Tax Bill

[PleaseBlitz]

36 minutes ago, steve09ru said:

disregard the comment on 15k-20 earners seeing an increase.  They'd still see a decrease so it'd be a decrease across the board but as stated, still the $5 trillion as a country that wouldn't be good.  But from the review, it sounds like there are options that would offset the loss from the tax cuts and the big driving in the increase of deficit over the coming years is around interest rates.

 

also to note would be if anything happened to standard or itemized deductions

 

 

Right.  The WH has been intentionally vague on what is going to happen to deductions, other than to say the mortgage interest deduction will remain.  We of course know that the estate tax will probably go away, that is a big reason that Trump wants this done so bad (along with eliminating the alternative minimum tax).  Most of the rest of it will be negotiated by leadership in order to get enough votes, but that process has not started yet.  

[First Colony]

4 hours ago, PF Chang said:

Increasing the standard deduction is a good thing for lower income taxpayers. Personally I think we'd be better off eliminating nearly every itemized deduction, as these disproportionately benefit the rich, but increasing the standard deduction will help people.

 

The problem is that increasing the standard deduction is decreasing gov't revenue. Not a problem if that's offset somehow, but predictably the top marginal rate is lowered (and I really doubt there will be cost cutting as an offset). 

 

This is better than the old GOP plan of "**** it, just cut taxes for rich people and see what happens." Not significantly, but better than I would have expected. 

 

I also agree that increasing the standard deduction is a good thing, especially for me since I don't have a mortgage (one of the biggest itemized deductions), but I believe that increasing it will lead to a decrease in charitable giving.  While we would like to think that people are generally altruistic, a lot of times it's because they can take a deduction.  If the standard is increased, people wouldn't need to donate to write it off and contributions could go down.

[Springfield]

I have a mortgage, therefore I favor the interest deduction.  I have kids, therefore I favor the credit.  I think both make logical sense as well.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Im once again going to propose my flat tax that gets rid of pretty much all deductiins and everyone gets a $50k standard deduction.

[Springfield]

13 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Im once again going to propose my flat tax that gets rid of pretty much all deductiins and everyone gets a $50k standard deduction.

 

What if you only make like 35k?

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

What if you only make like 35k?

You would pay zero in taxes.

 

The $50k deduction would make it so no one making less that that would pay tax.  Everyone over that would get to deduct that amount.  If you make $51k, you may tax on that $1k.  If you make $1mil, you pay tax on $950k.  And everyone would pay the same % on there income (probably around 20%).

[Springfield]

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

You would pay zero in taxes.

 

The $50k deduction would make it so no one making less that that would pay tax.  Everyone over that would get to deduct that amount.  If you make $51k, you may tax on that $1k.  If you make $1mil, you pay tax on $950k.  And everyone would pay the same % on there income (probably around 20%).

 

Sounds like a novel idea.  Has it been done anywhere else?  Do you have any idea if it’s fiscally feasible?

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Sounds like a novel idea.  Has it been done anywhere else?  Do you have any idea if it’s fiscally feasible?

Not that I know of.  As for feasibility, it would require someone smarter than me to figure out the actual number and percent to make it solvent.  I just made up numbers that sounded reasonable.

 

Usually everyone freaks out once they realize that means the mortgage deduction, the child deduction, etc would all go away.  If you are "poor" (below $50k) you don't pay.  Then you get taxed on everything beyond that.  To me, it's the most fair thing.  People usually hate fairness once they realize it doesn't go in their favor.

[tshile]

7 hours ago, steve09ru said:

Anyone have the married with child chart?

[LadySkinsFan]

Your plan will put a lot of people out of work: IRS agents, CPAs, and all the tax professionals and support people.

 

It's why we don't go to single payer: too many people would lose their jobs.

 

Wonder if you could get a CBO reading?

[88Comrade2000]

I don't like Zero percent.  I think everyone earning an income, even the working poor, should pay at least something in taxes. After all, everyone gets the benefits of everything the government does.  Now, obviously for the working poor, it would be a small rate.

 

Even though Trumpomonics is going to double the deduction, he is raising the bottom rate 2%.  Also, since he's getting rid of deducting state and local taxes; a lot of blue states and some swing states taxpayers aren't going to like that.

 

Also, lowering the corporate tax rate to 20%, they say will bring tons of jobs.  Oh really?   Especially, in the age of automation.  They maybe more willing to bring their profits back from overseas or establish some plants here but I really doubt these will be long term job creators.   Why, would company spend money to hire someone; when they can just automate it?  Guarantee you the bulk of those tax savings will go to executive salaries and more dividend payments to stockholders.

 

Oh, there will be show plants.  Businesses will say, see were are building a new plant here in the U.S.  When the plant is done, the local community that probably will give tax breaks to lure the plant; will find out that other than short term construction jobs, the plant will be mostly automated.

 

Trump and is administration just brush that aside.

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Your plan will put a lot of people out of work: IRS agents, CPAs, and all the tax professionals and support people.

 

It's why we don't go to single payer: too many people would lose their jobs.

 

Wonder if you could get a CBO reading?

Yup.  Not sure how to fix that.  But like single payer, does people losing their jobs justify not doing it?

 

It would never happen.  Too many special interests and rich people would lose.  And they own our government.

 

I have no clue how to go about getting a CBO reading.

[tshile]

10 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Sounds like a novel idea.  Has it been done anywhere else?  Do you have any idea if it’s fiscally feasible?

It's what most of us flat-tax people have been advocating for.  Most flat-tax people that are honest and not interested in hurting people realize there needs to be a line below which people either pay significantly less based on how far below, or pay nothing at all. No deductions.

 

Unfortunately there's a bunch of dishonest people who don't care about hurting the poor that just want a flat tax, and the rest of us get lumped in with them in conversation

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

I don't like Zero percent.  I think everyone earning an income, even the working poor, should pay at least something in taxes. After all, everyone gets the benefits of everything the government does.  Now, obviously for the working poor, it would be a small rate.

 

 

Well they would pay sales tax when they buy stuff unless they live in one of those bull**** states like Delaware.

 

So you want them to pay just based on principle?

[tshile]

So double the deduction but now 4500 for each person.

 

So instead of about 12k + 4*3, I'd get 24000. If I have another kid I only get 24000.

 

I'm not against that, but it doesn't help me.

 

Lowering my rate is cool though

[TheGreatBuzz]

I'm against deductions for kids.  In fact, we need to start giving deductions for not having kids.  We need to start encouraging some of these dumb mother ****ers to stop breeding.

[LadySkinsFan]

15 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Yup.  Not sure how to fix that.  But like single payer, does people losing their jobs justify not doing it?

 

It would never happen.  Too many special interests and rich people would lose.  And they own our government.

 

I have no clue how to go about getting a CBO reading.

 

We're talking millions of people losing their jobs, and we don't have replacement jobs. Some like lawyers and CPAs are highly educated in one industry. 

 

It's a conundrum for sure.

[Elessar78]

It's just looking at one side of the equation. Taxes are revenue. Where are the cuts going to come from?

 

Remember, military spending, social security, and Medicare are 66% of the federal budget.

 

DT promised a raise for miltary, so it's not coming from there allegedly. No one touches social security. So Medicare? Everything else in the federal budget are tiny slivers.

 

Also, when you reduce revenue and don't reduce spending you get a DEFICIT. 

 

People LOVE the things govt provides at all levels-but no one wants to pay for them. Want a wall with Mexico? Where's the moneys? Want modern infrastructure? Where's the money. **** costs more everywhere but the govt should be the exception?  

[tshile]

14 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm against deductions for kids.  In fact, we need to start giving deductions for not having kids.  We need to start encouraging some of these dumb mother ****ers to stop breeding.

That's basically why I don't have a problem with my deduction being affected.

 

Although I don't really know how many people are having kids for the tax deduction... I can think of plenty of reasons why people have kids, their agi deduction doesn't really seem like one

[88Comrade2000]

26 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Well they would pay sales tax when they buy stuff unless they live in one of those bull**** states like Delaware.

 

So you want them to pay just based on principle?

Yes. 

 

Also, I think we should have a national sales tax in addition to the income tax.  Say 1 or 2%.

 

20% goes to paying off the debt. 20% goes to to fund lower tax rates. 20%  20% goes to national defense/homeland security.  20% goes to infrastructure. 20% to health care.

 

I would also write into the law; that you would need 2/3 of the vote; to make a chances to the 1 or 2% national sales tax.

[tshile]

15 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

We're talking millions of people losing their jobs, and we don't have replacement jobs. Some like lawyers and CPAs are highly educated in one industry. 

 

It's a conundrum for sure.

We should approach it like every other group that's affected like this

 

Tell them to move and retrain.

 

It's worked wonders so far.

[LD0506]

30 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Well they would pay sales tax when they buy stuff unless they live in one of those bull**** states like Delaware.

 

So you want them to pay just based on principle?

 

HEY!!

Pick on some state your own size.............

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

That's basically why I don't have a problem with my deduction being affected.

 

Although I don't really know how many people are having kids for the tax deduction... I can think of plenty of reasons why people have kids, their agi deduction doesn't really seem like one

I don't many are having it for the deduction.  But how many would be more careful too NOT have one if there were a deduction.

[tshile]

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

I don't many are having it for the deduction.  But how many would be more careful too NOT have one if there were a deduction.

I didn't think about it that way.

 

I don't know. Are people who have kids that shouldn't even aware of what their tax rate is? I'm pretty much being an ass here, I'm aware. I'm not convinced I'm wrong though, yet.

[Springfield]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

We should approach it like every other group that's affected like this

 

Tell them to move and retrain.

 

It's worked wonders so far.

 

Pretty much.  Except when it’s white collar workers all of a sudden it’s a problem.  They’re smart, they should be able to pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

 

It does amaze me just how many people’s livelihoods are predicated on the government.  It’s why libertarianism will never work.  People would lose jobs by the tens of millions.

 

 

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

I didn't think about it that way.

 

I don't know. Are people who have kids that shouldn't even aware of what their tax rate is? I'm pretty much being an ass here, I'm aware. I'm not convinced I'm wrong though, yet.

 

We have two, and while we would like to have one more it just isn’t financially reasonable at this point.  Hope in a couple years it will be.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Springfield