Ep. 582 Democrats are Lying About the GOP Tax Plan
In this episode - Democrats are lying about the Republicans’ tax plan. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-are-lying-about-republican-tax-plan-says-washington-post-fact-checker/article/2639367 If global warming is real then why isn’t the globe actually warming? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/01/global-temperature-continues-to-cool/ This tax deduction actually encourages higher taxes. http://dailysignal.com/2017/11/01/tax-deduction-forces-americans-subsidize-high-tax-states/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTURFeU0yWTVORE15TVRjMiIsInQiOiJRblB2clZKNkJOaERCRWpRZGxmNENnbFVIdEoxOVRiVUlDa3I2ZmZ0dUNuY2xKVXBubUdKaWpzZTBIT2R3T0pJNjF5d3pBbzBHVTNMVHM4Y2hpaytWbmZPOGdnVDhuelhlV2U4T29TM2JcL21KXC94V3A3N05kYlpkaTZYbXpxeFAyIn0%3D What can be done to stop vehicle attacks? http://dailysignal.com/2017/11/01/what-can-be-done-to-stop-terrorist-vehicular-attacks/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell%22&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTURFeU0yWTVORE15TVRjMiIsInQiOiJRblB2clZKNkJOaERCRWpRZGxmNENnbFVIdEoxOVRiVUlDa3I2ZmZ0dUNuY2xKVXBubUdKaWpzZTBIT2R3T0pJNjF5d3pBbzBHVTNMVHM4Y2hpaytWbmZPOGdnVDhuelhlV2U4T29TM2JcL21KXC94V3A3N05kYlpkaTZYbXpxeFAyIn0%3D Here’s another Obamacare scam which is hurting your wallet. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-deception-behind-those-in-network-health-discounts-1509487216
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Dan Bongino. I owe you, who owes who? You owe me, I owe you, there's no money!
The Dan Bongino Show. Anything run by liberals will be run into the ground,
burned, stepped on, gasoline poured on it and burned again.
Get ready to hear the truth about America.
They're arguing about things and debating how quickly they can deconstruct the greatest country in the history of mankind and all of the ideas and norms that have gotten us here.
On a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
Alright, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Yes, this is the Dan Bongino Show and I am glad to be here with you, Dan Bongino.
Did you have to think about that for a second?
I was like, how are you doing?
That was not a delay.
You know, we record two separate streams here.
I'm talking to Joe live right now on Skype, but you're here in two separate streams.
That is not Joe's mistake, Derek.
Joe actually took a few minutes there.
I'm okay.
Yeah, things are good.
Yeah.
All right.
Gosh, again, the news days.
Just don't turn away from the television for a moment.
So let's get right into it.
I've been seeing this story around about this enemy combatant, this animal who ran these people down in Manhattan with the rented vehicle who pledged allegiance to ISIS.
Joe, by the way, one thing I find just outrageous and the guy, the killer, the Manhattan terrorist who ran people down on the West Side Highway on the bike path killed eight people and injured many more.
The guy, did you hear this, that he now wants an ISIS flag in his hospital room?
Oh yeah, yeah, no sweat Daddy-O.
Let's get on that.
Hey, somebody go to Amazon.
Any Prime members here?
Yeah, let's pick up an ISIS flag for this imbecile.
You know what the...
ISIS flag for his room?
You know what?
They should get him the ISIS flag, the black ISIS flag, and black out everything all over the room so he gets no sunlight ever.
It'll be like a prison in there, you know?
Dope.
I want an ISIS flag.
What an idiot.
I heard this story, I'm like, now I know the NYPD cops because I was one.
And when he made that request to whoever's guarding the room outside, when they came in or whatever prosecutor or something came in, they were probably like, dude, Are you freaking serious, you savage?
What a beast.
But, you know, that's just a side note.
What I wanted to talk about is there's a, just briefly here from, give you a little law enforcement perspective, cause I like the inside baseball.
There's a little bit of a debate raging right now.
Should we have Mirandize this guy or not?
And again, I'm seeing a lot of commentary, you know, which is, I don't want to say you don't know what they're talking about, but people are saying stuff and I'm like, really?
You sure about that?
Here's how this works.
Here's the argument.
The argument on one side is this animal up in New York that ran these people down.
We should not have Mirandized him.
And we should have just interviewed and interrogated him and got the information.
And then we can declare him maybe an enemy combatant later, send him to Gitmo.
That's kind of one stream, Joe.
The other stream fork in the road would be let's process him through the United States federal justice system and treat him like we would any other criminal.
And in fact, Mirandize him before that.
Now, Those aren't necessarily two completely divergent paths.
Folks, here's how Miranda works, and here's the takeaway you need to understand that I don't think a lot of people have said on the television commentary.
The way it works at the federal and local level, Miranda equals custody plus interrogation.
Don't ever forget that.
Now what does that mean to you?
Now Joe, maybe I should set this up a bit.
I'm assuming you all know, most of you probably know what your Miranda rights are.
Named after the case, Oscar Miranda, you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
Many of you have heard Miranda rights, probably not because you've been arrested, but because you've probably seen it on TV.
You have the right to remain silent.
That's what the Miranda rights are.
Those Miranda rights do not have to be read to you.
That is actually a myth.
Miranda equals custody plus interrogation.
Meaning, if you plan on using the comments the bad guy is going to make and the answers to your questions in a court proceeding, and you are asking him questions, interrogating him, and he is not free to leave, you have to read him Miranda.
Okay.
Now, That's what I mean by custody plus interrogation.
All right, good.
If I walk into your house, Joe, and I arrest you for felonious mopery on the open seas.
Again?
Right?
Yeah.
Or I want to question you.
Let me rewind that tape.
All right.
I want to question you for felonious mopery on the open seas.
You've been locked up for that before?
Yeah.
Felonious mopery on the open seas.
I walk in your house and I want to question you as a Secret Service agent, and you say to me, Am I free to go?
And I say yes.
Or I say to you, you're free to leave at any time.
You are not under arrest.
I do not have to read you your Miranda rights.
At all.
Custody plus interrogation.
You are not in custody.
Now.
My humble opinion, it's always advisable to read Miranda because, Joe, what do you think, you know, if I'm there, I got you under questioning for felonious mopery, what do you think's gonna happen?
You're gonna tell your lawyer what?
I didn't really feel like I could leave, but he told you you could leave, yeah, but he had a guy standing by the door dangling handcuffs, and you know what?
Sadly, in our liberal courts, even though I tell you, Joe, you're not in custody, You may still win that case because they may say, well, even though you didn't say it, your partner was by the door dangling handcuffs.
You see what I'm saying?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So custody, even though I say you're not in custody, It gets very delicate.
As a federal agent, and even as a local cop, I always erred on the side of reading Miranda.
Okay.
But, legally speaking, if I'm going to use your answers to the felonious mopery charge in a court proceeding, or in any proceeding that involves this, you know, initial appearance, whatever it may be, right?
You have to be in custody for custody plus interrogation.
All right.
Now, why does that apply to this case?
Because in this case, it's clear as day he was in custody, okay?
After he ran these people down and was shot by this hero cop, this guy Nash, who shot him and stopped this, you know, thank the Lord for this, uh, this guy.
It's clear he was under arrest, in custody.
So any questions asked at that point, the answers to those questions, if they were going to be used in court, you would have to Mirandize him.
But in a terrorism situation like this, Joe, the pressing issue, especially in an open and shut case, Joe, multiple eyewitnesses, you don't need him to say anything, right?
I mean, in a case like that, Joe, he mows down, he kills eight people, injures, what, 15, 20 more.
There's probably close to 100 witnesses.
If this guy doesn't say a word, if they remove his voice box, you are still going to get a prosecution in a federal court, right?
Sure.
Pretty simple.
You're going to have a hundred people on the stand and go, yeah, that guy ran me over.
Case closed.
Goodbye.
Go to jail.
So my point in this is when it comes to a terrorism situation, even though you have custody and interrogation, sometimes you're better off not Mirandizing people because you can then, he doesn't have to have a lawyer present and you can get information like, hey, are there other people out there in cars right now looking to run other people down?
Do you see what I'm saying, Joe?
Yeah.
This is interesting.
Yeah.
Now, those statements, if you do not Mirandize him...
Okay?
Those statements cannot be used against him.
That's why the Miranda rights, okay?
Whatever you say can and will be used against you, we quote a law.
If you don't read him Miranda, and it's custody, which he was in custody, and you're interrogating him, you can use the statements for the investigation.
If he says, yes, there's another guy on 57th Street getting ready to run people down right now, you can use it.
You just can't use it in a prosecution.
But in a case like this, Joe, I'd make the case strongly that who cares?
You already have multiple eyewitnesses and the pressing issue now is breaking up this terror plot and you can always go, although I don't agree with it, you can always go the enemy combatant route later.
Meaning you ship them to Gitmo, it's not really going to matter.
I don't think that's the best move in this case, personally.
But do you see the point I'm trying to make?
Yeah.
That Miranda is custody plus interrogation.
If they read in Miranda, and now you may say, well, why is reading Miranda, I think in this case, a mistake?
It doesn't prevent him from talking.
No.
But a lot of these guys, after you read the Miranda, will say, well, I want my lawyer.
And any lawyer is going to tell their client to shut up.
And you're not going to get anything.
Are there other co-conspirators?
Are there other plots going on?
So that's why I wouldn't even invite a lawyer in by reading Miranda if it was me in that case.
But I've seen kind of a really hot debate about this right now, but here are the takeaways from this.
Custody plus interrogation.
If you plan, if he's in custody and you ask him questions and you plan on using the answers, you better Mirandize that person, him or her.
But you don't have to do it.
You don't have to do it if you don't want to use the information.
You just want to use it to shut down an ongoing plot.
And I think in this case, my humble opinion, Miranda was a mistake.
But, again, I've seen a lot of people out there talking about it.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, it made a lot of sense.
It makes me look at it in a different light.
Yeah, because everybody thinks, oh, you have to read me your Miranda rights.
I love when I was a cop and people would say that.
I usually did, but if I had no intentions of asking you questions, I'd usually read them anyway.
But I remember saying to one guy, actually I don't, um, I will read them to you, but I don't have to, I'm not asking you anything.
If you're under arrest, folks, make no mistake, the police officer agent is under no obligation to read you Miranda at all.
A lot of them, no legal obligation.
If he asks you questions and he wants to use them, yes, but he is under no obligation whatsoever to read you Miranda.
That's a TV myth.
You got to read me my rights.
No, I actually don't.
Until I ask you questions, I don't have to do anything.
Now, again, most of them do, and it's probably best, it's a best practice to do so, but a lot of garbage information floating around after this.
I was like, gosh, these dudes know what they're talking about?
All right.
Gosh, tax plan Thursday today.
So the tax plan's out.
I'm going to get to that in a second, be good in the bank, because this is going to require a minute.
Um, but I wanted to answer just some email of your, uh, listener email that, sorry, the listener email I got yesterday about that story about motherhood, man, did that get, I get some emails on that one.
I thought it was an interesting story, but not that it was a throwaway.
I don't put throwaway stories in my.
But I thought it was something I'd mention quickly at the end that would pique the audience's interest, because it interests mine.
And man, did I get some feedback.
So the gist of the story was this.
You liked that story too?
No, I mentioned that when we finished the show, didn't I?
It went in a different direction and I really, really liked it.
I thought that mother story was great.
Yeah, I know you did.
Well apparently the audience agrees with producer Joe because I did get a ton of feedback and the headline of the story, the takeaway about motherhood was there is a researcher being beaten up by the left right now because she put out a scientifically backed up research paper showing how young children Need their mothers for the first thousand days.
Need their mothers around.
She was not making a social statement, she was just putting out a scientific paper and the left is now beating her up because the left of course doesn't want women to feel bad for being in the workplace and I explained my personal story how the article impacted my wife and I deeply because we had our oldest daughter when she was young in that time period In daycare for a portion of it, and we felt really bad about it.
You know, it's tough.
My wife and I spoke about it for half an hour.
So the gist of it is this, is that the central nervous system of the baby cannot regulate itself.
It needs the mother's constant attention and soothing because the baby's central nervous system cannot stop it.
So the baby, he or she can't stop himself or herself from crying.
They need the mother's constant attention and soothing and feel and touch and words and sound and all of that.
And when they're not around for the first thousand days, the mother, and it says the father's great, but the father does not have the same hormonal makeup the father's uh the father's hormones produce a protective urge and an aggressive urge when necessary and women's will women will produce more produce more of a soothing urge this is just the paper okay don't don't email me about this is her opinion on it but she backs it up
And a lot of people email me.
And one guy emailed me and he said, you know, Dan, you're very good at explaining the why, but you didn't explain the why in that piece, why the left is going nuts.
So I want to just quickly sum that up for you because he's right.
I just, I didn't think the story was going to get as much attention as it did.
And by the way, I didn't put the story in the show notes because it's a Wall Street Journal piece.
I'm getting a lot of negative feedback on Wall Street Journal articles because they're subscription only.
But if you Google Erica with a C, Comisar.
C-O-M-I-S-A-R.
Wall Street Journal.
The piece comes right up at the top.
And I'm sure it's somewhere where it's not subscription only.
But that's the reason it's not in there.
I don't want to put a subscription only piece.
People send me negative emails back and they get upset about it.
But you can read the piece yourself.
And you can just read her work.
I mean, you don't even have to read the journal piece.
Just read her stuff.
But it's a fascinating thing.
And here's why, folks.
And forgive me for not explaining it the first time.
The far left, not all Democrats, but the radical far left, uh, takes its...
talking points.
It's built its ideological house on a bedrock of Marxism and socialism.
And the original Marxists and socialists always wanted to disconnect people from any source of objective values.
You're probably like, oh my gosh, what the hell does that mean?
Marx and the early socialists understood that in order to completely empower the state, the government, Over people's lives, over their tax dollars.
I don't mean this in a philosophical way, I mean this in a tangible, touchable way.
In order to take people's money, in order to take people's health care, in order to send them to government-run schools, in order for government to regulate people's businesses to death so they have de facto ownership over them, that you were going to have to accept a value system dictated by the state.
Does that make sense, Joe?
In order for you to turn over your freedom and liberty to the state, you would have to accept the fact that the state dictates what's good and what's bad.
I mean, think about it, right?
If you believe, by nature, That you are a powerful individual, an individual entrepreneur who should have control over his or her sphere of influence in your own life.
It's very difficult for you to give your money, your health care, your business, and your kids over to the state, right?
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, who needs a mother when you got the state?
Exactly!
Bingo!
So Marx understood early on, and so did the early and now, you know, our current day socialists, that any source of objective values is competition for values imbued into you by the state.
You have to accept the state for your values.
With the state values, you'll value.
The state values spending your money, you turn it over.
The state values controlling your health care, you'll give it to them.
You have to understand them as this benevolent force in your life.
The only way to do that was to wipe out the competition.
Now think about what your other source of values are that would compete with the state.
Church, religion, faith, family.
Now does it make sense why the left is in a constant battle to attack Christianity?
To attack women who choose to stay at home?
To attack the family structure.
Oh, a family can be anything.
It could be seven men, 14 women, two men, and 17 women.
No, a family, a nuclear family by traditional values, a man, a woman, and children.
You say that to a leftist, you're a familyist.
You're a famiphobe.
You know, they'll make up a phobophobist, a phobe term, because that's what they do.
That is just a fact!
The standard nuclear family in the United States, biologically speaking, that can produce children is a father, a mother, and kids.
The left hates that because the family is a source of independent values, just like people get values from their church.
And religion.
That's why religion and the family are always under attack.
They want to redefine the family to mean anything they think it means.
I hope I'm not confusing you here.
And one of the ways they attack the family as a source of independent values and a competitor with the state, state values only, the state says matters, matters, not what the family matters, is to break the family up.
And one of the ways they've tried to break the family up is to push women out of the family and into the workplace.
Folks, please, don't mistake what I'm telling you.
I have a wife who works, I have two daughters, I strongly support them taking the career path of their choice.
Absolutely.
Don't misinterpret what I'm saying.
And I'm not apologizing in advance either.
I just know the kooky Looney Tunes leftists out there and I know how they are.
I'm simply suggesting to you that there are some women, just like there are probably some guys out there, who will choose in the early years to stay at home and raise and rear children.
The left hates that idea because what are those years, Joe?
Those are three years, those thousand days the author talks about that are formative years where she suggests that the mother should be there for the kid where the woman is not in the work sphere and is being influenced by the family sphere which is a competitor for the state.
Does that make sense?
Yeah.
They constantly want to push women to make decisions, not that women want to make, but they want to make for you.
It's actually the opposite of feminism.
Some women may want to work and may not have kids.
That's a perfectly viable decision.
Some may want to work later in life.
Some may want to work while they have kids.
Some may want to work, take some years off to raise their kids, and go back.
That is a choice you should make, and you should make only with the right information.
And the information I told you yesterday from this research, Pete, is strong.
And I believe it is absolutely correct.
And the left is always afraid of science and the real world.
Because they know that any woman deciding to stay out of the workplace, just for those years of staying at home, will be influenced by a family sphere, which is a direct competitor to the state.
And forgive me for not getting deeper into that.
Why?
Because it's a very important piece.
There is a reason, a very strategic, tactical reason that the far-left liberals will constantly attack the meaning of the family, the value of the family.
They will constantly attack the church and religion as well.
Because they are competitors.
I always think of that movie, which I always get the title right, the American Beauty, the Kevin Spacey movie, which all the stories about him go, where you see these stories about the American family in Hollywood, and they're always how dysfunctional it is.
The wife's having an affair in that movie, the husband's a weirdo, he has a crush on the daughter's kid.
This is what they do.
They degrade the family in movies to make you believe that the family, Joe, is important.
is not a source of values.
When in fact it is.
Because it's a competitor for the state.
Okay.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at Brickhouse Nutrition.
You know, I'm a big supporter of these guys.
They've been with us from the beginning.
Big fan of Miles.
He's great at customer service, too.
I get tons of great feedback, thankfully, and I appreciate all of you email me on it, on their signature product now, Dawn to Dusk.
The sales have been incredible for the very obvious reason that we all live super busy lives.
Joe and I are both up all day.
Literally, Joe is up all day.
Joe gets up at like two o'clock in the morning, whatever.
But they're very busy lives.
I got a busy week coming up.
A lot of Fox stuff coming up in the next few days.
I need to get through the day, folks.
And I can't have 55 cups of coffee.
So dawn to dusk is very convenient for me.
It comes in a small bottle, by the way, which is nice.
You can throw it in your pocket or whatever if you need to take one.
But it's an energy pill.
It will give you about 10 hours of continuous time-released energy.
Nice little mood elevation.
Nice elevation in energy.
It keeps you going throughout the day.
You know what's nice about it?
You don't get jittery.
So sometimes you forgot you even, you're like seven or eight hours in, you feel great, you're rocking and rolling through your day, and honestly you forget you're taking it sometimes, because it's that good.
You don't want to know you took an energy pill, Joe.
You just want to feel good.
You don't want to be like, you got the jitters and you can barely stand still.
That's not how this stuff is supposed to work.
And that's what these guys master.
It's a really terrific product.
It's called Dawn to Dusk.
Give it a shot.
Send me a review.
Whatever you're working mom, working dad, CEOs, you know, you're out there.
You're a union worker out there.
You're manual labor.
I used to dig graves.
You're a grave digger out there.
Go give it a shot.
Crossfitters, MMA guys, military folks, cops.
It's perfect to get you through the day.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up a bottle of Dawn to Dust today.
Okay, so it's Tax Plan Thursday.
Here's what I've got on the tax plan that is going to be released today.
First, I want to re-emphasize a point I brought up the other day because I was, again, rushing to get this story out.
Forgive me, I apologize.
But it was a very important Daily Signal piece.
It's in the show notes from either yesterday or the day before.
But it makes the point, folks, strongly, that there are no rich dollars.
What do I mean?
What are you talking about, Dan?
Statistics can be tortured, folks, and the Democrats with this tax plan are going to go back to the playbook, Joe, they've been doing for, gosh, what, 50 years?
They have been on this, this is a tax break for the rich, the wealthy, the Rockefellers, Daddy Warbucks, Thurston Howell.
They figured out a long time ago that this is all they got.
They don't want to deal with the facts and data and the mechanics of cash flows and money.
They don't care about any of that.
They are just going to go back to their focus group tested talking point.
Income inequality, rich people benefit, you're getting screwed, which is absolutely not true.
Now, before we get to the details of the plan, there are no rich tax dollars.
I'm going to prove it to you.
I said this to you the other day, but I'm going to repeat it because it's worth repeating.
Here's how the Democrats will frame this.
They will say, well, only one in 150 people pay the top rate, the top tax rate in the country right now, which is 39.6.
They'll say, well, and Joe, understandably so, a lot of our listeners, maybe you included, although you've already heard this, you say one in 150 people pay the top rate.
All right, that's no big deal.
So let them pay the top tax rate.
Now, who cares?
Like, what's the problem?
We need a middle-class tax cut.
Folks, There are no rich dollars.
What do I mean by that?
A dollar in the economy, in the free market economy, multiplies.
A dollar in the government economy is divided.
The government doesn't produce anything!
The government produces, does not engage in value-added activities.
The government doesn't make iPhones.
The government doesn't make computers, flat-screen TVs.
It doesn't make anything.
The government takes.
Anything the government takes is going to be divided out of the economy.
Any dollar left in the economy will multiply.
We'll multiply because that dollar will be spent, that the spent dollar will wind up in another person's pocket, at some point that dollar will be invested in a product that grows, it grows productivity, it makes that dollar worth more.
The idea should be to keep dollars in the economy, not to divide them by giving them to government.
Now, how does this relate to that number I just told you?
How 1 in 150 people pay the top rate?
It doesn't matter!
So what, those dollars because rich people have a big R on them?
With a Daddy Warbucks symbol?
It's a dollar!
Now to show you how there are no rich dollars, there's only dollars in the economy, and who owns them frankly doesn't really matter much.
What matters is that they're in the economy.
And they stay there.
You give them to people who are poor, they'll spend it on food.
The dollar will wind up with the food company.
The food company will use the dollar to invest in better water filtration on its plants or whatever, or they'll be able to make more food, which will make the food cheaper, which will bump up the wages of the people working.
You want to keep as many dollars as possible in the free market economy.
That leads to my second point, showing you how the left tortures statistics.
They'll say, oh, only those rich people, very few of them pay this.
Yes, but they earn 20% of the money.
That one in 150 people, Joe, that pays the top rate, that one person, those people in our economy, they earn 20% of the money.
So one in five dollars is effectively subjected to a higher tax rate.
It doesn't matter that it's the rich that pay.
What matters is a one in five dollars in the U.S.
economy will be subjected to the higher rate if we don't cut the top tax rate for those evil rich people.
I say that at the height of sarcasm.
Do you see where I'm going with this show?
Yeah.
It matters that the money in the economy is taxed, not who owns it.
The rich people, well they're just gonna sock it away.
Where?
In banks?
Alright, what do the banks do with it?
They burn it!
They lend it!
To who?
To you!
What's important is the money stay in the free market economy and 20% of the money is owned by those 1 in 150 rich people who pay that tax rate.
This is stupid class warfare nonsense.
This is dumb.
The idea should be to tax money in the economy less, not to worry about who has it.
This is a scam!
One in five dollars in the economy, don't ever forget that statistic, 20% are going to be subjected to an unnecessarily high rate.
Okay, second takeaway from Tax Plan Thursday.
Let me go over the good and the bad here for a minute.
I even underlined this, to keep this readable and coherent for you.
Here's the good, what we've seen so far.
We've discussed some of this before.
It looks like the standard deduction is going to go up to $24,000, meaning just about everyone in America is not going to pay taxes on their first $24,000 in income.
Okay?
All right.
Just about.
So meaning if you make $100,000, your first $24,000 is not going to be taxed.
So you would pay taxes on what?
$76,000.
Makes sense?
Pretty simple math.
If you make $23,000, you will not be taxed federally.
When I talk about payroll taxes here, we're talking about income taxes, okay?
You will not be taxed at all.
Well, why?
Because the first $24,000 will be a standard deduction.
That's for families, by the way.
For married families.
Households.
Okay?
I shouldn't say households.
That always screws people up.
Married couples.
$24,000 won't be taxed.
If you make $25,000, you'll be taxed on $1,000.
Right.
Because it's obviously $1,000 more than $24,000.
Okay?
That's the good news.
That will double from $10,000, $11,000, where it is now for families.
So that's very good news.
That'll save a bunch of people money.
Secondly, the marginal rates are down, but not the top marginal rate.
Now, I'll get to that in a second.
This is important.
The good news too, the standard local deduction for property taxes looks like it's going to go away, which is great for people who don't live in deep blue states.
If you're in deep blue states and your state and local tax bill is phenomenal, you're probably not going to be able to write that off anymore.
But folks, I can't say this enough, we all got to get big and getting a deduction for massive tax rates in blue states does nothing but incentivize blue states to tax the hell out of you even more.
It looks like that's going to go away.
I say looks like because this is going to go to committees and it's going to be bounced around and who knows what the final bill is going to be.
That's why I'm just giving you the outline right now of what we know so far.
The corporate tax rate looks like it's going to dump down to 20 from 35 which is brilliant.
I'm telling you I will put my credibility on this if that happens.
You are going to get a raise.
Not everyone, but a good portion of America is going to get a pretty significant raise in the end because businesses are going to be saving tremendous amounts of money on their tax bills, which has to, folks, has to filter down to you.
Remember, they can invest it, they can consume it, or they can spend it.
A business can spend the money.
Give it a dividends, pension funds, stockholders.
They can invest it in other companies, which by the way benefits other companies, or they consume it on themselves and they can build new factories, new plants.
Either way it's going to lead to more productivity.
I'm absolutely convinced this corporate tax cut is going to lead to significant raises for a good portion of Americans.
Secondly, they're bumping the pass-through rates for non-incorporated businesses.
So if you have a small business, whatever, Joe's Telephones or whatever it is, and he's not incorporated, that pass-through rate will be 25%.
The rate now is closer to 40%, so that's all good news.
So that's the good.
Here's the bad news.
The top rate, the top marginal tax rate looks like it's gonna stay at 39.6, which my... I just explained to you, and I think this is a SOP to class warfare warriors on the Democrat side, Joe.
In other words, I think the Republicans don't want to be accused of a tax cut for the rich, but I just told you there's no such thing as a rich dollar.
What matters is where the money is, and 20% of the money is being earned by those 1 in 150 people who pay the top rate.
The idea is to keep money in the free market economy, not to make rich people richer.
This is a mistake.
This is a huge mistake.
Again, it's an opening bid, so I don't want to be overly dramatic, but it looks like the top rate is not going to move.
Now, I know I'm on the bad stuff, we did the good and the bad, but let me give you the good part of the bad stuff.
Is it good, bad, and the good part of the bad stuff?
What's... I wish this rate would go down.
I wish it would go down to the rates, the top rate we had in the Reagan years where we were booming, which was 28%.
It's now at 11 points higher at about 39%.
The one good takeaway from that rate not moving is the marginal rates going up there are all going down too, in addition to a doubling of the standard deduction.
So let's say, Joe, You make a million dollars a year.
A good swath of your income is going to be subjected to that 39.6% rate.
Yes.
Maybe $400,000 and up.
But given that the rates down below the middle class rates between like $50,000 and $100,000 of income are still going down for those $50,000 and $100,000 earners, That rate goes down for you too.
Yes it does.
Because to make a million dollars you had to have at some point made fifty or a hundred thousand even if it's in your first month.
Right.
But the rate you pay on all of that income up to the top rate is going to go down in addition to the standard deduction doubling.
So the so-called rich Joe may actually not do too badly on this even though the top rate doesn't go down.
Does that make sense?
I gotcha.
So top rate not going down is bad, but a slight sliver of hope is that the rates up through the top rate go down.
So wealthy people may actually even save a little bit of money on this.
The other bad thing is the mortgage deduction stays, which folks, I get it.
I totally understand.
I benefit strongly from the mortgage deduction, the ability to deduct interest payments on your mortgage from your tax bill.
I benefit strongly from this.
So I'm not speaking with forked tongue.
I think it's a mistake.
Now, I wouldn't get rid of it on its own.
I think if we're going to clean up the tax code, we have to get rid of all the deductions, not just target the mortgage one.
But I think it's a mistake.
I think it should be phased out and I think it keeps home values unnecessarily high.
And when I say unnecessarily high, I mean it makes us prone to ups and downs.
I understand there are a lot of people in the real estate industry to object.
I respect your opinion.
I get it.
But I just disagree.
I think the tax code needs to be wiped clean, and I think that that needs to go.
I think it is causing massive distortions in our economy.
I just wish they... I wouldn't recommend they do it on their own because, you know, targeting one industry while giving everyone else their deduction is grossly unfair.
I'd like to see a flatter tax, but it looks like that mortgage deduction is going to stay.
All right, today's show brought to you by our pals at My Patriot Supply, too.
They've been with us for a long time as well.
I'm big into preparedness, you can probably tell from most of my sponsors.
You gotta be, I say to my daughter all the time, you gotta be spiritual, gotta be strong physically, and you gotta be smart.
But spiritual first, right?
Well, listen, I don't take that approach any differently when I pick my sponsors, and one of the sponsors I really like is My Patriot Supply, because I absolutely believe in preparedness in your home.
You have to prepare.
You have to prepare for the worst.
We insure everything in our lives that matters.
You insure your health.
People insure their teeth.
They have dental insurance.
You insure your car.
You insure your house against fire.
All kinds of things that are, frankly, but mostly probably unlikely to happen.
Thankfully, most of us aren't going to get some fatal disease, but you have insurance anyway.
Why do you not have food insurance?
Folks, it's crazy.
You gotta have food insurance.
Get yourself a box of My Patriot Supply One Month Emergency Supply Food.
It will last you 25 years.
Comes in an easily storable box.
Stick it in your closet.
The best day of your life is the day you never need it.
But God forbid, God forbid something happens.
We've seen what happens with these storms, North Korean EMP attacks.
The likelihood of one day of you actually needing this stuff, sadly, is not as low as we'd like it to be.
Ensure your food supply.
Go to preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com today for just $99.
Pick up your one month emergency supply of food.
I have multiple boxes of this.
Only needs water for you to prepare it.
It lasts for 25 years.
Give them a shot.
It's a really good company and they do the right thing and they're great.
They've been with us for a long time.
Go to preparewithdan.com.
All right, one article I'll put in the show notes today.
I'm just going to make this one quick because it's just, again, it talks about the left and how they're just obsessed with this idea of climate change.
Well, I'm talking about that, but the piece... I love facts and data that refute far-left narratives.
It'd be at bongino.com.
If you subscribe to my email list, I'll email it to your inbox.
There's an article up today, Joe.
It's very short, very sweet, a little wonky, but you'll get the gist of it by reading it.
Global warming, Joe.
Global warming.
It's a catastrophe.
It's happening everywhere.
The globe is warm.
We're all going to fry.
We're all going to cook.
We're living in a greenhouse.
We're all going to die of skin cancer.
Yeah, except for the fact that this article points out today that both ocean temperatures and global air temperatures are... dropping!
See?
From May 2014 to now, now that the El Nino has passed, the global air temperatures and the ocean temperatures are actually dropping.
Yeah, with a D and an R in the beginning.
I was gonna say, see?
It's global warming.
They're dropping.
That's the kind of crap you get, you know?
Read the article, it's really short, but just send it to all your liberal friends and ask them to explain that.
And it doesn't matter, because one thing about liberals I think I've proven over time during the content portion of the show when I'm not, Joe and I are messing around, is that Liberals have an excuse for everything.
It doesn't matter what you say.
Really, just send it to them to drive them nuts.
Because they're all scientists, except for the fact that their science never works for them.
It only works for us.
Because science is facts and data, and the facts and data are this.
The globe isn't warming.
Okay?
So chew on those apples.
So send them the piece.
Again, I'll put it in the show notes today.
It's a pretty good one, though.
It has a chart in there too because I know liberals have a tough time reading stuff, but you can read the chart and see that clearly global temperatures are not going up and that global warming is a far-left liberal scam being pulled on you.
Alright, I got another viewer email yesterday that I thought was really funny.
I actually got it this morning.
I'm not gonna say who, what, or what agency, but guy's a law enforcement officer, and he just wanted to, I'm not patting myself on the back, I just wanted, so you know that there's multiple people out there who understand this and have been through this.
Remember during yesterday's show I told you how this crime being charged, this George Papadopoulos guy in the Trump-Russia X-Files investigation, false statements, how nobody gets charged, this is like a nonsense crime, it's like a joke.
He's like, dude, you're so right, like everybody lies to us all the time.
1001, which is false statements of the United States Code.
He's like, this is a joke that nobody ever gets charged with.
It's no less somebody who supposedly involved you in the biggest Russian collusion conspiracy theory of all time.
Folks, this thing is a total scam.
So I just want to put that.
Thank you.
I'm not going to use his name, his agency, anything.
But you know who you are.
Thanks for sending me the email.
And thanks for confirming for our audience what I said is true.
It is a nonsense crime.
It is the disorderly conduct, felonious mopery on the open seas of our time.
False statements.
Everybody makes false statements to the FBI.
Oh, all right.
All right.
Oh, this is a doozy.
Gosh, this one kills me because I said yesterday, you should never say this, but I did.
I said yesterday, I hate talking about Obamacare stories because I know you get, it's like how sucky can the suck get on Obamacare?
Like for five years, we've been hearing about how bad it is.
And I brought one up yesterday because I thought it was interesting about how Obamacare, how it incentivizes kids, the young invincibles, not to buy Obamacare and to buy another portion of Obamacare that destroys Obamacare.
So listen to yesterday's show if you want a quick update on that.
But folks, forgive me, please give me a pick because this is really killer.
There's another piece in the Wall Street Journal.
I'll put it in the show notes.
I know it's subscription only, but if you know, I'll throw it in there at the end.
But I'll give you this synopsis so you don't have to read it if you don't have a subscription.
Another portion of Obamacare designed to make Obamacare suck.
The liberals could not have screwed this thing up anymore.
First, they want young people to pay for insurance, but in Obamacare, they allow them to stay on their parents' insurance plan to not buy insurance from Obamacare.
I mean, this is like the height of liberal stupidity.
This one's another beaut right here.
I've addressed this on the show before, but never from this specific angle.
They have this thing built into Obamacare called the Medical Loss Ratio, the MLR.
And the Medical Loss Ratio is basically a government-enforced price control.
That's what it is.
Here's how it works.
It says, Joe, that if you were an insurance company, only 20% of your cash flows, your proceeds, can be spent on administrative portions of your company.
80% has to be spent on patient health care.
Now, that sounds great in theory, But what the hell does the government know about what an administrative cost is?
What do they know?
The government can't handle its own administrative costs and the government's going to tell an insurance company?
So rather than let the free market decide that, the government decided they were going to mandate this 80-20 MLR, medical loss ratio.
You must spend 80% on patient care, 20% on administration.
Now the problem with that, because there's always an unintended consequence when dopes in the government get involved, Joe, Was one thing which we brought up in the past is the mini-meds.
Mini-meds are, if you work in say a McDonald's, fast food place, a place with really high turnover.
You know, kids come in and out, they work a couple months and they leave.
A lot of these type places with high turnover were providing mini-med plans.
Catastrophic plans, Joe, meaning you're not covered for anything other than like cancer, God forbid, right?
Catastrophe only, right?
Well, these mini-med plans had really high administrative costs, over 20%.
But why would that be, Joe?
Because they were constantly processing new kids because people were coming in and out of the company.
Joe comes on.
On Monday, he quits on Friday.
Now they're processing Paula.
Paula comes on on Monday.
Now she quits.
Now they're processing Joni.
Do you see my point?
Yeah.
The administrators are working overtime in these companies to keep up with the high turnover.
The administrative costs are not a function of them stealing money.
It's a function of high turnover.
So these MiniMed costs, what happened?
The MiniMed plans went away.
So now if you were in a McDonald's type place or a place with fast and high turnover, now you have no insurance at all.
Thank you, Obamacare.
Well, here's another fascinating development I had not considered, which is beauteous.
The medical loss ratio, 80-20, is actually encouraging Both providers and health insurance companies to pay more for services.
You may say, what?
That makes zero sense, Dan.
Why would a health insurance company, Joseph, want to pay more of its money to, say, a doctor for a hip replacement, right?
I mean, if you have Joe has insurance and Joe, God forbid, you have a fake knee, right?
Yeah, I do.
Yep.
Sorry, but you can cut that out of the show if that bothers you.
I probably should have put... Yeah.
Is that alright?
Are you cool with that?
No, I'm good with that.
Just keep going.
We're getting pretty close to felonious suckery on the open internet with this Obamacare story, though.
Dude, I just like throw out Joe's personal life.
Joe has one of those knee replacements.
Not a fake knee, you know, a knee replacement.
My father-in-law has two of them, actually.
But why would it, if you have insurance, right?
So you're paying whatever, Bobby's insurance company, say $10,000 a year.
The insurance company's goal, Joe, should be to negotiate with Joe's knee doctor to say, hey, we're not paying $100,000 for Joe's knee replacement.
We'll pay $50,000.
You would think, right?
You would think.
I mean, that's not, I'm not complicated here, right, at all.
I'm not complicating things unnecessarily.
The health insurance company, you paid them a flat fee for the year, let's say $10,000 that, you know, whatever, $900 a month or so.
They don't want to pay $100,000.
Now you may be saying, well, you're saying the opposite.
Now you're saying this medical loss ratio is encouraging insurance companies and providers to raise prices?
How's that?
Because folks, think about it.
This is the unbelievable, this is again 110 on the Kangster curve of stupidity.
Now that the insurance companies can only take 20% of their administrative costs, right?
They can only take 20%.
Do you want 20% Of a knowing that these people are going to get insurance and paid for and subsidized by the government and their premiums.
Do you want 20% of a larger bill or a lesser bill?
So what they do is they encourages these PPO's and other people to puff up their prices.
Do you want 20% of $100 or do you want 20% of $1,000?
I got you.
And as the prices go up, the premiums go up, which are then reinforced by people being forced to buy insurance under Obamacare.
Does that make sense?
Yeah.
So Joe, again, do you want 20% Of a larger billing, knowing that you can up your premiums as these prices go up.
So $100,000?
Well, we're gonna have to ask Joe for $50,000 a year.
And by the way, we get 20% more.
I know it was a little confusing, but I'll make it simple for you.
You want 20% of a larger pie and this stupid medical loss ratio rather than encouraging people to go out and buy insurance that is seeking lower prices encourages them in conjunction with the provider to raise prices so they can raise premiums and get more money from you and bill 20% in the end of a higher cost procedure.
What a scam!
I mean basically you get it in the tomatoes big time.
You are getting kicked so hard.
It's like those karate videos.
Those guys who learn how to take shots to the throat and right between the legs.
