(from https://www.snopes.com/tax-plan-graduate-students/)
CLAIM
The Republican tax reform plan would increase the tax burden on graduate students by counting waived tuition as personal income.
WHAT'S TRUE
The House of Representatives' 16 November 2017 version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would tax graduate tuition waivers, and has passed the House.
WHAT'S FALSE
As of 20 November 2017, the Senate version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act keeps the current exemption from taxation on graduate tuition waivers.
WHAT'S UNDETERMINED
Whether the final version of the tax bill, if passed, will include an end to the exemption of tuition waivers from taxation.
(from Vox.com)
". . . if you saw a candidate standing on a dais pointing at his pet dog and telling you it was a cat, you’d think something pretty odd was going on. . . both citizens watching the tax reform debate in Washington and reporters covering it ought to ask themselves: Why, if this plan is so good, do its authors keep lying about what the bill does? . . . It’s obvious that if you cut a tax that’s only paid by married couples who’ve amassed at least $11 million that you are helping rich people. It’s obvious that if you enact a special discount tax rate for people who own LLCs then you are helping Donald Trump, who owns a ton of them. And it’s obvious that if part of your plan is permanent and part of it is temporary, and the part you made temporary is the part that helps the middle class, then helping the middle class wasn’t your priority. . . everyone who’s anyone in the Republican Party said they wanted to cut taxes for the middle class, and not for rich people in general or Donald Trump in particular — the Senate’s coalesced around a bill whose long-term distributional impact looks like this. . . this hypothetical family of four that Paul Ryan cooked up and has instructed his caucus to meme about does get a one-year $1,182 tax cut. But under the bill the House passed last week, that tax cut shrinks over time and within a few years turns into a tax increase. . . If that’s such a good idea, why did its proponents invest so much time and energy in pretending they were going to do the opposite?Republicans promised a middle-class tax cut. . . As a candidate for office, Trump ran on promising a middle-class tax cut. At a meeting with business leaders at the beginning of the month, Trump was on the same page, saying, “It's a tax bill for middle class.” . . . But it’s not. Neither the House bill nor the Senate bill are good for the middle class. . . The middle-class provisions are afterthoughts, scrounged together to meet messaging goals. . . Trump frequently likes to make this point is to cast himself as a selfless champion of the people, willing to raise his own taxes for the sake of the country. . . Trump’s team is now engaging in bizarre deflections. . . A telling thing about the cavalcade of lies Republicans are telling about taxes is the party can’t quite get its story straight as to what the policy agenda even is here. They are telling deficit hawks that the bill is fiscally responsible, adding a large but manageable $1.5 trillion to the debt over 10 years but revenue-neutral in the long term. They're telling others that statutory “pay-as-you-go,” or PAYGO, rules will be suspended, and the bill won’t really lead to the automatic cuts in Medicare and other programs that, by law, will result from its passage. They’re telling some people the middle-class tax hikes written into the Senate bill will never be enacted, so there’s no need to worry. That’s the opposite of what they’re telling deficit hawks. So then some Republicans are telling some deficit hawks that the follow-up to the tax bill will be a return to entitlement reform. . . Of course, that’s the opposite of what Trump promised his voters during the campaign . . ."
. . . do I want my taxes to fund additional security for Congressman who think that automatic and semi-automatic weapons (which did NOT exist at the time the U.S. Constitution was written) belong on the streets in Everytown, USA. . . ". . . for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption. . ."
(http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-members-of-congress-face-death-threats-1497471038-htmlstory.html)
". . . But now, in today’s intensely polarized political environment, more members want to reconsider their own security needs. . . “Everyone’s getting a bunch of death threats right now,” said Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) as lawmakers exited a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill with law enforcement officials. “A lot of members were asking for changes.”. . . Lawmakers feel particularly vulnerable at rowdy town hall events or when traveling unprotected away from the watchful eyes of police patrolling the Capitol complex. One lawmaker involved in Wednesday’s shooting noted that his great concern was that none of the ballplayers was armed and able to stop the shooter. . . "
(by Charlie Reese, a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper)
"Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. ( The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.)
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House?( John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. ) If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. [The House has passed a budget but the Senate has not approved a budget in over three years. The President's proposed budgets have gotten almost unanimous rejections in the Senate in that time. ]
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ..
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees... We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!"
So congressional Republicans claim they will never allow taxes to increase for wealthy Americans. They claim that they will eliminate loopholes and leave tax cuts in place which will provide the additional revenue the country requires.
Conversely, President Barack Obama says that the amount of revenue that elimination of tax loopholes would generate, (while leaving tax cuts for the wealthy in place) is not nearly close to the amount of revenue required to tackle the budget deficit.
It seems to me that the 'leave-cuts-eliminate-loophole' strategy either WILL or WILL NOT generate the amount of revenue required. There is no OPINION involved. This is an empirical issue and can be proved or disproved.
Either Congressional Republicans or the Administration should take it upon themselves to prove or disprove (OBJECTIVELY & AUTHORITATIVELY) the effectiveness of the strategy. Or even better, if you can imagine, the news media could take it upon themselves to prove or disprove it (OBJECTIVELY & AUTHORITATIVELY) and actually provide a service to the general public for a change.
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
You can NOW download
your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE
(from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/17/romney-my-job-is-not-to-worry-about-those-people/)
". . . Let’s set aside the question of whether this is what Mitt Romney really believes deep down in his heart. Maybe this is what he thinks. Or maybe he just thought it was a good line to buck up jittery donors. What we can say is that the last part is wrong. There is no fair accounting in which 47 percent of Americans take no “personal responsibility and care for their lives.” Take this simple breakdown from the Tax Policy Center of what households paid in taxes in 2011:
— 53.6 percent of households pay the federal income tax. Presumably Romney is okay with these folks.
— 28.3 percent of households pay no federal income tax, but they do pay the payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. That means they don’t need Mitt Romney to convince them to “take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” They already have jobs.
Most of the households in this group don’t pay any federal income tax because they qualify for enough deductions that their income tax liability has shrunk to zero. See this Tax Policy Center report for more, which gives an example of “a couple with two children earning less than $26,400. They get an $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700, and that takes their liability to zero.” Indeed, it’s worth noting that many of these deductions and credits were part of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which Romney wants to extend.
— 10.3 percent of households pay no federal income tax because they’re retired and elderly. Many retirees aren’t taxed on their Social Security benefits, which they earned by paying into the system over many years. If Mitt Romney secretly thinks that these households are all irresponsible freeloaders, he has a weird way of showing it, as he keeps insisting that he doesn’t want to cut Medicare or Social Security benefits for those over the age of 65.
— That leaves 6.9 percent of households which are non-elderly and have incomes less than $20,000 per year and aren’t paying the payroll tax. These poorer households pay neither income taxes nor payroll taxes. Perhaps Romney thinks that they should all pay more in federal taxes. It’s hard to say. But this is also a much smaller fraction of Americans.
Meanwhile, just as a reminder, the vast majority of Americans still pay state and local taxes — in fact, these taxes tend to be more regressive. When you add up all the different types of taxes, most income groups in the United States tend to pay an amount that’s roughly commensurate with their share of the national income. . ."
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
You can NOW download
your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE
(from http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-13/ryan-farther-reaching-than-romney-on-taxes-without-detail)
". . . Yet Ryan, 42, goes further than Romney, who would cut
individual tax rates by 20 percent, drop the corporate tax rate
to 25 percent and eliminate the estate tax and alternative
minimum tax. In his 2010 “Roadmap for America’s Future,” Ryan
proposed eliminating taxes on corporate income, estates,
dividends, interest and capital gains. He would simplify the
individual income tax system into a two-rate structure topping
out at 25 percent and impose what is effectively an 8.5 percent
value-added tax.
“You could not do that without substantially shifting the
tax burden to the middle class and below” and reducing tax
burdens on affluent households, said Edward Kleinbard, a tax law
professor at the University of Southern California. “Those are
just inescapable facts.”. . . "
(excerpted, paraphrased & abbreviated from http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/08/13/681111/paul-ryan-has-acted-on-every-anti-gay-belief-mitt-romney-has/?mobile=nc)
'. . .In fact, Ryan has a voting record to reflect every anti-LGBT position that Romney has taken. Here’s a recap:
Banning state-level same-sex marriage Supporting a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Defending discrimination against same-sex couples (Defense of Marriage Act) Ryan voted to limit funding to the Justice Department that might be used to oppose DOMA by the Obama administration Opposing federal non-discrimination protections-voted to kill the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in 2007-then, ultimately voted for it. Opposing repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Opposing hate crimes protection. . . '
[For those of the 'right' persuasion who profess to be "Christian", beat these quotes out of your bible. ]
John 13:34-35 ESV A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
1 Timothy 5:8 ESV But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
1 John 3:17-18 ESV But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.
Philippians 2:4 ESV Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Ephesians 4:32 ESV Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
Matthew 25:40 ESV And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
Galatians 6:9-10 ESV And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.
Matthew 25:31-46 ESV “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ...
James 1:27 ESV Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
John 3:16 ESV “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Matthew 25:40 ESV And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
Galatians 6:9-10 ESV And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.
Matthew 25:31-46 ESV “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ...
James 1:27 ESV Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
John 3:16 ESV “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Luke 4:16-21 ESV And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.” And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. . .
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
You can NOW download
your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE
"U.S. aircraft
manufacturer Boeing will participate in the U.S. Export-Import Bank’s
Supply-Chain Finance Guarantee program, which provides competitively
priced working capital financing to suppliers of goods or services to
U.S. exporters..."
In other words, the government is going help poor little Boeing to finance the making of millions, no wait, billions of dollars for some (to quote Dylan Ratigan) 'Greedy Bastards'. But there's more.
(from workinglife.org bog by Jonathan
Tasini)
"Corporate welfare and the scam on the American people is a daily
scandal. And it gets obscured sometimes in the rah-rah competition in
the marketplace that we get sucked into by the traditional media. So,
here's something to think about: you, the taxpayer, are about to shell
our billions of dollars to a corporation that PAYS NOT A DIME IN FEDERAL
TAXES. The company is called Boeing.
You've probably read all about it:
In a surprise twist to a long-running saga, the Air Force
said on Thursday that it would award a $35 billion contract for aerial
fueling tankers to Boeing rather than to a European company that builds
Airbus planes...
The Air Force said the first phase of the contract would be worth
$3.5 billion, and it would cover the construction of the first 18
tankers by 2017. Boeing would build 179 tankers in all for about $35
billion."
The issue is ". . .
whether a very profitable corporation that does not
pay a fair share in taxes should be even allowed to benefit from
billions of dollars in taxpayer money. From the great folks at Citizens for Tax Justice:
Despite
reporting nearly $10 billion in domestic pre-tax profits between
2008 and 2010, the Boeing Corporation, which was granted a
contract worth as much as $35 billion to build airplanes for the
federal government earlier this week, did not pay a dime of
U.S. federal corporate income taxes during this three-year period. . . "
Once again the 99% are being 'done' by big business and their 'representatives'.
Gives all new meaning to the term "Mile high club".
What do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
Download
your
very own copy of
ANOTHER SHOT
by Ray
Jozwiak
