Tax Bill

[Riggo-toni]

I think you misunderstood the point I was making. Get rid of deductions and cut the overall rate so that the actual and effective rates converge, thus reducing distortions which disproportionately benefit large corporations with the most lobbying muscle.

5 minutes ago, Hersh said:

This is not entirely true in the sense that the effective tax rate is no where near that high. So while claimed, not sure any corporation actually pays that. Plus, it's just the top tax rate being referenced.

[Hersh]

1 minute ago, Riggo-toni said:

I think you misunderstood the point I was making. Get rid of deductions and cut the overall rate so that the actual and effective rates converge, thus reducing distortions which disproportionately benefit large corporations with the most lobbying muscle.

 

I don't have any problems with that type of plan. I also agree in general to reducing deductions over a period of years for individuals though I'd never get rid of the state and local tax write-off. Which, btw, is one of the more *** backwards things in this entire debate. If anything, the GOP should be 100% behind writing off state and local taxes since that could help kick more things for states to do rather than the federal government funding more things. I mean, if they still had any actual principles. 

[Fergasun]

That would mean you are effectively raising taxes on corporations.  I understand (well, not really -- it is GREED) corporations and wealthy upset about taxes, but the response should be, "want less taxes, make less money".  Not, "lets cut their taxes". 

 

Because the Congress knows it needs funding for the govt, all cuts have to be offset.

 

 

 

 

[tshile]

15 minutes ago, Hersh said:

If anything, the GOP should be 100% behind writing off state and local taxes since that could help kick more things for states to do rather than the federal government funding more things. I mean, if they still had any actual principles. 

 

It's hard to figure out what the motive is.

 

Hurting blue areas of the country that usually have higher state/local taxes?

Just trying to find funding to make it meet requirements, consequences be damned?

both?

 

I haven't done the math to figure out where I net/net in it all. Lower rate, but no 401k deduction and now state/local tax deduction.... but it doesn't sound very good.

 

It also seems stupid. Loopholes are the issue - but to take that to mean 401k deductions and state/local tax deductions are loopholes is dumb. The issue is with loopholes people with lots of money can exploit that the rest of us can't, not with the ones every single person (for the most part) is capable of having access to....

[HOF44]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

haven't done the math to figure out where I net/net in it all. Lower rate, but no 401k deduction and now state/local tax deduction.... but it doesn't sound very good.

 

 

Gotta see the final plan, but that state income tax paid not being deductible will be significant for me and I think I am just under getting any/much relief from the lowered brackets.  As you say it doesn't sound very good.  How ironic the first major tax increase I might get comes from a Republican Government and will result in a much larger government debt.  I think Fox News might be wrong about them Republicans!

Edited November 1, 2017 by HOF44

[tshile]

On 10/29/2017 at 5:34 PM, Fergasun said:

Tax code is not really all that complicated...

Other than the fact that no one understands what an actual rate cut of x% would do because pretty much everyone and every entity pays a different tax rate that the published rate.... yeah, not all that complicated

 

/sarcasm

 

[Fergasun]

GOP hates government at all level, taxes are "anti growth" so penalizing taxes the way they propose is good. Their proposal carves out exemptions for property taxes... how is that not a loophole?

 

It is ironic because they have been the anti-tax party... for the rich.  GOP does not care about taxes on the middle class... 

[Hersh]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

It's hard to figure out what the motive is.

 

Hurting blue areas of the country that usually have higher state/local taxes?

Just trying to find funding to make it meet requirements, consequences be damned?

both?

 

I haven't done the math to figure out where I net/net in it all. Lower rate, but no 401k deduction and now state/local tax deduction.... but it doesn't sound very good.

 

It also seems stupid. Loopholes are the issue - but to take that to mean 401k deductions and state/local tax deductions are loopholes is dumb. The issue is with loopholes people with lots of money can exploit that the rest of us can't, not with the ones every single person (for the most part) is capable of having access to....

 

Your questions are the answers. Messing with the 401K seems dumb as well since we want to encourage savings for retirement. 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, HOF44 said:

Gotta see the final plan, but that state income tax paid not being deductible will be significant for me and I think I am just under getting any/much relief from the lowered brackets.  As you say it doesn't sound very good.  How ironic the first major tax increase I might get comes from a Republican Government and will result in a much larger government debt.  

yeah...

there's a small list of things I have access to lower AGI

kid, interest of mortgage, 401k, state/local/property tax

 

they're screwing with all of that and then telling me my rate will be lower. I'll have to pull up last years returns and see what rate i actually paid.

[Fergasun]

@tshile

I pay $50 and TurboTax lets me know all that information...  tax structure has been stable for 30 years.

 

We have a lot of generic information on what corporations pay -- much of it published by the Treasury and highlighted by nonpartisan groups.  Its actually lower than the top marginal rate (24%).

 

I dont understand why the top marginal rate needs to be cut -- changing the tax code the way the GOP framework proposes will be more confusing.. but ultimately GOP intent is clear.

 

Giving more from govt to rich creates jobs (newsx flash, the rich are getting richer since 2008, where are the jobs?)

 

Government does not provide valuable goods and services anymore (so lets starve govt of money).

 

We can bribe voters with tax cuts (appears even that is not universally easy).

 

I vote for keeping the system as it is thank you very much.  These cuts, much like the Bush cuts will hurt the poor and middle class.

 

But if you fundamentally think we dont need the EPA, Interior or Dept of Education.. cut away!!!!

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

If you think Republicans care about anyone's retirement savings, you are demented. 

 

Look at their soon to be proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare. They don't give a **** about 99% of the citizens of this country. 

 

Remember, the Koch brothers father was one of the founders of the John Birch Society. Do your research!

 

They are the true Enemies of the State, in league with the Russians to bring down our Republic. 

 

After the indictments and unsealed plea agreement this week, how can anyone doubt this?

Edited November 1, 2017 by LadySkinsFan

[Hersh]

15 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

If you think Republicans care about anyone's retirement savings, you are demented. 

 

Look at their soon to be proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare. They don't give a **** about 99% of the citizens of this country. 

 

Remember, the Koch brothers father was one of the founders of the John Birch Society. Do your research!

 

They are the true Enemies of the State, in league with the Russians to bring down our Republic. 

 

After the indictments and unsealed plea agreement this week, how can anyone doubt this?

I don't think they care about anyone other than themselves and their own personal agendas....which of course is the opposite of what our founding fathers wanted to happen. 

[Fergasun]

This is pretty much where I'm at.  I challenge someone who supports this framework to explain to me why this isn't a heist:

 

Robert Reich: The Huge Tax Heist

Quote

Republican’s biggest fear is that word of the heist will leak out to the public, and their tax bill will be defeated by a handful of Senate Republican holdouts who feel the public pressure.  That’s exactly what happened with their plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The GOP’s big-money patrons pushed for repeal not because they had any principled objection to the Act, but because they didn’t want to fork over $144 billion in taxes on incomes over $1 million to pay for the Act over the next decade.

 

[Fergasun]

I'm sorry - but as a CA resident, I'm sickened by the lack of publicity over these issues - especially on local "right wing radio".  These guys are going on about the car tax, these guys have gone on about the water tax, and all sorts of other "local government issues".  Yet nothing is going to screw over CAs more than losing the state and local tax deduction.  I'm talking about "John and Ken Show" on KFI AM 640. Yes, I listen to these right wing dolts some days... what is sad is that it seems clear to me none of their schtick is principled, rather it's targeted towards some type of "right wing talking point" and additionally local talking point as well.

 

To also see Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield CA, #3 GOP member of the House go along with this and act like this is "good for Californians" is also nuts.  These guys need to be called onto talk radio and forced to defend a position that the radio hosts are relentlessly attacking, the same way I've felt about it when I saw they were reducing the SALT deduction.  Even the compromise of allowing property taxes is dumb -- because CA has a lower property tax and more income tax.

 

The only fair way to due this nation-wide is to have some type of "itemized deduction cap" which doesn't look at the type of deduction rather phases itemized deductions out by income level.  But again, that may be unfair to the ultra-wealthy...

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Fergasun said:

@tshile

I pay $50 and TurboTax lets me know all that information...  tax structure has been stable for 30 years.

 

 

 

 

So you're able to listen to a politician talk about changes to the tax code and understand them fully, because you pay $50 for turbotax?

 

[The Evil Genius]

17 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

So you're able to listen to a politician talk about changes to the tax code and understand them fully, because you pay $50 for turbotax?

 

 

Not to hard though to understand that if the top 1% of income earners ($350k+ a year) are getting tax reductions at the cost of some of the other 99%, it's bad for the majority of the US.

 

 

[PF Chang]

The potential repeal of the estate tax is the part you'd think our "economically anxious" low-income Trump voters would be upset about.

 

Estate value of up to $5.5 million is exempt. In other words, your estate needs to be worth at least $5.5 million before the estate tax is even a consideration, and there are additional deductions and credits beyond that. 

 

You don't need to understand the ins and outs of itemization, above the line vs below the line, deductions vs credits, or really anything about taxes to see how this is a direct giveaway to the wealthiest 0.1% of the population at the expense of everyone else. 

 

This is a difficult subject because the % of people who understand US taxation is incredibly low. I'm not an expert either but it's full Picard facepalm when I see things like "I wouldn't want to make more money because then I'd be in a higher tax bracket." And that's actually straightforward. Heads begin to explode when I say that the mortgage interest deduction disproportionately benefits the rich and it should be eliminated. 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, PF Chang said:

 

This is a difficult subject because the % of people who understand US taxation is incredibly low. I'm not an expert either but it's full Picard facepalm when I see things like "I wouldn't want to make more money because then I'd be in a higher tax bracket." And that's actually straightforward. Heads begin to explode when I say that the mortgage interest deduction disproportionately benefits the rich and it should be eliminated. 

 

Incredibly basic information yet people have no idea

 

[Predicto]

7 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

 

This is a difficult subject because the % of people who understand US taxation is incredibly low.

 

The overwhelming majority of people don't even understand how the gradiated tax system works.  They actually think that if a person gets a raise that moves them into a new tax bracket, they suddenly are making less money.  It's mind boggling.

[HOF44]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Incredibly basic information yet people have no idea

 

You think it would be the one thing people were interested in!  It perks up my ears when I hear changes coming to the tax system.  Hell I wouldn't mind even paying an increase if it lowered taxes on more lower income people or was used for our countries infrastructure.  But I'll be shooting of emails and ****ing where I can if the middle class is going to pay more so the wealthy get off cheaper.  For all the good it will do.

[Larry]

4 hours ago, Hersh said:

 

I don't have any problems with that type of plan. I also agree in general to reducing deductions over a period of years for individuals though I'd never get rid of the state and local tax write-off. Which, btw, is one of the more *** backwards things in this entire debate. If anything, the GOP should be 100% behind writing off state and local taxes since that could help kick more things for states to do rather than the federal government funding more things. I mean, if they still had any actual principles. 

 

The GOP proposal to target that deduction is based on exactly one reason:. 

 

They figure it's a way to raise taxes mostly on Democrats. 

[Fergasun]

Just was reading 2 more articles about the state-and-local-tax (SALT) deductions that are making my blood boil.  Basically the people who want to get rid of the tax are folks who claim that "the only government is a limited government" and want to hurt states that actually fund themselves in a reasonable basis.  In fact, the "compromise" the exempt property tax from the deduction is asinine.  So local income taxes are bad, but local property taxes aren't? 
 

The notion that states like California get a "subsidy" because I don't have to pay taxes on the money that went to state/local taxes (which has been in the income tax code for 100 darn years) from red states is insane.  High income states like California are net donors to the Federal tax system, yet people pedalling these arguments are not using "facts".  

 

In fact one argument was written aimed at "lobbyists" when in fact the article was written by what I would consider a lobbyist (news flash, it's not bad to have lobbyists, it's bad when legislators are captured to lobbyists). 

 

I have to leave it alone, because there's no actual reasonable basis to target these deductions other than "we can hurt blue states" and carving out property taxes is more of the same...

 

I feel dumb saying this, but don't just target one deduction.  Target all of the deductions and have a sliding cap on deductions... *sigh* going to try to keep myself from going off on this for a couple days because it bothers me so much. 

[visionary]

 

[HOF44]

Looks like about 1500-2000 increase for me depending on 401k stuff.

[LadySkinsFan]

Any indication how they will pay for it, or is increased deficit okay with them until they want to cut more out of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food programs, Vet health care because they don't want to increase the debt ceiling?

 

Assholes.

Edited November 2, 2017 by LadySkinsFan