Rand Paul: Have to Cut Taxes on Top 1 Percent or It’s Not a ‘Significant Tax Cut’

[Suzanimal]

THE LAURA INGRAHAM SHOW PODCAST 11/02/17 - FULL SHOW

Rand Paul: We'll See Growth, But This is Not a Significant Tax Cut

Rand Paul: Have to Cut Taxes on Top 1 Percent or It’s Not a ‘Significant Tax Cut’


Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Thursday on “The Laura Ingraham Show” that the House’s tax plan will deliver economic growth, although it doesn’t really constitute “a significant tax cut” as President Donald Trump said it would.

The House’s watered-down Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, released Thursday, would reduce the number of income tax brackets to four, with rates of zero percent, 12 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent. In addition, the corporate tax rate drops from 35 percent to 20 percent — short of the 15 percent tax rate Trump championed on the campaign trail, but still a significant change.

Although Paul applauded some aspects of the bill's content, he expressed disappointment, saying the proposed legislation as it now stands wouldn't deliver the "significant tax cut" Trump and Republicans promised.

"If you don't cut the top 1 percent, you don't really have a significant tax cut," Paul told LifeZette Editor-in-Chief Laura Ingraham. "What they've done is, they've bought into the class warfare on the individual side."

"So at the top, there's not going to be much of a tax cut. There will be some. And in the middle, there's going to be a little bit — there's mostly going to be eliminating deductions. And at the bottom, the bottom already don't pay much income tax and will continue not to pay much income tax," Paul added.

The senator from Kentucky said that if the U.S. wants to create jobs and keep them in the country, Congress must "lessen the punishment" it has doled out on corporations and the top 1 percent of income earners.

...

https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/...icant-tax-cut/

[TheTexan]

$#@! the 1%, what they ever do for me

[qh4dotcom]

$#@! the 1%, what they ever do for me

If you got an Iphone / smartphone....you owe that to the 1%....if they did not want to earn a profit....you would have no smartphone today.

[Danke]

If you got an Iphone / smartphone....you owe that to the 1%....if they did not want to earn a profit....you would have no smartphone today.

I think most Texans use CB radios to communicate.

[Swordsmyth]

I think most Texans use CB radios to communicate.

I think they use smoke signals, but Oyarde would know more about those than I do.

[TheTexan]

If you got an Iphone / smartphone....you owe that to the 1%....if they did not want to earn a profit....you would have no smartphone today.

Yes but think about how many more iPhones I could have if we beat up the 1% collectively and took all their money

[dean.engelhardt]

Secret 46% bracket

House Republicans claim the tax plan they introduced Thursday keeps the top individual rate unchanged at 39.6 percent—the level at which it’s been capped for much of the past quarter-century. But a little-noticed provision effectively creates a new band in which income is taxed at over 45 percent.
Thanks to a quirky proposed surcharge, Americans who earn more than $1 million in taxable income would trigger an extra 6 percent tax on the next $200,000 they earn—a complicated change that effectively creates a new, unannounced tax bracket of 45.6 percent.

[oyarde]

I think most Texans use CB radios to communicate.

Texans , what can you do .

[oyarde]

If you got an Iphone / smartphone....you owe that to the 1%....if they did not want to earn a profit....you would have no smartphone today.

Am I the only 1 percenter without a smart phone ?

[TheTexan]

Am I the only 1 percenter without a smart phone ?

Empty liquor bottles don't count towards your net worth

[oyarde]

Empty liquor bottles don't count towards your net worth

I do not even count those . I calculate all of my wealth in Trees , Fruit Trees , crops , livestock , tillable land , homes ,tools , equipment ,lead , copper , guns , silver and gold . We do not count cash since it is backed by nothing and they could announce tomorrow it is devalued .

[devil21]

Seems there's very little agreement as to what this tax bill actually does. The opinions are all over the place.

Did You Catch the Huge Loophole in the GOP Tax Plan? The Rich Sure Did.
http://fortune.com/2017/11/03/trump-...plan-loophole/

[EBounding]

If it's this complicated, it's probably not going to be very good overall. But if they actually raise the standard deduction as high as they say and it can be filled out on a postcard, I'll be thrilled.

[brandon]

It seems like this bill only cuts taxes for the rich. Anyone making $30k-$250k might see a small cut. Like savings of $500 a year. Some will see a small increase due to the deductions being removed. Only the people making 1%er income will see substantial cuts. For that reason, I'm out.

Also, didn't Rand pledge to not vote to increase the deficit? And this increases it by $1.5 Trillion? I'm not really a deficit hawk, but they need to at least make some token cuts to spending to try to offset this.

[Brian4Liberty]

The top 1% will be still be paying less than most. Money they do pay taxes on will probably be taxed at the corporate rate (25%?).

[dannno]

It seems like this bill only cuts taxes for the rich. Anyone making $30k-$250k might see a small cut. Like savings of $500 a year. Some will see a small increase due to the deductions being removed. Only the people making 1%er income will see substantial cuts. For that reason, I'm out.

What is wrong with massive tax cuts for the rich? Most people see their paychecks come from rich people.

I agree more cuts should be fought for, for everybody, but I wouldn't oppose any cut in taxes.

[nikcers]

Rich people wouldn't have to pay me as much wage if the government wasn't taking so much away. Rich people are the only ones that pay any taxes anyways, but that's because we monetize debt and that is a system that picks winners and losers its a system that causes only rich people to contribute because they have the money.

Essentially unless they cut government if they lower taxes it will result in a tax increase for the poor and lower middle class- an INFLATION tax increase. Something that distorts the economy even worse then taxes. You are essentially endorsing the monetization of debt and the theft of wealth from people who save their money to pay for your tax breaks.

If you want to argue for tax cuts, fine, argue for REAL tax cuts, argue for government cuts with the tax cuts so that the economy gets some life breathed into it. Don't get me wrong, vote for anything that reduces the amount of money that gets taken away from people, but if that same guy that voted to decrease taxes votes to increase military spending by 700B that guy is taxing you, he is not your friend.

[nikcers]

[r3volution 3.0]

^^^



That is extremely disturbing...

No future King of England (or of any other place) should permit some nouveau riche to poke him in the chest.

...on the other hand, what can one expect but prostitution from a dynasty which was called the throne by a parliament?

Let me tell you, Charles I would not have tolerated any such thing.

Any such poker would have rapidly found himself permanently lodged on London bridge, and several other places, simultaneously.

[cocrehamster]

I don't know how Rand or anyone here can support tax cuts while spending continues to grow. This will cause a massive increase in future deficits.

[nikcers]

I don't know how Rand or anyone here can support tax cuts while spending continues to grow. This will cause a massive increase in future deficits.

Tax cuts without government cuts is a myth. Rand supports anything that will reduce that amount of money government takes from people. The tax cut plan is Orwellian doublespeak at its finest, its not real tax cuts

[Zippyjuan]

Rand said he voted against the budget bill because it would add to the deficit but now is in full favor of the tax cut bill:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...d-tax-cuts-now

Sen. Rand Paul: Let's pass big and bold tax cuts now!
BY SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY.), OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 10/26/17 08:00 AM EDT

I favor the biggest, boldest tax cut that Congress can pass. I’m 100 percent with President Trump in advocating for a 15 percent corporate rate to keep jobs in America.

I have been and will continue to be a loud voice for across-the-board tax cuts for everyone – rich, poor, and middle class. When the GOP leadership plan first came out, I raised a warning flag and urged the tax plan writers to slow down and make sure they got it right. Some simple calculations were telling us that some middle or upper-middle-class taxpayers could have been subject to a tax hike, if the tax plan eliminated big deductions for the middle class while keeping the 25 percent rate the same.

Meanwhile: https://www.newsmax.com/Politics/ran.../17/id/820257/

Rand Paul Hits Senate Budget Over Deficit

Budget hawk Rand Paul threatened Tuesday to oppose the Senate spending plan if it increases the U.S. deficit, a move that could kill the deal in a Senate with a slim Republican majority.

[Swordsmyth]

Rand said he voted against the budget bill because it would add to the deficit but now is in full favor of the tax cut bill:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...d-tax-cuts-now



Meanwhile: https://www.newsmax.com/Politics/ran.../17/id/820257/

And I bet he wants budget cuts to pay for it.

[Zippyjuan]

And I bet he wants budget cuts to pay for it.

Budget cuts should come before tax cuts- not afterwards. The "cuts" to pay for them never seem to materialize.

[Swordsmyth]

Budget cuts should come before tax cuts- not afterwards. The "cuts" to pay for them never seem to materialize.

And what is to stop them from being done at the same time in the same bill?

[Zippyjuan]

And what is to stop them from being done at the same time in the same bill?

The bill does not address any spending- only taxes. Sure it could be done in theory. In theory, we could have $trillion budget surpluses too and everybody earns $1000 an hour and everything costs a nickel.

[Swordsmyth]

The bill does not address any spending- only taxes. Sure it could be done in theory. In theory, we could have $trillion budget surpluses too and everybody earns $1000 an hour and everything costs a nickel.

And Rand hasn't voted yet, the bill isn't done yet, he can still try to add spending cuts while supporting the idea of cutting taxes.

[nikcers]

Rand is trying to hold conservatives accountable for things they can cut in a tax bill like the individual mandate. Any real tax reform would need budget reform.

Budget reform and tax reform are not the same and you couldn't possibly do it on the same bill because we have a managed economy, its not like a real tax cut would cut money from the public sector, a tax cut would cut from the private sector, because most of our spending is government intervention.

We could cut income taxes to zero for most Americans and it wouldn't cut one cent from government spending which is only one way the government intervenes with the economy. The goal is to have the least amount of government, or least amount of government intervention possible specifically.

Therefore not voting to cut intervention is not justifiable only because it doesn't reduce the amount of government intervention as much as you would like it to. Rand will cut government intervention anywhere he can.

[Zippyjuan]

And Rand hasn't voted yet, the bill isn't done yet, he can still try to add spending cuts while supporting the idea of cutting taxes.

House version already passed and Senate has finished but not voted on theirs- it won't be a lot different (any differences will have to be reconciled and combined into one bill and passed by both houses). Nothing about cutting spending. The budget resolution they passed allows them to add up to $1.5 trillion to the debt. And they are struggling to keep the additional debt that low (which is why they have to say that some of the proposed tax cuts will expire- then they don't count towards the $1.5 trillion- such "temporary" cuts tend to be made permanent later on). Rand says he supports it.

Senate hopes to vote next week- while people are distracted by Christmas shopping.

[Swordsmyth]

House version already passed and Senate won't be a lot different (any differences will have to be reconciled and combined into one bill and passed by both houses). Nothing about cutting spending. The budget resolution they passed allows them to add up to $1.5 trillion to the debt. And they are struggling to keep the additional debt that low (which is why they have to say that some of the proposed tax cuts will expire- then they don't count towards the $1.5 trillion- such "temporary" cuts tend to be made permanent later on). Rand says he supports it.

Senate hopes to vote next week- while people are distracted by Christmas shopping.

So it is like I said, Rand hasn't voted yet and there is still time to amend the bill in the Senate or in the reconciliation process.