The One, Big, Beautiful tax bill - that kills the poor and pays the rich

[Joe Ferguson forever]

4 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

what makes you think the able bodies on medicaid vote for repubs?

look at the districts with the highest medicaid enrollment.  WV, Ky, NC, SC, Georgia, Southern Ohio, Miss, etc.  Even WNY.  

Cali is a significant outlier.

Even if it's 50% of 100mil, that's potentially 50 mil voters.

https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/congressional-district-interactive-map-medicaid-enrollment-by-eligibility-group/

[nedboy7]

“Now, Republicans are about to make a mistake on health care and betraying a promise,” Tillis said. “It is inescapable that this bill, in its current form, will betray the very promise that Donald J. Trump made in the Oval Office or in the Cabinet Room when I was there with [members of the Senate Finance Committee], where he said, we can go after waste, fraud and abuse on any programs.”

[B-Man]

 

 

Update,  actual information.

 

 

Here are the key Big Beautiful Bill differences
that the House and Senate will have to reconcile

by Chris Nesi

 

The Senate version of President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” that passed a key procedural vote late Saturday has some big differences to the version the House approved. Two Republican Senators — Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Rand Paul (R-KY) were the lone GOP holdouts in the 51-49 vote after caucus leadership spent hours rallying support for the multi-trillion-dollar bill. The current version of the bill, which Senate lawmakers got their first look at Friday night, clocked in at 940 pages, and is largely in line with what the House narrowly approved in May.

 

https://nypost.com/2025/06/29/us-news/here-are-the-key-big-beautiful-bill-differences-that-the-house-and-senate-will-have-to-reconcile/

[Homelander]

4 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Update,  actual information.

 

 

Here are the key Big Beautiful Bill differences
that the House and Senate will have to reconcile

by Chris Nesi

 

The Senate version of President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” that passed a key procedural vote late Saturday has some big differences to the version the House approved. Two Republican Senators — Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Rand Paul (R-KY) were the lone GOP holdouts in the 51-49 vote after caucus leadership spent hours rallying support for the multi-trillion-dollar bill. The current version of the bill, which Senate lawmakers got their first look at Friday night, clocked in at 940 pages, and is largely in line with what the House narrowly approved in May.

 

https://nypost.com/2025/06/29/us-news/here-are-the-key-big-beautiful-bill-differences-that-the-house-and-senate-will-have-to-reconcile/

 

From the article - "actual information" you did not want to highlight

 

The Senate version could add approximately $3.3–$4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade - $1 trillion more than the House plan.

The House version alone is projected to increase deficits by $2.4 trillion.

 

As much as $930 billion in Medicaid cuts over ten years; strict work requirements could slash eligibility for those with parents of older teens.

SNAP (food stamp) changes: House version pushes high work mandates.

 

CBO estimates: 11.8 million more uninsured by 2034 under the Senate plan.

House bill alone could leave 10.9 million without health insurance.

 

Extends 2017 Trump-era tax cuts, with special deductions for seniors, tips, and overtime but caps those benefits. 

SALT deduction remains capped at $10,000 (Senate) vs. $40,000 (House), favoring higher earners in wealthier states.

 

Senate bill includes a staggering $5 trillion debt-limit hike, significantly more than the House’s $4 trillion proposal.

 

 

 

[Pokebball]

2 minutes ago, Homelander said:

 

From the article - "actual information" you did not want to highlight

 

The Senate version could add approximately $3.3–$4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade - $1 trillion more than the House plan.

The House version alone is projected to increase deficits by $2.4 trillion.

 

As much as $930 billion in Medicaid cuts over ten years; strict work requirements could slash eligibility for those with parents of older teens.

SNAP (food stamp) changes: House version pushes high work mandates.

 

CBO estimates: 11.8 million more uninsured by 2034 under the Senate plan.

House bill alone could leave 10.9 million without health insurance.

 

Extends 2017 Trump-era tax cuts, with special deductions for seniors, tips, and overtime but caps those benefits. 

SALT deduction remains capped at $10,000 (Senate) vs. $40,000 (House), favoring higher earners in wealthier states.

 

Senate bill includes a staggering $5 trillion debt-limit hike, significantly more than the House’s $4 trillion proposal.

 

 

 

I'm curious what you and others here are most concerned with. Many highlight the growing deficits, and debt. And at the same time are being quite critical of the cuts in spending. Would you rather have greater debt and no cuts?

[Homelander]

1 minute ago, Pokebball said:

I'm curious what you and others here are most concerned with. Many highlight the growing deficits, and debt. And at the same time are being quite critical of the cuts in spending. Would you rather have greater debt and no cuts?

 

We shouldn’t be slashing vital programs just to hand out more tax cuts to the wealthy. I’d much rather see the top 1% pay their fair share than gut support for the most vulnerable in our society.

[Hank II]

43 minutes ago, Homelander said:

 

We shouldn’t be slashing vital programs just to hand out more tax cuts to the wealthy. I’d much rather see the top 1% pay their fair share than gut support for the most vulnerable in our society.

Do you not think there should be work requirements for those that are able to work and receiving benefits?

[Homelander]

10 minutes ago, Hank II said:

Do you not think there should be work requirements for those that are able to work and receiving benefits?

 

Of course - able-bodied people should contribute if they can.

 

But let’s be real: this conversation isn’t about encouraging work; it’s about punishing poverty and giving tax breaks to the rich who do not need it. If the goal was really to help people succeed, we’d invest in job training, childcare, and healthcare - not just slash benefits.

[Pokebball]

1 hour ago, Homelander said:

 

Of course - able-bodied people should contribute if they can.

 

But let’s be real: this conversation isn’t about encouraging work; it’s about punishing poverty and giving tax breaks to the rich who do not need it. If the goal was really to help people succeed, we’d invest in job training, childcare, and healthcare - not just slash benefits.

So you don't think we're spending enough?

Edited 8 hours ago by Pokebball

[reddogblitz]

4 hours ago, Homelander said:

 

We shouldn’t be slashing vital programs just to hand out more tax cuts to the wealthy. I’d much rather see the top 1% pay their fair share than gut support for the most vulnerable in our society.

 

How much is their "fair share"?

 

President Biden used to say his but never said what their " fair share" is.

 

What do YOU think their "fair share" is?

[Homelander]

3 hours ago, Pokebball said:

So you don't think we're spending enough?

 

If cutting spending is really the goal, maybe don’t raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion like you’re maxing out Daddy’s credit card to teach him fiscal responsibility.

 

 

[Homelander]

2 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

How much is their "fair share"?

 

President Biden used to say his but never said what their " fair share" is.

 

What do YOU think their "fair share" is?

 

The wealthiest Americans aren’t paying their fair share because the system is rigged in their favor. While working people pay taxes on every paycheck, billionaires use loopholes and special treatment for capital gains to pay a lower effective rate or nothing at all. In fact, the richest 25 billionaires have paid as little as 3.4% on hundreds of billions in income, far less than most middle-class workers.

 

Paying a fair share means the tax system should be based on ability to contribute. That means closing loopholes, taxing wealth like work, and ensuring the ultra-rich can’t opt out of supporting the country that enabled their success.

[Pokebball]

45 minutes ago, Homelander said:

 

If cutting spending is really the goal, maybe don’t raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion like you’re maxing out Daddy’s credit card to teach him fiscal responsibility.

 

 

agree

6 minutes ago, Homelander said:

 

The wealthiest Americans aren’t paying their fair share because the system is rigged in their favor. While working people pay taxes on every paycheck, billionaires use loopholes and special treatment for capital gains to pay a lower effective rate or nothing at all. In fact, the richest 25 billionaires have paid as little as 3.4% on hundreds of billions in income, far less than most middle-class workers.

 

Paying a fair share means the tax system should be based on ability to contribute. That means closing loopholes, taxing wealth like work, and ensuring the ultra-rich can’t opt out of supporting the country that enabled their success.

Well, everyone is using the tax code that exists. The top 5% of earners pay 61% of the taxes. The top 10% pay 71%. Where do you want to take these?

[Homelander]

12 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Well, everyone is using the tax code that exists. The top 5% of earners pay 61% of the taxes. The top 10% pay 71%. Where do you want to take these?

 

It’s true the top earners pay a big slice of total taxes but that’s partly because they earn so much of the country’s income. But you're clearly not getting it.

 

The real question is what percentage of their income they actually pay compared to everyone else. When billionaires pay a lower effective rate than middle-class workers, despite making hundreds of millions or billions, that’s where fairness breaks down.

 

It’s about closing loopholes and ensuring the tax system isn’t rigged to favor the ultra-rich. That's why the rich spend so much money buying politicians, right?

 

The line that “the rich already pay their fair share” gets pushed by millionaire class influencers and media because their billionaire owners benefit from a rigged system. It’s not about fairness; it’s about protecting a status quo that works for them, not for the rest of us.

[Pokebball]

5 minutes ago, Homelander said:

 

It’s true the top earners pay a big slice of total taxes but that’s partly because they earn so much of the country’s income. But you're clearly not getting it.

 

The real question is what percentage of their income they actually pay compared to everyone else. When billionaires pay a lower effective rate than middle-class workers, despite making hundreds of millions or billions, that’s where fairness breaks down.

 

It’s about closing loopholes and ensuring the tax system isn’t rigged to favor the ultra-rich. That's why the rich spend so much money buying politicians, right?

 

The line that “the rich already pay their fair share” gets pushed by millionaire class influencers and media because their billionaire owners benefit from a rigged system. It’s not about fairness; it’s about protecting a status quo that works for them, not for the rest of us.

Sure, so how much of our tax burden to you want the wealthiest earners to pay. Obviously higher than 70%. What do you think it should be?

 

[Homelander]

15 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Sure, so how much of our tax burden to you want the wealthiest earners to pay. Obviously higher than 70%. What do you think it should be?

 

 

It’s not about picking a magic number like 70% of the total tax burden that stat just reflects how much income the top 10% already control.

 

What actually matters is the effective rate they pay on their income and wealth. Right now, billionaires can pay 3% while a teacher pays 13%.

 

So no I don’t want them paying 100% of the tax burden. I want them paying at least the same effective rate as the people who don’t own private jets. That’s called fairness, not fantasy.

[Pokebball]

13 minutes ago, Homelander said:

 

It’s not about picking a magic number like 70% of the total tax burden that stat just reflects how much income the top 10% already control.

 

What actually matters is the effective rate they pay on their income and wealth. Right now, billionaires can pay 3% while a teacher pays 13%.

 

So no I don’t want them paying 100% of the tax burden. I want them paying at least the same effective rate as the people who don’t own private jets. That’s called fairness, not fantasy.

We started talking about fair share. Now you are pivoting to increasing tax rates for the wealthy, along with taxing their wealth? Pick one, if you'd like, and I'm happy to discuss that with you. But when you're a fart in a frying pan, it's really difficult. Our tax system is a graduated one, where if you earn more, you pay a higher %. Additionally, as you earn more, most deductions are phased out so you don't even get those.

 

Following is a link to the Tax Foundations most recent analysis. It's got some interesting data for you to consider. It supports the fact that most of the taxes are paid by the wealthy AND at a higher effective rate.

 

LINK

[Big Blitz]

 

 

I don’t want to hear 1 Communist Democrat hear faux complain about the debt ever again. 
 

You cannot spend what we spend on in the amounts we do and address it, ever.  Starting right here with health insurance for illegals.  

[Big Blitz]

 

 

[reddogblitz]

1 hour ago, Homelander said:

What actually matters is the effective rate they pay on their income and wealth. Right now, billionaires can pay 3% while a teacher pays 13%.

 

So no I don’t want them paying 100% of the tax burden. I want them paying at least the same effective rate as the people who don’t own private jets. That’s called fairness, not fantasy.

 

Actually, it's called a flat tax.