The Postal Reform Act Of 2022

[59 Dano]

Tax breaks do not create jobs. Consumer demand in conjunction with the ability of poor people to get credit creates jobs.

Just in case you're keeping score, a tax break that allows for a major capital expenditure doesn't create jobs, but loaning money to poor people who can't pay it back DOES.

 

[It will be fine]

Just in case you're keeping score, a tax break that allows for a major capital expenditure doesn't create jobs, but loaning money to poor people who can't pay it back DOES.

Demand drives job creation not excess supply. Trickle down economics has never worked.

 

[59 Dano]

Demand drives job creation not excess supply.

The central driver to demand is net income. What do you think a tax break increases?

Trickle down economics has never worked.

What are you talking about? Supply side economics has nothing to do with trickle down economics, and none of the supply side economists have ever predicted a trickle down phenomenon.

 

[AKCoverMan]

The USPS is not a business. It's a public service. They're are about to receive the relief they have often said would place them on a much more equal competitive footing.

But the taxpayers help fund USPS and now they are going to kick in more. USPS may not be a business but it is competing against private business with support of the government. Not exactly “equal competitive footing”.

And they suck at it. Sorry USPS employees I don’t mean to offend anyone individually, there are many dedicated postal workers. But on rural routes like mine the number one thing I hear is “thank god they sent it with you and not the post office” followed by another post office non delivery story.

 

[AKCoverMan]

Tell JFK that multibillion dollar companies should pay zero in taxes and it’ll all work out. Yeah…no.

Corporations never pay tax. It’s all passed on to customers. People pay taxes not companies.

 

[AKCoverMan]

According to latest numbers one fourth of the entire US population more than 27 million households have no internet connection. Majority are in the southern states. Most likely it's a question of availability and or affordability. And probably for various reasons they may never have access. Perhaps it might be one of the many reasons why 100 GOP congressman many of them represent these areas crossed the isle and supported the Democrat sponsored PFA 2022.
In many small towns and villages across the country the post office was the hub of economic and often social activity for that entire small village. And one of the key components of the PRA was give to the post office to experiment to see if it could offer expanded services profitably.

Again, the USPS is NOT a business. It is first, foremost and will continue to be a PUBLIC SERVICE! It is simply being given an opportunity to see if it can offer additional economically self sustaining public services.

100 years ago the post office may have been center piece of every small town. Today they are a government entity competing with private business subsidized by you and me, needlessly IMO.

You seem very pro USPS. Do you think it’s fair that taxpayer supported competition could take your job?

 

[It will be fine]

The central driver to demand is net income. What do you think a tax break increases?


What are you talking about? Supply side economics has nothing to do with trickle down economics, and none of the supply side economists have ever predicted a trickle down phenomenon.

Corporate tax cuts don’t increase income. Corporate tax cuts do not lead to increased capex. Corporate tax cuts lead to an increased wealth gap. Cut taxes and corporations just keep the difference, they don’t spend it. See FedEx and their $0 tax bill for years, no capex and no wage increases. They spend it on stock buybacks to increase executive compensation. I don’t understand why anyone would believe corporate tax cuts are a net benefits to society since that’s never actually happened.

 

[AKCoverMan]

Postal services to the PUBLIC. Now you tell me, does that not make it a public service? It sure as hell isn't a privately held corporation who can pick and choose who it wants to do business with.

We provide more public service than USPS. I’m told all the time about packages that USPS adjust returned as undeliverable or made customers come to postal annex 20 mins away with long lines to pick up packages.

it’s not that hard go to the address on the package deliver the package. I’m sorry I’m for reducing and or eliminating unprofitable USPS.

 

[59 Dano]

Corporate tax cuts don’t increase income. Corporate tax cuts do not lead to increased capex. Corporate tax cuts lead to an increased wealth gap. Cut taxes and corporations just keep the difference, they don’t spend it. See FedEx and their $0 tax bill for years, no capex and no wage increases.

Orders for a couple dozen jumbo jets, billions in hub expansions/upgrades, several years of investment in Ground facilities... No capex!

I don’t understand why anyone would believe corporate tax cuts are a net benefits to society since that’s never actually happened.

Would you be better off if your business had an effective tax rate of 75%? Why or why not?

 

[bbsam]

You can levy whatever tax you want against corporations. They'll be paid primarily by consumers.



The simple fact is that all deficits are spending problems, not revenue problems.

The simple fact is that since the 1980s the emphasis has always been to cut taxes. Always. Nobody ever cuts spending. Ever.

So deficits continue to increase exponentially. Are we supposed to assume that one day we’ll wake up and magically decide to cut spending? After all the evidence suggests that won’t happen? Whatever would make you think such a thing?

And it brings me to the question I’ve had for a long time:

22 year old: “Why should we pay you Social Security benefits?”

65 year old: “Because I paid into it for 45 years!”

22 year old: “Did you pay for the Iraq war?”

65 year old: “Well, no. Not really.”

22 year old: “Why is this country so far in debt?”

65 year old: “Democrats! (Republicans!)”

22 year old: “So y’all paid into Social Security for all those years and ignored all the other expenses?”

65 year old: “Well…”

22 year old: “And now you want me to pay out your Social Security and all the bills you ignored for 45 years?!?”

 

[bbsam]

@DriveInDriveOut
@Cactus

Both of you disagree. Do you disagree simply because it will take away from a benefit that you now or soon will receive?

Or is it that Social Security is a promise made to citizens and we’ve never promised younger generations that we’d actually be fiscally responsible? They have no right to complain about the enormous debt they’ve been saddled with?

I’m actually very curious about how that thinking goes.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

@DriveInDriveOut

I disagree with your logic that because national politicians continue to spend ridiculously, conservatives should just accept high taxes.

It's nonsense. The more we tax the more they'll spend. Keeping taxes low is the only check on their spending that we have at this point, why would I give that up?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

@DriveInDriveOut
@Cactus

Do you disagree simply because it will take away from a benefit that you now or soon will receive?

Or is it that Social Security is a promise made to citizens and we’ve never promised younger generations that we’d actually be fiscally responsible? They have no right to complain about the enormous debt they’ve been saddled with?

I’m actually very curious about how that thinking goes.

I support the elimination or privatization of social security. I would sacrifice what I've paid in already for that.

I do not support the idea that someone deserves to not have to work after age 65 just for the accomplishment of not dying.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

I disagree with your logic that because national politicians continue to spend ridiculously, conservatives should just accept high taxes.

It's nonsense. The more we tax the more they'll spend. Keeping taxes low is the only check on their spending that we have at this point, why would I give that up?

It would be helpful if they talk the kids in school how they responsible but instead of that they push the Democratic socialism if the government will take care of you don't worry about it

 

[Fred's Myth]

The simple fact is that since the 1980s the emphasis has always been to cut taxes. Always. Nobody ever cuts spending. Ever.

So deficits continue to increase exponentially. Are we supposed to assume that one day we’ll wake up and magically decide to cut spending? After all the evidence suggests that won’t happen? Whatever would make you think such a thing?

And it brings me to the question I’ve had for a long time:

22 year old: “Why should we pay you Social Security benefits?”

65 year old: “Because I paid into it for 45 years!”

22 year old: “Did you pay for the Iraq war?”

65 year old: “Well, no. Not really.”

22 year old: “Why is this country so far in debt?”

65 year old: “Democrats! (Republicans!)”

22 year old: “So y’all paid into Social Security for all those years and ignored all the other expenses?”

65 year old: “Well…”

22 year old: “And now you want me to pay out your Social Security and all the bills you ignored for 45 years?!?”

View attachment 373411

Your one-sided conversation wins only if it goes unchallenged.
Those who receive SS paid for the Iraq War. Liberal spending misappropriated the money for their own programs instead of paying the bill. Conservatives, seeing that, decided that if the money is going to be wasted anyway, that the wage-earners should keep what they earned.
Your envy of the wealth of those who earned it says volumes.

 

[bacha29]

So, you want limp prosecution with short jail sentences. Tell me where we've cut spending to Federal prisons? Remember, you Dems hold the pursestrings now. And what does that have to do with local crime and state prisons?

One of the major network news outlets did a thorough investigation of the matter and the numbers they quoted came directly from the federal Bureau of Corrections .And they interviewed a number of current and recently quit corrections officers. Two most common complaints....Low pay ($45,000) a year, mandatory overtime due to staffing shortages and increased threat to personal safety due to insufficient and often below minimum staffing requirements per cell block.
Main reasons given.....budget constraint driven hiring freezes...And given that you personally haven't paid in a dime in years and years yet you have the audacity to cry about minimal sentences , early releases and minimal bail.
And yet you holler for tax cuts for those who dutifully pay in every week or every quarter....Fine, but by law the reduced revenues have to be made up with cuts some place else....The Bureau of Corrections happens to be one of those places.

 

[bacha29]

It is obligated to operate in a fiscally sound manner. The fact that it is "not a business" is not an excuse for it to lose billions of dollars each year.

And now that they've been given a long overdue opportunity to operate much more freely on a much more level playing field and one that might just put your beloved Fedex in a position where it can no longer operate in it's current management bloated and duplication saturated environment and still survive.

 

[AKCoverMan]

And now that they've been given a long overdue opportunity to operate much more freely on a much more level playing field and one that might just put your beloved Fedex in a position where it can no longer operate in it's current management bloated and duplication saturated environment and still survive.

How are they competing on a level playing field when supported by the Government? UPS and FedEx pay in corporate income tax money and road use and fuel tax…does USPS? USPS certainly not paying tax on income they lose money. Ever notice their usps Owned vehicles all have government plates? No registration no license fees. What else to they get a break on because they are a government entity?

Government should let private business compete with each other, not with the government.

 

[bbsam]

Your one-sided conversation wins only if it goes unchallenged.
Those who receive SS paid for the Iraq War. Liberal spending misappropriated the money for their own programs instead of paying the bill. Conservatives, seeing that, decided that if the money is going to be wasted anyway, that the wage-earners should keep what they earned.
Your envy of the wealth of those who earned it says volumes.

Everything you said misses the point. The younger generations have gotten screwed by the US government. I know you want to be able to give conservatives a pass on this, but they’ve always patted themselves on the back and refused to put their names on meaningful spending cuts…unless of course they knew the spending cuts wouldn’t pass.

Why?

Because spending cuts are political suicide? Ever see a senator vote to close a military base in his own state? Ever see a representative not take FEMA funds? Of course not. Whether there are deficits or not, conservatives will spend as much of not more than democrats. It’s not even an argument with merit to say otherwise.

 

[bbsam]

I disagree with your logic that because national politicians continue to spend ridiculously, conservatives should just accept high taxes.

It's nonsense. The more we tax the more they'll spend. Keeping taxes low is the only check on their spending that we have at this point, why would I give that up?

Accept high taxes? Of course not! Cut spending! They had every branch of the government with Trump as president and they did the very easy tax cuts and faded away while pointing fingers at democrats trying to blame them for not cutting spending. It’s insane.