New Pornstar Galleries -
All smartbuydisc.rus > World News Nonsense > Budget Battles: Tax Spending Myths Realities > Budget Battles: Tax & Spending Myths & Realities (page 19)
Page 19 of 22 First < 7 9 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > Last
AuthorPost
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Nov 3 2017 : 6:09PM
 
All-Star Member

Your other left
28339 Posts
3/02
Posted - Nov 3 2017 : 6:26PM
^
Well, of course it is. Those are the entities that fund the Republican primaries. Naturally, they are the ones Congressmen listen to. As for working families... pfft. Where's their campaign contribution, then?
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Nov 3 2017 : 6:29PM
^some key points as seen here:

Yeah, that was bullshit.
More:

    Reduction of home mortgage deductions.
    Reduction of health care deductions
    Elimination of Student Loan interest deduction (an attack on universities, students, and especially doctoral grads)
    Elimination of deductions for state and local taxes (attack on Blue states)
    Repeal of the Johnson Amendment (churches can now behave like political PACs)


Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Nov 5 2017 : 6:14PM
Yep, top tax rates, no cuts, so no cuts for the hedge fund guys.
Standard deduction going to $24,000, so a lot more people paying no taxes, and those in the lowest brackets get a larger benefit because their first $24,000 is not taxed.
Mortgage deductions capped at $500,000. I don't know many middle class people paying over $500,000 in interest on their mortgage every year. The cap should be closer to $50,000.
State and local taxes no longer deductible. This has been talked about for decades. You will have to explain to me why someone living in a low tax state needs to subsidize the federal taxes paid by people in high tax states. Makes no sense. The only people that can control the taxes in a state are those that live their by who they elect. So because they have to pay more to their state and local revenue departments, they should get a break on their federal taxes? Makes no sense.
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Nov 5 2017 : 7:17PM
I think the tax break for the hedge fund guys is partly found in the elimination of inheritance tax, which is paid by the estate, not by the inheritors.
The estate tax elimination is of no benefit whatever to the middle class, as the first $11 million or so per couple (5.49 million per person) passes without any estate tax right now. The estate tax only applies to two out of one thousand people.
And no, it is not money that has already been taxed. First, because money is taxed whenever it passes from one person to another. Your employer pays taxes on their earnings, then you are taxed on what they pay you, then your gardener is taxed on the money you pay him or her. The inheritance of money is the passing of assets from one person to another.
Secondly, much of the holdings of the wealthy has never been taxed. The stocks they own, the real estate, the yacht, the artwork which has appreciated by millions of dollars, would be taxed when it is sold. But it's not sold. It's passed to the heirs. The heirs receive it all at a 'stepped up' value. This means that their cost basis is the value at the time they received it. If dad pays $100,000 for a painting and sells it for $1,000,000, the $900,000 gain is taxed. The same painting passed to an heir has a stepped up cost basis of $1,000,000, and if sold for $1,000,000 by the heir, is considered to have no gain.
The elimination of the estate tax allows the wealthy to not pay taxes on the gain of their properties. There is no way that it is accurate to say they are being taxed twice on the same gain.
Edited by - Pieps on 11/5/2017 7:21:01 PM

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Nov 5 2017 : 7:17PM
The estate tax repeal alone would save Trump $564 million.
Edited by - Pieps on 11/5/2017 7:18:20 PM

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Nov 5 2017 : 7:29PM
Fortune magazine:

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Nov 5 2017 : 8:01PM
That article is over a month old, and that was being considered. But what is in the bill going forward is keeping the top rate at 39.6%.
I did not address the inheritance tax, but I differ with your opinion, the money has been taxed and was saved after taxes. You can get into the whole issue of capital gains, but the point of inheritance tax that really bothers me is with farmers, and honestly I don't understand why this wasn't dealt with for farms decades ago. Private farms grow over the years. When the owner passes, a value is put on the farm and the inheritors, usually the children, have to come up with the money to pay the inheritance tax. If you understand how family farms work, they normally own a lot of valuable property, have a lot invested in the farm, and don't have a lot of cash. The kids have to sell off the farm, and this has led to the rise in corporate farms that has been going on for forty years.

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Nov 5 2017 : 8:22PM
Well, it won't save Trump anything since he'll be dead. But I believe the savings for his estate would be alot more than that. Just wondering how you calculated this number.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Nov 5 2017 : 8:41PM
The article is dated Sept 27th. I went by that.
It does point up, though, that the modus operandi is to hastily draft a bill and keep it a secret, release it and face criticism, and hastily change the bill daily or weekly so whatever points are being addressed are always a step behind. The basic design to raise the lowest tax bracket and lower the top bracket certainly reveals the basic goal, no matter what they later cloak it in.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Nov 5 2017 : 8:50PM
I didn't. I got it from a cnbc article dated September 28th, 2017 called The math was provided by Bloomberg.
I'm not sure how they calculated it either. Trump says he's worth ten billion (so you know that isn't correct),
Edited by - Pieps on 11/5/2017 8:51:01 PM
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Nov 6 2017 : 8:13AM
That's an upside-down way of looking at it. if you're living in a lower tax state, you're not "subsidizing" a higher state tax. Rather, since someone in New York (or another state with a huge population) is paying more in taxes, that's less that the federal government is paying those states for services both ordinary and emergency (biizzards, hurricanes, transportation, infrastructure, etc).
#1: Kentucky, #2 Mississippi, t They are followed by New Mexico, Alabama, West Virginia, South Carolina, Montana, Tennessee, Maine and Indiana. Six of those aforementioned states are among the Top 15 states in terms of giving Trump his biggest margin of victory, BTW.
Oh, and what about Texas and Florida? Two states with NO state tax and will be getting billions to pay for their hurricane damage.

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Nov 6 2017 : 8:56AM
Pieps, congress is working exactly the way it was designed. A bill is drafted in the house in committee, then revised in negotiation until it is brought to the house floor. So you use an article from Sept 27th that was talking about some information they had from the draft, and you are surprised when it passes on Oct 26th that some things changed? Really? They should have done nothing for a month? Guess what, it will change some more in the senate. It's called reconcilliation, the normal process that bills have been going through since our governement was established.
They didn't raise the lowest tax rate, by doubling the standard deduction they moved most of those people to zero. And those that make a little over the standard deduction still have reduced taxes because of the doubled standard deduction.
So, in the bill that has moved forward, taxes are reduced for the lowest earners and the middle class, and actually increased for the top earners by reduction in mortgage writes offs for mega houses. What does a house have to be worth to have an annual $500,000 interest payment? Let's just say $10,000,000 at 5%, I don't know the actual interest for a mortgage that large, I never had to worry about it. But now those poor people with $10 million plus houses won't be able to write off all that interest, I feel terrible for them.

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Nov 6 2017 : 9:08AM
Well, I think your way of looking at it is upside down. Federal funds flow to where they are needed as dictated by federal law. States control their own taxes and budgets and this shouldn't reduce the resident's federal income taxes.
Florida and Texas makes revenue off of other taxes.
No state pays it's own disaster relief once it has been declared a disaster by the federal government. That's what FEMA is for. You don't like it, vote someone in that wants to change federal disaster relief. New York and New Jersey received tens of billions in federal relief after Hurricane Sandy. Their high taxes were not used for disaster relief.
Edit to add New York and New Jersey info.
Edited by - tripper on 11/6/2017 9:47:46 AM
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Nov 6 2017 : 11:12AM
But New York and California are way more expensive places to live and have way more people than, say, Wyoming. Wyoming doesn't need as many social services as NY and CA do. So NY and CA need more revenue. It is also in the interest of this country to keep the economic engines of CA and NY going since they ARE the states with the biggest GDP. It's about fairness.


Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Nov 6 2017 : 12:38PM
It's not about total revenue needed, it's about revenue per person to provide services to the people. I'm using 2012 numbers because I found the state revenues for 2012. I'm adding FL and TX to your list since Wyoming, with it's very low population, is unique.


When you run the numbers state revenue per person comes out:
State Tax Revenue State Popultion Rev per Person
CA 112,372,263,000 38,041,430 $2,954
NY 71,545,745,000 19,570,261 $3,656
WY 2,550,991,000 576,412 $4,426
FL 32,997,012,000 19,317,568 $1,708
TX 48,596,548,000 26,059,203 $1,865
Sorry the chart got all jumbled, it was organized when I wrote the post, but when I previewed it, it looks jumbled, so I am pretty sure it will be when I post. In any event, the state revenue per person is still clear, has the $ sign. So FL and TX provide necessary services for less cost per person. You could argue this a lot of ways, quality of services, types of services etc. Interesting that WY came out so much higher, I can't explain that. But in any event, these are the costs for state provided services. People choose which state they want to live in based on a lot of things, jobs, quality of life, state services provided, etc.
Now you have the federal budget and services. These are provided by the federal government for all of us regardless of the state we live in. In all fairness, why should people in CA, NY, WY get a higher deduction on their federal income taxes than people in FL or TX? By the way, people at lower income levels don't itemize their taxes, so they don't get this deduction at all.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Nov 6 2017 : 12:48PM
They get a higher deduction for state income taxes because they pay more money in state income taxes.
The same way that people who pay more in interest get a higher deduction for interest, or people who pay more to charities deduct more for charitable deductions.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Nov 6 2017 : 1:11PM
A lot of people at lower income levels don't own homes and in many cases aren't paying taxes because they don't make enough.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Nov 6 2017 : 1:19PM
What Pieps said. What deductions are we going to give residents of TX and FL seeing as how they don't have a state income tax?
Also, again, I can't speak for WY which has a population of less people than Brooklyn...but in NY and CA have a ton of people they need to provide services to. high state taxes, high property taxes will follow.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Nov 6 2017 : 1:43PM
State taxes are withheld from your paycheck -- it's literally money that you never receive.
I believe that part of the intent of making state taxes deductible is because the money is used by legitimate government for purposes that are determined by a representative government, presumably for the good of the general populace. And part of the reason is presumably that it is money that you never receive; it is never at your disposal. In this instance it is much more the case than for interest, charitable deductions, or dancing lessons for your horse, which are all at your discretion.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Nov 6 2017 : 5:09PM

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Nov 6 2017 : 5:28PM
Mortgage interest is deductible on the first $500k of principal, not limited by the first $500k in interest. And this lowered deduction proposed is for new homes. Homes currently owned will still be subject to the much higher deduction cap of interest generated off of the first $1 million in principal.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Nov 6 2017 : 5:28PM
The Republican plan is perennially to cut taxes, then to announce a monetary shortage and cut services.
So, this tax cut benefits the rich. Everyone else will see small or no cuts. There will be a deficit. Services will be cut, and every kind of fees will be subject to increase.
The net result -- the rich get richer. Medicare and Medicaid get cut, along with a lot of other things. Everybody has to pay more in fees. And we still have a deficit.
Edited by - Pieps on 11/6/2017 5:30:34 PM

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Nov 6 2017 : 5:55PM
No, that’s not correct. The benefits of the tax reductions as proposed disproportionately benefits the top earners. First, the top marginal income tax rate currently kicks in at $480k in taxable income, but under this proposal, it will kick in at $1 million. Second, by removing AMT, this will lower income taxes on the highest earners. In addition, the Pease limitations on itemized deductions are proposed to be eliminated, which will reduce taxable income for high earners. And lastly, the eliminating the estate tax is a huge tax reduction to the wealthiest families in the country.
Middle and lower income taxpayers will likely see a modest tax reduction, with some getting a tax increase. Top earners will see large to very large decreases in tax. It’s nearly a mathematical impossibility for a family earning $500k+ to see an increase in their tax, should the bill pass as is. This tax bill is amped up deficit spending, and wealthy are the largest beneficiaries.
Edited by - Macko69 on 11/7/2017 3:01:22 AM
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Nov 7 2017 : 1:49AM
NYT three hours ago: [link inactive:404 - Page not found]"Republican Plan Would Raise Taxes on Millions"
This part is interesting. The standard deduction for a married couple will increase by $12,000, but their two personal exemptions, of $8,000, are taken away. A family of three loses $12,000 in personal deductions.
And then there's the loss of itemized deductions, among them the deductions for state income tax.
What the left hand giveth, the right hand taketh away. The plan is not about benefits to the middle class.


Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Nov 7 2017 : 1:51AM
Hmmmm. None of the parade of Republican spokespeople seem to be touting the loss of the personal exemption.
Could they be unaware of it? I think not.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Nov 15 2017 : 3:53PM

 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Nov 15 2017 : 4:47PM



 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Nov 15 2017 : 4:48PM
BTW, If anyone ever makes a movie about 2017, the title should most definitely be "Darkly Hilarious"

Senior Member

Real news. Fake president.
13914 Posts
3/03
Posted - Nov 15 2017 : 5:01PM
They already made a movie about 2017. It's called "Idiocracy."
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Nov 15 2017 : 5:15PM
Isn't that now classified as a Documentary?

Senior Member

2116 Posts
2/08
Posted - Nov 16 2017 : 7:22PM

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Nov 16 2017 : 8:01PM
This is Paul Ryan's postcard tax return chart:
postcard tax return.png
Notice anything?
No personal exemptions.
The standard deduction for a married couple will increase by $12,000, but their two personal exemptions, of $8,000, are taken away.
A family of three loses $12,000 in personal deductions. A family of four would lose $16,000 in personal exemptions.
What the left hand giveth, the right hand taketh away.
Paul Ryan is LOUDLY trumpeting the extra $12,000 in standard deduction. Not a peep about the lost $12,000 in exemptions. Not a whisper.
And that's before you also lose a bunch of other deductions and credits.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Nov 20 2017 : 4:49PM

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Nov 20 2017 : 5:32PM
That's the plan.
Starve the beast.
Cut taxes for the wealthy, thus increasing budget deficits, and then declare that we need to cut spending.
Cut Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and anything else that comes to mind.
Then the personal "tax cuts" for the middle class expire, but not the corporate tax cuts and some of the cuts for the wealthy.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Nov 20 2017 : 5:36PM
Oh, and I forgot -- when eventually the Democrats win, they are forced to increase taxes just to get by, thus provoking a backlash against the evil Dems.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Dec 4 2017 : 3:37PM
WHOOPS! The Senate Bill KILLS Corporate Tax Deductions!
homer-doh.jpg
A_Fan
Deactivated User

1212 Posts
9/16
Posted - Dec 4 2017 : 4:57PM
This is the center of GOP economics for a long time, its no shock , but sad to see them actually potentially implementing it. Good lord the deficit is fucked and that is the boogyman they need to stop spending any government money on people who need help. It will suck in about 5 years for seniors, people making below 40 grand, children, most working people, mentally ill and addicts, immigrants, african americans, etc. Which is exactly what they want... a nation where well off white people (mostly men) run the show and don't help anyone else rise to their level. Yet, they keep diverting focus by calling the Dems and media "Elites".
Edited by - A_Fan on 12/4/2017 5:00:21 PM

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Dec 4 2017 : 5:00PM
^^
haha.jpg

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Dec 4 2017 : 5:50PM
Since our country has had deficits every year since Bill Clinton was in office, essentially, all tax cuts are just taking out loans that will one day need to be repaid. So to everyone who is not earning a million dollars a year - even if you receive big tax cuts, don't be too happy - here's why:
Let's say you went to the bank and borrowed $5,000. You walk out of the bank, and a wealthy guy takes $4,000 of the money. Are you going to be happy that you still have $1,000?
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Dec 8 2017 : 9:52PM
la times ca fires.png
This is what happens when you have a party in charge that is determined to cater only to those states that vote for them.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Dec 9 2017 : 1:47AM
Hunger Games.

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Dec 15 2017 : 7:44PM
Great Tax overhaul. Let's all hope they can pass it.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Dec 15 2017 : 7:55PM
You can knock yourself out. I will do no such thing.
This is the biggest transfer of wealth in history -- from the 99% to the 1%. But then, that's been the goal for conservatives for decades. Years of selling guns, homophobia, and white grievance to the base has got you to this point. The GOP no longer has to pick the pockets of its base...the base is gladly handing over its wallets, its health care, it's future, hell, their daughters even, so that the evil Libruls won't kill any more babies. It's genius. Pure, unadulterated genius.
So congrats, elections have consequences, etc., etc., but don't act like everyone should be cheering for this.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Dec 15 2017 : 8:04PM
trump voter pumped.jpg

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Dec 15 2017 : 8:07PM
Oh, come on Smiler. It benefits the lowest income and middle income, and will further push the resurgence of the economy which will hugely benefit the middle class. But if you look at the statistics, the most redistribution occurred under democrat rule. Just saying.
Edited by - tripper on 12/20/2017 6:45:10 PM

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Dec 15 2017 : 8:20PM
The math says you're wrong.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Dec 15 2017 : 8:31PM
Of course. In the land of Conservaspeak,
And what "redistribution statistics" are there that you have to offer?

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Dec 15 2017 : 10:09PM
Tripper drank the Mnuchin/Trump Kool-Aid . Those craft liars seem to have landed another sucker!
Opinions really don’t matter on this issue because the benefits can be quantified. Tripper is objectively wrong. There are only two groups of people still saying that benefits the poor and middle class more than the wealthy: people who aren’t very good with understanding number-related concepts, and those who are lying so they can screw everyone while the believers (aka “useful idiots”) provide them cover.
I would probably take more delight in Tripper’s wacky comments if this tax bill wasn’t so fucking horrendous.

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Dec 15 2017 : 11:02PM
No Pieps, it doen't.
Page 19 of 22 First < 7 9 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > Last



Jump To:

Online porn video at mobile phone