Tax Bill

[Weganator]

2 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

It's not free! We pay in advance for it.

 

What a ridiculous thing to say!

You only 'pay for it' if you are / were a net tax payer for an extended period of time. Otherwise its just a negotiation of what level of subsidy to give you.

[Hersh]

7 minutes ago, Weganator said:

 

Which previous tax cut / reform has ended up being permanent? None of them, we are always changing the rules here.

 

The 'permanence' of the tax cuts for corporations has everything to do with the fact that it would require a Dem takeover plus being able to pass their own reforms to remove. The expiration of the individual cuts has to do with future political leverage.

 

The expiration of those cuts is a con to show the cost of the bill over ten years being less than it would have been if those costs were permanent.

[tshile]

39 minutes ago, Springfield said:

If im a successful company (I manage a small business that employs 20-30 people and grosses about $4M per year, full disclosure), this tax cut does nothing to encourage me to hire more people or pay my people more.  If I am already successful, why would I need more people or to pay them more?

Right, because your business that employs 20-30 people at 4m a year revenue isn't the target.

You don't have 10m in overseas accounts from your overseas ventures that you're waiting for a lower rate to bring back to the country.

 

I'm not saying you should like it or that it's a good plan. I have my own issues with it. 

 

But your scenario doesn't in any way apply. They're not discussing your company. They're discussing companies like Apple, Microsoft, ge, and others that have money overseas that they want back in the states.

 

[bearrock]

Dems should run on message in 2018, make middle class tax cuts permanent, not corporate and wealthy.  

 

If I were Dems, I would carefully set up the case for 2027.  Shiw that corporate and wealthy tax cuts did not increase economic activity or wages and stay on that message.  Say that middle class cuts should be made permanent but that corporate cuts have to come up.  GOP needs Dem votes in 2027 unless they can get super majority by then.

 

Quote

But your scenario doesn't in any way apply. They're not discussing your company. They're discussing companies like Apple, Microsoft, ge, and others that have money overseas that they want back in the states.

 

They could have done that by passing a law that either sets a limit on foreign subsidiary deferrment, either in dollar amount or time, could have closed it all together, or leave the loophole,  but address the abuse, such as corporations dumping revenue processing assets to foreign subsidiaries for pennies on the dollar then parking those generated revenues overseas in hopes of another tax holiday (guess that worked huh?).  

 

Of all the possible ways to address this corporate abuse, one time tax holiday is probably the least equitable and responsible way to deal with it. 

 

Think of it this way.  We don't tax capital gains until gains are realized.  Let's say a politician says, my goodness, a person could avoid taxes forever by never selling the gained asset and parking it in a trust!  Let's give a massive tax break to induce that person to report that gain now!  Think of the massive revenue being generated!  Ignore the fact that these taxes are eventually going to be due and that we are actually foregoing tons of revenue long term and there are other much more reasonable ways to deal with it.  Tax cuts!!!!

Edited December 2, 2017 by bearrock

[Springfield]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

Right, because your business that employs 20-30 people at 4m a year revenue isn't the target.

You don't have 10m in overseas accounts from your overseas ventures that you're waiting for a lower rate to bring back to the country.

 

I'm not saying you should like it or that it's a good plan. I have my own issues with it. 

 

But your scenario doesn't in any way apply. They're not discussing your company. They're discussing companies like Apple, Microsoft, ge, and others that have money overseas that they want back in the states.

 

 

Right, I get that.

 

I don’t see that bringing any jobs back or increasing any workers’ pay, just money.

 

You know what does create jobs?  Regulations.  Evil regulations.

[gbear]

Thanks. I have said for years I am thankful for the help we get as I know many countries take worse care of their sick and especially their sick children. It is one of the christian ideals I think we deal with best. I just hate to see changes impact our ability to continue providing the life which we would all hope to live to those not lucky enough to be born healthy or in a family to help them. Having MS, I know I am lucky to currently have employer provided healthcare. I just hope we can continue to give our kids what they need. What I have read this far of the bill makes me worry for their long term prospects.

[HOF44]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

 

 

But this new, improved, version decided that this tax cut had to be paid for.  So, they cut taxes on the rich, and raised them on other folks.  

The reason they changed this time was reconciliation.  In order to pass with only 51 votes it had to be done using the reconciliation procedure.  The old way they would have needed 60 votes to pass it. So the only reason they "tried" to pay for it was because they had to.  

[twa]

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

We can now. Just need to win some elections. 

 

you could before and didn't

[bearrock]

1 minute ago, twa said:

 

you could before and didn't

92, 96, 2008, 2012.  Hmm, so that GOP super majority passed ACA?!?!?!

[HOF44]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

 

you could before and didn't

This may end up being the thing that changes it.  

[tshile]

19 minutes ago, bearrock said:

They could have done that by passing a law that either sets a limit on foreign subsidiary deferrment, either in dollar amount or time, could have closed it all together, or leave the loophole,  but address the abuse, such as corporations dumping revenue processing assets to foreign subsidiaries for pennies on the dollar then parking those generated revenues overseas in hopes of another tax holiday (guess that worked huh?).  

 

I know

I'm not defending it. Just pointing some things out about it.

[tshile]

21 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Right, I get that.

 

I don’t see that bringing any jobs back or increasing any workers’ pay, just money.

 

You know what does create jobs?  Regulations.  Evil regulations.

Oh neither do i.

Theres ample research that shows giving wealthy people more money to be wealthy with doesn't trickle down.

 

There were plenty of loopholes to close to balance the budget impacts.

 

They started with 401k contributions, medial expenses, personal exemptions for kids, dependent care allowances, state and local taxes, mortgage interest...

 

That tells you everything you need to know about the people supporting this, their motives.

 

Contributing to retirement in what is the only investment vehicle offered to the middle class was seen as a 'loophole' by Republicans and their supporters.

 

If you support that sort of stuff you're either rich or stupid. Potentially both.

[88Comrade2000]

1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said:

And remember, in public corps the corporate officers are usually duty bound to return profits to shareholders.

 

As these cuts will likely be pure profit, they will then go straight to the shareholders, with little to no reinvestment.

 

This is why when Gary Cohn asked a room full of CEOs if they would reinvest after the cuts, only about 5 hands went up.

Why would they add to their costs with additional salaries and benefits for employees.  All that so called money that's going to be repatriated is going to executive salaries and stock & dividend holders.

 

A business isn't going to all of sudden invest all that money in hiring new workers.  

[PleaseBlitz]

25 minutes ago, twa said:

 

you could before and didn't

 

That’s the whole ****ing point. ****. 

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

[Fergasun]

Don't know where to start, but will put this in for new folks discussing.

 

Big picture, GOP cared so much about a corporate/donor tax cut they paid for it wit voters.

 

The big news for the middle class should be, "Doubling of the standard deduction is offset by the loss of personal exemptions."  It's a wash for a married family with 1 kid, and a loss for larger families.  You may get nickel or dime tax breaks, corporations will get dollar sized tax breaks.

 

The second biggest news to me is blatent screwing of blue state taxpayers -- especially CA.  All homeowners in CA lose, because no deduction for state income/sales tax.  My dad was trying to say red state subsidize blue states --- what a load of lies that was.

 

Smaller changes such as affect on charities, higher ed, and home ownership are being glossed over.

 

GOP can never tax smack about deficits.... this cut blows a hole in the deficit.

 

Worst kicker is that very few economists think this is good for workers and hiring.  Wages are not going to rise and we have a low unemployment rate.  The only reason to pass this is to benefit the 1%.  

 

Contrast that with Obamacare where at least the goal was to help uninsured poor folk.

 

[PeterMP]

So the sense is that this going to committee where they will iron out the differences and then it is a done deal, right?  (Will go to Trump to be signed.)

 

There won't be a reconciled vote that will come to the floor for another vote in the House or the Senate?

[Fergasun]

The reconciled bill has to be voted on.

 

House could vote on Senate version.  Or if there are reconciliation changes, it goes through both chambers.  

 

Bills must pass both Houses... chambers.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2017 by Fergasun

[Cooked Crack]

I don't see them going into conference. Just pass the Senate version in the House and appease their donors.

[Hersh]

15 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

GOP can never talk smack about deficits.... this cut blows a hole in the deficit.

 

I wish I could agree with this but this is totally wrong. They absolutely will complain about deficits because, as they have already started saying, they will simply claim the tax cut didn't add to the debt or deficit at all. "I don't feel like it has added to the debt and I feel like the deficit would be higher without the tax cut" is what we will hear all next year. 

[nonniey]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

How many actual GOP voters do we have here anymore?

2

[No Excuses]

2 hours ago, gbear said:

I will repost this point because as an adoptive parents of 4 special needs kids on medicaid,  I suspect my family comes out behind in every time period. I just can't figure out why nobody is making an issue of yet another attempt to hurt the pocketbooks of the sick...you know the people already being bankrupted by their medical bills.  Let's make healthcare more expensive by any means possible by first doing away with the ACA and then doing away any tax relief they might currently use.  What's next, a debtors prison full of the sick?

 

 

You are doing noble work in a country that has no respect for anything but profits and wealth. 

 

People like you deserve better. 

[Weganator]

4 hours ago, Grumpy Vet said:

I know this thing has to still be finalized and there will be compromises between the house and senate version....but once that is done - will someone come out w/ an online calculator that actually shows what it does to real people's tax bill?  I am so sick of the right and the left nonsense.  The right says it does Apple.  The left says it does Orange.  I'm sure it probably does Banana....but I'd like to punch in my numbers and actually see.  If the tax law will be so much more simplistic - I'd think it would be easy to devise such a tool.

http://taxplancalculator.com

 

I didn't write this and I am looking to verify its accuracy. I got married this year which makes my savings a bit better than this thing can show.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Weganator

[nonniey]

2 hours ago, bearrock said:

It also depends on number of dependents.  Old standard deduction claimers would've gotten 12k standard deduction plus 4k personal exemption per person on the return.  So family of 3 breaks even with the 12k increase in std deduction. Less than 3 wins.  More than 4 starts losing, although that's expected to be offset with child tax credit (is that supposed to sunset or not?).  The real losers are people who itemized a lot (mortgage, medical, salt, what have you).  They lose a hefty sum in personal exemption with no offsetting relief in deduction amount.

Mortgage interest only has minor effects.  You can claim the interest on the first 1 million dollars owed (Down from 1.1 million), Property Taxes and SALT is now largely unaffected for the vast majority of people as you can claim up to $10,000 of it  (Over 85% of Itemizers don't reach that).

 

So the losers for deductions are those that have Mortgages between $1 million and $1.1 million and those who pay more than $10K in taxes for property, state and sales.

 

Itemizing in New Jersey which is one of the worst states (if not worst) for taxes the average itemizer would lose about $1000-1500 in deductions (probably raise his tax bill about by $150-$200 -  but then he gains with the reduction in rates so yeah his taxes would be lower (significantly lower).  (Average Property Tax in NJ is about $8500, Income $1600, Sales $1000-1500)

[PleaseBlitz]

7 minutes ago, Weganator said:

http://taxplancalculator.com

 

Not sure i trust a calculator created by a Fox News contributor. Will wait for one from the Tax Policy Center. 

 

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/macroeconomic-analysis-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-passed-senate-finance-committee

 

Quote

The Tax Policy Center has released an analysis of the macroeconomic effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as passed by the Senate Finance Committee on November 16, 2017. We find the legislation would boost US gross domestic product (GDP) 0.7 percent in 2018, have little effect on GDP in 2027, and boost GDP 0.1 percent in 2037. The resulting increase in taxable incomes would reduce the revenue loss arising from the legislation by $179 billion from 2018 to 2027. Because most of the tax cuts expire after 2025, we expect deficits (not including interest costs) would decline from 2028 to 2037 and macroeconomic feedback would boost the deficit savings by $34 billion over that interval. Including macroeconomic effects and interest costs, the legislation is projected to increase debt as a share of GDP by over 5 percent in 2027 and by over 4 percent in 2037.