, as if they hate the poor.

        Go watch Jordan Pedersen. He talks about this, and the risks. It removes the ability to self analyze, accept alternate opinions, and ideals, and to reflect and analyze. In other words: You planet, and you Swede thus become stupid by default. It’s time to grow up, and question policy over character. This is why I lead, this is why I’m becoming a business owner, this is why you cannot.

        • January 2, 2018 at 2:05 pm
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          “Go watch Jordan Pedersen. He talks about this, and the risks. It removes the ability to self analyze, accept alternate opinions, and ideals, and to reflect and analyze.”

          Lol, from the guy who ignores almost 100% of all climate scientists and published work, almost all mainstream economics, including core things like economies scale, almost all minimum wage work, almost all work on the labor force participation rate, inflation, capital ownership, and on and on. But if I only read a little on how white people don’t have advantages I could be a business owner. You have to be a parody. Too fake to waste time on. I’m sure there’s something in there about listening to others and rape/sexual assault but whatever, bye dude, what a waste.

    • December 27, 2017 at 5:41 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 3

      “I guess those darn senior citizens and the military should frickin’ get back to work, since they receive the great majority of entitlement money. They are apparently lazy to you. ”

      Those who are in need are not the concern to conservatives, and we tend to want to care for them. If we get more people into the workforce, we will have more money for senior citizens and military who don’t work. That’s what you don’t get, and you instead make an ignorant character attack based on your poor understanding of conservative arguments.

      “I’m also not sure where you get this “stagnant” economy nonsense, since the economy has been rising for 10 years.”

      No it hasn’t, not in any meaningful way, and what he means in that the middle class has been stagnant. They have.

      “You should thank the previous President, considering the lag time on any economic decisions is generally longer than 10 months on average, and the current President hadn’t participated in any real economic decisions until last week (which, unfortunately, is going to widen the wealth gap even more than it already is, as it will not likely have any real impact on wages or job growth, since the jobs are already there, waiting to be taken). ”

      This is only true of additional regulations. When it comes to removing them, impact is instant. Also, no, it isn’t going to widen the income gap, and even if it did, it wouldn’t matter. Let’s say the gap from richest to poorest gets bigger. This does not mean that those in the poor section are worse off. Say their income increases 30% while the rich get 50% over 5 years because we have way more growth, but in the absence of that the rich are equal and the poor increase at 10%. Even though the gap is wider, the poor are still better off in the case of the former. The income gap is not something that should be focused on. Getting the middle class dollars and having a functioning economy should be.

      “As far as the pass-throughs, we have experience on that here in Kansas….it did not go well, lest many have forgotten that quickly. ”

      This is beyond incorrect, and it was not the same as now. First, it is a state plan, not a federal. The corporate tax rate and business tax rate is still too high, lowering state taxes won’t have much of an affect here. Second, there were loop holes, and in this case there aren’t. Many individuals took advantage of the business tax cuts, and that was a disaster. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

      “It blew a gigantic hole in the budget from which we have yet to recover, as the state budget is going to be nearly a billion dollars in the red this fiscal year and our school system, which once was decent, is falling behind dramatically now.”

      The school system doesn’t need more money, it needs less. We already give them 13 years with out kids, if they don’t know how to make the best of that time, that’s on them. Regardless of this: The budget going in to the red may well have to do with economic stagnation in Kansas, which your state bill couldn’t address. A federal bill will have a lot of hope, but not even that is absolute. If your state has an underlying problem, it must correct it, but it is not representative of the affect of tax cuts as a whole. There are plenty of states that went the other way (see Texas, one of the lowest taxed states). You are taking one state to apply it as the norm. That is a mistake. So what about Reagan’s economic output then, and a federal tax plan to compare? I will note that while the debt did go up considerably, that was because democrats who controlled congress refused to reduce spending. Reagan got more of the population to work than Clinton. His LPR increase I think it was about 2.6 percent compared to Clinton at 1.3? It was something like that, I just quoted it recently.

      “Just wait, and don’t be surprised if, 3 years from now, that $1.4T projected deficit become $2.3T.”

      Then force the government to stop spending. Because I don’t care about the government debt if it results in destroying 5 trillion of the economy in order to get $650 billion in government revenues. This is a very pro growth policy, ergo why the estimates are $5 trillion of growth for losing $650 billion in government revenues. We can easily at that point cut $650 billion in non essential programs that are much less needed due to the availability to provide from the economy.

    • January 24, 2018 at 1:34 pm
      Stush says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      I have this to say: the republicans have lost their way and moved too far to the right. The fact is they know nothing about stimulating the economy. Companies increase hiring when there is a demand for more product, not when they have more cash. If they were to hire more now, who would buy the increased production? it would only increase inventory for Caterpillar without the sales needed to continue. Raising wages will not increase production either. the economy grows when the working classes buy more stuff and to do that, they should have been given a bigger tax cut than anyone. they buy the goods, create additional demand, employers need more employees to increase production and inventory to meet that demand. Simple. the 1% cannot buy enough yachts, Rolexes and Mercedes to move the needle one bit. Need I remind everyone that republican administrations were in office in 1929 and 2008 when the economy crashed. Want a rising tide? Just give cash to those in poverty and watch how they improve their lives and that of others and not by conspicuous consumption either. For my money, the White House has no more effect on the economy than our high school cheerleaders. The racists of the country just hated it when Obama cleaned up the mess left by 8 years of housing and market abuse. then when new regs are introduced to pull back the banks, things got better and they scream about being held back by govt. Same thing happened over 50 years of New Deal. There was money to bail out banks but nothing for PEOPLE. and today, again, there is money for the well-off but crumbs for the rest of us. It is all inverse to reality. Give the breaks to those who drive the economy. otherwise, the money will all be at the top and no one to do the WORK. Communism failed due to corruption not because it wasn’t a better way to distribute the fruits of production. Will the rich never learn? will the republicans never stop kissing that ass?

  • December 27, 2017 at 10:27 am
    Boonedoggle says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 11

    Tax cut? What tax cut?

    I am single, no mortgage, no children. For decades, I have been very generous with charitable contributions and have thus itemized deductions. Under the Trump GREAT tax cut loss of my personal exemption and limits on my income and real estate taxes, I am incurring an approximate $3000 per year income tax increase. If I take the standard deduction, my increase/loss is pretty much neutral.

    I am so pleased that none of my charitable recipients apparantly no longer need my donations, since not a one of them objected to change in the law. Arguably, I will come out OK by taking the enhanced standard deduction, and about $30,000 ahead by not donating to charities which no longer need my money.

    • December 27, 2017 at 6:38 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 3

      You do $30k of donations a year? You’re not someone who needs a tax cut buddy. And if the only reason you do donations is to lower your taxable income or bracket, well, I think that shows a lot about your “donations”.

      How are you single and have no mortgage or children but donate $30k a year? You’re full of it.

      You seem to be just fine if you can donate that much per year.

      This tax plan is about giving where it is most needed. I’m sorry, you’re not it.

    • December 28, 2017 at 7:42 am
      SWFL Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 2

      So you only gave to charity for tax reasons? Doesn’t sound very charitable.

      • December 29, 2017 at 12:02 pm
        Boonedoggle says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 2

        Sad indeed when my decades long history of sharing my income with charities elicits personal attacks. Were tax reasons the ONLY reasons for my generosity? Of course not, but the tax deductability did provide some reward and incentive. Much in the same way, the “donors penalty” of about $3000 will create disincentive for my future giving.

        That said, let’s revisit the topic at hand. The insurance industry, and the PC industry in particular overwhelmingly supported the Repubilcan candidates during the past eletion cycle, and with the HUGE tax savings, plus carried interest windfall they will recieve on portfolio assets, there is no reason why the industry shouldn’t pick up the slack in charitable contributions that will be left behind from taxpayers such as me who are facing a tax increase.

        Similarly, the generous pass-thru, plus corporate and LLC tax reductions should demand that our agency partners share some of their windfall with greatly increased charity donations.

    • December 28, 2017 at 5:59 pm
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 0

      This is for the people that need it, haven’t you heard? 80% of the benefits go to the top 1%, they have it so tough.

      • December 28, 2017 at 6:39 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 2

        “This is for the people that need it, haven’t you heard? 80% of the benefits go to the top 1%, they have it so tough.”

        This is because the below portion of the population presently pay no taxes and thus cannot benefit without expanding how much they receive back without paying any in (which is expanded in this bill as it is).

        And this bill is projected to grow the economy by $5 trillion on the low end. If the poor get the same 45% of the GDP that they get currently (which is a record low, showing Obama’s plans don’t help the middle class get a larger share of the economy, and hold back growth at the same time, a double whammy which is what caused the Carter issues as well) then as I just said in another post they can either have $14,000 worth of income, 160,000,000 people, or $4,000 worth of government income. Whether the rich get 55% of the GDP at that point, or 80% of the tax cuts won’t matter. As most the families who get that $14,000 worth of income won’t be taxed as it is (as half the population already doesn’t pay tax cuts, and that 45% applies to the middle 60% of the US population. In other words, very few will pay taxes but they will have more income).

        This tax plan benefits the middle class. Government bloated crap which mandates high taxes (spending 40% of GDP local state and federal) holds back and harms the middle class. Imagine how low tax rates could be if we cut our spending to 30%, and taxed say 3 trillion less over a decade.

        While you say who does and doesn’t have it tough, I have seen college grads and so have you, that are families barely get by. That’s why you are so angry at the upper class, but no amount of taxing them will help the middle class or create a middle class.

        • December 29, 2017 at 10:34 am
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 2

          Yeah the bottom 99% pay nothing and there’s no other way to add benefits through a tax bill. Scram, idiot.

          • December 31, 2017 at 11:04 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 3

            “Yeah the bottom 99% pay nothing and there’s no other way to add benefits through a tax bill. Scram, idiot.”

            I did not say the former, and yes, in the latter case, it is better to have availability for those who graduate to be able to participate in the economy of 5 Trillion in GDP rather than $650 billion of government revenues. It really is one or the other.

            You scram. You know my numbers are true, you just hate conservatives too much.

      • December 28, 2017 at 6:43 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        $5 trillion GDP, = 2.25 trillion at 45%

        2.25 trillion divided by 160 million equals $14,000. That is how those numbers come to fruition.

        Even assuming the wealthy can get wealthier, that statement on it’s own does not automatically make the middle class worse off. You’re an idiot UW. You’re not in my league on this matter.

        • December 29, 2017 at 10:55 am
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          Really hate responding to you and I won’t reply to your BS answer but this is total nonsense and fantasy.

          “And this bill is projected to grow the economy by $5 trillion on the low end”

          No. Even Trump’s economic advisors say 3-5% per year, so even in a fake fantasy world 5% is the top. In reality groups are saying 0.7%, with the positive results diminishing over time with 0.4% by 2021 and 0.1% in 2026,with 0 by 2027 (TPC).

          5 trillion would be 5 years of 5% extra growth, meaning we would be somewhere near 8-10% GDP growth, or permanently at the highest point ever.

          “If the poor get the same 45% of the GDP that they get currently(…)”

          The bottom 90% control about 25% if the wealth in the country. Your numbers are absurd. You are absurd.

          It’s. Literally. Fantasy.

          • December 31, 2017 at 11:23 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            “No. Even Trump’s economic advisors say 3-5% per year, so even in a fake fantasy world 5% is the top. In reality groups are saying 0.7%, with the positive results diminishing over time with 0.4% by 2021 and 0.1% in 2026,with 0 by 2027 (TPC).”

            You really are an idiot and I’ll prove it now. Trump wants annual TOTAL growth of 3% or more. This is NOT additional. your second commentary, yes, I’ve quoted it. They predict .35-.45 additional growth from the baseline over 10 years. I have not said 8 years, I have compared 10, because this matches up with the government revenues lost of $650 billion. I was going to finish my train line of thought, but you’ll see below why I didn’t.

            “5 trillion would be 5 years of 5% extra growth, meaning we would be somewhere near 8-10% GDP growth, or permanently at the highest point ever. ”

            Nope. 5 trillion extra of GDP is not 3% per year. As I said in my last post, even 1% of GDP growth over 30 years doubles the economy, and you’re saying we need 3 times that to get to 5 trillion additional GDP in 10 years? In other words, 1% would result in the economy being 19 trillion larger in 30 years. You really don’t understand this. The 5 trillion of extra GDP actually uses YOUR NUMBERS as the line of thought that the GDP will be 5 trillion larger. THAT is why I saved this. The economists are actually arguing that Trump cannot get the economy to grow .4 more per year, they are not even arguing .7%, you’re actually wrong on that. Trump used .35% extra per year as an average. You are beyond clueless on this, not me.

            Incorrect regarding your middle class share of the INCOME as opposed to HELD TOTAL SAVINGS which is essentially what you just quoted.

            https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2011/12/07/10773/the-middle-class-grows-the-economy-not-the-rich-2/

            What I’m referring to, and is the only one that matters for what I mentioned (earning a piece of 5 trillion) would be how much of the GDP they would EARN. You likely chose to grab a link for how much of the wealth they HOLD (probably because it looked like a more juicy number to you, so knee jerk reaction hello, and this is typically your weakness, you want to believe what you believe, and you will seek that out, not truth. Unlike me) which largely does not reflect their spending habits. In this case, it is best to compare EARN per year, because how much they SAVE from the GDP will not reflect what percentage of the GDP they EARN which is what I referenced, and is indeed 46%. “Consider that from 1947 to 1979, when the middle class received 54 percent of the nation’s total income on average, the economy grew at a steady clip of 3.7 percent per year. That was 1 percentage point higher than the 2.7 percent rate it grew at from 1980 to 2010, when the middle class was weakening to its current share of only 46 percent.”

            As you said, It’s. Literally. Fantasy.

            I am far better educated than you on this. If you had read your own piece, which I noticed you didn’t source but I recently did, you would have seen the difference from Long term GDP estimates in total compounded, as in how much total it adds to the GDP (5 trillion) vs short term annualized predicted gains (.35% is the assumed average from Trump)

            You were just literally proven wrong on the 25% so I hope you can reflect on the rest of your garbage as well, and understand I did really see that other link you’re talking about.

            So pardon me if you saying I engage in literal fantasy pisses me off. You’re a child. In person, I would make you man up. You’re bluntly weak willed. Even though you act like you’re not, you fall for absurd things. You’re a pawn of the left, not a leader.

        • December 29, 2017 at 11:49 am
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          Your numbers are a fantasy. No, I’m not in your league on this thankfully. I have an actual degree in economics, not something else that then means I have to pretend Reddit rants and Breitbart are the same thing as an education.

          Adding $5 trillion to the economy isn’t going to happen. No real analysis shows that. You don’t provide a time frame, or course. I’ll say 5 years to provide the benefit of the doubt, which you don’t deserve as a person proven to be incompetent in this math.

          $5T additional growth would be total growth of about 7.5%/yr. Even assuming 3.2% growth stays constant without the changes you are looking at DOUBLING GDP GROWTH (136% increase). You are saying GDP grow is immediately going to get pushed to a rate not sustained for 50-60 years. If you change your story, abandon “just the math,” and say it’s $5T total, that’s a relatively small increase in line with what we’re already seeing.

          You can’t, and don’t do or read actual economic analysis, you write Republican fan fiction. Insult away and try to get tips deleted since it shows ABJECT INCOMPETENCE again. Don’t reply though, because if I’m going to spend time reading fantasy I’ll look for a sane, competent intelligent author.

          • December 31, 2017 at 11:29 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            ‘Your numbers are a fantasy. No, I’m not in your league on this thankfully. I have an actual degree in economics, not something else that then means I have to pretend Reddit rants and Breitbart are the same thing as an education.”

            No you don’t. We aren’t in the same league. You just claimed a total falsehood, and I just showed it regarding the GDP. 3% total GDP per year may be needed for 5 trillion in extra GDP, but by addition to the present baseline, .35-.45 is needed. They are not projecting an INCREASE of 3-5% on GDP.

            “Adding $5 trillion to the economy isn’t going to happen. No real analysis shows that. You don’t provide a time frame, or course. I’ll say 5 years to provide the benefit of the doubt, which you don’t deserve as a person proven to be incompetent in this math.”

            Yes I did, numerous times, I said 10 years, I matched it up with the 10 years with $650 billion loss of dynamic revenues.

            You’re right, every analysis claims that .35-.45% growth is absurd, in the extra. For just a tax plan, maybe, including deregulation and looking at Reagan, nope. It’s perfectly possible. The same people saying this is impossible predicted Obama could fix our GDP problem with his policies. It didn’t. They were wrong. It’s time to listen to the other side now.

            “$5T additional growth would be total growth of about 7.5%/yr. Even assuming 3.2% growth stays constant without the changes you are looking at DOUBLING GDP GROWTH (136% increase). You are saying GDP grow is immediately going to get pushed to a rate not sustained for 50-60 years. If you change your story, abandon “just the math,” and say it’s $5T total, that’s a relatively small increase in line with what we’re already seeing.”

            If we go with that latter comment from you, I would not be by default changing my story, because that leaves the impossibility for me to have made an error. It’s funny you say that though. It’s because you acknowledge the later of the two is possible.

            “You can’t, and don’t do or read actual economic analysis, you write Republican fan fiction. Insult away and try to get tips deleted since it shows ABJECT INCOMPETENCE again.”

            I don’t try to get your posts deleted. That’s projection. You insult as well. I include insults and always will, so do you. I don’t however say it like you. I’ll just shrug this off. You’re incompetent.

            “Don’t reply though, because if I’m going to spend time reading fantasy I’ll look for a sane, competent intelligent author.”

            Haha, nice try. You’re cute. Weak. But cute.

          • December 31, 2017 at 11:38 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            So, in the first point, GDP is expected to grow 1.84% over the next decade at current numbers.

            That projection is meh though. Even the ones that favor Trump, point out that .35% is what they expect specifically from the tax plan.

            https://taxfoundation.org/final-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-details-analysis/

            And assume therefore considerably under 3% growth. 3.2% growth is not a doubling. After reading your post I believe this is what you meant by that 3.2% number doubling from the current projection.

            Considering the projection is 1.84% average for the next several years, and we have averaged that presently, I would say getting the economy going will require multiple facets to get to 3% or above, which is in fact the goal, but regardless if it is multiple facets, it will total 5 trillion extra GDP in 10 years. 1.16% extra in the GDP essentially for ten years (with .35 supposedly from the tax plan, but I’ll explain why it’s technically more as I have numerous times) is well enough to hit the goals.

            So, onto what I just said: If you remove the spending provisions combined with encourage work through lowering the tax rate, the portion of the population who left, will go back up. This is not even truly considered in any projection and is a big deal.

            3% growth is easy combined with less taxes and with less programs that force the middle class into fighting over who is cut off from or receives $650 billion, a race to the bottom I might add, or a race to the top to get a part of the $5 trillion.

          • December 31, 2017 at 11:39 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            So I suppose the better way of me saying this is thus:

            The tax plan, COMBINED with spending cuts and rewarding work (though I really did say this, multiple times) will grow the economy enough to be 5 trillion larger in 10 years.

          • January 2, 2018 at 10:03 am
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Shot down all your numbers, the site better delete it and leave up all your insults. Rant away Bob, I’m done with you.

            100(1.01)^30 < 100% increase.

            Just the math,which you don't know.

            You think Obama didn't fix GDP problems, because you think you unemployment stayed high under him, because you dismiss anything but actual economists. Let's see, -8.2% when he took over, yeah still around that. Clown.

            Now you are saying if we project GDP grow at nearly 1/3 current levels the numbers add up. 1.84% growth is less than most of the years during the downturn, the last 40 years, or even before that, and you don't see a problem using that as the projection to base this on, meaning incompetent, or dishonest. If you use that number, then the increase in the rate of growth is 1 percentage point, or more accurately a 66% increase in the rate of growth, depending on which poorly written, incomprehensible claim of yours we follow. Luckily for you, we can do that, because you have dismissed the current growth rate as being not true, because it's inconvenient. No reasoning, math, or citations just more 'Lord Bob has Decreed," face h8s meltdown if you disagree.

            You don't know the basic math, keep posting and ruining the site with the help of the moderators. It's sad what the site has become, all to protect the feelings of, and push people, with no knowledge in anything, including insurance. Stick to birth certificate and Pizzagate threads.

      • December 28, 2017 at 7:03 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        In fact, I don’t see why the bias is saying Trump’s plan is anti high tax blue states considering how the current system works.

        Do you want to know what is anti blue tax states presently? The $110,000 phase out for the child tax credit, that’s what.

        The middle class is different in each state, and blue states, and blue areas, (cities) tend to have the highest incomes that are still not the middle class due to the cost of living.

        So, conversely, a lot of the red states have the low income $20k earners who pay zero taxes, and don’t need a tax cut. Also, the blue states already have programs for the poor which are not on the federal dollar. Yet more math you don’t do. So, federal cuts won’t really impact state budgets. WA state for example will still offer day care assistance, free healthcare to certain income ranges, etc.

        Conversely, the conservative states can use their own budgets to make do.

        I would actually argue that federal tax rates harm blue states in the brackets as it was with Obama more than any other states! The current bracket system was what I was tempted to say, but it is gone now due to Trump. The blue states should be thanking Trump. Blue state families will especially benefit from this, even despite deductions being removed, because families need the money. They need a bigger house, they need more income. This definitely helps those it needs to, and you have not done a full thought analysis on it at all.

        You’re an idiot who follows what other say, I come up with idea after idea, this one just now? I just thought it up as a result of the changes coming. Of my own volition. THAT is why my boss chose me to lead, that is why I succeed, and that is why you won’t. I find what is important and note worthy and I sort it out. You find whatever meets the left’s agenda, and conform to it. You’re weak.

      • December 28, 2017 at 7:19 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        Also UW:

        Someone who donated $30k a year in income at minimum, is making $300k assuming they did 10%. The reason I said he is not who this bill is intended for is because I’m well aware that many in that income range don’t even donate 10%. I’m betting you dollars to donuts his or her income is $250k to $500k. Where does that place this person?

        The top 5% to 1%. When I said this person isn’t who is targeted, they don’t own a home for some random reason, make good money, and for some other random reason are not married, which means they don’t have kids. In other words no need for extra expenditures, no need for a larger house even if they do buy one, this person is quite literally not who the bill targets, or who it should target. It wouldn’t encourage a spouse to get back into work, they can afford to live (or wouldn’t be donating $30k) they can afford a house (or couldn’t afford $30k) they won’t be making more jobs personally with a marginal rate tax reduction (though they would if it was a business rate benefit, so we can assume that they are either an independent business owner or don’t intend on expanding, like say a single architect, solo insurance broker, or independent contractor doing government work which lots of people like to do in blue states to avoid responsibility.). So we can assume a lower marginal rate won’t encourage economic growth with him/her, just slightly more spending. I’m sorry, the point of this bill is mostly the middle class who truly needs it, as well as expanding the LPR. This person doesn’t fit that bill. I thought out my comment a lot further than your cliché lines, and I just full on Sherlock Holmes’d it, though you won’t admit as such, and this does reveal my intellect and business capability.

        https://www.investopedia.com/news/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/

  • December 27, 2017 at 12:57 pm
    knowall says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 1

    Purchasing power of wages is decreasing as gross wages and salaries are not keeping pace with inflation/dollars needed for basics in life. For example, most of the USDA budget goes for food assistance. probably more (people on) than during the depression since most people do not live on or near a farm.

    I hope this tax decrease works, let’s see what happens. The corporate rate decreasing will hopefully send more dividends to pension funds and other stockholders.

    Healthcare needs costs decreased, starting with pharms and also shut off all phone lines to foreign countries calling seniors for back braces and then billing to medicare!

  • December 28, 2017 at 9:57 pm
    Greg says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 2

    Wow, lots of back and forth here on silly political topics. Do any of you work? Who has time for this? BTW, I’m benefitting from this bill and am very happy, as are most of my employees.

  • January 2, 2018 at 4:21 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    Just announced today, a major niche carrier here in town announced large layoffs. I know someone who is impacted and she worked there for 24 years. I think I have a good idea who the tax benefits for this particular company is going to reach.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*