Tax Bill

[The Evil Genius]

For ****s and giggles I put our 2017 numbers into the 2018 tax calculator. The tax cuts would have resulted in 20k more taxable income and owing $900 more in federal taxes for 2017 than we actually did. Something about losing 20k+ in deductions (including $8,100 in personal exemptions) doesn't offset the reduced tax rates.

 

Go figure. 

Edited April 15, 2019 by The Evil Genius

[Larry]

5 hours ago, tshile said:

The whole “less revenue” thing seemed to have been a q1 issue. Reports I’m seeing is tax revue is up with the new bill.

 

I wanted to go hit on what I think is one of the classic untruths of discussing tax policies, here.  But research showed me something.  

 

What I wanted to point out is that one of the (IMO) classic lies of the trickle down crowd is the notion that well, tax revenues went up (or, in many cases, it's "eventually went up"), therefore the tax cut did not impact revenue at all, in fact, it caused it to go up.  

 

And I was going to point out that US tax revenue almost always goes up.  Certainly when looking at nominal dollars.  

 

That the notion that "well, the nominal dollar number eventually went up to the same number that we had before the tax cut" is actually untrue enough, IMO, to qualify as a lie.  

 

So, I went to my go-to source, to gather numbers, so I could start laying out my reasoning.  And saw something.  

 

- - - - - 

 

US Federal tax revenues, while historically they always go up, have actually been flat for a few years, now.  

 

Looking at Federal, total direct revenue, inflation adjusted to 2012 dollars, from 1980-present,

 

A view which I normally don't like to use, precisely because historical trends exert such an upward force on the graph that I thinik it masks actual policy.  IMO, a better way to look at policy and tax growth, over more than a couple of years, is to look at a percentage of GDP.  But for this discussion, I think it's the right one to use.

 

And I note the fact that just like I'm saying, the numbers almost always go up.  Really, the only times it's gone down during that frame, were the W tax cuts, which phased in over FY02-04, and the Great Recession, of FY09.  

 

But what jumps out to me, for the discussion that I was intending to make, was that federal tax revenue looks like it peaked in FY15, and is actually slightly down, since then.  

 

I don't know why.  

 

The economy grew, those years.  (If you scroll down the page I linked, they'll show you the raw data, which includes US GDP for those years.)  So why didn't tax revenues go up, similarly?

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

It won't explain all of it Larry but corporate tax revenue has plummeted, especially with the yuge reduction in their tax rates.

 

About a 31% drop in them from 2017 to 2018.  That resulted in a loss of 92 billion (from the previous year) in corporate taxes..but probably a lot more if they had had the old rate.

Edited April 15, 2019 by The Evil Genius

[Springfield]

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

For ****s and giggles I put our 2017 numbers into the 2018 tax calculator. The tax cuts would have resulted in 20k more taxable income and owing $900 more in federal taxes for 2017 than we actually did. Something about losing 20k+ in deductions (including $8,100 in personal exemptions) doesn't offset the reduced tax rates.

 

Go figure. 

 

Like seriously nut****s...

 

I wouldn’t mind paying more in taxes if I’m not being taxed on $30,000 of it.

 

Its a giant scam intended to hurt people who don’t vote republican anyhow.

 

I don’t know why the media or presidential candidates aren’t latching onto this whole scam.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

For ****s and giggles I put our 2017 numbers into the 2018 tax calculator. The tax cuts would have resulted in 20k more taxable income and owing $900 more in federal taxes for 2017 than we actually did. Something about losing 20k+ in deductions (including $8,100 in personal exemptions) doesn't offset the reduced tax rates.

 

Go figure. 

 

What tax calculator are you using?

 

because every one I’ve seen was garbage. None of them got my situation right and I’m about as simple as it gets. Married with kids. Not even a house to claim this time.

[The Evil Genius]

22 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

What tax calculator are you using?

 

because every one I’ve seen was garbage. None of them got my situation right and I’m about as simple as it gets. Married with kids. Not even a house to claim this time.

 

I used this one and checked it against my return for this filling year. The tax owed was correct.

 

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/the-new-trump-tax-calculator-what-do-you-owe-2017-10-26

 

Edit...Lol at that being censored. At least the link works, you ****s. 😁

Edited April 15, 2019 by The Evil Genius

[LD0506]

[The Evil Genius]

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article229585994.html

 

Quote

Californians benefit the least from Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, new report finds

 

WASHINGTON

California households benefited the least from the income tax cuts in the 2017 tax law, according to a new report. The study, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, confirms the complaints from Democratic-leaning “blue” states that the Republican-backed federal tax overhaul was tilted against them.

 

The primary reason the report finds for the tax cuts’ different impact on households in different states: the law’s cap on state and local tax or SALT deductions, which predominantly benefited residents of high-cost, high-tax Democratic states.

 

The research paper, authored by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and academics from University of California, Berkeley and Boston University, ranked all fifty states and the District of Columbia in terms of how much wealth local households stand to gain from the income tax cuts in the new tax law. 
 

Their analysis found that California came in dead last in terms of the lifetime benefits the state’s households will receive from the tax law, assuming the personal income tax provisions are made permanent (under the existing law, they are set to expire in 2025).

On average, California households will enjoy a 0.9 percent increase in spending over the course of their lifetime from the tax cuts.
 

By way of comparison, households in Wyoming are projected to enjoy a 2.1 increase in spending potential, on average, landing the heavily Republican state first on the list. Of the states ranked in the top ten, just one, Washington, is a blue state.

 

Three — New Hampshire, Nevada and Florida — are considered “purple” states, where the number of Democrats and Republicans is relatively even.
 

All 10 of the states that gain the least from the income tax cuts are Democrat-leaning. In addition to California, they include Vermont, Oregon, Washington, D.C., Hawaii, New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey and Maine.
 

The research affirms Republicans’ defense of the tax law, underscoring the fact that the average taxpayer across the country stands to benefit financially from the federal income tax changes, which included reducing the top marginal tax rate, doubling the standard deduction and raising the threshold for the Alternative Minimum Tax.
 

But it also reinforces the fact that the benefits of the law are uneven, with people in some parts of the country reaping far larger windfalls than others.

 

More at link above.

Edited April 24, 2019 by The Evil Genius

[NoCalMike]

It doesn't matter anyway.  Whether Guy A got more crumbs than Guy B or Guy C owes a little more. None of us likely saw any kind of real life-altering difference in the amount we got back or owed. The overall truth is once again the wealthy were given a huge tax break which created a budget shortfall and now the GOP will want to go after the same Gov't programs they always do (not the Military budget) for massive cuts to make up for the shortfall in revenue. 

Edited April 24, 2019 by NoCalMike

[twa]

I'm fine with limiting high tax states sucking on the federal tit.

 

 

[HOF44]

1 minute ago, twa said:

I'm fine with limiting high tax states sucking on the federal tit.

 

 

Now we just need to limit the low taxed states too.  

[twa]

Just now, HOF44 said:

Now we just need to limit the low taxed states too.  

 

Go ahead, just don't tell us how we should help the poor while getting a extra deduction to keep funds in state.

[HOF44]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Go ahead, just don't tell us how we should help the poor while getting a extra deduction to keep funds in state.

It's wasn't an extra deduction. It was available to everyone, everywhere.  And again this tax bill was not in any way about helping the poor.  It was about sticking it to Dem states and giving it to the top  .1%. 

[twa]

7 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

It's wasn't an extra deduction. It was available to everyone, everywhere.  And again this tax bill was not in any way about helping the poor.  It was about sticking it to Dem states and giving it to the top  .1%. 

 

 

Quote

 

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/01/03/the-state-and-local-tax-deduction-is-bad-policy/

The distribution of SALT benefits is extremely skewed towards rich people. Around 70 percent of the benefits flow to those with incomes over $200,000 per year while less than 8 percent flow to those with incomes below $100,000 per year.

 

 

This is because, to get any benefit from SALT at all, you need to be rich enough for itemizing deductions to make sense. This is also because the value of the benefit is determined by each tax unit’s marginal tax rate and richer people have higher marginal tax rates than less rich people.

 

 

[Springfield]

I don’t make $200k and neither does my family combined.  Our household got ****ed.  So I’m calling bull**** on that article.

[HOF44]

It wasn't designed to hit the rich hard. It was designed to hit those in high cost of living areas that make between 100-400K. Above that and the bracket decreases make up for the lost deductions and more.  This was laser targeted to hit who it hit.   

[Larry]

42 minutes ago, twa said:

I'm fine with limiting high tax states sucking on the federal tit.

 

 

 

Granted, they don't. The "high tax states" overwhelmingly pay more to DC than they get back. (Although maybe the DC suburbs might be exceptions). 

 

But, if they did exist, I accept your assertion that you'd be all right with the GOP treating them the way they treat people who don't vote Republican. 

[twa]

8 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Granted, they don't.

 

Quote

https://reason.com/2018/07/19/four-blue-states-file-dubious-lawsuit-ag/

 

 Previously, taxpayers could deduct all state and and local income and property taxes from their federal tax returns. Under the new, law the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction is capped at $10,000. This measure is likely to disproportionately affect wealthy people who live in states with high state income taxes (most of them blue states). For that reason, it's understandable that the blue state plaintiffs are unhappy about the change. But their legal argument against the new policy borders on the absurd. Moreover, it is ironic that progressives are defending a tax deduction that overwhelmingly benefits wealthy people and relatively affluent states, at the expense of poorer parts of the country.

.

.

 The very existence of the SALT deduction negatively affects poorer states and those with lower state tax rates, because it forces them to bear a higher proportion of the total federal tax burden. In a diverse nation with states that have a wide range of policies, almost any federal tax deduction will disproportionately benefit some states at the expense of others.

 

.

.

Perversely, the SALT deduction undermines both efficiency and equality at the same time. It effectively creates a federal subsidy for high state and local tax rates, thereby skewing state governments' incentives. From an equity point of view, the subsidy overwhelmingly helps the wealthiest residents of some of our wealthiest states, thereby shifting a higher percentage of the federal tax burden to poorer people and regions of the country.

 

 

say what?

[mbws]

10 minutes ago, twa said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by mbws

[PleaseBlitz]

LOL, twa badly misreading that article.  

[Larry]

1 hour ago, twa said:

I'm fine with limiting high tax states sucking on the federal tit.

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, twa said:

 

 

say what?

 

Is that a goalpost in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

 

5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

LOL, twa badly misreading that article.  

 

He didn't misread it in the slightest. 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Larry

[PleaseBlitz]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

He didn't misread it in the slightest. 

 

Sure he did.  Now I think you did too.

[Larry]

9 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Sure he did.  Now I think you did too.

 

Perhaps if you explain what you mean?

[visionary]

 

[tshile]

On 4/24/2019 at 10:40 AM, NoCalMike said:

None of us likely saw any kind of real life-altering difference in the amount we got back or owed.

Life altering? No

 

significant? Absolutely. 

 

We made 40k more and paid 3k less in taxes. Put another way: our tax burden was reduced by 3k and we then got another 40k tax free. It’s a net swing of about 10k in our favor. 

 

I dont consider that life altering but I absolutely consider it a very significant swing. 

 

Not to mention we had no mortgage this past year. I’m curious what adding that in will do for us next year. We also didn’t have the real estate taxes but we’re capped there anyways. 

Edited May 30, 2019 by tshile