Tax Bill

[PleaseBlitz]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

or you have kids - i believe two adults with 2 kids or more gets screwed because you lose exemptions after 1 kid?

and you lose the dependent care deduction. people with kids or taking care of a family member get screwed there

 

 

also, i believe anyone with a mortgage originated prior to the change would not lose their interest? wasn't that part of the deal at some point? 

 

Your first thing about kids depends on how much you make.  Again, poorer people get ****ed, people that make more do pretty well.  https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/senate-tax-bills-child-tax-credit-increase-provides-only-token-help-to-millions

 

Your second thing about mortgages is correct as far as i know.  

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Your first thing about kids depends on how much you make.  Again, poorer people get ****ed, people that make more do pretty well.  https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/senate-tax-bills-child-tax-credit-increase-provides-only-token-help-to-millions

 

Your second thing about mortgages is correct as far as i know.  

wait, i think we're talking about two different things?

 

the childhood tax credit gets extended past $120k or whatever it is now, so people who make more get more

 

but you don't get personal exemptions beyond 3 now I thought? So if you you and your wife have 2 kids you used to claim the exmemption x 4, now you can only claim x 3?

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

20 minutes ago, tshile said:

wait, i think we're talking about two different things?

 

the childhood tax credit gets extended past $120k or whatever it is now, so people who make more get more

 

but you don't get personal exemptions beyond 3 now I thought? So if you you and your wife have 2 kids you used to claim the exmemption x 4, now you can only claim x 3?

 

 

 

Oh I see what you mean, and I'm not sure.  This whole thing is a bit of a moving target and not the most transparent exercise.  

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

on the flip side it probably helps middle to upper-middle class people with no kids.

 

 

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

As long as they don't itemize their mortgage interest, student loan interest, and live in a high state income tax state.

---

 

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

It appears that the cut off is $100,000/yr.  If you make more than that you end up ok in terms of the amount of federal taxes you pay (if you get healthcare through your employer and you don't live in a high tax state and you are not currently a graduate student).  If you make less than that, you get screwed pretty good. 

 

  

These are all me!  I now support the bill 110%.  Viva la GOP.

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

 

These are all me!  I now support the bill 110%.  Viva la GOP.

 

They are all me too.  But

 

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

The above only looks at the amount of taxes you pay.  What everyone seems to forget is that this tax bill is also going to be the impetus for adding $1.5 TRILLION to the deficit and/or/probably both dramatically slashing federal programs and significantly curtailing infrastructure investment and a kajillion other things that will dramatically lower your quality of life, even if you make $100k per year so your annual personal tax bill goes down somewhat (but aren't so overwhelmingly wealthy that literally nothing can harm you).  

 

So even though I'm in a bucket that appears to make out pretty well, I am vehemently against this bill because I think it is bad for the country.  It's going to severely damage a bunch of things that effect my life so that billionaires can pay less.  Basically, everyone is going to suffer so that Danny Snyder, who can currently afford literally everything he could ever want, gets to claim a higher net worth in lieu of having a functional penis. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

19 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

They are all me too.  But

 

 

So even though I'm in a bucket that appears to make out pretty well, I am vehemently against this bill because I think it is bad for the country.  It's going to severely damage a bunch of things that effect my life so that billionaires can pay less.  Basically, everyone is going to suffer so that Danny Snyder, who can currently afford literally everything he could ever want, gets to claim a higher net worth in lieu of having a functional penis. 

I was kidding.

[PleaseBlitz]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I was kidding.

 

[HOF44]

if they keep the mortgage deduction will you still have to itemize to use it??  If so with all the other deductions nixed it will be useless for most. Would be hard to break the 24k barrier with only mortgage interest. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

@PleaseBlitz  I hate how much I pay in taxes, mostly because of how the government pisses away my money (paying off sexual harassment claims among other things).  I would be fine with paying more if they used it wisely.  But working for the government and seeing the waste, I'd rather just give them less to waste.

 

EDIT: But I still don't support their plan.  If you are going to give people a tax break, don't give it to the rich.

Edited November 27, 2017 by TheGreatBuzz

[PleaseBlitz]

14 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

@PleaseBlitz  I hate how much I pay in taxes, mostly because of how the government pisses away my money (paying off sexual harassment claims among other things).  I would be fine with paying more if they used it wisely.  But working for the government and seeing the waste, I'd rather just give them less to waste.

 

EDIT: But I still don't support their plan.  If you are going to give people a tax break, don't give it to the rich.

 

We're on the same page.  Fully 1/4 of what I earn goes to taxes.  I'm on board with tax cuts, but they should go to the people that need it, not the people that already have enough money to buy everything they could ever want.  It also chaps my ass that the people pushing for these tax cuts, i.e., the President and most of the members of congress, are the people that stand to personally benefit the most.  It also chaps my ass when I hear a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires as being sold as "well it will benefit the middle class by trickling down" ... JUST ****ING GIVE IT TO THEM DIRECTLY. 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2017 by visionary

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by visionary

[visionary]

 

[Fergasun]

Did we even talk about the Hatch-Wyden argument a couple weeks back?

 

Basically Wyden wanted a "if this bill doesn't raise wages, we roll back the tax cuts for corporations amendment" and pointed out GOP hypocrissy.. this got under Hatch's skin.

 

 

[NoCalMike]

12 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

Did we even talk about the Hatch-Wyden argument a couple weeks back?

 

Basically Wyden wanted a "if this bill doesn't raise wages, we roll back the tax cuts for corporations amendment" and pointed out GOP hypocrissy.. this got under Hatch's skin.

 

 

 

I've been saying the same thing since the Bush Tax cuts.  If we can show a direct correlation between these kinds of tax cuts aimed at corporations and the top 1% and increased wages for the middle class, then by all means, we'll have a starting point on a discussion.  So why not tie the tax cuts directly to some kind of guarantee of the supposed "trickle down" and if there isn't a substantial one, the tax cuts are rescinded backwards to when they were enacted.  The whole idea behind the higher tax rates was to discourage hording and give the breaks to companies that used the money to re-invest back into the company instead of stash obscene amounts of wealth in tax shelters over seas.  Not that they weren't always going to be doing that anyway to some degree, but it has gotten substantially worse over the years.

[88Comrade2000]

Go ahead and pass the ****ty bill.  The damage to most of middle class starts in 2019; after the 2018 midterms.  So, the Trumpsters won't know they have been screwed until they pay their 2019 taxes in 2020.  They'll probably vote trump anyway and the TWA;s will say; he's still better than the Dem nominee.

 

I saw some table showing how screwed the middle class is, under the Senate bill.

[Fergasun]

Quoting this article from September, but it is very clear about the "tax reform".  GOP keeps talking about doubling the standard deduction.  That's double-talk... a half-truth.  They give with the standard deduction, but take-away with the personal exemption.

 

LA Times: Why the GOP Tax Plan's Big Boost in the Standard Deduction Won't be a windfall for some average Americans

Quote

Under existing law, a single filer can combine the $6,350 standard deduction and $4,050 personal exemption to shield $10,400 from federal income tax. Under the Republican plan, a single filer can shield $12,000, so there’s a $1,600 benefit there.  But it’s a different story for people with children.

Quote

Under existing tax law, a married couple with two children can combine the $12,700 standard deduction and $16,200 in personal and dependent exemptions to shield $28,900 from federal income tax. Under the Republican plan, that same couple would be able to shield just $24,000.

Quote

“Increasing the standard deduction and losing the personal exemption is a trade-off that might work for single filers with no kids,” said Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “It doesn’t work at all for a single filer with two kids. They’d be worse off.”

 

Quite honestly, it has never been explained by the GOP why they are removing the personal exemptions.  It appears they just want to throw around the "we doubled the standard deduction" to make it act like they are giving everyone a huge tax cut.  But that is only one hand of the equation when it comes to shielding money from taxes.  The "personal exemption" shouldn't be a loophole or tax break that needs to be closed down. 

 

I hate this tax plan because it's a big corporate give-away that is repeating the mistakes of the Bush tax cuts in 2001-2004 time-frame.  These did nothing for the economy.  If they want to fiddle around with reducing corporate rates, there's no reason for them to go from 35% to 20% --- in fact I don't understand why they don't try to get to 25-28%, try to keep in the estate tax, and give a bit more cut to the "middle class".  

 

As has been pointed out, Kansas did this exact same thing and screwed up their budget, etc.... it did nothing to spur growth, wages, etc.  Why the Kansas Reps and Senators aren't being honest about what this plan really will do... well I understand ideologies I suppose... but at some point don't you say, "perhaps my ideologies are wrong?" . 

[visionary]

 

[mcsluggo]

again on the inheritance/estate tax.    the best tax, for all of us

 

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21731626-case-taxing-inherited-assets-strong-hated-tax-fair-one

 

Quote

Inheritance tax

A hated tax but a fair one

The case for taxing inherited assets is strong

 Print edition | Leaders

Nov 23rd 2017

NO TAX is popular. But one attracts particular venom. Inheritance tax is routinely seen as the least fair by Britons and Americans. This hostility spans income brackets. Indeed, surveys suggest that opposition to inheritance and estate taxes (one levied on heirs and the other on legacies) is even stronger among the poor than the rich.

Politicians know a vote-winner when they see one. The estate of a dead adult American is 95% less likely to face tax now than in the 1960s. And Republicans want to go all the way: the House of Representatives has passed a tax-reform plan that would completely abolish “death taxes” by 2025. For a time before the second world war, Britons were more likely to pay death duties than income tax; today less than 5% of estates catch the taxman’s eye. It is not just Anglo-Saxons. Revenue from these taxes in OECD countries, as a share of total government revenue, has fallen sharply since the 1960s (see article). Many other countries have gone down the same path. In 2004 even the egalitarian Swedes decided that their inheritance tax should be abolished.

Yet this trend towards trifling or zero estate taxes ought to give pause. Such levies pit two vital liberal principles against each other. One is that governments should leave people to dispose of their wealth as they see fit. The other is that a permanent, hereditary elite makes a society unhealthy and unfair. How to choose between them?

<more at link>

 

 

the most economically efficient, least market distorting, most egalitarian tax that exists.   Period. 

[Predicto]

Opposition to the estate tax is deep and emotional, and it cuts across party lines.

 

The fact that teh estate tax is, in reality, the single most socially and economically wise tax of all only matters to those few people who study tax and social mobility issues in depth.  Like perhaps 5% of the population.   Politicians don't care about those people.  Politically, dumping the DEATH TAX is a winner every time.  

 

Bring on the new aristocracy!  It's 1787 all over again!

Edited November 28, 2017 by Predicto

[mcsluggo]

keep bringing out the facts.   

 

steadily, slowly.   Consistently.   

 

the opposition to the INheritance Tax isn't an accident, or happenstance.   It is the result of years of doogged effort, lobbying, marketing, and successful efforts to brand it the Death Tax.

 

https://www.citizen.org/media/press-releases/public-citizen-and-united-fair-economy-expose-stealth-campaign-super-wealthy

 

marketing matters.  and this issue is literally worth BILLIONS of $$$ to a small amount of families that are certainly willing to spend $$millions to keep the misinformation flowing.... 

[NoCalMike]

So basically the tax cuts will create huge deficits for the incumbent Democratic (most likely) President to fix....again....while the entire time the GOP goes back to pretending they care about such a thing.

 

The only thing missing now is a huge middle east conflict to further balloon the debt (although we are sort of still in a never ending one, but I am thinking adding something else major) while simultaneously cutting taxes on the wealthiest.  Always a winning combination. 

 

-Sincerely Team Dubya

2 hours ago, mcsluggo said:

keep bringing out the facts.   

 

steadily, slowly.   Consistently.   

 

the opposition to the INheritance Tax isn't an accident, or happenstance.   It is the result of years of doogged effort, lobbying, marketing, and successful efforts to brand it the Death Tax.

 

 

Oh for sure, the GOP has tricked the general population into thinking that when they magically become billionaires in the next 10 years, their kids will be taxed on the huge inheritance.  It's a joke.  Seriously, unless anyone of us are rubbing shoulders with millionaires on a daily basis, the inheritance tax likely should never even be brought up, let alone ranted about.

[tshile]

3 hours ago, mcsluggo said:

the most economically efficient, least market distorting, most egalitarian tax that exists.   Period. 

 

3 hours ago, Predicto said:

The fact that teh estate tax is, in reality, the single most socially and economically wise tax of all only matters to those few people who study tax and social mobility issues in depth.

i'm cool with it as long as it doesn't apply to me.

16 hours ago, Fergasun said:

Did we even talk about the Hatch-Wyden argument a couple weeks back?

 

Basically Wyden wanted a "if this bill doesn't raise wages, we roll back the tax cuts for corporations amendment" and pointed out GOP hypocrissy.. this got under Hatch's skin.

 

 

 

16 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I've been saying the same thing since the Bush Tax cuts.  If we can show a direct correlation between these kinds of tax cuts aimed at corporations and the top 1% and increased wages for the middle class, then by all means, we'll have a starting point on a discussion.  So why not tie the tax cuts directly to some kind of guarantee of the supposed "trickle down" and if there isn't a substantial one, the tax cuts are rescinded backwards to when they were enacted. 

 

This makes me think: tie corporate tax rates to wage growth

 

but, then i imagine they would just find a way to abuse that and screw us all.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by visionary

[tshile]

The guy saying the growth will pay for it is against a backstop because it would create uncertainty about taxes rising

 

They don't even buy their own bull**** and they tell you that, if you listen.