29 would be better.

Flat rate of 18% that everyone pays, no deductions, would be even better.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Gary busey, mnuchins assistant, came up with the number after being told to split the difference.

It is going to be epic! The need to give free money to everyone means that this is going to add ~2.5T to the deficit, when all of their predictions for growth fall short. As Ron Johnson just said “We're literally trying to squeeze about $2 trillion in tax reform into a $1.5 trillion box and that's been a problem,”

Next they will curtail net neutrality, pricing dumb fuck propoganda cheaply and anything that requires an iq over room temperature a high subscription fee or not carrying it. Trump and fox on 200 channels.

Letting people keep money they earned isn’t giving free money to people, unless you believe all money belongs to government.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I'm not a tax expert, but as it applies to the OP's original post, doesn't a lower rate mean that taxpayers get to keep more of their income? How is earned income considered "free money"?

I'm not trying to be snarky, I just don't understand the argument as it is presented.

If put on credit card then not really giving you money back in simplest terms.

I'm not trying to be snarky, I just don't understand the argument as it is presented. //

It is kind of like this, if you go use your credit card to buy something is that free money to you? Giving us back more of our tax dollars when your country is using its credit card is kind of the same thing. Now of course there are a ton of details that go into that, but that is a general explanation of how this money is really not ours to begin with. It very well could be our children and grandchildren's money, but it is a sugar high at a time when the economy is doing just fine and doesn't really need this infusion of fast cash into the system..

Okay, change it to "freely puts 2.5T more on the credit card". We have voted to have a government that spends a certain amount of money on a host of services (which may or may not have value to you, but hey, that's democracy!). We need to balance that with a certain amount of revenue. Demanding the same government services and not paying for them is, in fact, demanding "free money".

It's more like not mugging people to pay your credit card.

... and simply draining their kids' accounts to pay for it, instead.

Is that what you meant?

No, they are already planning on mugging your kids in the future. It just means that they aren't giving anyone money, they just are taking less.

If Tesla lowers the price on the Model S by $5k, it isn't the same as giving people who buy their cars $5k, even it they are operating at a loss and hope to make up for it in the future.

Running up a higher debt isn't "taking less", it's taking more. It's taking a little less now, and much more in the future. That's how debt works.

Can you really not separate the spending from the taking?

If you are a degenerate gambler, losing $100/day, and you have been stealing $20/day from my wallet.

If you start stealing only $10/day, you are stealing less from me.

You aren't giving me $10.

You are owing the casino $10/day more than before.

But that has no bearing on how much you are stealing from me.

Even if you are planning on stealing $40/day from my kids.

And that is preferable.... how?

BTW, you were more realistic with the term "taking" ("Can you really not separate the spending from the taking? "). We "the people" agreed that the government could take money and would spend it certain ways. We will not change the expenditure side of it, but we are merely lessening the present revenue at the cost of future debt. You and I may dislike "tax and spend", but it is considerably more honest than what is happening now.

Who's talking about preferable?

This is about the ridiculous notion that taxing/taking/stealing less from someone is somehow 'giving them money'.

And it might be preferable to keep my $ now, and use it to make sure my kids or on the right side of the income inequality tipping point, that the future takings make less of a difference.

If you want to make the point that we (the government/country) need to make commensurate cuts in spending to 'afford' taking less in taxes. (Ignoring for the moment, that all the monkeying with rates and such, usually doesn't affect the amount taking in by the government).