Reviewers Recommend
- review by Sean DPS
Director: Francesca Le
Starring: Francesca Le, Mark Wood, Ramon Nomar, Kenzie Reeves, Emily Willis, ily Willis.
All smartbuydisc.rus > World News Nonsense > Budget Battles: Tax Spending Myths Realities > Budget Battles: Tax & Spending Myths & Realities (page 20)
Page 20 of 22 First < 8 10 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > Last
AuthorPost

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Dec 15 2017 : 11:05PM
No Macko, you are objectively wrong. Your comments are clearly wacky.
Edit. And I should have added you're obviously a lover of the Pelosi Schumer flavor of Kool Aid, with all their lies and obstructionism.
Edited by - tripper on 12/16/2017 8:32:30 PM

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Dec 16 2017 : 8:58PM
^Smiler posted a bunch of great sources that dispute your point. I'm more than willing to hear your side of the argument. Why don't you show us your sources?

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Dec 16 2017 : 9:13PM
Lowering low income tax rates and eliminating Affordable Care Health Act penalty, which almost 80% of the penalties are paid by families making less than $50,000 a year, and they pay the penalty and still are not insured, for starters.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Dec 16 2017 : 11:01PM
They're choosing to pay the penalty -- the marketplace limits what you'd pay for a policy to a small percentage of your annual salary, applied to the second lowest priced silver plan. You might pay a couple hundred bucks a month for the second lowest priced silver plan, but you can choose a cheaper silver plan or a bronze plan and pay less. Commonly there is one available for zero dollars.
Example: the second cheapest plan is $1,000 a month, and your share is $200. But there's a bronze plan for $750. They will pay up to $800, so your share is zero.
Some of the people paying the penalty are doing so on principle, like the wealthy guy who said he'd never buy obamacare for himself or his employees, he could pay his own way on healthcare (and his employees were shit out of luck). But he had a medical crisis and providers refused to treat it on a cash basis, without insurance. Luckily, they can't do pre-existing conditions, so he was able to get coverage as soon as the open enrollment started. So he got his health care, irresponsibly, and his employees are likely still shit out of luck.
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Dec 17 2017 : 11:00AM
Sorry Pieps, almost 80% paying the penalty make less than $50,000, it's not the wealthy guy, and it's not out of principal. Those payments by the government cap out and people caught in the middle end up with a plan they can't afford. It's cheaper to pay the penalty.
 
Golden Age Classic

13508 Posts
5/01
Posted - Dec 17 2017 : 12:37PM
Not here. We have never had one for zero dollars. The cheapest, a catastrophic only plan, runs about $300 a month here. Useless starts at $300. Useful started at roughly $500. I am so tired of hearing these zero dollar plan claims. I'm sure there are places they exist but people need to stop acting like they are common since I've never seen one.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Dec 17 2017 : 12:44PM
Well, maybe I've been seeing something that's not usual, but they had them here -- a tiny county with only two insurers left on the exchange (there were about six two years ago).
I didn't look this year, just stayed with my insurer.
The uncertainty and removal of the federal subsidies for insurers, etc. are slowly asphyxiating the system, so I'd have to go look.

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Dec 17 2017 : 1:05PM
I just went through the marketplace, as a 60 year old married couple with an income of $31,000 for the year, it says after the subsidy, Bronze Plan average premium is $9, Silver $181, Gold $333.
You are correct. None were free this year, but one is $3.33 per month, and another is $3.40. The cheapest Silver Plan is $114.39. The most expensive Gold Plan is $450.39.
With an income of $50,000 for the couple, the cheapest Bronze Plan is $19.68 per month.

 
Golden Age Classic

13508 Posts
5/01
Posted - Dec 17 2017 : 1:10PM
Well, your state and county offer far better options than here. Unmarried 41 and 36 year old couple with combined $25,000. One insurer in the market only.
 
Golden Age Classic

13508 Posts
5/01
Posted - Dec 17 2017 : 1:13PM
And I believe they exist, the commercials here at least claimed so, just I am not convinced of how common they are.
 
Golden Age Classic

13508 Posts
5/01
Posted - Dec 17 2017 : 1:20PM
I should add, as far as fines go, we wouldn't get any if we opted not to have insurance. As part of our Marketplace application results each year, both of us are issued an exemption code for our taxes to remove the fine if we opt not to have insurance.

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Dec 17 2017 : 4:08PM
Your original disputed contention was that the benefits of the tax bill go mostly to the poor and middle class. And as “evidence”, you point out that congress is lowering the bottom tax rate (wrong, as it will remain at 10% -no change), and that the insurance mandate is going away.
First of all, your “analysis” didn’t factor in the deductions that accrue when someone does pay medical insurance. Yes, people who skip insurance payments will not be penalized, but they also give up a deduction, which needs to be used to offset the penalty elimination.
Second, this is a comparative arguement. Your contention - middle class and poor get the biggest benefit. You failed to mention all of the tax breaks that accrue to the highest income earners. Doubling of exemption on estate tax. Lowered income tax rates at the top. Huge drop in taxable income on pass-throughs. Huge reduction in corporate income tax. Show us how the benefits that go to the poor and middle class outsize the benefits accruing to top earners, or you aren’t supporting your arguement, you’re just stating a point. That’s like if you claimed George Clooney was taller than Shaq. When I ask for proof, you tell me Clooney is 5’10”. You are ignoring half of your premise.
This is not a partisan issue. I have looked for an analysis from a reputable source on the right or left which shows that the benefits of this bill fall mainly in the middle class and poor. I haven’t found it. I’d really appreciate it if you could point me to your sources.

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Dec 17 2017 : 4:56PM
Oops, I was going to say you misquoted me by saying "mostly", but I went back and looked at my post. If you measure it on absolute dollars, you certainly can't give the most benefit to people paying a small amount of taxes, if you look at it from a percentage benefit, it's arguable, but I won't spend time on that and just say I should not have said the most. What I will say is it's a great benefit to low and middle income people for the reasons I stated and the increase in standard deduction. Yes there's a trade of when exemptions are eliminated, but 60% of people don't itemize now, and these are the lowest income people, and almost all of them will benefit, except those with lots of kids. And the child tax credit is being increased, this is not a deduction, it comes right off the tax bill, so that will make it a benefit to most people of low and middle income that have a lot of kids also.
If you don't believe the reduction in corporate tax will benefit low and middle income people, then you don't believe it will stimulate the economy. I read about it under Kennedy, and I lived it under Reagan, and under Reagan some deductions were eliminated such as consumer interest. The economy took off, the middle class grew, and wealth concentration at the top was reduced. I believe it will stimulate the economy, if you want to disagree then I will just agree to disagree.
Edit to add, My sources are mainly following the republican politicians in the house and senate that put the bill together, not Trump and Munchin. They have been coming on a variety shows to make their points. I have followed the changes and the arguments, on both sides, of the people actually putting the bill together. When I listen to the democrat counter points they don't add up to me. Hell, in 2011 Obama was campaigning on lowering the corporate tax rate to be more globally competitive. Then he got re-elected and decided it wasn't a priority. Now all of a sudden it's repub evil, I don't buy it.
Edited by - tripper on 12/17/2017 5:03:41 PM

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Dec 17 2017 : 5:37PM
^The Forbes analysis that Smiler linked earlier shows how an analysis is supposed to be done. There are plenty of others one could probably find online as well. Your “analysis” is a statement of your own feelings, devoid of any quantities. You haven’t linked any knowledgeable sources who agree with your “analysis”.
Tripper, it seems like you go through this every few months. You state something wrong. Another member will link multiple reliable sources that prove you wrong. You are urged to show proof to support your side. You react by doing one of three things: you cite as “proof” a blurb from a sham source such as The Daily Caller, you say “We’ll just have to agree to disagree” because you have no justification for your flawed beliefs, or you just let the conversation die and hope we forget about your blunder.
What will you choose to do this time? Maybe you’ll actually surprise us and link to a reputable sources that supports your contention?
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Dec 18 2017 : 10:01AM
Macko, you have a penchant for not addressing the issues and evading the points by going to sources. You bring in a reference to The Daily Caller, from another thread, nothing to do with this thread. But since you brought it up, I posted an article about LGBT discriminating based on religion. So what did you do, went off like a petulant school boy slamming the source and my disdain for other sources, not addressing the discrimination. After you made several posts like this you couldn't find anything wrong with the article and had to agree what they did was wrong. Oh, and my post from The Daily Caller wasn't a reaction to anything, it was the first post in the thread .
The comment about "I will just agree to disagree" was specific to the point about the reduction in corporate taxes spurring the economy, which you choose not to address.
The Forbes article you refer to, I see it as less analyses and more editorial. They droned on and on about a variety of potential scenarios. I don't need talking heads trying to fill up magazine pages telling me how to think. As I expected, reality diverged widely from their scenarios. The fact is, the article was about a draft from over two months ago, the bill was finished the end of last week.
Your right about one thing, sometimes I just get bored by responses where I don't learn anything. Your response is to distract by bringing in half truths from other threads and not address my points.
Edited by - tripper on 12/18/2017 10:03:10 AM

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Dec 18 2017 : 11:49AM
Macko said:
Nope.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Dec 18 2017 : 4:27PM
:
To be concise, let me inform you of how things will proceed from here:
*The Tax "Reform* Bill Will Pass
*Inequality Will grow
*The factories that are closed will remain closed
*Neither Inequality nor "The Factories" are big talking points for the media right now (they o'd on both of those from 2015-2016) so we'll have no focus on that
*The National Debt Will Grow
*At some point, a Democrat will be elected president
*The Tea Partiers and Deficit Hawks will re-emerge from their Undisclosed locations saying "Look at this DEFICIT!!! Look at the National Debt!! THIS IS TERRIBLE!!!"
*The Democrat will point to the hole in the National Debt and admit that it's bad and will announce that taxes will have to be raised.
*Republicans will rise up en masse and say, "There go Democrats, raising taxes again!! And look at all these shuttered factories!!! Vote Republican!!"
Rinse, Wash, Repeat.

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Dec 18 2017 : 5:57PM
I won't argue with a lot of what you said, especially this last line, which I find both insightful and depressing.
No, the old factories won't reopen, but new ones will open, mostly from small businesses which provide 80% of the jobs in the country. Regarding the debt, for every 0.1% increase in the GDP there is $250 Billion in additional tax revenue generated in a ten year period. This is how Clinton got a balanced budget, the GDP was on a tear. I don't give Clinton credit for that, it was just the timing of the Silicon Valley surge, but I do give Clinton credit for a lot of things, particularly his reform of welfare programs, which I always have to argue with my conservative friends about because they want to give the credit to Newt and that is not where it belongs. He did it Arkansas, campaigned on it, and did it in Washington. But I digress, my point is the answer to the deficit is increasing the GDP.
Regarding wealth income inequality, it grew roughly 3% during Clinton, slowed a little to under 2% during Bush, and then went back up to 3% during Obama. So it has been growing for at least the last 25 years. I am hopeful that this bill will spur the small businesses and start to reverse this trend.
edit spelling
Edited by - tripper on 12/26/2017 9:36:32 PM

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Dec 19 2017 : 2:34AM
How is it that I’m right about something I never said?
A month or so back, you said over and over that the tax bill will help the poor and middle class more than the wealthy. One of the reasons why, you claimed, was because the mortgage interest limitations in the bill was $500k in interest, which wouldn’t affect the middle class. I pointed out, the limitation was interest generated off the first $500k in principal, not $500k in interest. You also claimed the lowest tax rates were going to be decreased. They are currently at 10%, and it’s also 10% in the current bill.
Then you stubbornly stuck to the idea that the tax bill will help middle class and poor more than the highest earners, while we told you that was not true.. Still you insisted you were correct about this.
So I criticize your post for making claims without using numbers or sources, and in response, you post a bunch of numbers you pulled from somewhere you failed to mention. Perhaps wealth inequality did increase by 3% under Obama, but if you’re going to make that claim, I’d like to see who said this and how they measured it.
In addition, you seem to have adopted a new position that the tax bill will increase the GDP, therefore it will help boost the poor and middle class. Well perhaps, but so what? The discussion was about your earlier erroneous contention that the tax bill will help the middle class and poor more than the top earners. That is a separate issue.
One of the worst byproducts of the Trump area is that everyone thinks they’re an expert in things they know nothing about. It seems people have lost their shame, and now boldly wear their ignorance like it were a shiny medal.
Edited by - Macko69 on 12/19/2017 2:37:15 AM
 
All-Star Member

Your other left
28339 Posts
3/02
Posted - Dec 21 2017 : 10:42AM
Ah, yes, the old 'a rising tide lifts all boats' analogy. This is a stupid analogy. First, a tide leaves all boats afloat in the same position relative to each other, so the rich will stay in the same position relative to the rest of us. Second, as I've repeatedly stated, a rising tide doesn't lift the boats that have holes in their hulls.
Increasing the GDP won't address the reason people stay in areas where there are fewer jobs available than there are people seeking work. Lowering the taxes a company pays is not going to make it hire workers it doesn't need, nor will lower taxes make a power company buy coal to operate power plants that aren't designed to run on coal.
So, surprising no one, the rich will get richer, and the poor will remain poor. The only question here is what effect Republican policy will have on the middle class. In that regard, as the above suggest - we should ignore what lawmakers claim will happen, as they are either clueless or bold-faced liars.

Senior Member

2116 Posts
2/08
Posted - Dec 22 2017 : 5:46AM
For what its worth I'm pretty much the typical northeast state middle class. 90K salary; single family homeowner with a mortgage (and interest), employer paid health insurance. Historically property taxes have been the major source of municipal revenue in this region with typical annual property taxes for a "Modest" single family starting between 6K-9K. Some communities have added various surcharges to the bills or "fees" The result is a tax bill for a 3 bedroom, two bath home (nice but not a palace by any means) is well in excess of 10K.
In addition most states have an income tax as well as a hefty sales tax with some communities having a municipal sales tax too.
I'm absolutely no lover of the Dem leadership or most of the things the party has represented in the past BUT I have to call it as I see it and this is one HUGE screwing for the middle class! My calculations tell me I'm taking a huge hit on this. The only things I can adjust are to cut my retirement contributions, oh yeh at the same time they are talking about cutting social security benefits and /or cutting my contributions to charity, which while not huge always have been substantial. Of course with the proposed austerity or "reform' measures those who rely on government programs will now be turning to those very programs that are funded by churches and charitable organizations that rely on those same monies we need to cut back on to be able to afford the new tax "cuts".
Hey, our corporate taxes were among some of the highest in the developed world...if they want to try cutting those it might be worth a try but the rest of this "pass through" profit and personal investment income BS is being paid for by the vast majority of the rest of us. I'd even feel better if all those who are screwing us are doing it for their personal benefit but instead they are nothing but whores and whimpering lapdogs to all those who are tossing obscene campaign contribution their way. It's nothing less than sickening.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Dec 22 2017 : 10:56AM
To say nothing of the fact that many ain't got no boat to begin with.
 
All-Star Member

Your other left
28339 Posts
3/02
Posted - Dec 22 2017 : 3:52PM
Again, it is an analogy, and a bad one, but in it boats represent people, not possessions.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Dec 22 2017 : 10:15PM
Well, yeah, I know,
I was kinda thinking back to this cartoon. Those from chronically stricken poverty areas will not see any change from this. Many of them don't pay taxes anyway as their incomes are not high enough.
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Jan 24 2018 : 5:45PM
You're right, and you can't expect a tax bill to improve the condition of chronically stricken poverty areas. But if it will help the middle class and spur business, that is a good thing.

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Jan 24 2018 : 5:57PM
For clarity the following is in response to Macko’s post from Dec 19 2017 : 2:34AM
Actually my comment
“Your right about one thing, sometimes I just get bored by responses where I don't learn anything. Your response is to distract by bringing in half-truths from other threads and not address my points.”
was in response to this from Dec 17 2017 : 5:37PM.
You just like to argue with everything, even when I say you’re right.
So, since this was posted in Dec, you are referring to my posts from Nov. Wow, back to your standard tactic of misrepresenting with absolute falsehoods. I said that on a post in Dec, which I quickly corrected, not in my posts from Nov. If you’re such an expert, why do resort to lying? Not only did I not say it “over and over” I never said it. All I said was lower and middle income people will benefit, not that they will benefit more than the wealthy.
Yes, I made a mistake, the bill was going through reconciliation and things were changing fast, and that limit has since changed again on the final bill. But I obviously didn’t use this as justification that it helped the middle class. The higher limit would have helped the wealthy, so my mistake was not biased to help my argument. You don’t mind when the New York Times with their multi-million dollar editorial staff makes a mistake but you want to keep bringing up mine. I am happy the limitation is lower than I understood which is clear in my post when I said it should be lower.
The lowest tax rate, that you clearly don’t understand, is 0, and at the time they were proposing changing the second to lowest rate to 8%, but that didn’t stick. With the increase in the standard deduction and the child tax credit, more people are at 0. The bill changed since I wrote that, so now I would say the effective tax rate on low income people has been reduced. Additionally, those at 0 who have children will get a larger tax refund because of the increased child tax credit.
Again, flat out lies. I said it would benefit middle class and poor, not that they would benefit them more than the high earners.
To be clear, I was talking about income inequality of the wealthy. So here you go.
Interesting, I thought the thread was about budget and tax myths, I didn’t realize you had redefined it to be all about my posts. But again you embellish your reply with lies that I said it will help poor and middle class more than top earners.
Does your mother know how rude and pompous a person you have grown into?

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Jan 24 2018 : 6:56PM
Here's an interesting video from CBS, I'm pretty sure you will accept that news source. They set out last month, with a CPA, to look at some diverse individuals to see how the new tax law would affect their taxes. They fully expected they would see tax increases, and I can no longer find the link on the CBS web site. But Real Clear Politics kept it. Here you go.

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Jan 24 2018 : 7:54PM
Once again, I have to correct one of your errors. The lowest income tax rate is not zero. AGI is reduced by the standard deduction (or itemized deduction, if a taxpayer is eligible) and exemptions. But when discussing tax rates, that is based off taxable income, and there is no zero rate. It's possible for someone to pay zero, but there is no tax rate of zero. Never was, not even in the proposals. You want to argue tax rates? Argue with the Tax Foundation.
2017 tax table.jpg
And no, there was never an 8% rate proposed. You are lying to try to explain your previous error, but I know that you're lying. I have been following this ever since this proposal was called "A Better Way" in the GOP, as well as Trump's tax plan prior to election. The lowest rate was 12% at times during the negotiations, then they settled at 10%, which is exactly what the lowest rate was before.
I said this before, but I'll say it again for your benefit. I don't know shit about football, so I keep quiet about football. You keep misstating basic facts about tax rules, so I suggest you keep your opinions about taxes where they belong - locked deep inside of your head. You are consistently wrong about nearly everything tax related. It's embarrassing to read your posts about taxes because you come across as if you think you're an expert, but you keep making the sorts of errors I don't even see from my starting level staff. It's really a bad look, so you should keep it hidden.
Tax rules are complex, and I understand people are confused by it sometimes. Edit to explain further: Zero tax rates do exist. Many years ago in my state, there was a 0% rate for filers $0-$7,000. Taxable income $7,000 or less generated zero income tax. The 2017 and 2018 federal income tax tables don't have a 0% rate, which is why all the income tax tables begin at 10% for 2018 and 2017. Anyone who understands taxes would not claim that there's a 0% rate in our federal tax table, because there isn't.

Edited by - Macko69 on 1/24/2018 9:51:02 PM


Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Jan 24 2018 : 8:05PM
Bullshit. Nov. 6, 2017
Please stop it. I hate having to dig up your old posts and point out your lies.
edit: Oh my, there are more. Here's what you had posted earlier, but edited. But Smiler had quoted you before your edit.
So now I've found twice where you said the tax bill would benefit the low and middle class more than the highest earners. Once in November and once in December. What the hell, dude?
Edited by - Macko69 on 1/24/2018 9:46:54 PM

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Jan 24 2018 : 8:13PM
Useful charts. Thanks for posting. Care to point out to me where it shows that "wealth inequality did increase by 3% under Obama"?

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Jan 24 2018 : 9:45PM
Did you mean to address this to me? If so, why?
Edited by - Macko69 on 1/24/2018 11:46:15 PM

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jan 25 2018 : 12:30AM
^ They looked at a total of three families (not exactly a huge sample size), two of them in the over $150,000 range, who were always expected to do well.
The couple making $150,000 a year will have about $54 a month extra. The business owning couple making $300,000 a year will gain a little less than $1100 a month.
The woman making $40,000 a year gains a little over $100 a month, but if she had two children rather than one, she might not see a gain because although the standard deduction was doubled, the personal exemption ($4,050 per person) was eliminated.
Tripper wrote:
Indeed. All three of them.
Two exactly as expected since they are higher income.
Me from the previous page:
This seems quite in line with the three -- count 'em -- three examples in the CBS sample.

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Jan 25 2018 : 3:20PM
^Exactly. Most of the immediate benefits for individuals are going to sunset in 8 years. However, the drop in the top marginal rate for C-Corps from 35% to 21% will remain. This tax bill was a ridiculously unfair giveaway to the wealthiest among us. I read a lot of people, who like tripper, are pushing a stupid narrative: "Aren't you happy with your tax cuts?" My taxes will be going down, and I am pleased with that, but at the same time, this is a really flawed bill because the ones who needed a tax cut the least got the biggest cuts.
With the assistance of congress, billionaires are raiding the vault and making out like bandits. The middle and lower earners are getting crumbs, if they're getting anything at all. The GOP have actually pulled this con job off pretty artfully, in that 99% of us are being royally screwed and so few of them will ever recognize this.

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Jan 25 2018 : 6:06PM
CBS picked the returns based on people that have been told they will loose in this bill. They picked a diversity, a couple with children with high income from California, a couple with upper middle class income with no children from Rhode Island, and a single mother in North Carolina at low middle income.
Everyone has been saying the Blue states are being punished by elimination of deductions. Well, CA and RI both have high SALT and morgage interst deductions, and both couples save money. The woman in NC saves also, and for anyone that says saving $100 a month when you make $40,000 a year with a child is crumbs, I would suggest you ask her if she thinks they are crumbs. Pieps, you also suggest that with three children she would loose, but the increase in child tax credit would more than make it up. It is not a deduction, it is a credit. And people with children that pay no taxes will get a refund based on this credit. We can thank Marco Rubio for that, he was going to vote no if he didn't get this, announced during the last week before the vote. And before anyone says it was grand standing, people that know him point out this is something he has worked on for years so that lower income people with children will get refunds.
I look at these three specific examples that show a wide range of people, from different states all save, then I looke at your article, and it states a lot of things like they are facts. Please, show me a specific example of someone who is going to pay more. They claim one third, well if that turns out to be true, Trump will get voted out for sure.
Edit meant to add some links


Edited by - tripper on 1/25/2018 6:11:53 PM

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Jan 25 2018 : 6:17PM
They are going to sunset because some of the writers were concerned that if the GDP doesn't respond as expected it would adversely affect the deficit. A 0.1% increase in GDP provides $250 billion in government revenue. If the GDP does grow, these benefits will be extended or made permanent. They were not sunset for corporations because business cannot make long term plans based on short term benefits. Putting a sunset on business benefits would not give the desired result to GDP.

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Jan 25 2018 : 6:19PM
Wow Macko, I thought you were the expert, but I'll give you a clue. It's all in chart 2.

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Jan 25 2018 : 6:20PM
Why would you think it was addressed to you?

Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Jan 25 2018 : 6:53PM
We won't really know until people actually file, en masse. Most people are pretty fuzzy about whether things are an increase or a decrease, since taxes also change based on changes in income, family size, home ownership, etc. It's not really a given that most people will even know whether they benefitted or not. They sure don't seem to notice even general things like whether unemployment is up or down (or trending up or down), but rather seem to believe what they are inclined to believe. So it's not a given at all that Trump would get voted out if things got worse for everybody. Look at the re-election of Bush 43.

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Jan 25 2018 : 7:02PM
No, the individual benefits will sunset because if they didn't, they would have required 60 votes in the senate rather than 51, and the bill wouldn't have passed.
Let me just remind you of "facts" you've stated here about taxes:
1. You actually thought that the proposed $500k limit on the mortgage interest deduction was the interest limit, not the principal limit.
2. You actually said more than once that the tax bill would benefit the lower and middle class more than the highest earners.
3. You actually claimed that there is a 0% rate. The funniest part of that was you were claiming that I didn't know that there was a 0% tax rate!
I've had a change of heart - I WANT you to continue to post about taxes. Please continue!
Seriously, I don't fault anyone for not knowing much about taxes. This shit is complicated, and getting worse with every new bill. But I don't like charlatans. That pisses me off.
By the way, your Chart 2 says nothing about a 3% increase in wealth inequality under Obama. If you measured that, you have to show how you measured it or we should probably just assume that you've made yet another statement that you can't support.

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Jan 25 2018 : 8:01PM
I got plenty of examples. Here's one:
MFJ. $45k in AGI. Two dependents - a 21 year old son in college, an 18 year old daughter. $12k in state taxes. $3k in charitable donations.
2017:
$45k less $15k itemized = $30k
$30k less exemptions of $16,200 (2 taxpayers plus 2 dependents) = $13,800 taxable income
Tax on $13,800 taxable income = $1,380
2018:
$45k less $24k standard = $21,000 taxable income
Tax on $21,000 taxable income = $2,139
Here's another one:
Single. $85k in AGI. Zero dependents. $18k in state taxes. $3k property taxes. $12k mortgage interest.
2017:
$85k less $33k itemized = $52k
$52k less $4,050 exemption = $47,950 taxable income
Tax on $47,950 = $7,727
2018:
Salt deduction limited to $10k.
$85k less itemized $22,000 ($10k SALT limit plus $12k mortgage interest) = $63k taxable income
Tax on $63k = $9,800
I could go on and on. Most of my clients will see decreases, but if I were to guess roughly, I'd say about 1/4 to 1/3 will see an increase. For an experienced eye, it's fairly easy to guess if someone will be paying more. Plenty of dependents, especially those over 17 years old. Itemized deductions that will be subject to limits or elimination. Those types of signs are an indication that someone might be paying more. Of course, no one knows for sure until they do the calculation, but it's a reliable way to guess.

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Jan 30 2018 : 11:13AM
Well, you surely picked some extreme cases, $45k AGI with $12k in state taxes and $85k AGI with $18k in state taxes. Wow, I never heard of people making those amounts and paying that much in state taxes, but it must be so because you said so. According to these are hugely out of the norm. I'll pull out two high state tax states. New Jersey, median income $81,344 on average pays $7,077 in state taxes. Connecticut, median income $93,806 on average pays $7,786.
Well, you convinced me, the number of people making $100k or less paying more in taxes will be extremely small.

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Jan 30 2018 : 11:18AM
Here are some more crumbs resulting from the tax reform law.


Wow, this will for sure add jobs and revenue to the US Treasury.
On the small business front I saw a report of a pizzaria owner in Florida who's now going to completely remodel his restaraunt and add three jobs. A baker in Ohio who is going to modernize and add five jobs. They are able to do this because the tax reform allows them to write off the investments at a faster pace.

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Jan 30 2018 : 11:20AM
I agree.

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Jan 30 2018 : 3:25PM
That's fine, Tripper. You said the state taxes paid in my example was high. Fair enough. Let's take a second look at one of my examples with state tax payments on the very low end:
MFJ. $45k in AGI. Two dependents - a 21 year old son in college, an 18 year old daughter. $2k in state taxes. $3k in charitable donations.
2017:
$45k less $12,700 standard = $32,300
$32,300 less exemptions of $16,200 (2 taxpayers plus 2 dependents) = $16,100 taxable income
Tax on $16,100 taxable income = $1,610
2018:
$45k less $24k standard = $21,000 taxable income
Tax on $21,000 taxable income = $2,139
If you really want, we can assume these taxpayers reside in a zero income tax state and the results will still be the same - they will pay more under the new rules.
Keep in mind that these are just examples and don't prove a thing. These are simply isolated data points, nothing more. Remember that the reason I even posted these examples was because you couldn't think of a single instance where someone would pay more. Not even one. Reminder:
We just finished an analysis of my own clients and found that about 17% will probably be paying more, a little less than I guessed, but not really surprising to me. This is going to be significantly lower than the population as a whole, though, because my clients skew towards the higher income and the self-employed. The 1/3 number (people who will likely pay more) from the article posted by Pieps is looking at all taxpayers, so it sounds reasonable. Most people will see a tax reduction. No one is arguing otherwise.
I expect my own tax liability to drop significantly. Although my top marginal rate will remain unchanged, the higher AMT exemption and the fact that I'm self-employed are the main reasons for the drop. I'm still not happy about this bill, because I am confident it will be a disaster. Much like we blame much of the 2008 financial crisis on loose mortgage standards, at some point I believe we will look back on the great crash of 2019 (or whenever) and say the Trump tax cuts were the reason. The tax cuts will cause a short term increase in economic activity, but certainly not enough to keep the deficits from ballooning. I haven't read a single reputable economist who thinks this tax cut will create a budget surplus.

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Jan 30 2018 : 6:12PM
Hmm, interesting. Thanks for that. Yes, I am not a tax professional so I was honestly looking for who will lose. In this example the children do not qualify for the child tax credit, but arguing that would be nitpicking. It's a reasonable example, married couple, two kids, modest income, non-itemizers. I'll also tell you I was disturbed by the reduction of the top tax rate and keeping the carried interest tax break which specifically Trump was opposed to, and it does greatly benefit Hedge Fund managers. I am also impressed you stated the 2008 crisis was caused by loose mortgage standards, specifically the way mortgage backed securities were being manipulated. Hell, it bankrupted Iceland that heavily invested in these. Most people do not understand that at all. I loved the stick figure cartoon with the president of Iceland talking to the mortgage backed securities executive, "Tell them you fucked up". I'm pretty sure you've seen it, but if not I'll try to find it for you.
About a year ago I saw a good article about wealth income disparity. It was an apolitical article and was from a source you would approve of, I think it was the NYT but I'm not sure and I couldn't find it. It had very clear graphs on income growth among various income groups. So I made my post, but I did not have the article any more, a very dangerous thing to do here. You may have seen some of my older posts stating I am inexperienced at smartbuydisc.rus, and that should be obvious, but I have learned, some. So when you asked, I found the article I posted and it backed up my numbers. So here is how I came up with them from this article. Using chart 2, I started with the 2008 numbers because they are year end numbers and that is essentially just three weeks before Obama's inauguration. Sorry, I couldn't find anything that ran exactly on presidential terms, but that would be a purely political article anyway and so I would have my doubts about it's veracity. Then I took the numbers from 2016, essentially the end of the Obama Presidency. Here is what I found.
2008 Inc. 2016 Inc. % Change
90th Percentile $164,757 $182,826 10.96%
50th Percentile $60,989 $64,959 6.5%
10th Percentile $14,283 $14,459 1.2%
Boy, doing charts here is tedious and they don't look the same as in the posting draft. Anyway, it actually shows the top 10% income growing almost 4.5% faster than the 50th percentile. To be clear, I have not tried to give any reasons for this, I am only stating this is what happened.

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Jan 30 2018 : 6:13PM
sorry
Edited by - tripper on 1/30/2018 6:18:44 PM

Senior Member

1386 Posts
3/06
Posted - Jan 30 2018 : 6:15PM
No, but there are plenty of reputable economist that say this tax cut, through revenue growth, will more than pay for itself and reduce the deficit, but will not by itself create a surplus.

Senior Member

Real news. Fake president.
13914 Posts
3/03
Posted - Feb 8 2018 : 4:58PM
Extraordinary.
Raise your hand if you think what the Republican president and both Republican-controlled houses of congress have done will make even the slightest dent on the consciousness of the right wing base, or in any way limit the ability of GOP candidates to get cheap applause by blaming everything on "tax and spend Democrats."
Edited by - Harri Patel on 2/8/2018 5:04:07 PM
Edited by - Harri Patel on 2/8/2018 5:11:53 PM
 
All-Star Member

4648 Posts
8/11
Posted - Feb 9 2018 : 1:00AM
^
The constituency for deficit reduction is small among the public. They may say they want it, but don't want additional taxes or entitlement reform. Our 2 major political parties reflect that reality. We've been spending like drunken sailors since 9/11, why is it going to be different now?
Edited by - aclayfan on 2/9/2018 1:01:10 AM

Senior Member

Real news. Fake president.
13914 Posts
3/03
Posted - Feb 9 2018 : 11:45PM
^ Yet the GOP persistently portray themselves as the fiscally responsible ones, and vilify the Democrats, and the base lap it up, time after time after time.
Page 20 of 22 First < 8 10 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > Last



Jump To:

Online porn video at mobile phone