Tax Bill

[Bozo the kKklown]

9 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

This is happens every time a (D) leaves the economy in semi-good shape.  The progress is promptly looted and given to the wealthy donor class. More programs will be cut, deficit balloons No worries, they will just press their work forces to up their productivity, lay more people people off and have those left do the jobs of 2-3 people. Break their backs to make annual GDP numbers look good so the GOP have something to point to as "signs the tax cut works" keep people fooled for another generation. 

 

Eventually another (D) will come along with proposals to reverse course,  and fix things once again.  1/16th of what he or she proposes will end up passing, setting the course for recovery, but at a fraction of the rate it could have been had what they wanted to get passed actually got passed in full.  Then on cue, they will be blamed for not fixing things fast enough.

Bruh, this is completely different.

 

The American economy is a castle of sand at this moment. We are in for a very dark recession at best, and it may be a depression.

 

I am not sure what we can do to stem this tide, but it is coming and it will come sooner than we think. This is beyond playing politics, I think we should all be scared.

[LD0506]

9 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Bruh, this is completely different.

 

The American economy is a castle of sand at this moment. We are in for a very dark recession at best, and it may be a depression.

 

I am not sure what we can do to stem this tide, but it is coming and it will come sooner than we think. This is beyond playing politics, I think we should all be scared.

 

BEYOND brutal. When the "Great Depression" in '29 hit the overwhelming majority of the country was still rural, knew how to hunt and fish and raise crops and for the most part fend for themselves. Their needs were much more circumscribed and most of those they took care of themselves. Not dismissing or minimizing it, but there were some options.

 

Fast forward to today, tens upon millions are going to be utterly lost if the power goes out, or gas stations run dry or grocery stores aren't restocked. They will be utterly bereft of options, they simply have no survival skills whatsoever. You cannot plant crops because you're hungry now, it simply doesn't address the problem. The ZA will be a walk in the park in comparison.

 

Of course people will relearn some of the old ways, like the realization that rich people make good eatin' with the right recipe.

[NoCalMike]

Assuming 2018 flips the House/Senate, & 2020 puts a Democrat in the Whitehouse, I believe some of this stuff can be rolled back if not rescinded completely.  It's not that I am not deeply concerned, I just don't think it is beyond the point of repair..................yet.

[Hersh]

28 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Bruh, this is completely different.

 

The American economy is a castle of sand at this moment. We are in for a very dark recession at best, and it may be a depression.

 

I am not sure what we can do to stem this tide, but it is coming and it will come sooner than we think. This is beyond playing politics, I think we should all be scared.

 

Explain why we are headed to a dark recession or depression. Please

[nonniey]

8 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Assuming 2018 flips the House/Senate, & 2020 puts a Democrat in the Whitehouse, I believe some of this stuff can be rolled back if not rescinded completely.  It's not that I am not deeply concerned, I just don't think it is beyond the point of repair..................yet.

It won't be rolled back. The Tax Bill was easy to attack because of the primary purpose (and effect) was reducing the corporate tax rate. But attacking that is just politics (Dems can easily say it is a tax reduction for the rich and use that line to attack Republicans). You go back a couple of years and you'll find both sides discussing the need to reduce the corporate rate as the current tax structure hurt US competitiveness and encouraged businesses to keep earnings overseas (or worse move their HQ entirely overseas).

 

Bottom-line reducing the corporate tax rate which is the most substantial result of this bill greatly benefits the US and Schumer and company know this. So although they may use this as an issue to win seats they won't repeal that aspect of it if they are successful in regaining the three branches of Government.  

 

 

[PeterMP]

8 hours ago, Riggo-toni said:

Reagan passed the 86 tax reform act and the Gramm Rudman bill which reduced rates while massively cutting deductions, and though there was plenty of cheating going on, the deficit under Miller's direction was going down during Reagan's 2nd term.

Reagan had regulations reviewed by a rational cost basis analysis and eliminated 10,000 pages from the federal registrar.

GHWB's very first budget was designed to sink Gramm Rudman by basing revenue collections increasing based on a projected 8% inflation rate when inflation was under 3%. Quayle and others in their autobiographies have stated that the Bush team was planning from day one ways to sell tax increases despite the read my lips b.s. GHWB was a hardcore Keynesian like his mentor Tricky Dick. His 1990 budget deal, which he claimed to have been forced into, created $2.12 in new spending for every additional tax dollar, with spending cuts to occur after 92...like a devout Keynesian, he wanted to try to tax and spend the country into prosperity, ignoring the fact that his recession has been caused by a credit crunch which his policies actually aggravated.

He added 20,000 pages of new regulations to the federal registrar, with no consideration of cost benefit. Numerous analyses have shown that GHWB era regulations were by far the most expensive in terms of cost/lives saved.

In the end, GHWB had the worst economic record of any President since Hoover. After alienating the libertarian/economic wing of the party, Bush sold his soul to the social religious conservatives, handing the 92 convention over to Pat Buchanan and Dan Quayle in a desperate attempt to win reelection. Screw the economic/fiscal conservatives and suck up to the Pat Robertson and Billy Grahams, campaign across the country with televangelists.

 

Reagan could NEVER win a GOP primary today - he would be mocked as a RHINO by all the Fox-watchers.

 

First, Keynsian economics only deals with what to do for during an economic shock (e.g. a recession or depression).  Not long term economic grown, and any devoted Keynsian would know this.

 

Second, Reagan practiced Keyensian economics.  We had massive deficit spending his first term, and the 1986 tax reform was supposed to be revenue neutral wasn't and caused more of a deficit increase (so we had more deficit spending those years).  Reagan ended on good terms because he got the economic boost from the 1986 deficit spending (because the 1986 law wasn't revenue neutral) w/o paying the cost.

 

The Bush issue didn't have to do with over all inflation, but the interest rates on T-bills:

 

"To produce those deficit estimates, Reagan's budget forecasts that the economy will grow by 3.2% this year and that 91-day Treasury bills will pay an average of 6.3% interest during 1989, sharply lower than the current level of 8.3%. The Administration also counted on a drop in long-term interest rates to an average of 8.3% from the current rate of about 9%."

 

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-02-01/news/mn-1282_1_interest-rates

 

For the budget to be balanced and not trigger Gramm-Rhudman (based on projections from Reagan and the 1986 law), there had to be much lower interest rates on government debt.  That never happened (because the 1986 tax law was fraud in terms of being revenue neutral).

Edited December 22, 2017 by PeterMP

[Bozo the kKklown]

15 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Explain why we are headed to a dark recession or depression. Please

A lot of economic predictors are showing something bad is coming.

 

This is a good video highlighting why online retailers, student loan crisis, wage stagnation, and other factors are coming together at the same time for a potential collapse:

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

I don't mind a lower tax rate for corporations, I want their loopholes closed so that they actually pay 21%. 

 

Then I would restore the deductions that this tax bill eliminated, especially for individuals.

Edited December 21, 2017 by LadySkinsFan

[NoCalMike]

1 minute ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I don't mind a lower tax rate for corporations, I want their loopholes closed so that they actually pay 21%. 

 

Then I would restore the deductions that this tax bill eliminated, especially for individuals.

 

Right.  That is really the point.  Tax rates vs effective tax rates.  I think a deal should be made to where their actual tax rates are cut, but then all loopholes are closed so with the exception of extreme and rigorously audited circumstances, whatever the rate is lowered to, is actually what they are paying. 

[JSSkinz]

13 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I don't mind a lower tax rate for corporations, I want their loopholes closed so that they actually pay 21%. 

 

Then I would restore the deductions that this tax bill eliminated, especially for individuals.

 

10 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Right.  That is really the point.  Tax rates vs effective tax rates.  I think a deal should be made to where their actual tax rates are cut, but then all loopholes are closed so with the exception of extreme and rigorously audited circumstances, whatever the rate is lowered to, is actually what they are paying. 

 

Are there any specific loopholes you guys are referring too?

[nonniey]

6 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Right.  That is really the point.  Tax rates vs effective tax rates.  I think a deal should be made to where their actual tax rates are cut, but then all loopholes are closed so with the exception of extreme and rigorously audited circumstances, whatever the rate is lowered to, is actually what they are paying. 

 My understanding is the Senate initially did (accidentally) eliminate the deductions(loopholes)  but this ended up being a wash (ie the effective tax rates would not change for Corporations because of this error). This would have left corporations still being taxed at an average of 10-15% higher in the U.S. than outside the US. This was fixed during reconciliation. 

[Hersh]

6 minutes ago, nonniey said:

 My understanding is the Senate initially did (accidentally) eliminate the deductions(loopholes)  but this ended up being a wash (ie the effective tax rates would not change for Corporations because of this error). This would have left corporations still being taxed at an average of 10-15% higher in the U.S. than outside the US. This was fixed during reconciliation. 

 

Not saying this wasn’t the excused they used but it’s not at all accurate. 

[nonniey]

28 minutes ago, jschuck12001 said:

 

 

Are there any specific loopholes you guys are referring too?

Well most of the discussion for fixing the deduction was centered around Research and Development not sure what other deductions were retained.

17 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Not saying this wasn’t the excused they used but it’s not at all accurate. 

Other countries have their deductions too (So yeah generally it is accurate).  Even Dems never disputed that Corporations had a significantly higher tax burden in the US than outside the country -its just Dems avoided focusing on that (Lets face it optics favored them saying it was a cut for the rich).  

Edited December 21, 2017 by nonniey

[Predicto]

3 hours ago, Riggo-toni said:

Well you got what you wanted long term. Between father and son, the Bush family completely betrayed the Reagan movement and turned the GOP into its current incarnation of big government theocrats.

 

Umm, not seeing that at all.

 

Bush Elder was the last of the responsible Republicans.  Reagan was the one who proved you don't have to be responsible, just charismatic and populist.  Reagan led directly to Trump.  

[Predicto]

2 hours ago, Riggo-toni said:

GHWB was a hardcore Keynesian like his mentor Tricky Dick. His 1990 budget deal, which he claimed to have been forced into, created $2.12 in new spending for every additional tax dollar, with spending cuts to occur after 92...like a devout Keynesian, he wanted to try to tax and spend the country into prosperity, ignoring the fact that his recession has been caused by a credit crunch which his policies actually aggravated.

 

 

I'm not sure you understand what Keynesism really is.     

[Hersh]

24 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Well most of the discussion for fixing the deduction was centered around Research and Development not sure what other deductions were retained.

Other countries have their deductions too (So yeah generally it is accurate)

https://taxfoundation.org/cbo-report-compares-us-corporate-tax-g20/

 

Some research for you. 

 

 

[Predicto]

1 hour ago, nonniey said:

It won't be rolled back. The Tax Bill was easy to attack because of the primary purpose (and effect) was reducing the corporate tax rate. But attacking that is just politics (Dems can easily say it is a tax reduction for the rich and use that line to attack Republicans). You go back a couple of years and you'll find both sides discussing the need to reduce the corporate rate as the current tax structure hurt US competitiveness and encouraged businesses to keep earnings overseas (or worse move their HQ entirely overseas).

 

Bottom-line reducing the corporate tax rate which is the most substantial result of this bill greatly benefits the US and Schumer and company know this. So although they may use this as an issue to win seats they won't repeal that aspect of it if they are successful in regaining the three branches of Government.  

 

 

 

What the?  Reducing the corporate rate is not the most substantial part of this bill.  Reducing the corporate rate was the cover for shoving through all the rest of the bill, the really damaging stuff.   

[LadySkinsFan]

My idea is that if individuals don't get deductions then corporations don't either. 

[Renegade7]

So did the AMT get removed or not?  I'm looking around, know the Senate didn't want to do that, but can't confirm it.

[JSSkinz]

3 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

My idea is that if individuals don't get deductions then corporations don't either. 

 

I get what your saying but think of it from the business owners standpoint. 

 

It takes a lot of guts to put your life on the line and start a business and it's well documented that the majority will fail.

 

Out of the businesses I speak with a large percentage of the successful ones failed at some level before they succeeded, some failed catastrophically.

 

This is why I never had a big problem with the way LLC's, C Corps, and S corps use deductions to their advantage, your taking a huge risk by leaving your safe W-2 job and going out on your own.

 

 

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

They will need to eliminate the marriage penalty for SALT.

 

An unmarried couple that owns a house and filing separately can claim 10k each. A married couple can claim 10k total. How the **** does that make sense?

Edited December 21, 2017 by The Evil Genius

[LadySkinsFan]

16 minutes ago, jschuck12001 said:

 

I get what your saying but think of it from the business owners standpoint. 

 

It takes a lot of guts to put your life on the line and start a business and it's well documented that the majority will fail.

 

Out of the businesses I speak with a large percentage of the successful ones failed at some level before they succeeded, some failed catastrophically.

 

This is why I never had a big problem with the way LLC's, C Corps, and S corps use deductions to their advantage, your taking a huge risk by leaving your safe W-2 job and going out on your own.

 

 

 

 

 

Employees take the risk that they won't be fired without cause (at will states). 

 

11 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

They will need to eliminate the marriage penalty for SALT.

 

An unmarried couple that owns a house and filing separately can claim 10k each. A married couple can claim 10k total. How the **** does that make sense?

 

The family values party. I foresee a huge divorce surge.

[nonniey]

53 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

My idea is that if individuals don't get deductions then corporations don't either. 

Well, you do know that individuals do get deductions, right?

Edited December 21, 2017 by nonniey

[LadySkinsFan]

2 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Well, you do know that individuals do get deductions?

 

You do know that they are forcing most people to give up itemizing deductions and taking the standard deduction, which next year they will reduce because deficits. 

 

You do know that this is the largest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy ever.

[The Evil Genius]

5 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Well, you do know that individuals do get deductions?

 

How much pass through income does the average Joe Schmoe actually have access to?