goemaw.com

General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: catastrophe on October 18, 2017, 03:39:40 PM

Title: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on October 18, 2017, 03:39:40 PM
Seems like as good a time as any to kick this off in its own thread. Should be a pretty good event. Even though Cruz has one of the most punchable faces in Congress he’s a good debater.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 18, 2017, 03:43:15 PM
Is Cruz going to give us all of the details of Trump's tax plan, or is he going to debate on behalf of the tax cut that he would like to see?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on October 18, 2017, 03:58:39 PM
I guess you’ll just have to tune in and see. But really I only know what’s on the ad. Still interested tho.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: SdK on October 18, 2017, 03:59:41 PM
I'm gonna guess that they will both simultaneously win and lose this debate.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on October 18, 2017, 04:11:29 PM
The only two people they could have picked that would make this worse were the 2016 presidential nominees.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on October 18, 2017, 04:14:56 PM
man, both their faces
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 18, 2017, 04:28:19 PM
I'm gonna guess that they will both simultaneously win and lose this debate.

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, did Ted Cruz win?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on October 18, 2017, 04:50:44 PM
I will be watching. :don’tcare:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: wetwillie on October 18, 2017, 05:28:19 PM
Hopefully he works in an equivalent vote your conscience type remark tonight
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 18, 2017, 06:45:33 PM
Lol. Poor Bernie. Cruz is going to completely destroy both him and the moderator. Liberals don't seem to understand that Bernie, as a socialist, doesn't even have a basic grasp of economics.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: mocat on October 18, 2017, 06:49:21 PM
All I can see in cruz's face is his Simpsons impressions
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on October 18, 2017, 07:03:16 PM
Bernie looks half dead and gives Larry David a bad name.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 18, 2017, 07:21:49 PM
Lol. Poor Bernie. Cruz is going to completely destroy both him and the moderator. Liberals don't seem to understand that Bernie, as a socialist, doesn't even have a basic grasp of economics.

Yeah, it's going to be a bloodbath. I'm less interested in a debate than I am at getting a better look at what the tax proposal will look like. I'm not sure Ted can give that to us, but he will probably do a better job than Trump would be able to.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on October 18, 2017, 07:28:04 PM
I hope the moderator asks how taxes should be changed for the porn industry.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 18, 2017, 08:12:36 PM
I thought Ted was supposed to be good at this.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on October 18, 2017, 08:40:40 PM
I hope the moderator asks how taxes should be changed for the porn industry.
Honest question? What are they like now? :dunno:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on October 18, 2017, 08:41:57 PM
I hope the moderator asks how taxes should be changed for the porn industry.
Honest question? What are they like now? :dunno:

:dunno:

I just wanted to see Ted’s reaction
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on October 18, 2017, 08:54:43 PM
I’m enjoying this so far. I was kind of starving for good debate after the 2016 mess. Cruz doing well I think but fading. Still love Bernie’s zingers.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on October 18, 2017, 09:16:18 PM
Still don’t know much about this GOP plan, but Bernie coming on strong in the second half.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on October 18, 2017, 09:18:18 PM
If Cruz looked like Rubio, he'd be president right now. Politics aside, I'm dead serious. Combine GOP candidates: Rubio face, shitty brother bush's politics, Trump's over confidence, and Cruz's public speaking. You pretty much get a better GW with all those powers combined, but libs would still be super Hott, because losing.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on October 18, 2017, 09:22:20 PM
Yeah I don’t think so
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on October 18, 2017, 09:24:07 PM
Yeah I don’t think so
Trump is our president. So I can guarantee it 100%
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on October 18, 2017, 09:26:08 PM
FTR, I was talking about mushing all those shitty attributes together.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on October 18, 2017, 09:26:14 PM
Yeah I don’t think so
Trump is our president. So I can guarantee it 100%

So you’re saying Trump has all those combined qualities?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on October 18, 2017, 09:27:36 PM
Read above
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on October 18, 2017, 09:30:36 PM
Yeah I don’t think so
Trump is our president. So I can guarantee it 100%

So you’re saying Trump has all those combined qualities?
I'm not dax, but ppl voted for anything that wasn't Obama, Bernie, or Hillary.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on October 18, 2017, 09:32:12 PM
Yeah I don’t think so
Trump is our president. So I can guarantee it 100%

So you’re saying Trump has all those combined qualities?
I'm not dax, but ppl voted for anything that wasn't Obama, Bernie, or Hillary.

Actually more than 3 million more people voted for Hillary than Trump....so idk what you are trying to say here.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on October 18, 2017, 09:34:25 PM
Hey you two, don’t ruin my thread.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on October 18, 2017, 09:36:34 PM
Cruz is likely jealous that the don stole his "most hated republican politician" award
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on October 18, 2017, 09:38:39 PM
I'm sorry you just learned about the electoral collegiate system. Wish Hillary spent more time in states where she didn't think it mattered. I mean, I'm a GOP voter admitting the USA reps suck right now, but I'm still getting sas from the losing party. Look in the mirror, dorks.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on October 18, 2017, 09:39:48 PM
I will say you are smarter than Trump appears to be.  When proven wrong at least you try and pivot
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 18, 2017, 09:39:59 PM
If Cruz looked like Rubio, he'd be president right now. Politics aside, I'm dead serious. Combine GOP candidates: Rubio face, shitty brother bush's politics, Trump's over confidence, and Cruz's public speaking. You pretty much get a better GW with all those powers combined, but libs would still be super Hott, because losing.

This. And he if sounded a bit less like a southern gospel preacher. On substantive, you can see why Cruz was my guy. He's wiping the floor with this socialist. I can't believe Bernie was so stupid to agree to this stunt.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on October 18, 2017, 09:40:25 PM
Cruz is likely jealous that the don stole his "most hated republican politician" award
He'll never be Tom, that's for sure. :frown:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on October 18, 2017, 09:43:47 PM
Cruz is likely jealous that the don stole his "most hated republican politician" award

He used to be someone people actually listened to and then trump demolished him at his own game and now no one gives any shits about him. Kind of sad
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on October 18, 2017, 09:45:28 PM
I will say you are smarter than Trump appears to be.  When proven wrong at least you try and pivot
I don't care about being proven wrong. Just didn't want the same BS. Obama was definitely cavalier tho!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on October 18, 2017, 09:46:56 PM
I will say you are smarter than Trump appears to be.  When proven wrong at least you try and pivot
I don't care about being proven wrong. Just didn't want the same BS. Obama was definitely cavalier tho!

:jerk:

Ok Wacky
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on October 18, 2017, 09:49:44 PM
Libs can't take it when the opposition admits their own wrongs. Stop it TBT. :dunno: I gave an olive branch for Christ sakes.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on October 18, 2017, 09:52:09 PM
It was a good debate. I don’t suspect either side moved the needle. I give advantage Bernie, but I’m a bit of a sucker for him.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: bucket on October 18, 2017, 10:04:39 PM
Libs can't take it when the opposition admits their own wrongs. Stop it TBT. :dunno: I gave an olive branch for Christ sakes.

Where exactly did you extend an olive branch?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on October 18, 2017, 10:07:53 PM
By talking crap on my own party? :dunno: Trying to talk through where we are for reasonable reasons? :dunno:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: bucket on October 18, 2017, 10:12:09 PM
I guess I missed it
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 19, 2017, 08:07:22 AM
I thought Ted's interpretation of Robin Hood was hilarious. He got better after that, though.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: mocat on October 19, 2017, 08:22:35 AM
If Cruz looked like Rubio, he'd be president right now. Politics aside, I'm dead serious. Combine GOP candidates: Rubio face, shitty brother bush's politics, Trump's over confidence, and Cruz's public speaking. You pretty much get a better GW with all those powers combined, but libs would still be super Hott, because losing.

Rubio looked like Rubio and still got smoked by trump
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on October 19, 2017, 08:23:56 AM
It makes me sad when the boards best two moderates argue like this,  tbt and wacky should easily find common ground.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on October 19, 2017, 09:03:54 AM
It makes me sad when the boards best two moderates argue like this,  tbt and wacky should easily find common ground.

In the pit moderate is referring to politics, not intelligence
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on October 19, 2017, 09:07:23 AM
LIB IS SO SMART YOU GUYS!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on October 19, 2017, 09:16:37 AM
It makes me sad when the boards best two moderates argue like this,  tbt and wacky should easily find common ground.

In the pit moderate is referring to politics, not intelligence

Wanna have an IQ test challenge?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on October 19, 2017, 09:16:43 AM
:lol:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on October 19, 2017, 09:17:30 AM
This board is known for its great moderates,  Wacky, TBT, stevedave, dugout dickstone, etc. 
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Tubesock on October 19, 2017, 09:21:59 AM
Agreed those are the moderate four horsemen
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on October 19, 2017, 10:21:22 AM
If Cruz looked like Rubio, he'd be president right now. Politics aside, I'm dead serious. Combine GOP candidates: Rubio face, shitty brother bush's politics, Trump's over confidence, and Cruz's public speaking. You pretty much get a better GW with all those powers combined, but libs would still be super Hott, because losing.

I think the addiction to porno might derail Cruz
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on October 19, 2017, 02:27:54 PM
Ted Cruz's weird pointy nose is distracting. Honestly I can't look at him and not think of Grandpa Munster.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on October 19, 2017, 03:00:44 PM
the dude loves to slap it to porn
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: wetwillie on October 19, 2017, 05:24:09 PM
the dude loves to slap it to porn

Voyeur porn no less.  The 2020 moniker trump gives him will be peepin ted or something equally humiliating and torpedo his chances.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on October 19, 2017, 05:54:05 PM
Jerkin' Ted
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on October 25, 2017, 03:20:44 PM
If they really take the 401K pre-tax deduction down to $2,400 or whatever they are proposing to pay for a corporate tax rate, it will be interesting to see if KSUW actually willing to defend a tax policy that is almost specifically designed to hurt him as good.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on October 25, 2017, 03:37:18 PM
It will be more interesting to see who he blames it on
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on October 25, 2017, 03:45:50 PM
If they really take the 401K pre-tax deduction down to $2,400 or whatever they are proposing to pay for a corporate tax rate, it will be interesting to see if KSUW actually willing to defend a tax policy that is almost specifically designed to hurt him as good.

This really seems like a KITN for the middle class. Or do way fewer people contribute to 401(k)s than I thought?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on October 25, 2017, 03:47:08 PM
Are they boosting contribution limits to IRAs to make up the difference? Just seems like that would be putting way more pressure on social security for retirement.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on October 25, 2017, 04:16:13 PM
SS will be gone
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 25, 2017, 04:30:35 PM
If they really take the 401K pre-tax deduction down to $2,400 or whatever they are proposing to pay for a corporate tax rate, it will be interesting to see if KSUW actually willing to defend a tax policy that is almost specifically designed to hurt him as good.

Who is actually pushing for this??? I've only seen people say they don't support it.

Also, odd to see a libtard whining about an $18k per year tax shelter for "high earners".

I wouldn't be opposed to a reduced limit if it came with a substantial reduction in income taxes, and mandatory employer matching (punt the non-qualified garbage) or increase in IRA contribution limits.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 25, 2017, 07:50:58 PM
If they really take the 401K pre-tax deduction down to $2,400 or whatever they are proposing to pay for a corporate tax rate, it will be interesting to see if KSUW actually willing to defend a tax policy that is almost specifically designed to hurt him as good.

Who is actually pushing for this??? I've only seen people say they don't support it.

Also, odd to see a libtard whining about an $18k per year tax shelter for "high earners".

I wouldn't be opposed to a reduced limit if it came with a substantial reduction in income taxes, and mandatory employer matching (punt the non-qualified garbage) or increase in IRA contribution limits.

This. Word for word.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 01, 2017, 11:54:51 AM
well at least the unitary Republican government will get Tax Cuts done.  Let's check in on how that is going...

Quote
SCOOP:Trump wants to name tax bill “The Cut Cut Cut Act” but Hill leaders disagree <24 hrs out name still undecided
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 01, 2017, 12:30:28 PM
Sounds like a stupid name, but I have to admit, if there is one thing I think Trump is actually good at, it is branding.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 01, 2017, 01:00:44 PM
Yeah, I already can't get the cubic cut out of my head.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 01, 2017, 01:14:27 PM
Actually trump wants to call it the kut kut kut act...
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 02, 2017, 09:47:00 AM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Gooch on November 02, 2017, 10:12:44 AM
Mortgage interest deduction gone.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 02, 2017, 10:15:17 AM
Mortgage interest deduction gone.

Only for loans bigger than $500,000.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Gooch on November 02, 2017, 10:19:47 AM
Mortgage interest deduction gone.

Only for loans bigger than $500,000.
I misheard possibly. I thought they just said under 500k. Which would be another eff you to the middle class.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 02, 2017, 10:22:09 AM
It's a eff you to people buying homes on the East Coast and in California.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 02, 2017, 10:32:59 AM
Dropping the medical expense deduction seems kind of shitty.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 02, 2017, 10:36:49 AM
Republicans really hate people getting healthcare.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 02, 2017, 10:37:52 AM
Otherwise, these seem pretty fair. Getting rid of the interest deduction on big loans makes a ton of sense and I would be on board if that was literally the only thing that passed.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 02, 2017, 10:46:01 AM
It's a eff you to people buying homes on the East Coast and in California mainly liberals.

FYP.  :Woot:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 02, 2017, 10:48:34 AM
I don't like dropping the state and local deductions for income and sales tax, but keeping them for property tax. They should either drop them all or keep them all.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 02, 2017, 10:49:41 AM
Student loan interest deduction gone? :curse: FY GOP!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 02, 2017, 10:50:33 AM
I'm intrigued.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 02, 2017, 10:55:00 AM
By my quick math, just on the revised tax brackets, this reform will save me nearly $6,000!! Scaling back the SALT deduction will likely cost me a few grand, but that's still a sizable tax cut for the KSUdub family. None of these other deductions matter to me (as long as they keep the mortgage interest deduction up to 500k). Not sure if I'll get any off-setting benefit from that child credit increase (it probably phases out below my income).

If anything close to this gets through the Senate.... :love: :woot: :party:

Here is a useful illustration of how the tax brackets would change when they are collapsed from 7 to 4.

(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2017/10/21/2017-11-02%20%283%29.jpg)

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on November 02, 2017, 10:55:43 AM
this thing is DOA
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 02, 2017, 10:56:15 AM
I don't like dropping the state and local deductions for income and sales tax, but keeping them for property tax. They should either drop them all or keep them all.

Fair point, but I think the reasoning is they still want to incentivize middle class home ownership. I’m ok with it even though it benefits folks in some states disproportionately.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 02, 2017, 10:57:45 AM
By my quick math, just on the revised tax brackets, this reform will save me nearly $6,000!! Scaling back the SALT deduction will likely cost me a few grand, but that's still a sizable tax cut for the KSUdub family. None of these other deductions matter to me (as long as they keep the mortgage interest deduction up to 500k). Not sure if I'll get any off-setting benefit from that child credit increase (it probably phases out below my income).

If anything close to this gets through the Senate.... :love: :woot: :party:

Here is a useful illustration of how the tax brackets would change when they are collapsed from 7 to 4.

(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2017/10/21/2017-11-02%20%283%29.jpg)

Serious questions:

1. What do you think the odds are of this passing in its current form?

2. What do you think the odds are of Republicans getting ANYTHING passed on tax reform?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 02, 2017, 11:00:04 AM
By my quick math, just on the revised tax brackets, this reform will save me nearly $6,000!! Scaling back the SALT deduction will likely cost me a few grand, but that's still a sizable tax cut for the KSUdub family. None of these other deductions matter to me (as long as they keep the mortgage interest deduction up to 500k). Not sure if I'll get any off-setting benefit from that child credit increase (it probably phases out below my income).

Are you factoring the increased taxable income of $4,150 per kid, plus you and your wife?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 02, 2017, 11:00:38 AM
Student loan interest deduction gone? :curse: FY GOP!

I sympathize, a little, for people with student loan debt. But not that much. We shouldn't be subsidizing reckless borrowing. And yes, a lot of student loan debt is reckless borrowing. If you get a valuable degree and work a part time job in college, you can pay off your loans fairly quickly. If you don't, that's tough. This will help deflate the college tuition bubble, too.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 02, 2017, 11:02:14 AM
By my quick math, just on the revised tax brackets, this reform will save me nearly $6,000!! Scaling back the SALT deduction will likely cost me a few grand, but that's still a sizable tax cut for the KSUdub family. None of these other deductions matter to me (as long as they keep the mortgage interest deduction up to 500k). Not sure if I'll get any off-setting benefit from that child credit increase (it probably phases out below my income).

If anything close to this gets through the Senate.... :love: :woot: :party:

Here is a useful illustration of how the tax brackets would change when they are collapsed from 7 to 4.

(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2017/10/21/2017-11-02%20%283%29.jpg)

Serious questions:

1. What do you think the odds are of this passing in its current form?

2. What do you think the odds are of Republicans getting ANYTHING passed on tax reform?

1. No chance - of course there will be changes as it goes through the House and Senate, the question is how much.

2. Good chance - the GOP is much more unified over tax cuts and they know they have to produce some results.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 02, 2017, 11:04:04 AM
Student loan interest deduction gone? :curse: FY GOP!

I sympathize, a little, for people with student loan debt. But not that much. We shouldn't be subsidizing reckless borrowing. And yes, a lot of student loan debt is reckless borrowing. If you get a valuable degree and work a part time job in college, you can pay off your loans fairly quickly. If you don't, that's tough. This will help deflate the college tuition bubble, too.
None of mine was reckless borrowing. It was an unfortunate situation. That's not everyone's case, dude. Also, since my family made too much $, but couldn't help, I got the minimal federal loan, which meant we had to use private loans. I also went to school FT and worked 2 part time jobs, so get mumped dude!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 02, 2017, 11:08:27 AM
By my quick math, just on the revised tax brackets, this reform will save me nearly $6,000!! Scaling back the SALT deduction will likely cost me a few grand, but that's still a sizable tax cut for the KSUdub family. None of these other deductions matter to me (as long as they keep the mortgage interest deduction up to 500k). Not sure if I'll get any off-setting benefit from that child credit increase (it probably phases out below my income).

Are you factoring the increased taxable income of $4,150 per kid, plus you and your wife?

No. I haven't seen that in the proposal. Have you?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 02, 2017, 11:09:41 AM
By my quick math, just on the revised tax brackets, this reform will save me nearly $6,000!! Scaling back the SALT deduction will likely cost me a few grand, but that's still a sizable tax cut for the KSUdub family. None of these other deductions matter to me (as long as they keep the mortgage interest deduction up to 500k). Not sure if I'll get any off-setting benefit from that child credit increase (it probably phases out below my income).

Are you factoring the increased taxable income of $4,150 per kid, plus you and your wife?

No. I haven't seen that in the proposal. Have you?

Yes, the current proposal eliminates personal exemptions.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 02, 2017, 11:12:34 AM
By my quick math, just on the revised tax brackets, this reform will save me nearly $6,000!! Scaling back the SALT deduction will likely cost me a few grand, but that's still a sizable tax cut for the KSUdub family. None of these other deductions matter to me (as long as they keep the mortgage interest deduction up to 500k). Not sure if I'll get any off-setting benefit from that child credit increase (it probably phases out below my income).

Are you factoring the increased taxable income of $4,150 per kid, plus you and your wife?

No. I haven't seen that in the proposal. Have you?

Yes, the current proposal eliminates personal exemptions.

Link? I can't find that in the proposal.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 02, 2017, 11:15:27 AM
Lower upper class rejoice!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 02, 2017, 11:17:11 AM
By my quick math, just on the revised tax brackets, this reform will save me nearly $6,000!! Scaling back the SALT deduction will likely cost me a few grand, but that's still a sizable tax cut for the KSUdub family. None of these other deductions matter to me (as long as they keep the mortgage interest deduction up to 500k). Not sure if I'll get any off-setting benefit from that child credit increase (it probably phases out below my income).

Are you factoring the increased taxable income of $4,150 per kid, plus you and your wife?

No. I haven't seen that in the proposal. Have you?

Yes, the current proposal eliminates personal exemptions.

Link? I can't find that in the proposal.

It's about halfway down the sheet here. Just ctrl-f "personal".

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/tax-bill-2017
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 02, 2017, 11:36:23 AM
Mine goes up. Shocking
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 02, 2017, 11:39:57 AM
By my quick math, just on the revised tax brackets, this reform will save me nearly $6,000!! Scaling back the SALT deduction will likely cost me a few grand, but that's still a sizable tax cut for the KSUdub family. None of these other deductions matter to me (as long as they keep the mortgage interest deduction up to 500k). Not sure if I'll get any off-setting benefit from that child credit increase (it probably phases out below my income).

Are you factoring the increased taxable income of $4,150 per kid, plus you and your wife?

No. I haven't seen that in the proposal. Have you?

Yes, the current proposal eliminates personal exemptions.

Link? I can't find that in the proposal.

It's about halfway down the sheet here. Just ctrl-f "personal".

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/tax-bill-2017

Well eff, that might result in a slight tax increase for me. Thanks for peeing in my cheerios, Rage. I'm going to have to do some more number crunching tonight.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 02, 2017, 11:40:25 AM
I think the only way I’d be more mumped under this plan is if they got rid of the charitable deduction.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Institutional Control on November 02, 2017, 11:54:28 AM
I feel bad for all the accountants at H&R Block that are going to lose their jobs based on all this tax reform.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 02, 2017, 11:55:38 AM
By my quick math, just on the revised tax brackets, this reform will save me nearly $6,000!! Scaling back the SALT deduction will likely cost me a few grand, but that's still a sizable tax cut for the KSUdub family. None of these other deductions matter to me (as long as they keep the mortgage interest deduction up to 500k). Not sure if I'll get any off-setting benefit from that child credit increase (it probably phases out below my income).

Are you factoring the increased taxable income of $4,150 per kid, plus you and your wife?

No. I haven't seen that in the proposal. Have you?

Yes, the current proposal eliminates personal exemptions.

Link? I can't find that in the proposal.

It's about halfway down the sheet here. Just ctrl-f "personal".

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/tax-bill-2017

Well eff, that might result in a slight tax increase for me. Thanks for peeing in my cheerios, Rage. I'm going to have to do some more number crunching tonight.

 :lol:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 02, 2017, 11:58:49 AM
If $1,182 is what they're touting, imagine what the actual outcome will be.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: mocat on November 02, 2017, 11:59:59 AM
student loans = reckless borrowing  :love: :love: :love:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 02, 2017, 12:08:40 PM
Cut cut cut
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 02, 2017, 12:19:57 PM
If $1,182 is what they're touting, imagine what the actual outcome will be.


If they manage to save that much while cutting corporate taxes as much as they are AND still not add to the deficit it would be a pretty amazing achievement.

However, right now it looks like the government would be more or less subsidizing corporations and redistributing money from wealthier Americans to the middle class in order to make it more palatable for the general population.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 02, 2017, 12:20:55 PM

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 02, 2017, 12:25:54 PM
Looks like I'll get a cut, I'm a standard deduction'r though.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: cfbandyman on November 02, 2017, 12:58:24 PM
I don't like dropping the state and local deductions for income and sales tax, but keeping them for property tax. They should either drop them all or keep them all.

This and
Student loan interest deduction gone? :curse: FY GOP!

And the medical deduction and personal exemptions removals are major effs that hurt more than help and are major no goes to making this viable IMO.

I like the cap on mortgage deductions.

Despite the fact I generally like more tax brackets the fact the didn't touch the top and moved up the 2nd highest to 35% is a decent move, and they did well on the lower parts with the rate and deduction amounts.

Generally fine with business parts.

It's such a mixed bag I can't really seeing it being a boon to anyone, not even really the rich, businesses win mostly so that's fine.

If this plan were to keep most of deductions (personal, medical, student loans) in place, changed the 10k cap on deduction to just be property tax to include state and sales and move the cap to 20k, and kept alternative minimum and estate tax in place, I would be pretty good with the plan.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on November 02, 2017, 01:12:53 PM
Student loan interest deduction gone? :curse: FY GOP!

I thought you said you couldn’t claim this anymore because you’re married?  The deduction was the main reason I got a pretty good chunk back last year.  Would suck ass if they took it away.

KSUW saying that student debt is mostly reckless borrowing is a joke.  If you don’t have any help or can’t work much you have to take out a bunch just to pay tuition and eat food.  I have quite a bit and 0% of it was reckless borrowing.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 02, 2017, 01:15:56 PM
Keep in mind that tuition was like $50/hr when kdub was in school
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on November 02, 2017, 01:17:02 PM
I'm sure my accountant will take care of this, whatever ends up happening.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 02, 2017, 01:17:57 PM
Student loan interest deduction gone? :curse: FY GOP!

I thought you said you couldn’t claim this anymore because you’re married?  The deduction was the main reason I got a pretty good chunk back last year.  Would suck ass if they took it away.

KSUW saying that student debt is mostly reckless borrowing is a joke.  If you don’t have any help or can’t work much you have to take out a bunch just to pay tuition and eat food.  I have quite a bit and 0% of it was reckless borrowing.
Yeah, I totally forgot about that. I could have if I would have claimed married but filing separately, but it would have hurt Mrs. Wacky, so I didn't do that. I thought i'd be able to do it for this year, but I believe it would hurt Mrs wacky again due to her unemployment. It's complicated and way over my head.

It's a big deal for recent grads trying to make it in the world and having large payments per month.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 02, 2017, 01:18:49 PM
I don't read much of KSUW's posts, but that student loan take was hot garbage. Woof!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 02, 2017, 01:21:09 PM
Keep in mind that tuition was like $50/hr when kdub was in school
:lol:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on November 02, 2017, 01:21:52 PM
Keep in mind that tuition was like $50/hr when kdub was in school

Yeah I thought about that.  It’s almost $400 rough ridin' dollars per credit hour right now for engineering classes. That’s absolutely insane.

https://www.k-state.edu/admissions/finaid/
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: cfbandyman on November 02, 2017, 01:25:51 PM
Student loan interest deduction gone? :curse: FY GOP!

I thought you said you couldn’t claim this anymore because you’re married?  The deduction was the main reason I got a pretty good chunk back last year.  Would suck ass if they took it away.

KSUW saying that student debt is mostly reckless borrowing is a joke.  If you don’t have any help or can’t work much you have to take out a bunch just to pay tuition and eat food.  I have quite a bit and 0% of it was reckless borrowing.

Yeah, it's mostly a joke to say a lot is reckless, he's lumping a lot of people into that who didn't take out loans recklessly, and then go on to have decent jobs and still saddled with debt.

I do consider myself lucky, I had 30k in loans when I graduated, and thanks to 3 total (paid) internships and working jobs during school was able to keep my interest from increasing over the life of the loans, and then when I started full time got a roommate to share expenses and essentially plowed every bit of discretionary income into it and killed it off with that + my bonuses in 2 years.

But I didn't have to pay for:
Kids
House
or Auto

and I waited those 2 years not taking any real vacation.

If I had any one of those items (kids, house, auto) which many students after graduation get into, I'd be paying those damn loans off still for a long time. I am KSUW wet dream of how it should go and I can tell you, it's not a common path at all, and I don't advise anyone should have to do what I did just to pay off student loans in a short time period.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on November 02, 2017, 01:25:53 PM
Student loan interest deduction gone? :curse: FY GOP!

I thought you said you couldn’t claim this anymore because you’re married?  The deduction was the main reason I got a pretty good chunk back last year.  Would suck ass if they took it away.

KSUW saying that student debt is mostly reckless borrowing is a joke.  If you don’t have any help or can’t work much you have to take out a bunch just to pay tuition and eat food.  I have quite a bit and 0% of it was reckless borrowing.
Yeah, I totally forgot about that. I could have if I would have claimed married but filing separately, but it would have hurt Mrs. Wacky, so I didn't do that. I thought i'd be able to do it for this year, but I believe it would hurt Mrs wacky again due to her unemployment. It's complicated and way over my head.

It's a big deal for recent grads trying to make it in the world and having large payments per month.

Good, I’m not going insane for remembering that wrong.  I’ve always done my own taxes but will be using a service this year for sure.

If I didn’t have a good job I wouldn’t be able to pay for mine plus rent plus everything else.  I wouldn’t want to just be starting out college now for sure with how it is.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 02, 2017, 01:26:53 PM
 :thumbs: Samesies.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: cfbandyman on November 02, 2017, 01:29:02 PM
Student loan interest deduction gone? :curse: FY GOP!

I thought you said you couldn’t claim this anymore because you’re married?  The deduction was the main reason I got a pretty good chunk back last year.  Would suck ass if they took it away.

KSUW saying that student debt is mostly reckless borrowing is a joke.  If you don’t have any help or can’t work much you have to take out a bunch just to pay tuition and eat food.  I have quite a bit and 0% of it was reckless borrowing.

Yeah, it's mostly a joke to say a lot is reckless, he's lumping a lot of people into that who didn't take out loans recklessly, and then go on to have decent jobs and still saddled with debt.

I do consider myself lucky, I had 30k in loans when I graduated, and thanks to 3 total (paid) internships and working jobs during school was able to keep my interest from increasing over the life of the loans, and then when I started full time got a roommate to share expenses and essentially plowed every bit of discretionary income into it and killed it off with that + my bonuses in 2 years.

But I didn't have to pay for:
Kids
House
or Auto

and I waited those 2 years not taking any real vacation.

If I had any one of those items (kids, house, auto) which many students after graduation get into, I'd be paying those damn loans off still for a long time. I am KSUW wet dream of how it should go and I can tell you, it's not a common path at all, and I don't advise anyone should have to do what I did just to pay off student loans in a short time period.

Oh, yeah, and my debt would be 60k, not 30k, since my parents took 1/2 the debt, so I lucked out there too.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 02, 2017, 01:37:09 PM
Interesting graphic in this one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/29/opinion/trump-raise-taxes.html
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 02, 2017, 01:40:05 PM
JFC!

Quote
These families are in the minority, yes. But there are a lot of them. About 17 percent of households earning between $50,000 and $150,000 would see their taxes rise immediately, according to the only rigorous analysis so far, by the Tax Policy Center. Among households earning between $150,000 and $250,000, the share is about 35 percent.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 02, 2017, 01:51:37 PM
If the personal exemptions could be restored and offset by eliminating other deductions like mortgage interest and property tax, I think that would be better.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on November 02, 2017, 01:51:49 PM
“Cut Cut Cut!”
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 02, 2017, 02:55:35 PM
Ok, ok, crisis averted (I think). Turns out that doubling the standard deduction would actually slightly surpass my itemized deductions, so I save a little money there and it makes the loss of the SALT deduction irrelevant to me. And I forgot that the proposal eliminates the AMT, which has eff'd me the past several years, so that's more savings. All told, even after losing the personal exemptions, I should be somewhere between a $200 increase and a $500 decrease.

So this crap basically does nothing for me, and doesn't really simplify tax time at all, but I guess it's not going to eff me over, either. And if it significantly boosts the economy then that's good for my investments. Man, what an emotional rollercoaster I've been on today!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 02, 2017, 03:00:29 PM
Ok, ok, crisis averted (I think). Turns out that doubling the standard deduction would actually slightly surpass my itemized deductions, so I save a little money there and it makes the loss of the SALT deduction irrelevant to me. And I forgot that the proposal eliminates the AMT, which has eff'd me the past several years, so that's more savings. All told, even after losing the personal exemptions, I should be somewhere between a $200 increase and a $500 decrease.

So this crap basically does nothing for me, and doesn't really simplify tax time at all, but I guess it's not going to eff me over, either. And if it significantly boosts the economy then that's good for my investments. Man, what an emotional rollercoaster I've been on today!

see, you can rationalize even a tax increase. this is going to be great!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 02, 2017, 03:09:39 PM
Hopes rising that they'll totally eff this up.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 02, 2017, 03:13:16 PM
Ok, ok, crisis averted (I think). Turns out that doubling the standard deduction would actually slightly surpass my itemized deductions, so I save a little money there and it makes the loss of the SALT deduction irrelevant to me. And I forgot that the proposal eliminates the AMT, which has eff'd me the past several years, so that's more savings. All told, even after losing the personal exemptions, I should be somewhere between a $200 increase and a $500 decrease.

So this crap basically does nothing for me, and doesn't really simplify tax time at all, but I guess it's not going to eff me over, either. And if it significantly boosts the economy then that's good for my investments. Man, what an emotional rollercoaster I've been on today!

see, you can rationalize even a tax increase. this is going to be great!

As long as it doesn't eff me over and helps a lot of other people, I can live with it. I guess I just care more than you about people getting to keep more of their money.

You know who's gonna do really well under this plan? Older high earners without any dependents in the home. I wonder who that might describe....
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 02, 2017, 03:18:51 PM
I am looking for who is helping.... Nobody is raising their hand yet
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 02, 2017, 03:21:36 PM
I'm not sure the republicans will be able to hold onto the house if this thing passes. Seems like a lot of republicans from blue states might be in trouble.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 02, 2017, 04:11:06 PM
Get ready for some sweet trickle down  :excited:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on November 02, 2017, 04:27:19 PM
If $1,182 is what they're touting, imagine what the actual outcome will be.


If they manage to save that much while cutting corporate taxes as much as they are AND still not add to the deficit it would be a pretty amazing achievement.

However, right now it looks like the government would be more or less subsidizing corporations and redistributing money from wealthier Americans to the middle class in order to make it more palatable for the general population.

there's a 1.2T hole right there. good luck!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 02, 2017, 04:52:13 PM
Where is the gd plan ?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on November 02, 2017, 08:12:57 PM
If $1,182 is what they're touting, imagine what the actual outcome will be.


If they manage to save that much while cutting corporate taxes as much as they are AND still not add to the deficit it would be a pretty amazing achievement.

However, right now it looks like the government would be more or less subsidizing corporations and redistributing money from wealthier Americans to the middle class in order to make it more palatable for the general population.

there's a 1.2T hole right there. good luck!

I was wrong - it's a 1.5T hole.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 02, 2017, 08:18:49 PM
Tax plan looks great!

Lemme guess, libtards say its a big break for the rich and fucks everyone despite simple arithmetic showing otherwise.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on November 02, 2017, 08:29:01 PM
Tax plan looks great!

Lemme guess, libtards say its a big break for the rich and fucks everyone despite simple arithmetic showing otherwise.

Feel free to post a picture of the arithmetic you did by hand. TIA.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 02, 2017, 08:29:30 PM
Student loan interest deduction gone? :curse: FY GOP!

It's already capped at $2k wacky, take your $300 lump in exchange for a 3%+ leaser tax rate (unless you make less than $10k, in which case---you don't pay taxes anyways)

^^^
Simple arithmetic
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: SdK on November 02, 2017, 08:29:42 PM
Tax plan looks great!

Lemme guess, libtards say its a big break for the rich and fucks everyone despite simple arithmetic showing otherwise.
How will it benefit me, FSD?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: SdK on November 02, 2017, 08:33:39 PM
Or not be bad for me? I'm ok with that too.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 02, 2017, 08:35:47 PM
By my quick math, just on the revised tax brackets, this reform will save me nearly $6,000!! Scaling back the SALT deduction will likely cost me a few grand, but that's still a sizable tax cut for the KSUdub family. None of these other deductions matter to me (as long as they keep the mortgage interest deduction up to 500k). Not sure if I'll get any off-setting benefit from that child credit increase (it probably phases out below my income).

Are you factoring the increased taxable income of $4,150 per kid, plus you and your wife?

No. I haven't seen that in the proposal. Have you?

Yes, the current proposal eliminates personal exemptions.

Link? I can't find that in the proposal.

It's about halfway down the sheet here. Just ctrl-f "personal".

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/tax-bill-2017

Well eff, that might result in a slight tax increase for me. Thanks for peeing in my cheerios, Rage. I'm going to have to do some more number crunching tonight.

Standard deduction way up though! Increased child credit!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 02, 2017, 08:40:04 PM
Tax plan looks great!

Lemme guess, libtards say its a big break for the rich and fucks everyone despite simple arithmetic showing otherwise.
How will it benefit me, FSD?

The only way you might lose is if you have a huge mortgage and live in a place like NY with super high SALT

If you can't do math and are naive enough to believe leftist propoganda, you might be tricked into believing you're getting screwed, though.

If the left rallies around "deficits", you know we've won!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 02, 2017, 08:44:55 PM
401k contributions weren't touched, despite all the leftist bullshit to the contrary
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: SdK on November 02, 2017, 08:45:59 PM
I rent and work in KCMO but live in KS. I guess this means I'll be good. Thanks, FSD!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: SdK on November 02, 2017, 08:46:48 PM
401k contributions weren't touched, despite all the leftist bullshit to the contrary
Great! That matched 5% makes SdK happy in his heart.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 02, 2017, 08:50:26 PM
I'm so jacked about the thousands of extra dollars I'll have each year once this sails through the Senate.

Might even buy (finance of course) a cobalt boat and F150 Super Duty to bring to cat tailgates to party in! #merica
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: SdK on November 02, 2017, 08:54:10 PM


I'm so jacked about the thousands of extra dollars I'll have each year once this sails through the Senate.

Might even buy (finance of course) a cobalt boat and chipped Duramax to bring to cat tailgates to party in! #merica

:thumbs:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: puniraptor on November 02, 2017, 09:11:03 PM
my taxes are very confusing so I will have no idea whether this ends up hurting or helping me
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 02, 2017, 09:14:09 PM
Tax plan looks great!

Lemme guess, libtards say its a big break for the rich and fucks everyone despite simple arithmetic showing otherwise.
How will it benefit me, FSD?

The only way you might lose is if you have a huge mortgage and live in a place like NY with super high SALT

If you can't do math and are naive enough to believe leftist propoganda, you might be tricked into believing you're getting screwed, though.

If the left rallies around "deficits", you know we've won!

I can do math, don't have a huge mortgage, do not live in a big SALT state, and will definitely end up paying more in taxes under this plan.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 02, 2017, 09:37:34 PM
Tax plan looks great!

Lemme guess, libtards say its a big break for the rich and fucks everyone despite simple arithmetic showing otherwise.
How will it benefit me, FSD?

The only way you might lose is if you have a huge mortgage and live in a place like NY with super high SALT

If you can't do math and are naive enough to believe leftist propoganda, you might be tricked into believing you're getting screwed, though.

If the left rallies around "deficits", you know we've won!

I can do math, don't have a huge mortgage, do not live in a big SALT state, and will definitely end up paying more in taxes under this plan.

How?  Heavy corporate debt?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 02, 2017, 09:39:40 PM
There's a lot of give and take here. As a higher wage earner with multiple kids, the benefits of this reform are relatively small and uncertain.

I take a huge hit right off the bat by losing the personal exemptions for me and my family. That deduction was worth over $20k.

On the flip side, doubling the standard deduction will equal or perhaps slightly exceed my itemized deduction. So it might help me a little or be a wash. It certainly makes losing the SALT deduction irrelevant for me.

Eliminating the AMT should be worth about $1000.

Collapsing the brackets also significantly reduced my marginal rate.

So if you take all those savings together, it might be enough to offset losing the personal exemptions and maybe even giving me a small tax cut.

What would be awesome is if, in addition to increasing the child tax credit from $1000 to $1600, they also increase the income threshold at which that credit phases out. Currently we don't get that credit because of the phase out. If we got even part of it under this new plan, I'd feel more confident that my net result will be a cut.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 02, 2017, 09:42:46 PM
I thought I read the child credit phase out was gone
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 02, 2017, 09:44:00 PM
Either way, it's reckless neglect to have 4 kids and both parents working full time.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 02, 2017, 09:44:18 PM
A lot of the complaining about losing the student loan interest deduction seems pretty off base. I suspect that for most people who are still encumbered by high student loan debt, the doubling of the standard deduction will more than offset it. Again though, shouldn't be subsidizing all that reckless debt....
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 02, 2017, 09:45:18 PM
I thought I read the child credit phase out was gone

Hope that is true - would be huge for us - but I haven't seen that reported.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: SdK on November 02, 2017, 09:47:03 PM
Either way, it's reckless neglect to have 4 kids and both parents working full time.
Hahahahahah
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 02, 2017, 09:47:23 PM
I don't live life like republicans want me to live so I don't get a tax break.....oh well.  Use my tax increase for good please.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on November 02, 2017, 09:50:18 PM
A lot of the complaining about losing the student loan interest deduction seems pretty off base. I suspect that for most people who are still encumbered by high student loan debt, the doubling of the standard deduction will more than offset it. Again though, shouldn't be subsidizing all that reckless debt....

You are so out of touch with college expenses as they are right now it’s almost comical.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 02, 2017, 09:50:40 PM
As if we didn't already know, libtards can't do simple math and lap up leftist propoganda
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 02, 2017, 09:51:17 PM
As if we didn't already know, libtards can't do simple math and lap up leftist propoganda

Show your work. 
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 02, 2017, 09:52:44 PM
A lot of the complaining about losing the student loan interest deduction seems pretty off base. I suspect that for most people who are still encumbered by high student loan debt, the doubling of the standard deduction will more than offset it. Again though, shouldn't be subsidizing all that reckless debt....

You are so out of touch with college expenses as they are right now it’s almost comical.

Student loan interest deduction capped at $2k, so another $6k-12k in std deduction is obviously way better.

Again, ignorant and unable to do math
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 02, 2017, 09:54:24 PM
Several libtards say their taxes are going up, but cannot explain why, bc indoctrinated and can't do math
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on November 02, 2017, 09:54:58 PM
A lot of the complaining about losing the student loan interest deduction seems pretty off base. I suspect that for most people who are still encumbered by high student loan debt, the doubling of the standard deduction will more than offset it. Again though, shouldn't be subsidizing all that reckless debt....

You are so out of touch with college expenses as they are right now it’s almost comical.

Student loan interest deduction capped at $2k, so another $6k-12k in std deduction is obviously way better.

Again, ignorant and unable to do math

Did you not understand I was commenting on the reckless debt statement again?  Of course not, because you are a mindless drone incapable of processing multiple things at once.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 02, 2017, 09:56:18 PM
A lot of the complaining about losing the student loan interest deduction seems pretty off base. I suspect that for most people who are still encumbered by high student loan debt, the doubling of the standard deduction will more than offset it. Again though, shouldn't be subsidizing all that reckless debt....

You are so out of touch with college expenses as they are right now it’s almost comical.

Student loan interest deduction capped at $2k, so another $6k-12k in std deduction is obviously way better.

Again, ignorant and unable to do math

Did you not understand I was commenting on the reckless debt statement again?  Of course not, because you are a mindless drone incapable of processing multiple things at once.

Have a cranberry juice
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: puniraptor on November 02, 2017, 09:57:51 PM
I don't live life like republicans want me to live so I don't get a tax break.....oh well.  Use my tax increase for good please.

its earmarked for crates of AK-47's to send to Syria. that good enough?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on November 02, 2017, 09:58:22 PM
A lot of the complaining about losing the student loan interest deduction seems pretty off base. I suspect that for most people who are still encumbered by high student loan debt, the doubling of the standard deduction will more than offset it. Again though, shouldn't be subsidizing all that reckless debt....

You are so out of touch with college expenses as they are right now it’s almost comical.

Student loan interest deduction capped at $2k, so another $6k-12k in std deduction is obviously way better.

Again, ignorant and unable to do math

Did you not understand I was commenting on the reckless debt statement again?  Of course not, because you are a mindless drone incapable of processing multiple things at once.

Have a cranberry juice

Take a breathe before you pass out
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 02, 2017, 10:03:36 PM
A lot of the complaining about losing the student loan interest deduction seems pretty off base. I suspect that for most people who are still encumbered by high student loan debt, the doubling of the standard deduction will more than offset it. Again though, shouldn't be subsidizing all that reckless debt....

You are so out of touch with college expenses as they are right now it’s almost comical.

Student loan interest deduction capped at $2k, so another $6k-12k in std deduction is obviously way better.

Again, ignorant and unable to do math

Did you not understand I was commenting on the reckless debt statement again?  Of course not, because you are a mindless drone incapable of processing multiple things at once.

Have a cranberry juice

 :lol:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 02, 2017, 10:06:25 PM
KSUW getting a tax increase owns so much.   :lol:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 02, 2017, 10:08:26 PM
Several libtards say their taxes are going up, but cannot explain why, bc indoctrinated and can't do math

Show your work.  It's simple....even on a POSTCARD...you should be able to easily post your tax break.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 02, 2017, 10:13:39 PM
Well Phil, all the tax brackets are better, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: puniraptor on November 02, 2017, 10:46:38 PM
I've said this before obviously, but tax brackets are literally the very least complicated thing about taxes. we need more not less.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: puniraptor on November 02, 2017, 10:47:50 PM
OT tax advice super thread: can I write off (or deduct or whatever) tax penalties as a business expense?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 02, 2017, 10:48:15 PM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: puniraptor on November 02, 2017, 10:49:17 PM

do the defenders of shareholder capitalism realize they are pawns for the globalists?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 02, 2017, 11:02:39 PM
The plan looks like it is going to simplify taxes, it doesn’t appear to have much effect for individuals, (not surprised), it’s focus is reviving the American economy and when that happens we all benefit.  Good work Mr. President.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 02, 2017, 11:07:58 PM

do the defenders of shareholder capitalism realize they are pawns for the globalists?

That tweet is lollz levels of non sequiter and wgaf
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: hjfklmor on November 02, 2017, 11:25:06 PM
OT tax advice super thread: can I write off (or deduct or whatever) tax penalties as a business expense?
No

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on November 03, 2017, 12:00:45 AM
3 stupidest things.

1.  25% pass throughs.  i mean, jfc.
2.  not figuring out how to fund corporate tax cuts.  hey idiots, cut corporate to 0% and fund it 100% by raising the rates on dividends and cap gains.
3.  estate tax.


i think 1 will get fixed/changed and 3 is just in as a negotiating tactic, tho, so maybe only #2 is super dumb.



raising the standard deduction is a really good idea, they should have doubled down on that one and gotten rid of more of the deductions/credits/etc.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 03, 2017, 07:10:52 AM
Well Phil, all the tax brackets are better, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
Are you really this simple?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: mocat on November 03, 2017, 07:20:35 AM
This kind of a sad twitter thread

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 03, 2017, 08:22:57 AM
Yea. Honestly I think they got that part way wrong. If anything the child tax credit should be eliminated in favor of an adoption credit. I also have a hard time believing it helps the deficit THAT much.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 03, 2017, 08:36:16 AM
Children are really expensive, and important, so I favor a generous deduction for children. One way to make the tax code much fairer would to decrease the child tax credit and restore a portion of the dependent personal exemptions.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 03, 2017, 08:39:32 AM
Restoring the personal exemptions really is the only way they are going to be able to implement this thing without some middle class families getting tax increases. Hopefully that happens. It would be a huge windfall for K-S-U and me both.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 03, 2017, 08:42:24 AM
It is a great way to balance against deficit concerns, though. I guess they should probably just cap the personal exemption at a certain income level.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 03, 2017, 08:43:29 AM
Children are really expensive, and important, so I favor a generous deduction for children. One way to make the tax code much fairer would to decrease the child tax credit and restore a portion of the dependent personal exemptions.
:lol: JFC
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 03, 2017, 08:43:50 AM
You shouldn't be rewarded with lower taxes just because you reproduce
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 03, 2017, 08:45:37 AM
It is a great way to balance against deficit concerns, though. I guess they should probably just cap the personal exemption at a certain income level.

Or they could just drop some other deductions, lower the child tax credit back to where it was, keep the estate tax, etc.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: wetwillie on November 03, 2017, 08:53:39 AM
You shouldn't be rewarded with lower taxes just because you reproduce

We need breeders so we incentivize the behavior
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 03, 2017, 08:54:28 AM
I have no idea what the relative impact of all these policies is, but I have to imagine eliminating personal exemptions has a much larger impact than most other measures.

I think we all agree that eliminating the estate tax is pretty dumb though.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 03, 2017, 08:58:06 AM
You shouldn't be rewarded with lower taxes just because you reproduce

We need breeders so we incentivize the behavior

We really don’t, though. And even if we did, the current bill only encourages breeding among the middle class and lower, which doesn’t make a ton of sense from a policy perspective.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 03, 2017, 08:59:20 AM
You shouldn't be rewarded with lower taxes just because you reproduce

We need breeders so we incentivize the behavior

If you need tax incentives to have kids you're doing it wrong and should probably just abort instead
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 03, 2017, 09:06:55 AM
Well Phil, all the tax brackets are better, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
Are you really this simple?

Show your work, phil!!!

Weak effort itt on your part, imho.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 03, 2017, 10:25:44 AM
I have no idea what the relative impact of all these policies is, but I have to imagine eliminating personal exemptions has a much larger impact than most other measures.

I think we all agree that eliminating the estate tax is pretty dumb though.

The debate over eliminating the estate tax is moronic. Anybody who wants to get around the estate tax can do so by putting their assets in trusts. So all the estate tax really does is (1) severely penalize a few people who are too stupid to properly protect their assets, and (2) require everyone else to hire lawyers and cpas to protect their assets. So with that in mind, why the hell would we keep the estate tax? Repeal it and reduce the tax compliance burden on millions of people while having almost no impact on revenue.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 03, 2017, 10:29:13 AM
You shouldn't be rewarded with lower taxes just because you reproduce

I'm not asking to be rewarded. I'm asking to not be penalized under this current reform by actually raising my taxes due to stripping away a previously extremely valuable personal exemption. For lower income folks, losing those personal exemptions doesn't hurt nearly as bad because the doubling of the standard deduction more than offsets it. But for higher income folks, our itemized deductions were already comparable to the new standard deduction, so losing the personal exemption for our kids could increase our taxes - when we high wage earners already pay a higher effective tax rate than the vast majority of Americans.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 03, 2017, 10:31:36 AM
I have no idea what the relative impact of all these policies is, but I have to imagine eliminating personal exemptions has a much larger impact than most other measures.

I think we all agree that eliminating the estate tax is pretty dumb though.

The debate over eliminating the estate tax is moronic. Anybody who wants to get around the estate tax can do so by putting their assets in trusts. So all the estate tax really does is (1) severely penalize a few people who are too stupid to properly protect their assets, and (2) require everyone else to hire lawyers and cpas to protect their assets. So with that in mind, why the hell would we keep the estate tax? Repeal it and reduce the tax compliance burden on millions of people while having almost no impact on revenue.

The estate tax creates about $200 billion in revenue over a 10 year period. It's not much of overall revenue, but it's pretty significant when you are struggling to not increase the deficit by more than $1.5 trillion over the next decade. It's more than 10% of that hole.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: mocat on November 03, 2017, 10:40:18 AM
ksuw: not being rewarded =/= being penalized
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 03, 2017, 10:51:38 AM
You shouldn't be rewarded with lower taxes just because you reproduce

I'm not asking to be rewarded. I'm asking to not be penalized under this current reform by actually raising my taxes due to stripping away a previously extremely valuable personal exemption. For lower income folks, losing those personal exemptions doesn't hurt nearly as bad because the doubling of the standard deduction more than offsets it. But for higher income folks, our itemized deductions were already comparable to the new standard deduction, so losing the personal exemption for our kids could increase our taxes - when we high wage earners already pay a higher effective tax rate than the vast majority of Americans.

Aren't you on record saying the opposite about other deductions?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 03, 2017, 10:54:15 AM
I have no idea what the relative impact of all these policies is, but I have to imagine eliminating personal exemptions has a much larger impact than most other measures.

I think we all agree that eliminating the estate tax is pretty dumb though.

The debate over eliminating the estate tax is moronic. Anybody who wants to get around the estate tax can do so by putting their assets in trusts. So all the estate tax really does is (1) severely penalize a few people who are too stupid to properly protect their assets, and (2) require everyone else to hire lawyers and cpas to protect their assets. So with that in mind, why the hell would we keep the estate tax? Repeal it and reduce the tax compliance burden on millions of people while having almost no impact on revenue.

The estate tax creates about $200 billion in revenue over a 10 year period. It's not much of overall revenue, but it's pretty significant when you are struggling to not increase the deficit by more than $1.5 trillion over the next decade. It's more than 10% of that hole.

Damn, $20 billion per year?! I had no idea so many people were falling into that hole. Still, it's a dumb tax for the reasons I've stated. In a way, this actually makes it worse because the government is siphoning away billions simply because people aren't savvy enough to put their assets in trusts.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 03, 2017, 10:59:41 AM
You shouldn't be rewarded with lower taxes just because you reproduce

I'm not asking to be rewarded. I'm asking to not be penalized under this current reform by actually raising my taxes due to stripping away a previously extremely valuable personal exemption. For lower income folks, losing those personal exemptions doesn't hurt nearly as bad because the doubling of the standard deduction more than offsets it. But for higher income folks, our itemized deductions were already comparable to the new standard deduction, so losing the personal exemption for our kids could increase our taxes - when we high wage earners already pay a higher effective tax rate than the vast majority of Americans.

Aren't you on record saying the opposite about other deductions?

Yes. The difference is that, as I have repeatedly explained, I'm already paying a higher effective tax rate than just about everyone else - over 90% of Americans. There are going to be some winners and losers with any reform, but I don't think it is "fair" to make me a bigger loser when I'm already getting fleeced. But ideas of fairness can be pretty warped when politics are involved.

I can think of one group of people who are getting screwed even worse than me - people like me except that they also live in blue state high tax hellholes with much higher property values. Like me, they were already getting fleeced and they'll fare even worse, but I just don't think the federal government should be subsidizing irresponsible state taxation.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 03, 2017, 11:18:25 AM
I have no idea what the relative impact of all these policies is, but I have to imagine eliminating personal exemptions has a much larger impact than most other measures.

I think we all agree that eliminating the estate tax is pretty dumb though.

The debate over eliminating the estate tax is moronic. Anybody who wants to get around the estate tax can do so by putting their assets in trusts. So all the estate tax really does is (1) severely penalize a few people who are too stupid to properly protect their assets, and (2) require everyone else to hire lawyers and cpas to protect their assets. So with that in mind, why the hell would we keep the estate tax? Repeal it and reduce the tax compliance burden on millions of people while having almost no impact on revenue.

It doesn't affect millions of Americans.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 03, 2017, 11:20:37 AM
You shouldn't be rewarded with lower taxes just because you reproduce

I'm not asking to be rewarded. I'm asking to not be penalized under this current reform by actually raising my taxes due to stripping away a previously extremely valuable personal exemption. For lower income folks, losing those personal exemptions doesn't hurt nearly as bad because the doubling of the standard deduction more than offsets it. But for higher income folks, our itemized deductions were already comparable to the new standard deduction, so losing the personal exemption for our kids could increase our taxes - when we high wage earners already pay a higher effective tax rate than the vast majority of Americans.

Aren't you on record saying the opposite about other deductions?

Yes. The difference is that, as I have repeatedly explained, I'm already paying a higher effective tax rate than just about everyone else - over 90% of Americans. There are going to be some winners and losers with any reform, but I don't think it is "fair" to make me a bigger loser when I'm already getting fleeced. But ideas of fairness can be pretty warped when politics are involved.

I can think of one group of people who are getting screwed even worse than me - people like me except that they also live in blue state high tax hellholes with much higher property values. Like me, they were already getting fleeced and they'll fare even worse, but I just don't think the federal government should be subsidizing irresponsible state taxation.

Fair enough that you acknowledge that your opinions are self interested.  As they should be.

I am not sure how hard I will get F'd on this new plan but excluding service providers from the LLCs that will not be eligible for the lower pass through rate tells me it will be a nice F'ing
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 03, 2017, 11:22:33 AM
I have no idea what the relative impact of all these policies is, but I have to imagine eliminating personal exemptions has a much larger impact than most other measures.

I think we all agree that eliminating the estate tax is pretty dumb though.

The debate over eliminating the estate tax is moronic. Anybody who wants to get around the estate tax can do so by putting their assets in trusts. So all the estate tax really does is (1) severely penalize a few people who are too stupid to properly protect their assets, and (2) require everyone else to hire lawyers and cpas to protect their assets. So with that in mind, why the hell would we keep the estate tax? Repeal it and reduce the tax compliance burden on millions of people while having almost no impact on revenue.

The estate tax creates about $200 billion in revenue over a 10 year period. It's not much of overall revenue, but it's pretty significant when you are struggling to not increase the deficit by more than $1.5 trillion over the next decade. It's more than 10% of that hole.

Damn, $20 billion per year?! I had no idea so many people were falling into that hole. Still, it's a dumb tax for the reasons I've stated. In a way, this actually makes it worse because the government is siphoning away billions simply because people aren't savvy enough to put their assets in trusts.

Trusts are handy but they aren’t complete tax shelters. And if they are, your argument seems to be we should limit their use on top of having an estate tax.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Spracne on November 03, 2017, 11:28:19 AM


You shouldn't be rewarded with lower taxes just because you reproduce

I'm not asking to be rewarded. I'm asking to not be penalized under this current reform by actually raising my taxes due to stripping away a previously extremely valuable personal exemption. For lower income folks, losing those personal exemptions doesn't hurt nearly as bad because the doubling of the standard deduction more than offsets it. But for higher income folks, our itemized deductions were already comparable to the new standard deduction, so losing the personal exemption for our kids could increase our taxes - when we high wage earners already pay a higher effective tax rate than the vast majority of Americans.

Kinda like those who benefit under the ACA aren't asking to be rewarded. They're just asking not to be penalized under this current reform due to stripping away a previously extremely valuable premium tax credit.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 03, 2017, 12:04:13 PM
Well Phil, all the tax brackets are better, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
Are you really this simple?

Show your work, phil!!!

Weak effort itt on your part, imho.
This is your tax bill to prove to everyone it's good for them.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 03, 2017, 12:06:18 PM
lmao

https://t.co/LPXyAbFKt6 (https://t.co/LPXyAbFKt6)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 03, 2017, 12:08:31 PM
Deductions/credits should be done for one reason. Influence behavior. Do we have an aging population problem? No? Eliminate child tax credits.

It would be horrible to actually use some tax theory in Washington vs. these bumbledicks rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic and saying "look what we did, we made less brackets" and simples believing them and posting on message boards how great the plan is.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 03, 2017, 01:12:39 PM
Deductions/credits should be done for one reason. Influence behavior. Do we have an aging population problem? No? Eliminate child tax credits.

It would be horrible to actually use some tax theory in Washington vs. these bumbledicks rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic and saying "look what we did, we made less brackets" and simples believing them and posting on message boards how great the plan is.

I disagree with this fundamentally. I think deductions should be available so that the tax rate you pay reflects your ability to pay. Nobody looks at tax breaks as some sort of incentive to have kids. The idea that ending those breaks will cause people to have less kids is laughable. This is why the elimination of the deduction for medical expenses exceeding 10% of your income is so despicable.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 03, 2017, 01:26:10 PM
Deductions/credits should be done for one reason. Influence behavior. Do we have an aging population problem? No? Eliminate child tax credits.

It would be horrible to actually use some tax theory in Washington vs. these bumbledicks rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic and saying "look what we did, we made less brackets" and simples believing them and posting on message boards how great the plan is.

I disagree with this fundamentally. I think deductions should be available so that the tax rate you pay reflects your ability to pay. Nobody looks at tax breaks as some sort of incentive to have kids. The idea that ending those breaks will cause people to have less kids is laughable. This is why the elimination of the deduction for medical expenses exceeding 10% of your income is so despicable.

This is certainly a component of it, but at the end of the day you can pick from a limitless amount of things that Americans spend a lot of money on if this is 100% your philosophy.  Why have a child tax credit instead of a deduction for paying utilities? Why have a mortgage interest deduction instead of a deduction for expenses like bus fares or gas that you spend getting to and from work?

There has to be more to it than lightening the burden on taxpayers, and that is where the social engineering part comes into play.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 03, 2017, 01:35:49 PM
Deductions/credits should be done for one reason. Influence behavior. Do we have an aging population problem? No? Eliminate child tax credits.

It would be horrible to actually use some tax theory in Washington vs. these bumbledicks rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic and saying "look what we did, we made less brackets" and simples believing them and posting on message boards how great the plan is.

I disagree with this fundamentally. I think deductions should be available so that the tax rate you pay reflects your ability to pay. Nobody looks at tax breaks as some sort of incentive to have kids. The idea that ending those breaks will cause people to have less kids is laughable. This is why the elimination of the deduction for medical expenses exceeding 10% of your income is so despicable.
So I can't pay as much because I have these 5 kids... So give me a tax break? Seems backwards

I do agree having a kid probably isn't a decision made many times because of ones 1040.  Didn't mean we can influence behaviors with taxes.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: SdK on November 03, 2017, 01:37:06 PM
You shouldn't be rewarded with lower taxes just because you reproduce
Correct
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 03, 2017, 01:40:43 PM
In fact I'd charge more taxes to families 3+ kids and tax breaks for vacestomies. Large families put way more burden out there for society beyond what the family dollar impact is.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 03, 2017, 01:43:29 PM
Deductions/credits should be done for one reason. Influence behavior. Do we have an aging population problem? No? Eliminate child tax credits.

It would be horrible to actually use some tax theory in Washington vs. these bumbledicks rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic and saying "look what we did, we made less brackets" and simples believing them and posting on message boards how great the plan is.

I disagree with this fundamentally. I think deductions should be available so that the tax rate you pay reflects your ability to pay. Nobody looks at tax breaks as some sort of incentive to have kids. The idea that ending those breaks will cause people to have less kids is laughable. This is why the elimination of the deduction for medical expenses exceeding 10% of your income is so despicable.
So I can't pay as much because I have these 5 kids... So give me a tax break? Seems backwards

I do agree having a kid probably isn't a decision made many times because of ones 1040.  Didn't mean we can influence behaviors with taxes.

It just doesn't seem that backwards to me. It's not like the personal exemption covers 100% of the cost of having a kid or something. It's just an extra $4k that comes off of your annual income.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 03, 2017, 01:45:21 PM
Deductions/credits should be done for one reason. Influence behavior. Do we have an aging population problem? No? Eliminate child tax credits.

It would be horrible to actually use some tax theory in Washington vs. these bumbledicks rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic and saying "look what we did, we made less brackets" and simples believing them and posting on message boards how great the plan is.

I disagree with this fundamentally. I think deductions should be available so that the tax rate you pay reflects your ability to pay. Nobody looks at tax breaks as some sort of incentive to have kids. The idea that ending those breaks will cause people to have less kids is laughable. This is why the elimination of the deduction for medical expenses exceeding 10% of your income is so despicable.
So I can't pay as much because I have these 5 kids... So give me a tax break? Seems backwards

I do agree having a kid probably isn't a decision made many times because of ones 1040.  Didn't mean we can influence behaviors with taxes.

It just doesn't seem that backwards to me. It's not like the personal exemption covers 100% of the cost of having a kid or something. It's just an extra $4k that comes off of your annual income.
Understood.... I agree taxes should be based on ability to pay.... But that's based on income... Not expenses you decide to incur.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 03, 2017, 02:08:38 PM
Maybe kdub should just live within his means instead of relying on government handouts for having unprotected sex
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on November 03, 2017, 02:10:28 PM
Statistically the more intelligent you are the less children you have
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on November 03, 2017, 02:18:48 PM
As with all statistics there are outliers, so that wasn’t a dig at anybody
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 03, 2017, 03:12:20 PM


You shouldn't be rewarded with lower taxes just because you reproduce

I'm not asking to be rewarded. I'm asking to not be penalized under this current reform by actually raising my taxes due to stripping away a previously extremely valuable personal exemption. For lower income folks, losing those personal exemptions doesn't hurt nearly as bad because the doubling of the standard deduction more than offsets it. But for higher income folks, our itemized deductions were already comparable to the new standard deduction, so losing the personal exemption for our kids could increase our taxes - when we high wage earners already pay a higher effective tax rate than the vast majority of Americans.

Kinda like those who benefit under the ACA aren't asking to be rewarded. They're just asking not to be penalized under this current reform due to stripping away a previously extremely valuable premium tax credit.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Did you really just equate taking somebody's money with handing it to someone else?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 03, 2017, 03:59:09 PM
That’s literally what taxes are KSUW.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: wetwillie on November 03, 2017, 05:54:33 PM
In fact I'd charge more taxes to families 3+ kids and tax breaks for vacestomies. Large families put way more burden out there for society beyond what the family dollar impact is.

Extra taxes if one of their spawn has a disability
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 03, 2017, 06:51:52 PM
President Silverback and I are working toward a plan where we all have better jobs and make more cash, we really don’t give a crap whether you are gonna save a few bucks or not, our goal is that after this is implemented that more of you are working making more money and yes paying more taxes because you are kicking so much more ass.

Statement from the Institute for Alpha thought
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 03, 2017, 06:52:36 PM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: SdK on November 03, 2017, 07:00:21 PM
FSD was right. No change for ol SdK!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 03, 2017, 07:02:00 PM
It is a pretty great plan for the super rich.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 03, 2017, 07:21:31 PM
The high tide raises all boats
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on November 03, 2017, 07:26:05 PM
dnr the plan or this thread or anything about this plan. what do you need to make to make it good for you?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 03, 2017, 07:28:54 PM
Not about that stevedave, I’ll refer you to the statement from the Institute for Alpha thought.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on November 03, 2017, 07:29:42 PM
Not about that stevedave, I’ll refer you to the statement from the Institute for Alpha thought.

well, let me know what they say bud
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 03, 2017, 07:32:03 PM
Scroll up about 7-8 posts, it’s all there
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: puniraptor on November 03, 2017, 07:42:22 PM
The high tide raises all boats
Ann Coulter debunked this theory when she got bumped from premium economy.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on November 03, 2017, 07:47:57 PM
The high tide raises all boats
Ann Coulter debunked this theory when she got bumped from premium economy.

 :lol:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 03, 2017, 08:34:32 PM
President Silverback and I are working toward a plan where we all have better jobs and make more cash, we really don’t give a crap whether you are gonna save a few bucks or not, our goal is that after this is implemented that more of you are working making more money and yes paying more taxes because you are kicking so much more ass.

Statement from the Institute for Alpha thought

What kind of loser is currently unemployed
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 03, 2017, 09:34:55 PM
FSD was right. No change for ol SdK!

Duh. If you can add you can see the plan is good for you. Not rocket science
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on November 03, 2017, 09:40:06 PM
FSD was right. No change for ol SdK!

Duh. If you can add you can see the plan is good for you. Not rocket science

Surprised you recognized your own name here.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 03, 2017, 09:44:46 PM
Look at the little baby girl who's jealous of bff sdk and Sugar Dick
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: SdK on November 03, 2017, 09:46:47 PM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 03, 2017, 10:07:33 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171104/a4ba3cbae60f61013bab42feea125bb7.jpg)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 03, 2017, 10:16:30 PM
The person who inherits a house pays no income tax!!!!

So Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), keep em coming.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 03, 2017, 10:19:12 PM
Damn. FSD beat me to it. Outrage over not having to fork over 40% of an estate to the government when you pass it on to your kids. :lol:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on November 03, 2017, 10:20:25 PM
you're dead, you don't pay anything.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 03, 2017, 10:21:50 PM

Oooh.... Now overlay that with a graph of the percentage of total income tax revenue paid by each of those groups currently!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 03, 2017, 10:26:24 PM
World renowned tax firm Liberty Tax has this to say about the gop plan  (in The Post's words): people who make income will pay income tax, people who invest their [post income tax] income into investments won't pay the same income tax on that income again, people who own/inherit assets won't pay income tax on those assets [unless those assets make income, in which case they will pay income tax], fuckoffs who don't work and don't have income won't pay income tax, libtards will remain utterly befuddled at the distinction between income, assets, and equity.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 03, 2017, 10:37:37 PM

Oooh.... Now overlay that with a graph of the percentage of total income tax revenue paid by each of those groups currently!

How dare you question lilly bacherlors 10 yr fwd analysis of tenths of a petcent!! :shakesfist:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 03, 2017, 10:43:18 PM

Oooh.... Now overlay that with a graph of the percentage of total income tax revenue paid by each of those groups currently!

To some, that would just be further evidence that the poorer should get bigger breaks in this plan than the richer.

What's not subjective, though, is the falsity of the claim that this is a break aimed at middle Americans.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 03, 2017, 11:21:05 PM

Oooh.... Now overlay that with a graph of the percentage of total income tax revenue paid by each of those groups currently!

To some, that would just be further evidence that the poorer should get bigger breaks in this plan than the richer.

What's not subjective, though, is the falsity of the claim that this is a break aimed at middle Americans.

If by "some" you mean morons, them yes.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 03, 2017, 11:22:30 PM
Only if you are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) enough to not understand that this plan is not about lowering individual tax rates, it’s about giving you dumbasses the opportunity to make way more money.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on November 03, 2017, 11:28:08 PM
Only if you are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) enough to not understand that this plan is not about lowering individual tax rates, it’s about giving you dumbasses the opportunity to make way more money.

Wasn’t Trump’s personal choice for a name “Cut Cut Cut %”.  He has paraded this and his Press Secretary(who is always telling the truth) has said every American should receive a 4 digit return.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 03, 2017, 11:30:12 PM
That reminds me, how many jobs did the stimulus create or save  :lol:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 03, 2017, 11:30:51 PM
Only if you are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) enough to not understand that this plan is not about lowering individual tax rates, it’s about giving you dumbasses the opportunity to make way more money.

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/78187ba17399b71a1c9448fff92fb8b8/tenor.gif?itemid=7535529)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 03, 2017, 11:37:31 PM
I wasn’t taking roll lib
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: SdK on November 04, 2017, 07:53:20 AM
World renowned tax firm Liberty Tax has this to say about the gop plan  (in The Post's words): people who make income will pay income tax, people who invest their [post income tax] income into investments won't pay the same income tax on that income again, people who own/inherit assets won't pay income tax on those assets [unless those assets make income, in which case they will pay income tax], fuckoffs who don't work and don't have income won't pay income tax, libtards will remain utterly befuddled at the distinction between income, assets, and equity.
So when Canary leaves me his house and annuities, will I have to pay taxes on that? Should I have to?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 04, 2017, 08:28:08 AM
I think you would pay income taxes on the income from the annuities. So you would ultimately pay income tax on the entire annuity as it's distributed.

If they dump the estate tax, they'd probably dump step up basis. You would not pay income tax (you'd pay property tax though) when you got the house, but when you sold it you would pay income tax on any appreciation dating back from when your bud canary bought the house.

The scare tactics from the left are a tired play book of unsubstantiated lies and half truths.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on November 04, 2017, 08:29:25 AM
Can I see some math functions here to really drive home that you understand what you’re talking about?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: SdK on November 04, 2017, 08:30:48 AM
Alright, thanks for the insight. :thumbs:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 04, 2017, 10:02:23 AM
dnr the plan or this thread or anything about this plan. what do you need to make to make it good for you?

You need to be above or below upper middle class. Obviously, it's a lot better if you are above.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 05, 2017, 12:26:36 AM
I think you would pay income taxes on the income from the annuities. So you would ultimately pay income tax on the entire annuity as it's distributed.

If they dump the estate tax, they'd probably dump step up basis. You would not pay income tax (you'd pay property tax though) when you got the house, but when you sold it you would pay income tax on any appreciation dating back from when your bud canary bought the house.

The scare tactics from the left are a tired play book of unsubstantiated lies and half truths.

There has been no talk of dumping step up basis to my knowledge. The gift exemption to the estate tax is $5 million or $10 million for a married couple.  At least I haven't heard much of the "death tax" nonsense W. tried to peddle.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 05, 2017, 08:54:49 AM
dnr the plan or this thread or anything about this plan. what do you need to make to make it good for you?

You need to be above or below upper middle class. Obviously, it's a lot better if you are above.

Or be cool with actually paying more in taxes for the common good.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 05, 2017, 09:04:01 AM
Biggest losers:

Graduate students
HENRYs with professional degree student loans and expensive homes

Like I said, this tax cut is almost specifically designed to hurt KSUW and he is still cheering it to "own the libs" it is such a perfect example of how broken his brain is.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 05, 2017, 09:14:55 AM
Biggest losers:

Graduate students
HENRYs with professional degree student loans and expensive homes

Like I said, this tax cut is almost specifically designed to hurt KSUW and he is still cheering it to "own the libs" it is such a perfect example of how broken his brain is.

Cheering it? I'm pretty disappointed in what this does for me personally. But it does help a ton of people - that can't be denied. It could also indirectly help me by further boosting the economy and my investments.

I suspect the student loan thing is going to impact a very small slice of people. The vast majority of people with a lot of student loan debt will likely be more than covered by the doubling of the standard deduction. As you get older, wealthier, and incur more itemized deductions to surpass the standard deduction, you typically pay off your student loans (unless you don't, and that's on you).
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 05, 2017, 09:21:30 AM
I'd bet Neither the student loan interest nor the mortgage deduction reduction would apply to ksu.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 05, 2017, 09:23:11 AM
Biggest losers:

Graduate students
HENRYs with professional degree student loans and expensive homes

Like I said, this tax cut is almost specifically designed to hurt KSUW and he is still cheering it to "own the libs" it is such a perfect example of how broken his brain is.

Cheering it? I'm pretty disappointed in what this does for me personally. But it does help a ton of people - that can't be denied. It could also indirectly help me by further boosting the economy and my investments.

I suspect the student loan thing is going to impact a very small slice of people. The vast majority of people with a lot of student loan debt will likely be more than covered by the doubling of the standard deduction. As you get older, wealthier, and incur more itemized deductions to surpass the standard deduction, you typically pay off your student loans (unless you don't, and that's on you).

It taxes any grad student on a stipend. So, for instance, when I was getting a stipend and tuition assistance for my undergraduate degree through an academic scholarship?  That is now taxable income. My wife who had a stipend and tuition waiver for her Ph.D? Now taxed as income.

All TA's, Graduate Assistants, Post-Docs etc. will now have their stipends and scholarships taxed as income. If it stays in, it will be a disaster for graduate research and a huge de facto cut for higher ed in an environment where states have almost stopped funding higher ed anyways.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 05, 2017, 09:26:23 AM
Kstate 2025!  All private!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on November 05, 2017, 09:54:01 AM
if I'm reading this thing correctly the proposed mortgage interest and property tax changes would only apply for newly purchased homes so if you already own then you get grandfathered in. and it only applies for mortgages over $500k and property tax over $10k. so most HENRYs won't be impacted because they can't afford that much home anyway. and the student loan stuff wouldn't apply to them either because you can't deduct that if you earn more than $80k single/$160k married filing joint.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on November 05, 2017, 09:54:50 AM
also, from what I can see, this "tax cut" bill doesn't really cut much tax. what a waste of time.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 05, 2017, 10:06:28 AM
if I'm reading this thing correctly the proposed mortgage interest and property tax changes would only apply for newly purchased homes so if you already own then you get grandfathered in. and it only applies for mortgages over $500k and property tax over $10k. so most HENRYs won't be impacted because they can't afford that much home anyway. and the student loan stuff wouldn't apply to them either because you can't deduct that if you earn more than $80k single/$160k married filing joint.

Hence my thoughts on kazz dub
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 05, 2017, 10:08:20 AM
Will the pass through rate impact members of an LLC that owns a wildly successful ksu msg bd?

 :Ugh:
Title: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 05, 2017, 11:22:42 AM
if I'm reading this thing correctly the proposed mortgage interest and property tax changes would only apply for newly purchased homes so if you already own then you get grandfathered in. and it only applies for mortgages over $500k and property tax over $10k. so most HENRYs won't be impacted because they can't afford that much home anyway. and the student loan stuff wouldn't apply to them either because you can't deduct that if you earn more than $80k single/$160k married filing joint.

This thing is probably hardest on HENRY doctors. And while the grandfather thing is true enough, it hurts home values.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on November 05, 2017, 11:36:20 AM
it doesn't really eff anyone, it's just a big deficit financed stimulus package at a time when unemployment stands at 4%.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 05, 2017, 12:10:20 PM
if I'm reading this thing correctly the proposed mortgage interest and property tax changes would only apply for newly purchased homes so if you already own then you get grandfathered in. and it only applies for mortgages over $500k and property tax over $10k. so most HENRYs won't be impacted because they can't afford that much home anyway. and the student loan stuff wouldn't apply to them either because you can't deduct that if you earn more than $80k single/$160k married filing joint.

This thing is probably hardest on HENRY doctors. And while the grandfather thing is true enough, it hurts home values.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Docs likely make too much to deduct loan interest anyway right?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 05, 2017, 12:52:46 PM
it doesn't really eff anyone, it's just a big deficit financed stimulus package at a time when unemployment stands at 4%.

This
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 05, 2017, 01:15:35 PM
I'd bet Neither the student loan interest nor the mortgage deduction reduction would apply to ksu.

Correct. I have a mortgage under 500k and used my grad school loans to get a good paying job to pay them off in about 5yrs.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 05, 2017, 01:17:08 PM
Remember when kdub had an all time classic meltdown because Obama changed something and he had a $200 tax increase and was worried he might not be able to put food on the table for his brood?  :lol:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 05, 2017, 01:21:55 PM
How did he come out of grad school still so dumb? MBA? Geez.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 05, 2017, 01:56:26 PM
it doesn't really eff anyone, it's just a big deficit financed stimulus package at a time when unemployment stands at 4%.

This

Yep. Why so many conservatives are ok with adding 1.5 trillion to the deficit in order to create jobs is baffling to me. It’s like exactly the kind of thing Republicans are supposed to be against.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 05, 2017, 01:58:24 PM
it doesn't really eff anyone, it's just a big deficit financed stimulus package at a time when unemployment stands at 4%.

This

Yep. Why so many conservatives are ok with adding 1.5 trillion to the deficit in order to create jobs is baffling to me. It’s like exactly the kind of thing Republicans are supposed to be against.

They think trickle down works (que fsd)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 05, 2017, 04:07:30 PM
I'd bet Neither the student loan interest nor the mortgage deduction reduction would apply to ksu.

Correct. I have a mortgage under 500k and used my grad school loans to get a good paying job to pay them off in about 5yrs.

I am almost always right.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 05, 2017, 04:17:02 PM
it doesn't really eff anyone, it's just a big deficit financed stimulus package at a time when unemployment stands at 4%.

This

Yep. Why so many conservatives are ok with adding 1.5 trillion to the deficit in order to create jobs is baffling to me. It’s like exactly the kind of thing Republicans are supposed to be against.

They think trickle down works (que fsd)

It really doesn’t even matter if it does work. The government is still cutting a massive check to redistribute wealth. It just seems crazy to me as a job creating tool.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 05, 2017, 04:18:50 PM
The point of this is to reduce the corporate tax rate because they think trickle down works
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 05, 2017, 05:19:17 PM
if I'm reading this thing correctly the proposed mortgage interest and property tax changes would only apply for newly purchased homes so if you already own then you get grandfathered in. and it only applies for mortgages over $500k and property tax over $10k. so most HENRYs won't be impacted because they can't afford that much home anyway. and the student loan stuff wouldn't apply to them either because you can't deduct that if you earn more than $80k single/$160k married filing joint.

This thing is probably hardest on HENRY doctors. And while the grandfather thing is true enough, it hurts home values.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Docs likely make too much to deduct loan interest anyway right?

yeah you are right.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 05, 2017, 05:22:47 PM
I’m sure they don’t during residency.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 05, 2017, 05:42:22 PM
Biggest losers:

Graduate students
HENRYs with professional degree student loans and expensive homes

Like I said, this tax cut is almost specifically designed to hurt KSUW and he is still cheering it to "own the libs" it is such a perfect example of how broken his brain is.

Cheering it? I'm pretty disappointed in what this does for me personally. But it does help a ton of people - that can't be denied. It could also indirectly help me by further boosting the economy and my investments.

I suspect the student loan thing is going to impact a very small slice of people. The vast majority of people with a lot of student loan debt will likely be more than covered by the doubling of the standard deduction. As you get older, wealthier, and incur more itemized deductions to surpass the standard deduction, you typically pay off your student loans (unless you don't, and that's on you).

It taxes any grad student on a stipend. So, for instance, when I was getting a stipend and tuition assistance for my undergraduate degree through an academic scholarship?  That is now taxable income. My wife who had a stipend and tuition waiver for her Ph.D? Now taxed as income.

All TA's, Graduate Assistants, Post-Docs etc. will now have their stipends and scholarships taxed as income. If it stays in, it will be a disaster for graduate research and a huge de facto cut for higher ed in an environment where states have almost stopped funding higher ed anyways.

Wait, so if I'm reading this right, you're pissed that you might have to start paying taxes on your income?

Tell you what: start paying 20% federal income tax on your income and then you can come bitch to me.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 05, 2017, 06:09:29 PM
Nobody gets more upset about how much taxes someone else is paying than the libtard who doesn't pay any taxes.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 05, 2017, 06:38:17 PM
This thread would be a lol riot with 2016 fed taxes paid next to each posters name
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 05, 2017, 06:51:39 PM
I assume there's a super special reason why TAs should be paid tax free. Can't wait to hear it. When I think about the citizens who do the most for this country, I bet we all automatically think TAs and our military. In that order.
Title: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on November 05, 2017, 07:10:27 PM
Out of curiosity are the military currently taxed on their education grants/scholarships/stipends/whatever? Would they be under this plan? I don't know and didn't read up on this part of the bill.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 05, 2017, 07:11:09 PM
I assume there's a super special reason why TAs should be paid tax free. Can't wait to hear it. When I think about the citizens who do the most for this country, I bet we all automatically think TAs and our military. In that order.
They are taxed on their income you moron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 05, 2017, 07:15:09 PM
I assume there's a super special reason why TAs should be paid tax free. Can't wait to hear it. When I think about the citizens who do the most for this country, I bet we all automatically think TAs and our military. In that order.
They are taxed on their income you moron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So if you give somebody a "stipend" or "scholarship" in exhange for working, that's not income?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on November 05, 2017, 07:16:56 PM
Mrs. Dave gets a massive amount of money in an "administrative stipend" and we are taxed AF on it.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 05, 2017, 07:24:22 PM
Out of curiosity are the military currently taxed on their education grants/scholarships/stipends/whatever? Would they be under this plan? I don't know and didn't read up on this part of the bill.

Good question, haven't heard anything. GI Bill is different now I think, you have to withhold some income to qualify I think now. Not sure how it works exactly just have talked to a few guys about it that were enlisted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 05, 2017, 07:25:06 PM
I assume there's a super special reason why TAs should be paid tax free. Can't wait to hear it. When I think about the citizens who do the most for this country, I bet we all automatically think TAs and our military. In that order.
They are taxed on their income you moron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So if you give somebody a "stipend" or "scholarship" in exhange for working, that's not income?

See if you can figure out the difference between a stipend and a scholarship. Because they are different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on November 05, 2017, 07:38:15 PM
I wouldn’t hold my breath KK
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: wetwillie on November 05, 2017, 07:39:56 PM
There is an entirely untapped revenue stream that would bring in billions:

The churches
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: SdK on November 05, 2017, 07:42:58 PM
There is an entirely untapped revenue stream that would bring in billions:

The churches
I support this 100%.
Title: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on November 05, 2017, 07:42:59 PM
There is an entirely untapped revenue stream that would bring in billions:

The churches

I've said this for years. You want to shave taxes of individuals by $100bn there's your solution.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 05, 2017, 07:56:11 PM
Do it tomorrow
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 05, 2017, 09:40:02 PM
Would you receive your scholarship if you weren't working as a TA? If not, it's not a scholarship. It's just a wage by another name. I don't think the law is changing in this regard? What exactly is changing that you are upset about?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 05, 2017, 09:49:04 PM
Ah found it. Did not realize the current tax code allowed certain unis to provide tuition reductions - aka scholarships - to TAs and grad assistants tax free. Glad that'll be ended. Cry all you want, but you're not special. Why the hell should your compensation for working as a TA be tax free? What makes you so special, KK?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 05, 2017, 10:04:30 PM
As more details emerge, sounds like the expanded child tax credit of $1,600 will be available up to $230,000 AGI! The question is whether the 230k threshold is where the credit completely phases out, or starts to phase out. If the latter, this would put me solidly back into the "cut cut cut" category! :woot:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: IPA4Me on November 06, 2017, 07:02:57 AM
Military members are taxed on "pay" but not "allowances".

Base pay. Sea duty pay. Submarine duty pay. Nuclear assignment pay.

Uniform allowance. Food and housing allowance.

Don't recall being taxed when using GI Bill benefits.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on November 06, 2017, 07:41:30 AM
Military members are taxed on "pay" but not "allowances".

Base pay. Sea duty pay. Submarine duty pay. Nuclear assignment pay.

Uniform allowance. Food and housing allowance.

Don't recall being taxed when using GI Bill benefits.

yeah, that makes sense. curious if this bill changes that.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 06, 2017, 08:40:27 AM
Ah found it. Did not realize the current tax code allowed certain unis to provide tuition reductions - aka scholarships - to TAs and grad assistants tax free. Glad that'll be ended. Cry all you want, but you're not special. Why the hell should your compensation for working as a TA be tax free? What makes you so special, KK?

I guess I just don't think it is very fair and would rather keep it the way it is. Hopefully universities set a special tuition price for grad students under these circumstances and only set the price of the scholarship at like $1 or whatever to prevent this from affecting people.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 06, 2017, 08:46:07 AM
Ah found it. Did not realize the current tax code allowed certain unis to provide tuition reductions - aka scholarships - to TAs and grad assistants tax free. Glad that'll be ended. Cry all you want, but you're not special. Why the hell should your compensation for working as a TA be tax free? What makes you so special, KK?

It's a benefit, not compensation. Lots of benefits are tax free.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 06, 2017, 08:52:25 AM
Ya know guys, if nobody wants to pay any taxes because of one reason or another............
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 06, 2017, 09:24:30 AM
lol you support cutting the corporate tax rate when they already effectively pay much less than most
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 06, 2017, 09:34:50 AM
Sorry, can’t argue with somebody dumb enough to think that corporations pay taxes.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 06, 2017, 12:57:44 PM
This thread would be a lol riot with 2016 fed taxes paid next to each posters name

Job titles alone would be lol

More Taxes Crew:  TA, Camp Counselor, Social Worker, Obamacare Enrollment Tech
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: SdK on November 06, 2017, 02:04:38 PM
I don't want my job title next to my name.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 06, 2017, 02:05:50 PM
This thread would be a lol riot with 2016 fed taxes paid next to each posters name

Job titles alone would be lol

More Taxes Crew:  TA, Camp Counselor, Social Worker, Obamacare Enrollment Tech

Manager at a pay-day-loan place, used car dealer, etc.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: IPA4Me on November 06, 2017, 05:23:42 PM
Now there's some reform I can support.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/05/nfl-prepares-to-fight-tax-reform-bill-th
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 06, 2017, 08:44:30 PM
As more details emerge, sounds like the expanded child tax credit of $1,600 will be available up to $230,000 AGI! The question is whether the 230k threshold is where the credit completely phases out, or starts to phase out. If the latter, this would put me solidly back into the "cut cut cut" category! :woot:

Gotta admit this would be pretty enjoyable for me.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 06, 2017, 08:50:01 PM
Now there's some reform I can support.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/05/nfl-prepares-to-fight-tax-reform-bill-th

Another thing I would be happy about if it was the only piece that got through.
Title: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 06, 2017, 08:51:13 PM
Heard an interesting take today that charities like United Way are freaking out over the bill because it means much fewer people will itemize so much less incentive for folks to donate.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: renocat on November 06, 2017, 10:44:01 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republican-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-millions/ar-AAuwAys
According to this article, 1/3 of the middle class would pay more taxes in 2018 than they do now.  Key deductions are being taken away or reduced to nothing
  Reminds me of Obamacare.  Premiums went down but out of pocket expenses skyrocketed
I am ashamed of being associated DeeCrap republicans.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 07, 2017, 12:43:41 AM
1/3rd of middle class families? I find that very very hard to believe, on many levels. For one, I would hazard a guess that way fewer than 1/3 of middle class families would have itemized deductions significantly greater than the doubled standard deduction. And at middle class wages, the expanded child tax credit should more than offset lost personal exemptions.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on November 08, 2017, 06:11:29 PM
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2017/11/08/disastrous-trump-tax-plan/#5b916d364dd3 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2017/11/08/disastrous-trump-tax-plan/#5b916d364dd3)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 08, 2017, 09:54:26 PM
Heard an interesting take today that charities like United Way are freaking out over the bill because it means much fewer people will itemize so much less incentive for folks to donate.

yeah one of the first things I thought of in the doubling standard deduction talk.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: IPA4Me on November 09, 2017, 06:22:56 AM
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2017/11/08/disastrous-trump-tax-plan/#5b916d364dd3 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2017/11/08/disastrous-trump-tax-plan/#5b916d364dd3)
That's a good take.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 09, 2017, 11:43:57 AM
Heard an interesting take today that charities like United Way are freaking out over the bill because it means much fewer people will itemize so much less incentive for folks to donate.

yeah one of the first things I thought of in the doubling standard deduction talk.

I doubt it will significantly reduce actual charitable giving. What it will do is significantly reduce reporting of charitable giving. Kind of like how when the IRS finally started requiring people to prove up their number of dependents by providing SSNs, millions of children "vanished" in one year. Charitable giving is another area that, unfortunately, is rife with tax fraud. Doubling the standard deduction reduces the incentive to cheat by reducing the incentive to itemize in the first place.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 09, 2017, 11:54:48 AM
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2017/11/08/disastrous-trump-tax-plan/#5b916d364dd3 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2017/11/08/disastrous-trump-tax-plan/#5b916d364dd3)
That's a good take.

No it isn't. It's just repackaged Keynesian bullshit. Even if you subscribe to that theory of economics, the purpose of tax reform isn't just to stimulate the economy - it's also to make the tax code more fair. According to this piece, you might as well just cut people checks and not bother with reform at all. This tax reform reduces rates for most people and particularly for people who were already getting gouged. Fairness and economic benefits.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 09, 2017, 12:16:33 PM
Heard an interesting take today that charities like United Way are freaking out over the bill because it means much fewer people will itemize so much less incentive for folks to donate.

yeah one of the first things I thought of in the doubling standard deduction talk.

I doubt it will significantly reduce actual charitable giving. What it will do is significantly reduce reporting of charitable giving. Kind of like how when the IRS finally started requiring people to prove up their number of dependents by providing SSNs, millions of children "vanished" in one year. Charitable giving is another area that, unfortunately, is rife with tax fraud. Doubling the standard deduction reduces the incentive to cheat by reducing the incentive to itemize in the first place.

So, are the kids ok?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 09, 2017, 12:31:41 PM
Heard an interesting take today that charities like United Way are freaking out over the bill because it means much fewer people will itemize so much less incentive for folks to donate.

yeah one of the first things I thought of in the doubling standard deduction talk.

I doubt it will significantly reduce actual charitable giving. What it will do is significantly reduce reporting of charitable giving. Kind of like how when the IRS finally started requiring people to prove up their number of dependents by providing SSNs, millions of children "vanished" in one year. Charitable giving is another area that, unfortunately, is rife with tax fraud. Doubling the standard deduction reduces the incentive to cheat by reducing the incentive to itemize in the first place.

I guess the tax advisors to massive charitable organizations spent too much time focusing on the tax plan and empirical data and forgot to ask KSUW what he thinks will happen.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 09, 2017, 12:33:01 PM
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2017/11/08/disastrous-trump-tax-plan/#5b916d364dd3 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2017/11/08/disastrous-trump-tax-plan/#5b916d364dd3)
That's a good take.

No it isn't. It's just repackaged Keynesian bullshit. Even if you subscribe to that theory of economics, the purpose of tax reform isn't just to stimulate the economy - it's also to make the tax code more fair. According to this piece, you might as well just cut people checks and not bother with reform at all. This tax reform reduces rates for most people and particularly for people who were already getting gouged. Fairness and economic benefits.

Yea, I mean, we can all agree that people that make between $500,000 and above are the big winners here.  But that's kinda the point of the article.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 09, 2017, 01:14:36 PM
Heard an interesting take today that charities like United Way are freaking out over the bill because it means much fewer people will itemize so much less incentive for folks to donate.

yeah one of the first things I thought of in the doubling standard deduction talk.

I doubt it will significantly reduce actual charitable giving. What it will do is significantly reduce reporting of charitable giving. Kind of like how when the IRS finally started requiring people to prove up their number of dependents by providing SSNs, millions of children "vanished" in one year. Charitable giving is another area that, unfortunately, is rife with tax fraud. Doubling the standard deduction reduces the incentive to cheat by reducing the incentive to itemize in the first place.

I guess the tax advisors to massive charitable organizations spent too much time focusing on the tax plan and empirical data and forgot to ask KSUW what he thinks will happen.

Well you can listen to the paid lobbyists or you can use common sense. Up to you.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: IPA4Me on November 09, 2017, 02:14:37 PM
$40k a year IPA4Me would definitely be flowing the cash back to expenses. Today, it's going right to savings and I'm nowhere close to $500K.

I've lived it.  So yeah, I agree with the article.

Let's be honest though. This is a corporate tax break. Posters here are getting mumped.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on November 09, 2017, 02:22:21 PM
Let's be honest though. This is a corporate tax break.

this is accurate
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on November 09, 2017, 04:34:02 PM
the focus of that article is exploring job creation. you don't create more jobs by letting companies keep more of their revenue.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 09, 2017, 10:08:34 PM
Well a lot of folks supporting the bill claim that the main focus is on job creation so the article is pretty OP if you ask me.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 10, 2017, 08:14:16 AM
Upper middle class taking it on the chin

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/i-dont-feel-wealthy-the-upper-middle-class-is-worried-about-paying-for-the-tax-overhaul/2017/11/09/a5cf1acc-c55e-11e7-aae0-cb18a8c29c65_story.html?utm_term=.6f09bff81cc8
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 10, 2017, 08:22:39 AM
the focus of that article is exploring job creation. you don't create more jobs by letting companies keep more of their revenue.

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 10, 2017, 08:25:08 AM
Really hard to feel sorry for a family that hauls in $180k and feels like they need certain tax deductions to get by. I know a lot of people are like that, I just have zero sympathy for them.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 10, 2017, 08:34:46 AM
Really hard to feel sorry for a family that hauls in $180k and feels like they need certain tax deductions to get by. I know a lot of people are like that, I just have zero sympathy for them.

And maybe a family making 180k and living paycheck to paycheck shouldn't buy a 600k house
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 10, 2017, 08:35:39 AM
Quote
The Senate plan does away with the $20 per month deduction people who bike to work can take.

Okay?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: wetwillie on November 10, 2017, 08:35:57 AM
Getting really preachy up in here
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 10, 2017, 08:40:54 AM
Those people totally deserve to be ridiculed.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: IPA4Me on November 10, 2017, 08:59:47 AM
Absolutely. There's no reason to be paycheck to paycheck at $180K. If you are, consider yourself the subject of the sermon.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Spracne on November 10, 2017, 09:01:54 AM
Really hard to feel sorry for a family that hauls in $180k and feels like they need certain tax deductions to get by. I know a lot of people are like that, I just have zero sympathy for them.
For some people in some markets, $180K isn't really a lot of money. Especially people with lots of law school debt and expensive tastes in alcohol, just for illustrative purposes.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on November 10, 2017, 09:04:14 AM
One of those expenses is not like the other
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Tubesock on November 10, 2017, 09:12:37 AM
The average federal income tax paid by the American taxpayer is around $10000, if we raised that to $16500 and didn’t add new spending we wouldn’t have any debt.  Guys that is pretty cheap per person to live in this country.  My family bronze high ded plan will be $15,000 next year for perspective.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2017, 09:20:22 AM
The average federal income tax paid by the American taxpayer is around $10000, if we raised that to $16500 and didn’t add new spending we wouldn’t have any debt.  Guys that is pretty cheap per person to live in this country.  My family bronze high ded plan will be $15,000 next year for perspective.

Reduce federal spending by $500 billion and I would gladly pay more in taxes to balance the budget and start paying off the debt. But there is no willingness by either party, except for a minority of conservatives, to actually cut spending. So why the hell would I give the government more of my money just so they can spend more and continue to run massive deficits? I'm not against taxes - I'm against wasting my money and asking for more.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2017, 09:23:50 AM
Really hard to feel sorry for a family that hauls in $180k and feels like they need certain tax deductions to get by. I know a lot of people are like that, I just have zero sympathy for them.
For some people in some markets, $180K isn't really a lot of money. Especially people with lots of law school debt and expensive tastes in alcohol, just for illustrative purposes.

Can guarantee you that every dumbass who "doesn't feel sorry for the family that hauls in 180k" (a) doesn't have kids, (b) didn't pay for a graduate-level degree, and (c) hasn't bought a home in an expensive school district. That's ok. Maybe these dumbasses are just young and naïve and haven't finished school or started families yet.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Spracne on November 10, 2017, 09:28:00 AM
Really hard to feel sorry for a family that hauls in $180k and feels like they need certain tax deductions to get by. I know a lot of people are like that, I just have zero sympathy for them.
For some people in some markets, $180K isn't really a lot of money. Especially people with lots of law school debt and expensive tastes in alcohol, just for illustrative purposes.

Can guarantee you that every dumbass who "doesn't feel sorry for the family that hauls in 180k" (a) doesn't have kids, (b) didn't pay for a graduate-level degree, and (c) hasn't bought a home in an expensive school district. That's ok. Maybe these dumbasses are just young and naïve and haven't finished school or started families yet.

I mean it's not bologna sandwich money, but it's also nowhere near eff-you money. When you parcel it all out, you still end up with a pretty unremarkable lifestyle. And I say that as a single* person.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 10, 2017, 09:33:13 AM
Really hard to feel sorry for a family that hauls in $180k and feels like they need certain tax deductions to get by. I know a lot of people are like that, I just have zero sympathy for them.
For some people in some markets, $180K isn't really a lot of money. Especially people with lots of law school debt and expensive tastes in alcohol, just for illustrative purposes.

Can guarantee you that every dumbass who "doesn't feel sorry for the family that hauls in 180k" (a) doesn't have kids, (b) didn't pay for a graduate-level degree, and (c) hasn't bought a home in an expensive school district. That's ok. Maybe these dumbasses are just young and naïve and haven't finished school or started families yet.

No one is forcing you to live above your means
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: wetwillie on November 10, 2017, 09:36:20 AM
When did lib turn into Dave Ramsey....smh
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2017, 09:38:59 AM
Upper middle class taking it on the chin

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/i-dont-feel-wealthy-the-upper-middle-class-is-worried-about-paying-for-the-tax-overhaul/2017/11/09/a5cf1acc-c55e-11e7-aae0-cb18a8c29c65_story.html?utm_term=.6f09bff81cc8

My only problem with this article is that I'm not sure the math adds up. That family with 3 kids is going to get a $4,800 child tax credit they currently didn't qualify for. They're also probably going to save a few hundred when the AMT is eliminated. So by my math, the only way their taxes go up is if they were taking massive itemized deductions, somewhere in the neighborhood of $40,000. Mortgage interest on a $600k house, property taxes, Georgia income tax, and student loan interest could get you there if you've got a lot of debt, but I think this is going to be a relatively rare situation.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 10, 2017, 09:40:29 AM
Really hard to feel sorry for a family that hauls in $180k and feels like they need certain tax deductions to get by. I know a lot of people are like that, I just have zero sympathy for them.
For some people in some markets, $180K isn't really a lot of money. Especially people with lots of law school debt and expensive tastes in alcohol, just for illustrative purposes.

Can guarantee you that every dumbass who "doesn't feel sorry for the family that hauls in 180k" (a) doesn't have kids, (b) didn't pay for a graduate-level degree, and (c) hasn't bought a home in an expensive school district. That's ok. Maybe these dumbasses are just young and naïve and haven't finished school or started families yet.

Just keep in mind this guy thinks people on food stamps and other social welfare programs should just learn some personal responsibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Tubesock on November 10, 2017, 09:45:31 AM
The average federal income tax paid by the American taxpayer is around $10000, if we raised that to $16500 and didn’t add new spending we wouldn’t have any debt.  Guys that is pretty cheap per person to live in this country.  My family bronze high ded plan will be $15,000 next year for perspective.

Reduce federal spending by $500 billion and I would gladly pay more in taxes to balance the budget and start paying off the debt. But there is no willingness by either party, except for a minority of conservatives, to actually cut spending. So why the hell would I give the government more of my money just so they can spend more and continue to run massive deficits? I'm not against taxes - I'm against wasting my money and asking for more.

My point with this is we have far to many people not paying their fair share. In 2014 income was around 9 trillion and fed taxes around 1.3 trill.  That’s like 15% .  I don’t see why everybody can’t just pay 20% and call it a day.  This illusion that 85% of our country doesn’t pay much and then votes stupid because of it is silly.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: cfbandyman on November 10, 2017, 09:56:10 AM
Really hard to feel sorry for a family that hauls in $180k and feels like they need certain tax deductions to get by. I know a lot of people are like that, I just have zero sympathy for them.
For some people in some markets, $180K isn't really a lot of money. Especially people with lots of law school debt and expensive tastes in alcohol, just for illustrative purposes.

Can guarantee you that every dumbass who "doesn't feel sorry for the family that hauls in 180k" (a) doesn't have kids, (b) didn't pay for a graduate-level degree, and (c) hasn't bought a home in an expensive school district. That's ok. Maybe these dumbasses are just young and naïve and haven't finished school or started families yet.

My mom and dad make it just fine with a 300k house, putting 3 kids through college (with one still in there), and oh look at that just traded in a car and bought the rest of the balance in 15k in cash. All while operating on approx 2/3 of that income. You have very little to no excuse if you are hauling in 180k. Maybe some reckless spending going on there if you are.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: IPA4Me on November 10, 2017, 10:21:26 AM
Bingo
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 10, 2017, 10:34:32 AM
It would indeed be a ton of totally reckless spending. I always figured the simpler explanation is that KSUW WILDLY exaggerates his household income.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Spracne on November 10, 2017, 10:36:20 AM
Hey now, KSU-W and I should not be tarred and feathered for one of us being a bachelor 3%er and the other being a married, brood-supporting, never retiring, penny-pinching-hundred-thousand-aire 3%er who can't countenance a change in the dependent tax credit. One of us worked hard all our adult lives to get to this point. Show some 'spect.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Mikeyis4dcats on November 10, 2017, 11:00:28 AM
like how they give a 10yr cut to a bunch of low incomer earners then take it away, long enough for all the current GOP to get relected and people to forget.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2017, 11:07:26 AM
The average federal income tax paid by the American taxpayer is around $10000, if we raised that to $16500 and didn’t add new spending we wouldn’t have any debt.  Guys that is pretty cheap per person to live in this country.  My family bronze high ded plan will be $15,000 next year for perspective.

Reduce federal spending by $500 billion and I would gladly pay more in taxes to balance the budget and start paying off the debt. But there is no willingness by either party, except for a minority of conservatives, to actually cut spending. So why the hell would I give the government more of my money just so they can spend more and continue to run massive deficits? I'm not against taxes - I'm against wasting my money and asking for more.

My point with this is we have far to many people not paying their fair share. In 2014 income was around 9 trillion and fed taxes around 1.3 trill.  That’s like 15% .  I don’t see why everybody can’t just pay 20% and call it a day.  This illusion that 85% of our country doesn’t pay much and then votes stupid because of it is silly.

Agree, except that 20% is way too high. I bet if everyone just paid 15% - no deductions, credits or any of that crap - we'd be in great shape.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 10, 2017, 11:17:29 AM
Really hard to feel sorry for a family that hauls in $180k and feels like they need certain tax deductions to get by. I know a lot of people are like that, I just have zero sympathy for them.
For some people in some markets, $180K isn't really a lot of money. Especially people with lots of law school debt and expensive tastes in alcohol, just for illustrative purposes.

Can guarantee you that every dumbass who "doesn't feel sorry for the family that hauls in 180k" (a) doesn't have kids, (b) didn't pay for a graduate-level degree, and (c) hasn't bought a home in an expensive school district. That's ok. Maybe these dumbasses are just young and naïve and haven't finished school or started families yet.

Ok, well can confirm your guarantee is wrong, dumbass.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2017, 11:18:46 AM
Really hard to feel sorry for a family that hauls in $180k and feels like they need certain tax deductions to get by. I know a lot of people are like that, I just have zero sympathy for them.
For some people in some markets, $180K isn't really a lot of money. Especially people with lots of law school debt and expensive tastes in alcohol, just for illustrative purposes.

Can guarantee you that every dumbass who "doesn't feel sorry for the family that hauls in 180k" (a) doesn't have kids, (b) didn't pay for a graduate-level degree, and (c) hasn't bought a home in an expensive school district. That's ok. Maybe these dumbasses are just young and naïve and haven't finished school or started families yet.

Just keep in mind this guy thinks people on food stamps and other social welfare programs should just learn some personal responsibility.

I'm fascinated by the difference in liberal and conservative outlooks on life. To me, a person wanting to keep more of their own money is completely different from a person asking for more of someone else's money. Liberals don't see that distinction, and even hold the welfare recipient in higher regard. To me, a person who worked hard for their money to live a comfortable lifestyle and provide a good life their kids, and already pays a ton in taxes, has a right to be upset about their taxes going up. To a liberal, that person just needs to "spend more responsibly" to afford the higher taxes, and anyone who doesn't agree is a hypocrite if they want welfare recipients to be more responsible for supporting themselves.

It really is fascinating. This isn't a matter of intelligence. I know enough smart liberals to appreciate that. It's a nature or nurture thing. Probably some of both.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: LickNeckey on November 10, 2017, 11:34:13 AM
i find it fascinating that we spend 400 billion dollars a year more on our military* than the next largest spender

but to suggest belt tightening is decried by conservatives

(*the same military they claim to need guns to protect themselves from)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 10, 2017, 11:39:00 AM
the shell game at the bottom is repulsive and fucks up the market.  Big business wants cheap labor and lobbies for it.  Establishment fuckfaces give them what they want and make it work by subsidizing the whole scheme with an big safety net, tax credits to the poor, and a bunch of other crap all financed by the people paying taxes.  Added benefit for establishment fuckface is he appears to be a hero to both big business and the poor and gets votes.  This system is horrible for the poor in a multitude of ways.
In reality you are a irl bad person to think this setup is ok, like racist, slavery, inhumane bad person 

 

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 10, 2017, 11:46:42 AM
Really hard to feel sorry for a family that hauls in $180k and feels like they need certain tax deductions to get by. I know a lot of people are like that, I just have zero sympathy for them.
For some people in some markets, $180K isn't really a lot of money. Especially people with lots of law school debt and expensive tastes in alcohol, just for illustrative purposes.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=39872.msg1777922#msg1777922

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=28425.msg1774301#msg1774301

 :dubious:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 10, 2017, 11:50:32 AM
Really hard to feel sorry for a family that hauls in $180k and feels like they need certain tax deductions to get by. I know a lot of people are like that, I just have zero sympathy for them.
For some people in some markets, $180K isn't really a lot of money. Especially people with lots of law school debt and expensive tastes in alcohol, just for illustrative purposes.

Can guarantee you that every dumbass who "doesn't feel sorry for the family that hauls in 180k" (a) doesn't have kids, (b) didn't pay for a graduate-level degree, and (c) hasn't bought a home in an expensive school district. That's ok. Maybe these dumbasses are just young and naïve and haven't finished school or started families yet.

Just keep in mind this guy thinks people on food stamps and other social welfare programs should just learn some personal responsibility.

I'm fascinated by the difference in liberal and conservative outlooks on life. To me, a person wanting to keep more of their own money is completely different from a person asking for more of someone else's money. Liberals don't see that distinction, and even hold the welfare recipient in higher regard. To me, a person who worked hard for their money to live a comfortable lifestyle and provide a good life their kids, and already pays a ton in taxes, has a right to be upset about their taxes going up. To a liberal, that person just needs to "spend more responsibly" to afford the higher taxes, and anyone who doesn't agree is a hypocrite if they want welfare recipients to be more responsible for supporting themselves.

It really is fascinating. This isn't a matter of intelligence. I know enough smart liberals to appreciate that. It's a nature or nurture thing. Probably some of both.

You weren't upset with your taxes going up.  You actually seemed pumped to pay more to support the president
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 10, 2017, 11:54:00 AM

Just keep in mind this guy thinks people on food stamps and other social welfare programs should just learn some personal responsibility.

I'm fascinated by the difference in liberal and conservative outlooks on life. To me, a person wanting to keep more of their own money is completely different from a person asking for more of someone else's money. Liberals don't see that distinction, and even hold the welfare recipient in higher regard. To me, a person who worked hard for their money to live a comfortable lifestyle and provide a good life their kids, and already pays a ton in taxes, has a right to be upset about their taxes going up. To a liberal, that person just needs to "spend more responsibly" to afford the higher taxes, and anyone who doesn't agree is a hypocrite if they want welfare recipients to be more responsible for supporting themselves.

It really is fascinating. This isn't a matter of intelligence. I know enough smart liberals to appreciate that. It's a nature or nurture thing. Probably some of both.

You're either missing or ignoring the point.  Right now you are saying "I don't want to give away any more money because I want to spend it on myself."  That is fine, but KK's point is based on the conservative critique that people currently receiving welfare benefits could be self-sufficient if they just were more responsible with their money.  If you cannot feel sorry enough for those people to pay a little extra tax to help them out, then why the eff should I feel sorry about a family making $180k /year who is underwater on the $600k mortgage they just took out?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 10, 2017, 11:54:48 AM
Starting to feel like the MIR of the tax thread now...
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: LickNeckey on November 10, 2017, 11:58:59 AM

Just keep in mind this guy thinks people on food stamps and other social welfare programs should just learn some personal responsibility.

I'm fascinated by the difference in liberal and conservative outlooks on life. To me, a person wanting to keep more of their own money is completely different from a person asking for more of someone else's money. Liberals don't see that distinction, and even hold the welfare recipient in higher regard. To me, a person who worked hard for their money to live a comfortable lifestyle and provide a good life their kids, and already pays a ton in taxes, has a right to be upset about their taxes going up. To a liberal, that person just needs to "spend more responsibly" to afford the higher taxes, and anyone who doesn't agree is a hypocrite if they want welfare recipients to be more responsible for supporting themselves.

It really is fascinating. This isn't a matter of intelligence. I know enough smart liberals to appreciate that. It's a nature or nurture thing. Probably some of both.

You're either missing or ignoring the point.  Right now you are saying "I don't want to give away any more money because I want to spend it on myself."  That is fine, but KK's point is based on the conservative critique that people currently receiving welfare benefits could be self-sufficient if they just were more responsible with their money.  If you cannot feel sorry enough for those people to pay a little extra tax to help them out, then why the eff should I feel sorry about a family making $180k /year who is underwater on the $600k mortgage they just took out?

sounds like these folks need to pull themselves up by their Lucchese Boot Straps
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: cfbandyman on November 10, 2017, 12:04:49 PM
i find it fascinating that we spend 400 billion dollars a year more on our military* than the next largest spender

but to suggest belt tightening is decried by conservatives

(*the same military they claim to need guns to protect themselves from)

This is a good start.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: cfbandyman on November 10, 2017, 12:08:41 PM

Just keep in mind this guy thinks people on food stamps and other social welfare programs should just learn some personal responsibility.

I'm fascinated by the difference in liberal and conservative outlooks on life. To me, a person wanting to keep more of their own money is completely different from a person asking for more of someone else's money. Liberals don't see that distinction, and even hold the welfare recipient in higher regard. To me, a person who worked hard for their money to live a comfortable lifestyle and provide a good life their kids, and already pays a ton in taxes, has a right to be upset about their taxes going up. To a liberal, that person just needs to "spend more responsibly" to afford the higher taxes, and anyone who doesn't agree is a hypocrite if they want welfare recipients to be more responsible for supporting themselves.

It really is fascinating. This isn't a matter of intelligence. I know enough smart liberals to appreciate that. It's a nature or nurture thing. Probably some of both.

You're either missing or ignoring the point.  Right now you are saying "I don't want to give away any more money because I want to spend it on myself."  That is fine, but KK's point is based on the conservative critique that people currently receiving welfare benefits could be self-sufficient if they just were more responsible with their money.  If you cannot feel sorry enough for those people to pay a little extra tax to help them out, then why the eff should I feel sorry about a family making $180k /year who is underwater on the $600k mortgage they just took out?

O man I was like 2/3 through writing a response to his post and then my browser freaked out a bit. Glad someone pointed this out.

Agree on lot of it.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 10, 2017, 12:10:36 PM
You weren't upset with your taxes going up.  You actually seemed pumped to pay more to support the president

it really is amazing. he knows this will be bad for himself, but great for all the people much richer than he will ever be,  but he supports it because he is envious of them. what a cuck.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 10, 2017, 12:16:02 PM
You weren't upset with your taxes going up.  You actually seemed pumped to pay more to support the president

it really is amazing. he knows this will be bad for himself, but great for all the people much richer than he will ever be,  but he supports it because he is envious of them. what a cuck.

Trolling those stupid libs tho
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2017, 01:45:09 PM
You weren't upset with your taxes going up.  You actually seemed pumped to pay more to support the president

it really is amazing. he knows this will be bad for himself, but great for all the people much richer than he will ever be,  but he supports it because he is envious of them. what a cuck.

I don't think you've been following this thread closely enough. To follow KSUdub's arc in this thread....
1. ZOMG this is gonna be awesome for me!!
2. Well eff, I'm losing the personal exemptions, so this might really suck for me.
3. Maybe it'll at least help me indirectly by boosting my investments.
4. ZOMG I just found out they're gonna increase the phase out for the child tax credit, so this is gonna be awesome for me!!
5. (The last few pages) batting down idiotic liberal butthurt.

It really has been quite a rollercoaster.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2017, 01:48:38 PM

Just keep in mind this guy thinks people on food stamps and other social welfare programs should just learn some personal responsibility.

I'm fascinated by the difference in liberal and conservative outlooks on life. To me, a person wanting to keep more of their own money is completely different from a person asking for more of someone else's money. Liberals don't see that distinction, and even hold the welfare recipient in higher regard. To me, a person who worked hard for their money to live a comfortable lifestyle and provide a good life their kids, and already pays a ton in taxes, has a right to be upset about their taxes going up. To a liberal, that person just needs to "spend more responsibly" to afford the higher taxes, and anyone who doesn't agree is a hypocrite if they want welfare recipients to be more responsible for supporting themselves.

It really is fascinating. This isn't a matter of intelligence. I know enough smart liberals to appreciate that. It's a nature or nurture thing. Probably some of both.

You're either missing or ignoring the point.  Right now you are saying "I don't want to give away any more money because I want to spend it on myself."  That is fine, but KK's point is based on the conservative critique that people currently receiving welfare benefits could be self-sufficient if they just were more responsible with their money.  If you cannot feel sorry enough for those people to pay a little extra tax to help them out, then why the eff should I feel sorry about a family making $180k /year who is underwater on the $600k mortgage they just took out?

Gosh, I don't think I could have said this any more clearly above, but I'll try again. It is totally adorable how liberals equate a person wanting to keep more of their money with a person wanting more of someone else's money.

Have you guys seen Westworld, where the androids are programmed so they literally can't see something that would eff with their programming and cause them to question the nature of their existence? That's what liberals are like here. They literally can't see the obvious difference right in front of them. "That doesn't look like anything to me." It's really amazing.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 10, 2017, 01:54:22 PM
But... You constantly talk about wanting more of poor people's money
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 11, 2017, 09:14:19 AM
Westworld sounds dorky
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 11, 2017, 10:09:58 AM
Westworld sounds dorky

It was actually kind of cool but way too convoluted. A bit too Lost'ish. There's a thread for it.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on November 11, 2017, 11:08:51 AM
I think child tax credits are complete horseshit. you should be taxed more if anything. these little shits eat up public services at 10x the rate of grown adults. if we're cutting/adding stuff based on "fairness" that's a layup. and this is coming from someone with like 20 kids.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 11, 2017, 11:17:11 AM
I think child tax credits are complete horseshit. you should be taxed more if anything. these little shits eat up public services at 10x the rate of grown adults. if we're cutting/adding stuff based on "fairness" that's a layup. and this is coming from someone with like 20 kids.

Mine use like zero public services
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: wetwillie on November 11, 2017, 11:21:55 AM
I think child tax credits are complete horseshit. you should be taxed more if anything. these little shits eat up public services at 10x the rate of grown adults. if we're cutting/adding stuff based on "fairness" that's a layup. and this is coming from someone with like 20 kids.

Especially handicapped ones, the resources they consume relative to what they produce is insane.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on November 11, 2017, 12:30:24 PM
20% is way too high. I bet if everyone just paid 15% - no deductions, credits or any of that crap - we'd be in great shape.

federal spending is 20% of gdp, so no, if everyone paid 15%, we would not be in great shape.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on November 11, 2017, 12:40:56 PM
I don't think you've been following this thread closely enough. To follow KSUdub's arc in this thread....

are we ever going to get to a point in this arc where you realize that decreasing your rates now will increase your rates in the future?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 11, 2017, 01:33:24 PM
is anybody here opposed to paying a flat 20% of their income to the feds? (no deductions)  I don't think that's too much to ask to live in this now great again country.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 11, 2017, 01:34:58 PM
For myself? No. For other people? Yes
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 11, 2017, 01:41:32 PM
why would you be opposed for others?  if they don't make much they don't pay much, its a great deal for them to live in this country for $4000 a year while others are paying $100,000 for the same thing?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: IPA4Me on November 11, 2017, 01:49:44 PM
Sure. They are already scraping to keep food on the table. Let's up their taxes because that's fair.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 11, 2017, 01:52:40 PM
Sure. They are already scraping to keep food on the table. Let's up their taxes because that's fair.

wants to take other people's money from them, smdh
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 11, 2017, 02:04:05 PM
the system is screwed up I agree, the fact that wages have been artificially suppressed at the bottom is the problem.  The supposed tax savings of the poor have just found their way into the pockets of corporations in the form of profits.  There is no reason everyone cant pay 20% and be fine in an unbastardized system.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on November 11, 2017, 03:56:30 PM
this is really good.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-11-09/how-to-break-out-of-our-long-national-tax-nightmare
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 11, 2017, 04:16:19 PM
I think child tax credits are complete horseshit. you should be taxed more if anything. these little shits eat up public services at 10x the rate of grown adults. if we're cutting/adding stuff based on "fairness" that's a layup. and this is coming from someone with like 20 kids.
Yes.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 11, 2017, 04:17:37 PM
is anybody here opposed to paying a flat 20% of their income to the feds? (no deductions)  I don't think that's too much to ask to live in this now great again country.
Can I file my taxes on a postcard? All I really care about is the format of the thing I'm mailing in.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 14, 2017, 09:21:05 AM
Invalid Tweet ID
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 14, 2017, 02:04:23 PM
YES, DO IT!

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 14, 2017, 02:14:54 PM
WTF is wrong with these people?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 14, 2017, 03:41:52 PM
It appears that the mandate tax being stripped away actually makes the tax bill cheaper. Not really sure how, but the Senate is evidently just playing along with the CBO's screwy math. According to the CBO, killing the "individual mandate" tax will save money that the Senate can then use to pay for other tax cuts.

To me, killing one tax to help pay for other tax cuts sounds like a win-win. To liberals it's Armageddon.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 14, 2017, 03:59:08 PM
Also gotta say it amused by the liberal talking points that "repealing the individual mandate will cause millions to lose their healthcare." To a liberal, if people decide they don't want to buy insurance because a tax penalty is killed, then killing the tax penalty causes those people to "lose their healthcare." :lol:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 14, 2017, 04:00:00 PM
Real fiscal conservatives like myself would just say, how about we make the goal adding 0 to the deficit instead of trying to barely squeak under $1.5 trillion?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 14, 2017, 04:03:46 PM
I get removing the individual mandate politically though. It will cause many healthy people to not buy insurance, which means the next time Republicans roll out stupid healthcare plan 4.0, the CBO analysis will look much more favorable because fewer insured means fewer losing insurance.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 14, 2017, 04:07:53 PM
Unlikely to pass already, cutting the individual mandate will officially kill this turd
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 14, 2017, 04:11:11 PM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 14, 2017, 04:33:02 PM
Real fiscal conservatives like myself would just say, how about we make the goal adding 0 to the deficit instead of trying to barely squeak under $1.5 trillion?

A real fiscal conservative such as yourself should realize that all this math is totally bogus. Nobody knows the real "cost" of this tax reform because nobody knows how much the economy will be boosted as a result. You should also realize that tax revenue as a percent of GDP may fluctuate but has remained remarkably steady the last several decades regardless of tax rates - the real culprit of our deficits is that we're spending way too much money. So a real fiscal conservative would focus on the spending and be fine with allowing nearly everyone to keep a little more of their own money.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 14, 2017, 04:46:34 PM
Real fiscal conservatives like myself would just say, how about we make the goal adding 0 to the deficit instead of trying to barely squeak under $1.5 trillion?

A real fiscal conservative such as yourself should realize that all this math is totally bogus. Nobody knows the real "cost" of this tax reform because nobody knows how much the economy will be boosted as a result. You should also realize that tax revenue as a percent of GDP may fluctuate but has remained remarkably steady the last several decades regardless of tax rates - the real culprit of our deficits is that we're spending way too much money. So a real fiscal conservative would focus on the spending and be fine with allowing nearly everyone to keep a little more of their own money.
CBO is off by $1.5 trillion is your take?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 14, 2017, 04:56:13 PM
It appears that the mandate tax being stripped away actually makes the tax bill cheaper. Not really sure how, but the Senate is evidently just playing along with the CBO's screwy math. According to the CBO, killing the "individual mandate" tax will save money that the Senate can then use to pay for other tax cuts.

To me, killing one tax to help pay for other tax cuts sounds like a win-win. To liberals it's Armageddon.

I just don't see how insurance rates don't go up without the individual mandate. I really don't believe it produces much tax revenue, and it never really was meant to.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Institutional Control on November 14, 2017, 05:14:26 PM
Rates will absolutely go up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on November 14, 2017, 05:31:20 PM
Trying to repeal aca with this is unbelievably stupid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 14, 2017, 05:36:48 PM
Real fiscal conservatives like myself would just say, how about we make the goal adding 0 to the deficit instead of trying to barely squeak under $1.5 trillion?

A real fiscal conservative such as yourself should realize that all this math is totally bogus. Nobody knows the real "cost" of this tax reform because nobody knows how much the economy will be boosted as a result. You should also realize that tax revenue as a percent of GDP may fluctuate but has remained remarkably steady the last several decades regardless of tax rates - the real culprit of our deficits is that we're spending way too much money. So a real fiscal conservative would focus on the spending and be fine with allowing nearly everyone to keep a little more of their own money.

1. Real fiscal conservatives like myself are NOT ok with passing measures that “welp, nobody knows what will happen to spending or the economy if we do this.”

2. If you are cutting taxes on those bringing in the most cash, even IF the economy improves (which is practically guaranteed not to happen in the next year), it has to improve by that much more just to cover the difference.

3. I would LOVE to talk about spending. What we really should be talking about is how to cut cut cut the ridiculous military budget.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 14, 2017, 06:10:41 PM
Rates will absolutely go up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They already were.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 14, 2017, 08:40:14 PM
Rates will absolutely go up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They already were.

they will go up by more.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 14, 2017, 09:11:15 PM
Rates will absolutely go up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They already were.

they will go up by more.

Gosh, maybe the people who shoved this crap law down our throats should held the pubs repeal and replace it with actual free market reform. Oh wait... that's never gonna happen because said socialists want to go in the opposite direction. Save your crocodile tears.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 14, 2017, 09:49:29 PM
Also gotta say it amused by the liberal talking points that "repealing the individual mandate will cause millions to lose their healthcare." To a liberal, if people decide they don't want to buy insurance because a tax penalty is killed, then killing the tax penalty causes those people to "lose their healthcare." :lol:

The mental gymnastics they're engaging in to claim this is a middle class tax cut is particularly lol after spending 8 years raising taxes on and generally rough ridin' over the middle class.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 15, 2017, 09:50:56 AM
Good take.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/11/15/one_simple_way_to_improve_gops_tax_reform_proposal_135542.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/11/15/one_simple_way_to_improve_gops_tax_reform_proposal_135542.html)

It's sounding like this thing now has a real chance of passage. Nervously optimistic. For me, whether the increase of the child tax credit phaseout threshold survives will be the difference between a slight tax increase and significant tax decrease.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on November 15, 2017, 09:53:10 AM
I'm going to pay more either way
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 15, 2017, 10:05:47 AM
I'm going to pay more either way

Same
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 15, 2017, 10:18:18 AM
I don't know about my personal tax situation and I don't care. I'd just rather see the government do things other than work to make rich people richer.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 15, 2017, 02:00:40 PM
This chart!  :love:

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: hjfklmor on November 15, 2017, 03:31:52 PM
This chart!  :love:


The best part is that Wyden has left that chart up behind him for the remainder of the session.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 15, 2017, 04:04:29 PM
To me, the best part is the irony. The Senate GOP decided to make the personal cuts temporary in order to fit the bill within procedural rules that allow passage by a simple majority. So, if not for the Democrats' threat of filibuster, they could have made the tax cuts permanent.

Why are the Dems so opposed to letting people keep more of their own money?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: hjfklmor on November 15, 2017, 04:14:57 PM
To me, the best part is the irony. The Senate GOP decided to make the personal cuts temporary in order to fit the bill within procedural rules that allow passage by a simple majority. So, if not for the Democrats' threat of filibuster, they could have made the tax cuts permanent.

Why are the Dems so opposed to letting people keep more of their own money?

The personal cuts are essentially permanent and everyone knows it. They've even outright said on the record that no one is going to let them expire. It's maneuvering by both sides - the Democrats are using it to gin up bad PR and the Republicans are using it to skirt the reconciliation rules. Don't play dumb.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 15, 2017, 04:40:55 PM
To me, the best part is the irony. The Senate GOP decided to make the personal cuts temporary in order to fit the bill within procedural rules that allow passage by a simple majority. So, if not for the Democrats' threat of filibuster, they could have made the tax cuts permanent.

Why are the Dems so opposed to letting people keep more of their own money?

The personal cuts are essentially permanent and everyone knows it. They've even outright said on the record that no one is going to let them expire. It's maneuvering by both sides - the Democrats are using it to gin up bad PR and the Republicans are using it to skirt the reconciliation rules. Don't play dumb.

Not playing dumb. I agree with you. The Pubs are being surprisingly competent this time around from a political standpoint. Or maybe it's just that the Dems are in a tough spot because people like keeping more of their money, and it's hard to pretend to be deficit hawks after doubling the national debt under Obama. All they've got is the tired old "tax cuts for the rich" class warfare. If you're already paying a crap ton in taxes, chances are you're going to get a bigger break than if you weren't paying much to begin with. But the vast majority of people are going to get to keep more of their money. So the Dems figure their only chance to stop this is to stoke resentment about who is getting a bigger slice of cheese. Let's all just have some cheese, please.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 15, 2017, 08:38:02 PM
The republicans might not have the votes in the senate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Spracne on November 15, 2017, 08:46:20 PM
The republicans might not have the votes in the senate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Convince them otherwise...
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 15, 2017, 10:06:17 PM
Unlikely to pass already, cutting the individual mandate will officially kill this turd

Nope, senate trying to piggy back a bill that makes Obamacare subsidies law (the illegal ones Trump got rid of) so it may pass and be gross.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 16, 2017, 09:41:44 AM
To me, the best part is the irony. The Senate GOP decided to make the personal cuts temporary in order to fit the bill within procedural rules that allow passage by a simple majority. So, if not for the Democrats' threat of filibuster, they could have made the tax cuts permanent.

Why are the Dems so opposed to letting people keep more of their own money?
Why not make the corporate cuts temporary instead? That would seem to be a better PR move for dumb voters.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 16, 2017, 02:22:06 PM
To me, the best part is the irony. The Senate GOP decided to make the personal cuts temporary in order to fit the bill within procedural rules that allow passage by a simple majority. So, if not for the Democrats' threat of filibuster, they could have made the tax cuts permanent.

Why are the Dems so opposed to letting people keep more of their own money?
Why not make the corporate cuts temporary instead? That would seem to be a better PR move for dumb voters.

It would be better for PR but not as a matter of policy. Pubs want this tax reform to jolt the economy. Temporary corporate cuts tempers the economic impact of the cuts. So if you've gotta make one temporary to use procedural rules to get around the Dems' filibuster, you go with the personal cuts. Wouldn't it be awesome if enough Dems would choose not to filibuster and we could just make them both "permanent?" Lol, I know that's asking waaaay too much. Politics and stuff.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 16, 2017, 03:14:34 PM
To me, the best part is the irony. The Senate GOP decided to make the personal cuts temporary in order to fit the bill within procedural rules that allow passage by a simple majority. So, if not for the Democrats' threat of filibuster, they could have made the tax cuts permanent.

Why are the Dems so opposed to letting people keep more of their own money?
Why not make the corporate cuts temporary instead? That would seem to be a better PR move for dumb voters.

It would be better for PR but not as a matter of policy. Pubs want this tax reform to jolt the economy. Temporary corporate cuts tempers the economic impact of the cuts. So if you've gotta make one temporary to use procedural rules to get around the Dems' filibuster, you go with the personal cuts. Wouldn't it be awesome if enough Dems would choose not to filibuster and we could just make them both "permanent?" Lol, I know that's asking waaaay too much. Politics and stuff.
I guess if you buy into that voodoo then it's a good point.

Come with a plan that doesn't add to the debt then I bet you'd get some votes from across the isle.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 16, 2017, 03:26:24 PM
To me, the best part is the irony. The Senate GOP decided to make the personal cuts temporary in order to fit the bill within procedural rules that allow passage by a simple majority. So, if not for the Democrats' threat of filibuster, they could have made the tax cuts permanent.

Why are the Dems so opposed to letting people keep more of their own money?
Why not make the corporate cuts temporary instead? That would seem to be a better PR move for dumb voters.

It would be better for PR but not as a matter of policy. Pubs want this tax reform to jolt the economy. Temporary corporate cuts tempers the economic impact of the cuts. So if you've gotta make one temporary to use procedural rules to get around the Dems' filibuster, you go with the personal cuts. Wouldn't it be awesome if enough Dems would choose not to filibuster and we could just make them both "permanent?" Lol, I know that's asking waaaay too much. Politics and stuff.
I guess if you buy into that voodoo then it's a good point.

Come with a plan that doesn't add to the debt then I bet you'd get some votes from across the isle.

:lol: Yes, that's the objection of all those Democrats! They're just too fiscally conservative!! :lol:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 16, 2017, 03:33:29 PM
Owning libs by adding to the debt.  :cool:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 16, 2017, 03:36:04 PM
Also owning libs by increasing their own health insurance premiums  :gocho:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 16, 2017, 04:19:53 PM
To me, the best part is the irony. The Senate GOP decided to make the personal cuts temporary in order to fit the bill within procedural rules that allow passage by a simple majority. So, if not for the Democrats' threat of filibuster, they could have made the tax cuts permanent.

Why are the Dems so opposed to letting people keep more of their own money?
Why not make the corporate cuts temporary instead? That would seem to be a better PR move for dumb voters.

It would be better for PR but not as a matter of policy. Pubs want this tax reform to jolt the economy. Temporary corporate cuts tempers the economic impact of the cuts. So if you've gotta make one temporary to use procedural rules to get around the Dems' filibuster, you go with the personal cuts. Wouldn't it be awesome if enough Dems would choose not to filibuster and we could just make them both "permanent?" Lol, I know that's asking waaaay too much. Politics and stuff.
I guess if you buy into that voodoo then it's a good point.

Come with a plan that doesn't add to the debt then I bet you'd get some votes from across the isle.

Yes, that's the objection of all those Democrats! They're just too fiscally conservative!!
They need you guys to balance them out...not make the problem worse....
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 16, 2017, 04:21:30 PM
Invalid Tweet ID
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on November 16, 2017, 04:28:56 PM
Invalid Tweet ID

That's good, excise taxes are stupid and should all be eliminated.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 17, 2017, 10:17:25 AM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 17, 2017, 10:20:11 AM
So in other words, she's a yes. :Woot:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 17, 2017, 10:32:39 AM
So in other words, she's a yes. :Woot:

In other words, the Obamacare subsidies that were not law, are now going to be law and I fear the amounts of these subsidies will experience explosive growth.  I think this might be a poison pill, I don’t think tax reform is worth this trade-off.  Essentially the ACA gets stronger than before Trump was elected?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 17, 2017, 10:37:00 AM
So in other words, she's a yes. :Woot:

In other words, the Obamacare subsidies that were not law, are now going to be law and I fear the amounts of these subsidies will experience explosive growth.  I think this might be a poison pill, I don’t think tax reform is worth this trade-off.  Essentially the ACA gets stronger than before Trump was elected?

Meh - Obamacare is dying anyway. The subsidies weren't saving it when they were illegally being handed out, and they won't now. Killing the individual mandate will cause even more people to exit the exchanges. Granted, the subsidies will add to the "cost" of the tax bill - but not under the Senate's arcane procedural rules because it will be separate legislation.
Title: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 17, 2017, 10:46:28 AM
Weird how excited Republicans are about putting this country in debt. Vote to increase military spending, vote to decrease government revenue from corporate taxes, vote to expand subsidies for Obamacare.

It’s like all they wanna do is spend my money.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on November 17, 2017, 10:49:59 AM
Weird how excited Republicans are about putting this country in debt. Vote to increase military spending, vote to decrease government revenue from corporate taxes, vote to expand subsidies for Obamacare.

It’s like all they wanna do is spend my money.

we'll care again when a Dem is in office
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: cfbandyman on November 17, 2017, 01:13:56 PM
Weird how excited Republicans are about putting this country in debt. Vote to increase military spending, vote to decrease government revenue from corporate taxes, vote to expand subsidies for Obamacare.

It’s like all they wanna do is spend my money.

we'll care again when a Dem is in office

And blame them for trying to dig the car out of the ditch the pubs drove into
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 17, 2017, 01:25:12 PM
Weird how excited Republicans are about putting this country in debt. Vote to increase military spending, vote to decrease government revenue from corporate taxes, vote to expand subsidies for Obamacare.

It’s like all they wanna do is spend my money.

So for what it's worth, I haven't forgotten about our spending problem. I just have never believed you can tax yourself out of our spending problem. And I'm sure as hell not going to support my family continuing to be taxed out the ass to support our spending problem. And I also subscribe to the "voodoo" that tax cuts can at least partially pay for themselves by boosting economic growth.

So if you think fiscal conservatives are being hypocritical for supporting tax cuts, you're oversimplifying.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on November 17, 2017, 01:30:05 PM
I'm a fiscal conservative and registered republican. I want taxes cut. I want spending cut. I want the deficit reduced. I don't like this plan because it doesn't do any of those things.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 17, 2017, 01:39:50 PM
I don't care about the deficit, but this tax cut will inevitably lead to major cuts to entitlements.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 17, 2017, 01:46:40 PM
KK, I saw a piece by an MIT PhD student that talked about the tuition assistance and stuff you were talking about earlier. I didn't really understand it when you were explaining it but he laid it out much more plainly. Now that I understand the issue, wow, what is the point of such an absolutely devastating move? So ridiculous
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 17, 2017, 01:48:24 PM
I don't care about the deficit, but this tax cut will inevitably lead to major cuts to entitlements.

If Republicans can't get their crap together enough to cut Obamacare, which they hate with a fiery passion, hopefully they won't be able to for Medicare or Social Security benefits either.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 17, 2017, 01:51:04 PM
KK, I saw a piece by an MIT PhD student that talked about the tuition assistance and stuff you were talking about earlier. I didn't really understand it when you were explaining it but he laid it out much more plainly. Now that I understand the issue, wow, what is the point of such an absolutely devastating move? So ridiculous

Quote
If you care about lowering tax rates on savings and investment, you do not insert a random excise tax on the earnings of big university endowments. But if you care about sticking it to coastal elite universities that are full of liberals, that provision makes sense. So does treating tuition waivers for PhD students as taxable income. This will hurt the economy dramatically in the long run by undermining human capital developments and creating a less educated workforce. It might even cost lives by impeding biomedical research. But it’s a good way to own the libs.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/17/16667068/republican-tax-plan-gop-mess
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 17, 2017, 01:51:23 PM
KK, I saw a piece by an MIT PhD student that talked about the tuition assistance and stuff you were talking about earlier. I didn't really understand it when you were explaining it but he laid it out much more plainly. Now that I understand the issue, wow, what is the point of such an absolutely devastating move? So ridiculous

it owns the libs.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 17, 2017, 02:02:48 PM
I'm a fiscal conservative and registered republican. I want taxes cut. I want spending cut. I want the deficit reduced. I don't like this plan because it doesn't do any of those things.

Except the first thing. It cuts taxes for the vast majority of people and businesses. And if you're saying you can't support tax cuts unless it's packaged in a bill that cuts spending, you're essentially saying you don't support tax cuts. Take what we can get, and elect more conservatives to office if you want any chance of cutting spending.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 17, 2017, 02:05:22 PM
I don't care about the deficit, but this tax cut will inevitably lead to major cuts to entitlements.

If Republicans can't get their crap together enough to cut Obamacare, which they hate with a fiery passion, hopefully they won't be able to for Medicare or Social Security benefits either.

:lol: Hopefully? Does anyone here seriously think the GOP can or will even attempt to cut SS or Medicare? Don't get me wrong, they need to be "cut" by which I mean reformed to stay solvent, but that's a pipe dream.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 17, 2017, 02:14:56 PM
I don't care about the deficit, but this tax cut will inevitably lead to major cuts to entitlements.

If Republicans can't get their crap together enough to cut Obamacare, which they hate with a fiery passion, hopefully they won't be able to for Medicare or Social Security benefits either.

:lol: Hopefully? Does anyone here seriously think the GOP can or will even attempt to cut SS or Medicare? Don't get me wrong, they need to be "cut" by which I mean reformed to stay solvent, but that's a pipe dream.

Yes, this is what is being discussed by your party. FYI.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 17, 2017, 02:16:11 PM
I'm a fiscal conservative and registered republican. I want taxes cut. I want spending cut. I want the deficit reduced. I don't like this plan because it doesn't do any of those things.

Except the first thing. It cuts taxes for the vast majority of people and businesses . And if you're saying you can't support tax cuts unless it's packaged in a bill that cuts spending, you're essentially saying you don't support tax cuts. Take what we can get, and elect more conservatives to office if you want any chance of cutting spending.

Temporarily.

Also, as of 2015 the latest estimates had between 40-50% of American households paying no federal income tax already. https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2015/10/06/new-estimates-of-how-many-households-pay-no-federal-income-tax/#76fe738561cb

So I don't know what you mean by cutting taxes for the "vast majority of people."
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 17, 2017, 02:22:57 PM
I'm a fiscal conservative and registered republican. I want taxes cut. I want spending cut. I want the deficit reduced. I don't like this plan because it doesn't do any of those things.

Except the first thing. It cuts taxes for the vast majority of people and businesses . And if you're saying you can't support tax cuts unless it's packaged in a bill that cuts spending, you're essentially saying you don't support tax cuts. Take what we can get, and elect more conservatives to office if you want any chance of cutting spending.

Temporarily.

Also, as of 2015 the latest estimates had between 40-50% of American households paying no federal income tax already. https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2015/10/06/new-estimates-of-how-many-households-pay-no-federal-income-tax/#76fe738561cb

So I don't know what you mean by cutting taxes for the "vast majority of people."

Oh sorry - I thought it was obvious I was talking about people who actually pay FIT already. Because why would you expect people who don't to get a tax cut? This is that liberal/conservative brain thing I was talking about.
Title: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Institutional Control on November 17, 2017, 04:55:01 PM
How are 50% of people not paying any federal taxes and how can I do that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 17, 2017, 05:06:05 PM
Make like 35k a year
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Institutional Control on November 17, 2017, 05:43:12 PM
Make like 35k a year
I don’t want to brag but that would be a pay cut.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 17, 2017, 05:46:58 PM
no one said that there aren't tradeoffs
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Tobias on November 17, 2017, 09:31:26 PM
free iphones and hi def flat screens tho
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: puniraptor on November 17, 2017, 09:59:48 PM
How are 50% of people not paying any federal taxes and how can I do that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

50% of taxpayers or 50% of all living things including children, retirees, disabled, etc?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 18, 2017, 07:02:53 AM
How are 50% of people not paying any federal taxes and how can I do that?

50% of taxpayers or 50% of all living things including children, retirees, disabled, etc?

"Tax units" aka "households". A tax unit excludes those that are dependents of other tax units, so it's basically everyone who could file a return either individually or jointly. There were an estimated 171.3 million tax units in 2015, the last major study conducted by the Tax Policy Center on the subject.

 An estimated 77.5 million units, or a little over 45%, paid zero or negative FIT in 2015.

You can see all their data in one easy chart here. It is very interesting. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model-estimates/tax-units-zero-or-negative-income-tax/tax-units-zero-or-negative-income-tax (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model-estimates/tax-units-zero-or-negative-income-tax/tax-units-zero-or-negative-income-tax)

According to similar studies, the top 1% of income earners pay nearly 50% of all income tax revenue, and the top 20% of income earners pay almost 90% of all income tax revenue.

So our income tax model is extremely "progressive," meaning tax rates increase as income increases, rather than everyone just paying the same rate.

This is balanced out ever so slightly by payroll tax - aka FICA - which funds SS and MC and is a somewhat "regressive" tax, meaning the rate actually goes down at higher incomes. This is because FICA only applies to dollars earned under a certain threshold - around $120k.

Even if you factor in FIT and FICA, there are still 27% of tax units that don't owe those taxes on net.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: renocat on November 21, 2017, 07:51:37 AM
Trump says I am going to get an $1800 tax cut.  $150 a month.  Big whoop deal.  Liar.  He said $4,000.  Liar.  I had my issuance premiums for our family's health insurance increase by $300 per month.  So with Congress and the Great Dealmaker shoving their hands up their butt to avoid hard plowing, I am worse off than if Obama was still in office.  We made a mistake not electing Cruz or Rubio.  Why? Stupid people who don't know issues.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 21, 2017, 09:02:38 AM
I'm a fiscal conservative and registered republican. I want taxes cut. I want spending cut. I want the deficit reduced. I don't like this plan because it doesn't do any of those things.

Except the first thing. It cuts taxes for the vast majority of people and businesses . And if you're saying you can't support tax cuts unless it's packaged in a bill that cuts spending, you're essentially saying you don't support tax cuts. Take what we can get, and elect more conservatives to office if you want any chance of cutting spending.

Temporarily.

Also, as of 2015 the latest estimates had between 40-50% of American households paying no federal income tax already. https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2015/10/06/new-estimates-of-how-many-households-pay-no-federal-income-tax/#76fe738561cb

So I don't know what you mean by cutting taxes for the "vast majority of people."

Oh sorry - I thought it was obvious I was talking about people who actually pay FIT already. Because why would you expect people who don't to get a tax cut? This is that liberal/conservative brain thing I was talking about.

Call it obvious or not, but it’s directly relevant to your point. The vast majority of Americans do not need tax relief, and those that do are just an afterthought in this bill. Tax relief is just a lame talking point for Republicans to push through a (as sys called it) deficit funded stimulus package. That’s why sd is correct that this bill really doesn’t check any boxes for (non-MAGA) fiscal conservatives.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 21, 2017, 09:33:39 AM
Meh, it's amazing how liberals are trying to paint broad tax reductions as a bad thing, but pretty much every argument boils down to the same old class warfare. Stoke resentment because somebody's getting a bigger cut, or because somebody's taxes will go up. The vast majority of people who pay FIT will see a reduction, not to mention a possible slight wage increase and likely boost in their college and retirement accounts.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 21, 2017, 09:59:38 AM
A tax cut isn't needed tho  :th_twocents:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 21, 2017, 10:00:44 AM
Also the corporate tax cut is so lol
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 21, 2017, 10:05:53 AM
This is normal tax reform in the same way that Trump is a normal president.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 21, 2017, 10:58:54 AM
A tax cut isn't needed tho  :th_twocents:

I disagree.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 21, 2017, 11:24:53 AM
The commentary ITT provides all the evidence I need to know that people who don't pay taxes not only shouldn't be allowed to decide what others pay in taces, but also why people who don't pay taxes should not be allowed to vote.  You have non-stakeholders voting to take money from one class amd give it to themselves.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on November 21, 2017, 11:46:59 AM
who doesn't pay taxes?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 21, 2017, 12:21:56 PM
The commentary ITT provides all the evidence I need to know that people who don't pay taxes not only shouldn't be allowed to decide what others pay in taces, but also why people who don't pay taxes should not be allowed to vote.  You have non-stakeholders voting to take money from one class amd give it to themselves.

People don’t vote to either increase or decrease taxes. If by “non-stakeholders” you are referring to congress then the same is true for all legislation.

Idk about people who don’t pay taxes, but I might support a voting ban of people who don’t even have a rudimentary understanding of how our government works.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 21, 2017, 01:50:55 PM
The commentary ITT provides all the evidence I need to know that people who don't pay taxes not only shouldn't be allowed to decide what others pay in taces, but also why people who don't pay taxes should not be allowed to vote.  You have non-stakeholders voting to take money from one class amd give it to themselves.

People don’t vote to either increase or decrease taxes. If by “non-stakeholders” you are referring to congress then the same is true for all legislation.

Idk about people who don’t pay taxes, but I might support a voting ban of people who don’t even have a rudimentary understanding of how our government works.

Pretty sure FSD understands we have a representative republic whereby people don't vote directly on issues but instead vote for representatives - who they tend to select based upon how those representatives will vote. So setting aside your cute but stupid bullshit, how about you address the underlying point?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 21, 2017, 01:57:32 PM
FSD did not have a point, just a failure to understand how things work. And I defy you to find someone in America who doesn’t pay taxes. He’s just conflating all tax with federal income tax.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: cfbandyman on November 21, 2017, 02:05:14 PM
I'm a fiscal conservative and registered republican. I want taxes cut. I want spending cut. I want the deficit reduced. I don't like this plan because it doesn't do any of those things.

Except the first thing. It cuts taxes for the vast majority of people and businesses. And if you're saying you can't support tax cuts unless it's packaged in a bill that cuts spending, you're essentially saying you don't support tax cuts. Take what we can get, and elect more conservatives to office if you want any chance of cutting spending.

Psh, they'll just dump all that extra money in the military, don't give me that bullshit.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 21, 2017, 02:24:39 PM
Love when fsd has a wet lunch
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 21, 2017, 02:28:27 PM
It's like FSD pops in and says, "Hey, I've got a couple train tickets to Crazytown. Who's with me!?" And then no one ever is. And you wonder if he realizes that no one ever is.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 21, 2017, 02:42:26 PM
The commentary ITT provides all the evidence I need to know that people who don't pay taxes not only shouldn't be allowed to decide what others pay in taces, but also why people who don't pay taxes should not be allowed to vote.  You have non-stakeholders voting to take money from one class amd give it to themselves.

People don’t vote to either increase or decrease taxes. If by “non-stakeholders” you are referring to congress then the same is true for all legislation.

Idk about people who don’t pay taxes, but I might support a voting ban of people who don’t even have a rudimentary understanding of how our government works.

Pretty sure FSD understands we have a representative republic whereby people don't vote directly on issues but instead vote for representatives - who they tend to select based upon how those representatives will vote. So setting aside your cute but stupid bullshit, how about you address the underlying point?

They won't ever address the point. Only a lunatic would argue it's fair that 50% pay nothing and generally get money in return while 1% pay half and 10% pay nearly the entire balance.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 21, 2017, 02:43:29 PM
FSD did not have a point, just a failure to understand how things work. And I defy you to find someone in America who doesn’t pay taxes. He’s just conflating all tax with federal income tax.

Why would I be talking about all taxes in the federal income tax reform thread????  Hmmm, dipshit?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 21, 2017, 02:46:40 PM
Keep in mind, these are the crazies who think Exxon is covering up global warming and Haliburton orchestrated 9/11, and are batshit furious Donald Trump probably paid no income taxes during certain years.

Is there anything more fundamentally unfair than the federal income tax system in its current state?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 21, 2017, 03:02:07 PM
Does fsd understand that the people who pay lots of money in taxes do so because they make lots of money? It's not just randomly assigned.

Maybe he's one of the people not paying taxes and that's why he doesn't understand them  :dunno:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on November 21, 2017, 03:06:02 PM
9/11 truthers were much more from the right
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 21, 2017, 03:12:57 PM
Does fsd understand that the people who pay lots of money in taxes do so because they make lots of money? It's not just randomly assigned.

Maybe he's one of the people not paying taxes and that's why he doesn't understand them  :dunno:

Of course the pay more. It's the fact that they pay a much higher rate that's the issue.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 21, 2017, 03:19:20 PM
FSD did not have a point, just a failure to understand how things work. And I defy you to find someone in America who doesn’t pay taxes. He’s just conflating all tax with federal income tax.

You are grasping at technicalities to avoid the larger point. Just about everyone pays some tax, usually at least in the form of sales tax. But it's more than a little annoying to hear some bad person who pays an effective FIT rate near zero bitching about how some guy paying 15% or more doesn't deserve a tax cut. There are net makers and net takers in this society and the fact that they both get an equal voice in our governance leads one direction.

Unless you're paying FIT, please: STFU about somebody else getting to keep a little more of their money. That is all.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 21, 2017, 03:26:49 PM
Oh, you guys are just mad at strawmen, I should have known
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 21, 2017, 03:34:28 PM
Does fsd understand that the people who pay lots of money in taxes do so because they make lots of money? It's not just randomly assigned.

Maybe he's one of the people not paying taxes and that's why he doesn't understand them  :dunno:

Of course the pay more. It's the fact that they pay a much higher rate that's the issue.

It goes so far beyond that. People making the same amount of money pay widely varying rates.

The libtarded do not understand math at all, but even they can't deny that the fed income tax code is an absurd grab bag of special interests and social engineering. Nevermind that the half of society using the govt the most doesn't contribute one cent (extremely unfair).
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on November 21, 2017, 03:35:03 PM
Love when fsd has a wet lunch

:lol:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 21, 2017, 03:43:48 PM
Keep punching at the air fsd
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 21, 2017, 04:06:12 PM
FSD: people who don’t pay tax shouldn’t get a vote on how taxes work

Catastrophe: everyone does pay tax, and no one gets a vote on specific policy decisions like tax structure

FSD: IM ANGRRRY!!!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: puniraptor on November 21, 2017, 05:00:15 PM
Nevermind that the half of society using the govt the most doesn't contribute one cent (extremely unfair).

this portion is extremely arguable

YOU DIDNT BUILD THAT!!!!!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 21, 2017, 05:26:38 PM
Nevermind that the half of society using the govt the most doesn't contribute one cent (extremely unfair).

this portion is extremely arguable

YOU DIDNT BUILD THAT!!!!!

Man I would dearly love if the Dems ran on this message in 2020. I didn't get enough play when Obama trotted it out (and then quickly backpeddled) in 2012. It just so perfectly sums up the socialist mindset of the liberal left.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 21, 2017, 05:55:35 PM
Keep in mind that kdub and his wife are both lawyers so 100% of his families income is reliant on government operations
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: cfbandyman on November 21, 2017, 05:55:54 PM
Nevermind that the half of society using the govt the most doesn't contribute one cent (extremely unfair).

this portion is extremely arguable

YOU DIDNT BUILD THAT!!!!!

Man I would dearly love if the Dems ran on this message in 2020. I didn't get enough play when Obama trotted it out (and then quickly backpeddled) in 2012. It just so perfectly sums up the socialist mindset of the liberal left.

Psh, like wanting good infrastructure makes people raging socialists. It was a bad sound bite and he knew it immediately. JFC

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 21, 2017, 06:01:07 PM
Keep in mind that kdub and his wife are both lawyers so 100% of his families income is reliant on government operations

Lawyer and a PA. That'd be scary being married to a lawyer.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 21, 2017, 06:02:12 PM
Nevermind that the half of society using the govt the most doesn't contribute one cent (extremely unfair).

this portion is extremely arguable

YOU DIDNT BUILD THAT!!!!!

Man I would dearly love if the Dems ran on this message in 2020. I didn't get enough play when Obama trotted it out (and then quickly backpeddled) in 2012. It just so perfectly sums up the socialist mindset of the liberal left.

Psh, like wanting good infrastructure makes people raging socialists. It was a bad sound bite and he knew it immediately. JFC

:lol: Thats a pretty generous take.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: puniraptor on November 21, 2017, 07:00:37 PM
k-s-u-w is a commercial Christmas lighting sales engineer. his wife is an HVAC sales engineer.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 21, 2017, 09:48:23 PM
Holy crap! I had no idea how hard I was dick punching the libtarded itt!

AMAZE

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 21, 2017, 11:24:42 PM
Yea you have no idea about a lot of things.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on November 22, 2017, 06:39:51 AM
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/house-tax-plan-conveniently-full-of-glitches-that-benefit-the-rich
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 22, 2017, 07:22:39 AM
I’m so pissed about everything estate tax right now.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 22, 2017, 10:28:03 AM
FSD did not have a point, just a failure to understand how things work. And I defy you to find someone in America who doesn’t pay taxes. He’s just conflating all tax with federal income tax.

You are grasping at technicalities to avoid the larger point. Just about everyone pays some tax, usually at least in the form of sales tax. But it's more than a little annoying to hear some bad person who pays an effective FIT rate near zero bitching about how some guy paying 15% or more doesn't deserve a tax cut. There are net makers and net takers in this society and the fact that they both get an equal voice in our governance leads one direction.

Unless you're paying FIT, please: STFU about somebody else getting to keep a little more of their money. That is all.

Sooo, you are revoking your offer to give up more of your money to support President Trump?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 22, 2017, 10:40:03 AM
Another RINO falls in line. http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/361481-murkowski-supports-repealing-obamacare-mandate-in-boost-to-tax-reform (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/361481-murkowski-supports-repealing-obamacare-mandate-in-boost-to-tax-reform)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on November 22, 2017, 11:22:03 AM
I’m so pissed about everything estate tax right now.
Why should people pay more taxes on what has already been taxed?  Keep your hands out of my family's pocket.

I can't decide if I actually agree with that argument, but I think it has some merit.  I think it makes much more sense to tax high levels of income than it does tax inherited money and property. That is just a pure form of wealth redistribution.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on November 22, 2017, 11:23:27 AM
I’m so pissed about everything estate tax right now.
Why should people pay more taxes on what has already been taxed?  Keep your hands out of my family's pocket.

I can't decide if I actually agree with that argument, but I think it has some merit.  I think it makes much more sense to tax high levels of income than it does tax inherited money and property. That is just a pure form of wealth redistribution.
I guess what I'm saying is that if I were to write a new tax code from scratch that I thought was just, it wouldn't include an estate tax.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 22, 2017, 11:41:05 AM
I'll repeat that the estate tax can be legally avoided, and almost always is, with some careful estate planning. So the estate tax is primarily a boon for tax planning attorneys and cpas, and a political cudgel for Dems. If you can avoid a tax completely and legally by paying a lawyer to shelter your assets, that's a dumb tax.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 22, 2017, 11:52:33 AM
I'll repeat that the estate tax can be legally avoided, and almost always is, with some careful estate planning. So the estate tax is primarily a boon for tax planning attorneys and cpas, and a political cudgel for Dems. If you can avoid a tax completely and legally by paying a lawyer to shelter your assets, that's a dumb tax.

Then almost all taxes are a dumb tax in that case
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 22, 2017, 12:15:23 PM
I’m so pissed about everything estate tax right now.
Why should people pay more taxes on what has already been taxed?  Keep your hands out of my family's pocket.

I can't decide if I actually agree with that argument, but I think it has some merit.  I think it makes much more sense to tax high levels of income than it does tax inherited money and property. That is just a pure form of wealth redistribution.
I guess what I'm saying is that if I were to write a new tax code from scratch that I thought was just, it wouldn't include an estate tax.

There is always going to be an unfairness to taxes. Why should a grocery store pay tax on money I spend there when that money was already taxed when I got paid? And why should my income be taxed when my clients already paid tax on the money they used to pay my bills?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on November 22, 2017, 12:18:24 PM
I’m so pissed about everything estate tax right now.
Why should people pay more taxes on what has already been taxed?  Keep your hands out of my family's pocket.

I can't decide if I actually agree with that argument, but I think it has some merit.  I think it makes much more sense to tax high levels of income than it does tax inherited money and property. That is just a pure form of wealth redistribution.
I guess what I'm saying is that if I were to write a new tax code from scratch that I thought was just, it wouldn't include an estate tax.

There is always going to be an unfairness to taxes. Why should a grocery store pay tax on money I spend there when that money was already taxed when I got paid? And why should my income be taxed when my clients already paid tax on the money they used to pay my bills?
Because goods or services were exchanged in a business transaction? Sales tax + income tax, done. Boom, problem solved.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 22, 2017, 12:20:05 PM
I'll repeat that the estate tax can be legally avoided, and almost always is, with some careful estate planning. So the estate tax is primarily a boon for tax planning attorneys and cpas, and a political cudgel for Dems. If you can avoid a tax completely and legally by paying a lawyer to shelter your assets, that's a dumb tax.

Then almost all taxes are a dumb tax in that case

Well there are a lot of stupid taxes out there. But there are many others that you can't legally avoid with a few simple moves. You make wage-based income, you generally have to pay tax on it.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on November 22, 2017, 02:05:27 PM
Because goods or services were exchanged in a business transaction? Sales tax + income tax, done. Boom, problem solved.

an estate is also only taxed when it changes hands.  i think it makes perfect sense to tax inherited wealth rather than earned income - society has an interest in encouraging industry, not sloth.

furthermore, much of that inherited wealth was initially taxed as capital gains or dividend/interest, at a lower rate than earned income.  as long as we provide tax breaks on income from capital, the argument that an estate has already been fully taxed, and should be passed to heirs tax-free is a bit shallow.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: puniraptor on November 22, 2017, 04:54:30 PM
Estate tax is attempted social engineering to resist an aristocracy.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 22, 2017, 05:00:01 PM
You guys are still talking about estate tax as if rich people pay it.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on November 22, 2017, 06:12:55 PM
Estate tax is attempted social engineering to resist an aristocracy.

isn't it taken from the taxes nobility paid when an heir ascended to the title?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: wetwillie on November 22, 2017, 06:37:14 PM
You guys are still talking about estate tax as if rich people pay it.

If you have less than 5.5 milly you don't pay a dime giving it to your heirs.  I would say the 20 billion in estate taxes paid in 2016 was from some rich people.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 22, 2017, 07:02:44 PM
You guys are still talking about estate tax as if rich people pay it.

If you have less than 5.5 milly you don't pay a dime giving it to your heirs.  I would say the 20 billion in estate taxes paid in 2016 was from some rich people.

More likely "land rich" farmers and ranchers.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: wetwillie on November 22, 2017, 07:40:45 PM
You guys are still talking about estate tax as if rich people pay it.

If you have less than 5.5 milly you don't pay a dime giving it to your heirs.  I would say the 20 billion in estate taxes paid in 2016 was from some rich people.

More likely "land rich" farmers and ranchers.

Quote
In 2016, only 682 taxable estates -- or just 13% of all taxable estates -- reported having any farm assets at all, said Beth Kaufman, an estate tax lawyer at Caplin & Drysdale and former associate tax legislative counsel at the Treasury Department.

Quote
And those farm assets represented just a small percent of the gross estate values on average. That suggests that for many in this select group, the farm was not the sole -- and maybe not even the primary -- source of income. It also suggests that there may be other assets to tap if needed to pay an estate tax bill.
For example, Kaufman noted, farm assets represented just 5.4% of total assets on average in taxable estates worth between $5 million and $10 million. That drops to 3.6% for estates worth between $10 million and $20 million, to just under 2% for those worth between $20 million and $50 million, and to 1.5% of estates valued at more than $50 million.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 22, 2017, 08:20:55 PM
#whenTedCruztalkingpointsgowrong
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: IPA4Me on November 22, 2017, 08:39:45 PM
Those pesky facts sure get in the way
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on November 22, 2017, 09:47:25 PM
isn't it taken from the taxes nobility paid when an heir ascended to the title?

i guess prolly not, as apparently the british didn't start it up until the late 19th century.  we may have even started ours up first.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on November 23, 2017, 07:09:53 AM
Those pesky facts sure get in the way

Only when they fit your agenda.  Otherwise you just have to act like they are #fakenews
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 24, 2017, 09:13:18 AM
Definitely fake news. Happy TG everyone. Took the day off yesterday.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 27, 2017, 05:39:53 PM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 27, 2017, 05:55:30 PM
LOL if this thing doesn't even make it to the floor. 
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 27, 2017, 06:14:11 PM
Also Corker

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 27, 2017, 06:26:36 PM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on November 27, 2017, 10:00:39 PM
johnson's just rough ridin' around, corker prolly isn't. 
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 27, 2017, 10:24:16 PM
Neither of these are a "hell no." They want a bigger cut for pass thrus, and they'll get it. Simple as that. Things actually look quite promising so far.

The bigger concerns are Collins, who is the most liberal Republican, and McCain who might say no to anything just to eff Trump over.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on November 27, 2017, 10:36:42 PM
Neither of these are a "hell no." They want a bigger cut for pass thrus, and they'll get it. Simple as that. Things actually look quite promising so far.

The bigger concerns are Collins, who is the most liberal Republican, and McCain who might say no to anything just to eff Trump over.

do you ever get anything right?  even by accident?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: cfbandyman on November 27, 2017, 10:45:44 PM
Estate tax is attempted social engineering to resist an aristocracy.

Not like we're that far off from it. Just need a few more cuts here and there and then it's ball game until everyone gets voted out or heads roll
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 28, 2017, 11:57:42 AM
Not sure if it’s been covered here, but I heard recently the reason that scrapping the individual mandate saves money is because the tax penalty for failure to have insurance is lower than the amount insurers are subsidized for each person. So the CBO is assuming several million people will no longer be insured which means fewer subsidies paid by Uncle Sam.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 28, 2017, 03:20:41 PM
Not sure if it’s been covered here, but I heard recently the reason that scrapping the individual mandate saves money is because the tax penalty for failure to have insurance is lower than the amount insurers are subsidized for each person. So the CBO is assuming several million people will choose to no longer be insured which means fewer subsidies paid by Uncle Sam.

FYP. Liberals really pushing the argument hard that millions will "lose" their health insurance if the mandate is stripped away. Choosing not to buy insurance is not the same as losing it.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 28, 2017, 03:23:16 PM
LOL if this thing doesn't even make it to the floor.

... and it's out of committee. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/senate-bill-in-limbo-amid-budget-panel-drama-tax-debate-update (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/senate-bill-in-limbo-amid-budget-panel-drama-tax-debate-update)

Johnson now satisfied (and likely the Sen from Montana, too, who had the same basis pass-thru concern). Corker likewise placated, for now. His ask - automatic tax increases if growth goals aren't met - will be a much tougher sell.

In same article, Collins seems surprisingly amenable to the bill. Her asks won't be hard at all to reconcile. :Woot:
Title: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 28, 2017, 03:37:24 PM
Not sure if it’s been covered here, but I heard recently the reason that scrapping the individual mandate saves money is because the tax penalty for failure to have insurance is lower than the amount insurers are subsidized for each person. So the CBO is assuming several million people will choose to no longer be insured which means fewer subsidies paid by Uncle Sam.

FYP. Liberals really pushing the argument hard that millions will "lose" their health insurance if the mandate is stripped away. Choosing not to buy insurance is not the same as losing it.

The distinction doesn’t matter in this context. Republicans are hoping millions of fewer people are insured (almost certainly the healthy ones) which inevitably will lead to the entire system collapsing until Congress has its oh crap moment and bails it out for even more money. You might argue they secretly hope these folks actually do get insurance, in which case it’s just a lame workaround for the sake of adding more to the deficit. I don’t see either of those as a positive.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 28, 2017, 03:52:38 PM
Not sure if it’s been covered here, but I heard recently the reason that scrapping the individual mandate saves money is because the tax penalty for failure to have insurance is lower than the amount insurers are subsidized for each person. So the CBO is assuming several million people will choose to no longer be insured which means fewer subsidies paid by Uncle Sam.

FYP. Liberals really pushing the argument hard that millions will "lose" their health insurance if the mandate is stripped away. Choosing not to buy insurance is not the same as losing it.

The distinction doesn’t matter in this context. Republicans are hoping millions of fewer people are insured (almost certainly the healthy ones) which inevitably will lead to the entire system collapsing until Congress has its oh crap moment and bails it out for even more money. You might argue they secretly hope these folks actually do get insurance, in which case it’s just a lame workaround for the sake of adding more to the deficit. I don’t see either of those as a positive.

Seems like a pretty good way to end up with single payer. Maybe that is what the republicans are shooting for.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 28, 2017, 03:54:21 PM
LOL if this thing doesn't even make it to the floor.

... and it's out of committee. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/senate-bill-in-limbo-amid-budget-panel-drama-tax-debate-update (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/senate-bill-in-limbo-amid-budget-panel-drama-tax-debate-update)

Johnson now satisfied (and likely the Sen from Montana, too, who had the same basis pass-thru concern). Corker likewise placated, for now. His ask - automatic tax increases if growth goals aren't met - will be a much tougher sell.

In same article, Collins seems surprisingly amenable to the bill. Her asks won't be hard at all to reconcile. :Woot:
Who knew you'd "woot" more taxes.  I think it's great you are willing to help out those less fortunate by taxing yourself more... Proud of you!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 28, 2017, 04:13:35 PM
LOL if this thing doesn't even make it to the floor.

... and it's out of committee. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/senate-bill-in-limbo-amid-budget-panel-drama-tax-debate-update (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/senate-bill-in-limbo-amid-budget-panel-drama-tax-debate-update)

Johnson now satisfied (and likely the Sen from Montana, too, who had the same basis pass-thru concern). Corker likewise placated, for now. His ask - automatic tax increases if growth goals aren't met - will be a much tougher sell.

In same article, Collins seems surprisingly amenable to the bill. Her asks won't be hard at all to reconcile. :Woot:
Who knew you'd "woot" more taxes.  I think it's great you are willing to help out those less fortunate by taxing yourself more... Proud of you!

This is gonna save me thousands.
Title: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on November 28, 2017, 04:15:34 PM
Not sure if it’s been covered here, but I heard recently the reason that scrapping the individual mandate saves money is because the tax penalty for failure to have insurance is lower than the amount insurers are subsidized for each person. So the CBO is assuming several million people will choose to no longer be insured which means fewer subsidies paid by Uncle Sam.

FYP. Liberals really pushing the argument hard that millions will "lose" their health insurance if the mandate is stripped away. Choosing not to buy insurance is not the same as losing it.
Isn't the actual (simplified) argument that:
1. Millions of healthy people (actually) "choose" not to buy health insurance without the mandate
2. Insurance companies have to raise rates on remaining (less healthy) customers to cover increased cost per customer
3. Older / less healthy people who are hit with highest rate increases can no longer afford insurance and "choose" (but not really) not to buy insurance.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 28, 2017, 04:18:10 PM
Not sure if it’s been covered here, but I heard recently the reason that scrapping the individual mandate saves money is because the tax penalty for failure to have insurance is lower than the amount insurers are subsidized for each person. So the CBO is assuming several million people will choose to no longer be insured which means fewer subsidies paid by Uncle Sam.

FYP. Liberals really pushing the argument hard that millions will "lose" their health insurance if the mandate is stripped away. Choosing not to buy insurance is not the same as losing it.

The distinction doesn’t matter in this context. Republicans are not hoping millions of fewer people are insured (almost certainly the healthy ones) which inevitably will lead to the entire system collapsing until Congress has its oh crap moment and bails it out for even more money. You might argue they secretly hope these folks actually do get insurance, in which case it’s just a lame workaround for the sake of adding more to the deficit. I don’t see either of those as a positive.

Yeah, it's more the latter. They're relying upon the CBO's own dubious predictions to "save" money by eliminating a tax they already hate. Seems fair to me. Republicans are not hoping for people to uninsure - they're ultimately hoping people will buy their own, cheaper policies in a free market. Gotta clear away a few more Obamacare hurdles first, but that's the end game. In the meantime, they can allow the vast majority of taxpayers to keep a bit more of their money.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 28, 2017, 04:23:04 PM
Not sure if it’s been covered here, but I heard recently the reason that scrapping the individual mandate saves money is because the tax penalty for failure to have insurance is lower than the amount insurers are subsidized for each person. So the CBO is assuming several million people will choose to no longer be insured which means fewer subsidies paid by Uncle Sam.

FYP. Liberals really pushing the argument hard that millions will "lose" their health insurance if the mandate is stripped away. Choosing not to buy insurance is not the same as losing it.
Isn't the actual (simplified) argument that:
1. Millions of healthy people (actually) "choose" not to buy health insurance without the mandate
2. Insurance companies have to raise rates on remaining (less healthy) customers to cover increased cost per customer
3. Older / less healthy people who are hit with highest rate increases can no longer afford insurance and "choose" (but not really) not to buy insurance.

I think you are giving liberal politicians too much credit. They are basing their argument on a prediction by the CBO that x number of people will choose not to buy insurance if they don't have to. The CBO's projection is not, to my knowledge, based upon the rising premium scenario for everyone else. And it bears repeating that premiums were already rising, often skyrocketing, since this turd law went into effect.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 28, 2017, 04:26:59 PM
I don't want to hijack this into another Obamacare thread, but the sad truth is that because the liberals rammed Obamacare through, and because the GOP is too spineless/corrupt/incompetent to pass repeal and replace legislation, the implosion of Obamacare is going to be a very messy process. Maybe it will lead to single payer. Maybe it will lead to a more free market oriented healthcare system. And maybe that will depend upon the leaders we elect in the next few cycles.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 28, 2017, 04:48:21 PM
LOL if this thing doesn't even make it to the floor.

... and it's out of committee. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/senate-bill-in-limbo-amid-budget-panel-drama-tax-debate-update (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/senate-bill-in-limbo-amid-budget-panel-drama-tax-debate-update)

Johnson now satisfied (and likely the Sen from Montana, too, who had the same basis pass-thru concern). Corker likewise placated, for now. His ask - automatic tax increases if growth goals aren't met - will be a much tougher sell.

In same article, Collins seems surprisingly amenable to the bill. Her asks won't be hard at all to reconcile. :Woot:
Who knew you'd "woot" more taxes.  I think it's great you are willing to help out those less fortunate by taxing yourself more... Proud of you!

This is gonna save me thousands.
Pretty sure when you don't even know what "this" is.

Blind loyalty will be rewarded though I'm sure.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: bucket on November 28, 2017, 05:25:17 PM
Not sure if it’s been covered here, but I heard recently the reason that scrapping the individual mandate saves money is because the tax penalty for failure to have insurance is lower than the amount insurers are subsidized for each person. So the CBO is assuming several million people will choose to no longer be insured which means fewer subsidies paid by Uncle Sam.

FYP. Liberals really pushing the argument hard that millions will "lose" their health insurance if the mandate is stripped away. Choosing not to buy insurance is not the same as losing it.
Isn't the actual (simplified) argument that:
1. Millions of healthy people (actually) "choose" not to buy health insurance without the mandate
2. Insurance companies have to raise rates on remaining (less healthy) customers to cover increased cost per customer
3. Older / less healthy people who are hit with highest rate increases can no longer afford insurance and "choose" (but not really) not to buy insurance.

I think you are giving liberal politicians too much credit. They are basing their argument on a prediction by the CBO that x number of people will choose not to buy insurance if they don't have to. The CBO's projection is not, to my knowledge, based upon the rising premium scenario for everyone else. And it bears repeating that premiums were already rising, often skyrocketing, since this turd law went into effect.

Premiums were rising before Obamacare....
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 28, 2017, 05:30:32 PM
I think you are giving liberal politicians too much credit. They are basing their argument on a prediction by the CBO that x number of people will choose not to buy insurance if they don't have to. The CBO's projection is not, to my knowledge, based upon the rising premium scenario for everyone else. And it bears repeating that premiums were already rising, often skyrocketing, since this turd law went into effect.

Premiums were rising before Obamacare....

www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/22/yes-it-was-the-affordable-care-act-that-increased-premiums/amp/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/22/yes-it-was-the-affordable-care-act-that-increased-premiums/amp/)

Quote
It turns out that across the board, for all ages and family sizes, for HMO, PPO, and POS plans, premium increases averaged about 60 percent from 2013, the last year before ACA reforms took effect, to 2017. In same length of time preceding that, all groups experienced premium increases of less than 10 percent, and most age groups actually experienced premium decreases, on average.

And keep in mind, it's not as if we had a wonderful free market for health insurance prior to Ocare.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: cfbandyman on November 28, 2017, 05:32:04 PM
I don't want to hijack this into another Obamacare thread, but the sad truth is that because the liberals rammed Obamacare through, and because the GOP is too spineless/corrupt/incompetent to pass repeal and replace legislation, the implosion of Obamacare is going to be a very messy process. Maybe it will lead to single payer. Maybe it will lead to a more free market oriented healthcare system. And maybe that will depend upon the leaders we elect in the next few cycles.

Republicans didn't repeal and replace because it was their baby and they were pissed the democrats did it. How hard is it to understand why they were/are so rough ridin' pissed off. They really don't have anything to replace it with because it was their goddamn plan all along.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 28, 2017, 05:46:36 PM
I think you are giving liberal politicians too much credit. They are basing their argument on a prediction by the CBO that x number of people will choose not to buy insurance if they don't have to. The CBO's projection is not, to my knowledge, based upon the rising premium scenario for everyone else. And it bears repeating that premiums were already rising, often skyrocketing, since this turd law went into effect.

Premiums were rising before Obamacare....

www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/22/yes-it-was-the-affordable-care-act-that-increased-premiums/amp/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/22/yes-it-was-the-affordable-care-act-that-increased-premiums/amp/)

Quote
It turns out that across the board, for all ages and family sizes, for HMO, PPO, and POS plans, premium increases averaged about 60 percent from 2013, the last year before ACA reforms took effect, to 2017. In same length of time preceding that, all groups experienced premium increases of less than 10 percent, and most age groups actually experienced premium decreases, on average.

And keep in mind, it's not as if we had a wonderful free market for health insurance prior to Ocare.

OH MY GOD YOU ARE SO DUMB
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 28, 2017, 06:11:47 PM
I don't want to hijack this into another Obamacare thread, but the sad truth is that because the liberals rammed Obamacare through, and because the GOP is too spineless/corrupt/incompetent to pass repeal and replace legislation, the implosion of Obamacare is going to be a very messy process. Maybe it will lead to single payer. Maybe it will lead to a more free market oriented healthcare system. And maybe that will depend upon the leaders we elect in the next few cycles.

Republicans didn't repeal and replace because it was their baby and they were pissed the democrats did it. How hard is it to understand why they were/are so rough ridin' pissed off. They really don't have anything to replace it with because it was their goddamn plan all along.

Yeah I hear that claim all the time, and even left-leaning Politifact concedes it is mostly bullshit. Feel free to cherry pick if you want, but the plan from 93 was different in multiple aspects and was criticized by many conservatives even then.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/ (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: yoga-like_abana on November 28, 2017, 06:41:46 PM
So cliffnotes are taxes gonna be a giant CF


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 28, 2017, 07:03:59 PM
So cliffnotes are taxes gonna be a giant CF

Biggest impacts for individuals:
1. Tax brackets will be revised (and maybe consolidated) to result in lower marginal rate for most people.
2. You lose state and local income tax deduction and mortgage interest deduction, but most Kansans will come out ahead because the standard deduction will be doubled. Far fewer people will need to bother itemizing.
3. You lose your personal exemption (a $4050 deduction per person in your household) but that's not a very big hit if it's just you and your wife, and if you got kids it is offset by increasing the child tax credit. Most people come out ahead.
4. No more AMT. If you don't pay AMT, you don't care.
5. Corporate taxes cut, stocks roar, retirement accounts soar.
6. Deficits increase, so congress finally reaches a bipartisan agreement on cutting spending.

5 of those 6 things will happen.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 28, 2017, 07:12:12 PM
Are they lowering the rate on pass through Llcs in service fields for actual big shots?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 28, 2017, 07:52:26 PM
Don't forget skyrocketing insurance premiums
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 28, 2017, 07:59:56 PM
I heard this tax plan was extremely racist and homophobic. True?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 28, 2017, 09:22:13 PM
Yup
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 29, 2017, 10:08:48 AM
CNBC: Dow soars 255 points to record as Senate gets closer to passing tax reform (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/28/us-stocks-amazon-cyber-monday-powell.html)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 29, 2017, 10:12:16 AM
I heard this tax plan was extremely racist and homophobic. True?

Sad but true. Also hearing it doesn't cut taxes for people not paying taxes. Evil.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on November 29, 2017, 11:05:24 AM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/trump-s-tax-promises-undercut-by-ceo-plans-to-reward-investors (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/trump-s-tax-promises-undercut-by-ceo-plans-to-reward-investors)

of course they will, because that's how markets work.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 29, 2017, 11:23:13 AM
CNBC: Dow soars 255 points to record as Senate gets closer to passing tax reform (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/28/us-stocks-amazon-cyber-monday-powell.html)
The middle class is pumped on this news.

Just be honest who this is for.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: cfbandyman on November 29, 2017, 12:01:12 PM
I don't want to hijack this into another Obamacare thread, but the sad truth is that because the liberals rammed Obamacare through, and because the GOP is too spineless/corrupt/incompetent to pass repeal and replace legislation, the implosion of Obamacare is going to be a very messy process. Maybe it will lead to single payer. Maybe it will lead to a more free market oriented healthcare system. And maybe that will depend upon the leaders we elect in the next few cycles.

Republicans didn't repeal and replace because it was their baby and they were pissed the democrats did it. How hard is it to understand why they were/are so rough ridin' pissed off. They really don't have anything to replace it with because it was their goddamn plan all along.

Yeah I hear that claim all the time, and even left-leaning Politifact concedes it is mostly bullshit. Feel free to cherry pick if you want, but the plan from 93 was different in multiple aspects and was criticized by many conservatives even then.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/ (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/)

Part that, and part of what was done with Massachusetts is more the angle I was going for. And even within that it does not concede it as bullshit, just partly. More of "it goes too far" not "oh no it's totally not comparable"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/20/romneycare-and-obamacare-can-you-tell-difference/

My point mostly stands, the reason they couldn't get it done was that there are/were a significant amount of Republicans who either wanted/endorsed, or were ok with the plan. All attempts have always been scuttled by the hard right, as was even pointed out in your link.

I don't think it's bullshit, it's a largely center right republican plan with a twist, and the pushback has always been from the crazy far right as it was in '93 and is today. The moderate Republicans, which there are plenty, have and continue to be enough to stop and of this repeal and replace nonsense. Cause either they are ok with the plan, or their updates to said plan with like rearranging chairs on the deck of the ship, so why really bother, especially when the updates the far right tries to push are always to very popular parts of the plan (expanded medicare/medicaid), and not the unpopular parks (mandate) or they package it all together and it's too poisonous of a pill to swallow.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 29, 2017, 12:26:56 PM
I don't want to hijack this into another Obamacare thread, but the sad truth is that because the liberals rammed Obamacare through, and because the GOP is too spineless/corrupt/incompetent to pass repeal and replace legislation, the implosion of Obamacare is going to be a very messy process. Maybe it will lead to single payer. Maybe it will lead to a more free market oriented healthcare system. And maybe that will depend upon the leaders we elect in the next few cycles.

Republicans didn't repeal and replace because it was their baby and they were pissed the democrats did it. How hard is it to understand why they were/are so rough ridin' pissed off. They really don't have anything to replace it with because it was their goddamn plan all along.

Yeah I hear that claim all the time, and even left-leaning Politifact concedes it is mostly bullshit. Feel free to cherry pick if you want, but the plan from 93 was different in multiple aspects and was criticized by many conservatives even then.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/ (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/)

Part that, and part of what was done with Massachusetts is more the angle I was going for. And even within that it does not concede it as bullshit, just partly. More of "it goes too far" not "oh no it's totally not comparable"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/20/romneycare-and-obamacare-can-you-tell-difference/

My point mostly stands, the reason they couldn't get it done was that there are/were a significant amount of Republicans who either wanted/endorsed, or were ok with the plan. All attempts have always been scuttled by the hard right, as was even pointed out in your link.

I don't think it's bullshit, it's a largely center right republican plan with a twist, and the pushback has always been from the crazy far right as it was in '93 and is today. The moderate Republicans, which there are plenty, have and continue to be enough to stop and of this repeal and replace nonsense. Cause either they are ok with the plan, or their updates to said plan with like rearranging chairs on the deck of the ship, so why really bother, especially when the updates the far right tries to push are always to very popular parts of the plan (expanded medicare/medicaid), and not the unpopular parks (mandate) or they package it all together and it's too poisonous of a pill to swallow.

There is a big difference between supporting a law and being concerned about electoral blowback of repealing an entitlement. But I'm really not interested in debating this because it is completely irrelevant.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 29, 2017, 12:38:04 PM
CNBC: Dow soars 255 points to record as Senate gets closer to passing tax reform (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/28/us-stocks-amazon-cyber-monday-powell.html)
The middle class is pumped on this news.

Just be honest who this is for.

I think I've been very honest about who this is for. It is going to benefit most people - some more than others. Generally speaking, the higher your income, the bigger the cut you'll receive. And that seems perfectly appropriate to me, given that I'm getting soaked on taxes and think we could stand to make the tax code a bit less progressive.

You're a liberal. You like a progressive tax code. You'd like it to be more progressive. You're entitled to that opinion. I realize this must all be very aggravating to you, but look for the silver linings. Even liberals have retirement accounts.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 29, 2017, 12:39:08 PM
CNBC: Dow soars 255 points to record as Senate gets closer to passing tax reform (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/28/us-stocks-amazon-cyber-monday-powell.html)
The middle class is pumped on this news.

Just be honest who this is for.

I think I've been very honest about who this is for. It is going to benefit most people - some more than others. Generally speaking, the higher your income, the bigger the cut you'll receive. And that seems perfectly appropriate to me, given that I'm getting soaked on taxes and think we could stand to make the tax code a bit less progressive.

You're a liberal. You like a progressive tax code. You'd like it to be more progressive. You're entitled to that opinion. I realize this must all be very aggravating to you, but look for the silver linings. Even liberals have retirement accounts.

Why tho? 
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 29, 2017, 12:40:05 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/trump-s-tax-promises-undercut-by-ceo-plans-to-reward-investors (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/trump-s-tax-promises-undercut-by-ceo-plans-to-reward-investors)

of course they will, because that's how markets work.

Who do you think shareholders are?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 29, 2017, 12:48:30 PM
CNBC: Dow soars 255 points to record as Senate gets closer to passing tax reform (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/28/us-stocks-amazon-cyber-monday-powell.html)
The middle class is pumped on this news.

Just be honest who this is for.

I think I've been very honest about who this is for. It is going to benefit most people - some more than others. Generally speaking, the higher your income, the bigger the cut you'll receive. And that seems perfectly appropriate to me, given that I'm getting soaked on taxes and think we could stand to make the tax code a bit less progressive.

You're a liberal. You like a progressive tax code. You'd like it to be more progressive. You're entitled to that opinion. I realize this must all be very aggravating to you, but look for the silver linings. Even liberals have retirement accounts.
Middle class tax cuts are not coming out of this bill according to all data so far. You want the highest paying taxpayers to pay less...fine...but anyone hiding behind this is going to help the coal miner is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 29, 2017, 12:48:54 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/trump-s-tax-promises-undercut-by-ceo-plans-to-reward-investors (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/trump-s-tax-promises-undercut-by-ceo-plans-to-reward-investors)

of course they will, because that's how markets work.

Who do you think shareholders are?
They aren't the middle class.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 29, 2017, 12:56:02 PM
CNBC: Dow soars 255 points to record as Senate gets closer to passing tax reform (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/28/us-stocks-amazon-cyber-monday-powell.html)
The middle class is pumped on this news.

Just be honest who this is for.

I think I've been very honest about who this is for. It is going to benefit most people - some more than others. Generally speaking, the higher your income, the bigger the cut you'll receive. And that seems perfectly appropriate to me, given that I'm getting soaked on taxes and think we could stand to make the tax code a bit less progressive.

You're a liberal. You like a progressive tax code. You'd like it to be more progressive. You're entitled to that opinion. I realize this must all be very aggravating to you, but look for the silver linings. Even liberals have retirement accounts.

Why tho?

I don't think it's fair to tax people at a higher rate for being smarter and working harder. I like to reward hard work and intelligence - not tax it. This is just a fundamental liberal versus conservative difference of opinion. I don't think liberals are stupid, generally speaking, any more than conservatives. I do think that liberal and conservative brains are wired differently. So much so that liberals don't just disagree with conservatives - they actually can't even recognize conservative viewpoints.

(Liberal) Jonathon Haidt actually wrote a popular book about this subject. The Righteous Mind. He posits that there are five basic foundations of morality, but whereas conservatives tend to weigh the five foundations more equally, liberals operate on a narrower 2-channel spectrum. He has a good TED talk on this subject. Google Haidt TED.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 29, 2017, 12:57:41 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/trump-s-tax-promises-undercut-by-ceo-plans-to-reward-investors (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/trump-s-tax-promises-undercut-by-ceo-plans-to-reward-investors)

of course they will, because that's how markets work.

Who do you think shareholders are?
They aren't the middle class.

Really? So middle class people don't have investments like college savings and retirement accounts? Just how low is your opinion of "the middle class?"
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on November 29, 2017, 01:07:49 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/trump-s-tax-promises-undercut-by-ceo-plans-to-reward-investors (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/trump-s-tax-promises-undercut-by-ceo-plans-to-reward-investors)

of course they will, because that's how markets work.

Who do you think shareholders are?
They aren't the middle class.

Really? So middle class people don't have investments like college savings and retirement accounts? Just how low is your opinion of "the middle class?"
Different estimates have the share of people with retirement accounts or stocks around 40-50%, so unless you define "middle" differently, about half of the middle class doesn't.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 29, 2017, 01:11:33 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/trump-s-tax-promises-undercut-by-ceo-plans-to-reward-investors (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/trump-s-tax-promises-undercut-by-ceo-plans-to-reward-investors)

of course they will, because that's how markets work.

Who do you think shareholders are?
They aren't the middle class.

Really? So middle class people don't have investments like college savings and retirement accounts? Just how low is your opinion of "the middle class?"
It has nothing to do with opinion. It has to do with reports of the middle class not saving squat for retirement.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 29, 2017, 01:28:15 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/trump-s-tax-promises-undercut-by-ceo-plans-to-reward-investors (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/trump-s-tax-promises-undercut-by-ceo-plans-to-reward-investors)

of course they will, because that's how markets work.

Who do you think shareholders are?
They aren't the middle class.

Really? So middle class people don't have investments like college savings and retirement accounts? Just how low is your opinion of "the middle class?"

so your belief that this tax plan is a benefit to the middle class is based on a predicted bump in equities to benefit accounts they won't touch for decades?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Spracne on November 29, 2017, 01:31:07 PM
CNBC: Dow soars 255 points to record as Senate gets closer to passing tax reform (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/28/us-stocks-amazon-cyber-monday-powell.html)
The middle class is pumped on this news.

Just be honest who this is for.

I think I've been very honest about who this is for. It is going to benefit most people - some more than others. Generally speaking, the higher your income, the bigger the cut you'll receive. And that seems perfectly appropriate to me, given that I'm getting soaked on taxes and think we could stand to make the tax code a bit less progressive.

You're a liberal. You like a progressive tax code. You'd like it to be more progressive. You're entitled to that opinion. I realize this must all be very aggravating to you, but look for the silver linings. Even liberals have retirement accounts.

Why tho?

I don't think it's fair to tax people at a higher rate for being smarter and working harder. I like to reward hard work and intelligence - not tax it. This is just a fundamental liberal versus conservative difference of opinion. I don't think liberals are stupid, generally speaking, any more than conservatives. I do think that liberal and conservative brains are wired differently. So much so that liberals don't just disagree with conservatives - they actually can't even recognize conservative viewpoints.

(Liberal) Jonathon Haidt actually wrote a popular book about this subject. The Righteous Mind. He posits that there are five basic foundations of morality, but whereas conservatives tend to weigh the five foundations more equally, liberals operate on a narrower 2-channel spectrum. He has a good TED talk on this subject. Google Haidt TED.

What if the other 3 channels are total bullshit, though?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on November 29, 2017, 01:32:25 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/trump-s-tax-promises-undercut-by-ceo-plans-to-reward-investors (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/trump-s-tax-promises-undercut-by-ceo-plans-to-reward-investors)

of course they will, because that's how markets work.

Who do you think shareholders are?

"Shareholder" is not a job. How do you not understand that?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 29, 2017, 01:38:35 PM
I know when I think "hard work" I think of Trumps idiot children and not someone that would benefit from a cut to the payroll tax.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 29, 2017, 01:40:43 PM
Yeah, the "smart, hardworking" argument falls apart when you also support eliminating the estate tax. The estate tax should be expanded so it affects everyone, imo.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on November 29, 2017, 01:44:32 PM
The only thing that directly causes job creation by a company is increased demand for that company's product or services. That's it. No company that is competently managed would ever hire more people simply because they got a tax break.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 29, 2017, 01:54:01 PM
Rich people have lots of money, therefore they are smart and work hard.

That is actually a logical statement to KSUW.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on November 29, 2017, 01:59:18 PM
Money= smart hard working


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 29, 2017, 02:00:20 PM
MLK: not smart and hardworking
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on November 29, 2017, 02:06:15 PM
Maybe we need a smart people dumb people in history thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on November 29, 2017, 02:06:32 PM
Hard working
Not hardworking


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on November 29, 2017, 02:07:03 PM
I do think that liberal and conservative brains are wired differently.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-turn-conservatives-liberal-john-bargh-psychology-2017-10
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 29, 2017, 02:15:53 PM
Middle class tax cuts are not coming out of this bill according to all data so far. You want the highest paying taxpayers to pay less...fine...but anyone hiding behind this is going to help the coal miner is ridiculous.

You're simply wrong. I'll prove it to you by running the numbers for a few basic situations.

Let's take the Smiths, your average middle class family somewhere in the Midwest. They've got three dependent children and a combined AGI of $100,000. Would you agree that's middle class? Let's assume the Smiths have $18,000 in itemized deductions. That's probably way too high for folks with that income in the Midwest (biggest itemized deductions are typically SALT, property tax, and mortgage interest, which track pretty well to income). But whatever, let's go with it. Might be closer to accurate if the Smiths live in a higher tax, higher property value state.

Under the current code for 2017, the Smiths have a taxable income of $61,750 (after deducting their 5 personal exemptions and itemized deductions from AGI). Taxes on that income, minus a $3,000 Child Tax Credit come to $5,330 (an effective rate of 5.3%).

Under the House Plan for 2018, the Smith now have a taxable of income of $76,000 (they lose their 5 personal exemptions worth $4,050 a piece, but they are now claiming a standard deduction of $24,000 instead of itemizing). Their marginal rate on that taxable income is reduced and they're getting a $4,800 CTC, resulting in a tax bill of $1,440 (effective rate 1.4%). That's a tax cut of $3,890 and a 3.9% rate reduction.

How about if the Smiths only bring home $80,000 AGI? Let's run the same exact numbers except we'll reduce their itemized deductions to $16,000 (which makes sense in our hypothetical even though, again, this is probably too high for itemized deductions at that income, especially in the Midwest).

They'll owe $2,630 under the current code, and -$960 under the House Bill (they owe negative tax and get money back due to partial refundability of CTC). That's a tax cut of $3,590.

Now I know what you're saying - those damned "breeders" aren't representative of a Midwest family. That's (1) bullshit, and (2) irrelevant. Let's rerun the same numbers with only 1 kid....

At 100k AGI, the Smiths pay $8,545 under current law, and $4,640 under House Plan. A tax cut of $3,905.

At 80k, the Smiths pay $5,845 under current law, and $2,240 under the House Plan. A tax cut of $3,605.

Under every scenario above, a gobsmacking tax cut. The only way to get to tax increases is if you get into itemized deductions vastly in excess of the newly doubled standard deduction - something that isn't going to be common for middle class incomes except maybe on the coasts.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on November 29, 2017, 02:23:37 PM
Average middle class family...AGI 100,000
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 29, 2017, 02:24:57 PM
Yeah, expanding the child tax credit eliminates most of the concern about middle class families getting tax increases. I still think it would be a much better plan overall if we were to eliminate the child tax credit altogether and keep personal exemptions, though. Maybe keep the estate tax and tweak the corporate rate enough to make that revenue-neutral.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on November 29, 2017, 02:25:39 PM
Median household income in KS is $51k
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on November 29, 2017, 02:29:12 PM
Oh wait, $80k drops to right around the 70th percentile, guess thats reasonable for upper middle class
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 29, 2017, 02:33:31 PM
Don't be a dumbass. Those AGIs are absolutely middle class for a family of 5, and even for a family of 3 (the two scenarios presented above). https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx (https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx)

And regardless, even if you dropped down to $60k AGI, they still get a huge tax cut.

Family of 5: a $3,290 cut.

Family of 3: a $3,305 cut.

These calculations assume the CTC is fully refundable at this low threshold, and it appears they would be. I think the House Plan caps refundability at 15% of AGI. So that easily covers the full value of the credit for an AGI of 60k.

You people arguing that the "middle class" aren't getting a tax cut are simply wrong.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 29, 2017, 02:44:41 PM
These are just awful, awful people.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: mocat on November 29, 2017, 02:53:04 PM
I do think that liberal and conservative brains are wired differently.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-turn-conservatives-liberal-john-bargh-psychology-2017-10

wow, science says conservatives are by definition irl frightened snowflakes
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 29, 2017, 02:53:37 PM
Yeah, expanding the child tax credit eliminates most of the concern about middle class families getting tax increases. I still think it would be a much better plan overall if we were to eliminate the child tax credit altogether and keep personal exemptions, though. Maybe keep the estate tax and tweak the corporate rate enough to make that revenue-neutral.

I agree with you as a matter of policy. I far prefer deductions to credits, which help make the code less progressive. But expansion of the CTC is a big piece of giving such a generous tax cut to middle class families (the cut that liberals pretend doesn't exist).
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 29, 2017, 02:56:42 PM
Yeah, expanding the child tax credit eliminates most of the concern about middle class families getting tax increases. I still think it would be a much better plan overall if we were to eliminate the child tax credit altogether and keep personal exemptions, though. Maybe keep the estate tax and tweak the corporate rate enough to make that revenue-neutral.

I agree with you as a matter of policy. I far prefer deductions to credits, which help make the code less progressive. But expansion of the CTC is a big piece of giving such a generous tax cut to middle class families (the cut that liberals pretend doesn't exist).

It's big for families with kids. The exemptions would mostly offset that, though, and they would apply to all families.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on November 29, 2017, 02:59:34 PM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 29, 2017, 03:19:13 PM
Middle class tax cuts are not coming out of this bill according to all data so far. You want the highest paying taxpayers to pay less...fine...but anyone hiding behind this is going to help the coal miner is ridiculous.

You're simply wrong. I'll prove it to you by running the numbers for a few basic situations.

Let's take the Smiths, your average middle class family somewhere in the Midwest. They've got three dependent children and a combined AGI of $100,000. Would you agree that's middle class? Let's assume the Smiths have $18,000 in itemized deductions. That's probably way too high for folks with that income in the Midwest (biggest itemized deductions are typically SALT, property tax, and mortgage interest, which track pretty well to income). But whatever, let's go with it. Might be closer to accurate if the Smiths live in a higher tax, higher property value state.

Under the current code for 2017, the Smiths have a taxable income of $61,750 (after deducting their 5 personal exemptions and itemized deductions from AGI). Taxes on that income, minus a $3,000 Child Tax Credit come to $5,330 (an effective rate of 5.3%).

Under the House Plan for 2018, the Smith now have a taxable of income of $76,000 (they lose their 5 personal exemptions worth $4,050 a piece, but they are now claiming a standard deduction of $24,000 instead of itemizing). Their marginal rate on that taxable income is reduced and they're getting a $4,800 CTC, resulting in a tax bill of $1,440 (effective rate 1.4%). That's a tax cut of $3,890 and a 3.9% rate reduction.

How about if the Smiths only bring home $80,000 AGI? Let's run the same exact numbers except we'll reduce their itemized deductions to $16,000 (which makes sense in our hypothetical even though, again, this is probably too high for itemized deductions at that income, especially in the Midwest).

They'll owe $2,630 under the current code, and -$960 under the House Bill (they owe negative tax and get money back due to partial refundability of CTC). That's a tax cut of $3,590.

Now I know what you're saying - those damned "breeders" aren't representative of a Midwest family. That's (1) bullshit, and (2) irrelevant. Let's rerun the same numbers with only 1 kid....

At 100k AGI, the Smiths pay $8,545 under current law, and $4,640 under House Plan. A tax cut of $3,905.

At 80k, the Smiths pay $5,845 under current law, and $2,240 under the House Plan. A tax cut of $3,605.

Under every scenario above, a gobsmacking tax cut. The only way to get to tax increases is if you get into itemized deductions vastly in excess of the newly doubled standard deduction - something that isn't going to be common for middle class incomes except maybe on the coasts.
Taking all this at your word even though the house plan isn't going to be anywhere close to the final plan...and personally I'd say it's not the upper middle class that needs the tax break so they can send Jr to baseball traveling teams...it's the lower side of the middle class that needs the help to you know...buy clothes.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on November 29, 2017, 03:22:18 PM
@sd At least Trump is right about something I guess.

KSU-W, I don't actually disagree with most of your points on this, I just think your definition of middle class and average is either pretty far away from what mine is.  Most rich people don't think they are rich though.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 29, 2017, 04:16:07 PM
Taking all this at your word even though the house plan isn't going to be anywhere close to the final plan...and personally I'd say it's not the upper middle class that needs the tax break so they can send Jr to baseball traveling teams...it's the lower side of the middle class that needs the help to you know...buy clothes.

The Senate plan is actually more generous for me. Didn't run it for lower incomes. It sounds to me like you're expecting this reform to be less about cutting taxes and more about redistributing cash to folks who aren't paying much, if any, FIT to begin with. And that's understandable for a liberal, but this is supposed to be a tax cut - not another welfare program. Let's just stop with the "middle class aren't getting a tax cut" hogwash. This is yuuuuuge for most of the middle class.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 29, 2017, 04:28:56 PM
How about owners of LLCs in the service field?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 29, 2017, 04:35:33 PM
How about owners of LLCs in the service field?

The pass-thru taxation is currently under discussion. It vertainly won't be tax free like what was attempted in KS. Question is how it will compare to corporate and personal rates.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 29, 2017, 04:46:46 PM
Taking all this at your word even though the house plan isn't going to be anywhere close to the final plan...and personally I'd say it's not the upper middle class that needs the tax break so they can send Jr to baseball traveling teams...it's the lower side of the middle class that needs the help to you know...buy clothes.

The Senate plan is actually more generous for me. Didn't run it for lower incomes. It sounds to me like you're expecting this reform to be less about cutting taxes and more about redistributing cash to folks who aren't paying much, if any, FIT to begin with. And that's understandable for a liberal, but this is supposed to be a tax cut - not another welfare program. Let's just stop with the "middle class aren't getting a tax cut" hogwash. This is yuuuuuge for most of the middle class.

so it's just a tax cut not redistribution of cash if the higher incomes get the break?  okay.

this conversations would probably go further if you didn't insist on labeling everybody's political party to discount their opinion.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 29, 2017, 04:58:54 PM
How about owners of LLCs in the service field?

The pass-thru taxation is currently under discussion. It vertainly won't be tax free like what was attempted in KS. Question is how it will compare to corporate and personal rates.

I'll just grab my ankles real quick then
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 29, 2017, 05:17:02 PM
It's redistribution to the national debt
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 29, 2017, 06:06:45 PM
Taking all this at your word even though the house plan isn't going to be anywhere close to the final plan...and personally I'd say it's not the upper middle class that needs the tax break so they can send Jr to baseball traveling teams...it's the lower side of the middle class that needs the help to you know...buy clothes.

The Senate plan is actually more generous for me. Didn't run it for lower incomes. It sounds to me like you're expecting this reform to be less about cutting taxes and more about redistributing cash to folks who aren't paying much, if any, FIT to begin with. And that's understandable for a liberal, but this is supposed to be a tax cut - not another welfare program. Let's just stop with the "middle class aren't getting a tax cut" hogwash. This is yuuuuuge for most of the middle class.

so it's just a tax cut not redistribution of cash if the higher incomes get the break?  okay.

this conversations would probably go further if you didn't insist on labeling everybody's political party to discount their opinion.

Yes. I view allowing people to keep more of their own money as different from giving a "refund" to someone who already didn't owe any. But that's just me. I know liberal brains work differently. It's adorable.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 29, 2017, 06:30:59 PM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on November 29, 2017, 07:52:20 PM
KSU-D, this thing specifically fucks you and (more importantly at least to me) your offspring. I know you're huge into the my team v. your team stuff but this is not a good idea for you personally and (don't get offended) you are by far the least altruistic person on this message board.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 29, 2017, 07:58:44 PM
It Fs me super hard too right?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 29, 2017, 08:03:28 PM
KSU-D, this thing specifically fucks you and (more importantly at least to me) your offspring. I know you're huge into the my team v. your team stuff but this is not a good idea for you personally and (don't get offended) you are by far the least altruistic person on this message board.

So I've actually done the math, and I do awesome. Thanks.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: IPA4Me on November 29, 2017, 08:07:35 PM
It Fs me super hard too right?
Not sure how it ended but the proposed plan favored pass through types.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-tax-bill-could-help-the-self-employed/
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: cfbandyman on November 29, 2017, 08:21:24 PM
KSU-D, this thing specifically fucks you and (more importantly at least to me) your offspring. I know you're huge into the my team v. your team stuff but this is not a good idea for you personally and (don't get offended) you are by far the least altruistic person on this message board.

He would sell the US if he profits off of it, oh wait.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 29, 2017, 08:25:46 PM
I would take that
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 29, 2017, 08:29:01 PM
Is this thing going to be law?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 29, 2017, 08:34:50 PM
They're going to pass the crap out of this bill.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 29, 2017, 08:39:13 PM
KSU-D, this thing specifically fucks you and (more importantly at least to me) your offspring. I know you're huge into the my team v. your team stuff but this is not a good idea for you personally and (don't get offended) you are by far the least altruistic person on this message board.

He would sell the US if he profits off of it, oh wait.

Quick question: why are you guys being such a-holes? Just general butthurt, or a more specific envy?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 29, 2017, 08:52:40 PM
Taking all this at your word even though the house plan isn't going to be anywhere close to the final plan...and personally I'd say it's not the upper middle class that needs the tax break so they can send Jr to baseball traveling teams...it's the lower side of the middle class that needs the help to you know...buy clothes.

The Senate plan is actually more generous for me. Didn't run it for lower incomes. It sounds to me like you're expecting this reform to be less about cutting taxes and more about redistributing cash to folks who aren't paying much, if any, FIT to begin with. And that's understandable for a liberal, but this is supposed to be a tax cut - not another welfare program. Let's just stop with the "middle class aren't getting a tax cut" hogwash. This is yuuuuuge for most of the middle class.

so it's just a tax cut not redistribution of cash if the higher incomes get the break?  okay.

this conversations would probably go further if you didn't insist on labeling everybody's political party to discount their opinion.

Yes. I view allowing people to keep more of their own money as different from giving a "refund" to someone who already didn't owe any. But that's just me. I know liberal brains work differently. It's adorable.

where is anybody wanting people that pay no taxes to pay MORE no taxes?  Don't be a dumb.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on November 29, 2017, 09:21:38 PM
Maybe keep the estate tax and tweak the corporate rate enough to make that revenue-neutral.

eliminate the estate tax loopholes, get rid of taxes on c corps altogether and tax dividends and cap gains at the same rate as ordinary income.  pretty easy.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on November 29, 2017, 09:37:56 PM
KSU-D, this thing specifically fucks you and (more importantly at least to me) your offspring. I know you're huge into the my team v. your team stuff but this is not a good idea for you personally and (don't get offended) you are by far the least altruistic person on this message board.

He would sell the US if he profits off of it, oh wait.

Quick question: why are you guys being such a-holes? Just general butthurt, or a more specific envy?

I said not to get offended
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: puniraptor on November 30, 2017, 12:58:48 AM
OT THOUGHT EXPERIMENT:

what would k-s-u-w think of this IDENTICAL TAX PLAN if it were proposed by 3rd term president B. Obama and his democrat majority congress?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 30, 2017, 07:50:09 AM
We max out our childcare reimbursement benefit every year so there goes like $5000.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 30, 2017, 07:50:52 AM
I mean, could this tax bill be any more specifically designed to hurt middle class-upper middle class families?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 30, 2017, 08:13:50 AM
Invalid Tweet ID
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 30, 2017, 08:15:58 AM
$1.5 trillion NBD
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2017, 08:54:20 AM
I mean, could this tax bill be any more specifically designed to hurt middle class-upper middle class families?

Give me a scenario where this hurts them. AGI, number of dependent kids, and current deductions and credits that are changing.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2017, 09:02:34 AM
Taking all this at your word even though the house plan isn't going to be anywhere close to the final plan...and personally I'd say it's not the upper middle class that needs the tax break so they can send Jr to baseball traveling teams...it's the lower side of the middle class that needs the help to you know...buy clothes.

The Senate plan is actually more generous for me. Didn't run it for lower incomes.

I re-ran the numbers for the scenarios I gave above using the Senate proposal. The only significant differences between House and Senate for purposes of my scenarios are (1) Senate provides a slightly larger CTC of $2,000, and (2) Senate's tax brackets are less progressive than the House.

For every scenario (100k AGI, 80k AGI, and 60k AGI, 3 kids versus 1 kid), the Senate tax cut is smaller by about 1/3. This is because, even though the Senate provides a larger CTC, the brackets are less progressive. By contrast, the Senate plan provides a more generous cut at higher AGIs.

Bracket comparisons for House and Senate are here: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/17/how-the-senate-and-house-tax-brackets-compare.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/17/how-the-senate-and-house-tax-brackets-compare.html) This is the only part of my math I didn't show but it's not hard to calculate.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 30, 2017, 09:07:56 AM
Whatcha going to with all your extra money? Go hire an extra gardener? The poors need your trickle down you know.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2017, 09:22:02 AM
Whatcha going to with all your extra money? Go hire an extra gardener? The poors need your trickle down you know.

Gonna have to replace the minivan soon (cost of breeding). :driving:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: mocat on November 30, 2017, 09:26:51 AM
xmas light fund
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on November 30, 2017, 09:34:00 AM
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/11/Change_Amount_Final.jpg&w=1484)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2017, 09:43:34 AM
xmas light fund

Dude, you clearly haven't followed the xmas light thread. Because I bought smart, that was a one-time investment about 5 years ago. Follow my advice. KSUdub is wise.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: mocat on November 30, 2017, 09:46:41 AM
xmas light fund

Dude, you clearly haven't followed the xmas light thread. Because I bought smart, that was a one-time investment about 5 years ago. Follow my advice. KSUdub is wise.

i didn't realize your xmas light situation couldn't be improved in any way
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2017, 09:47:59 AM
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/11/Change_Amount_Final.jpg&w=1484)

Interesting chart. It seems like a lot of the criticism I'm reading from liberals focuses on what happens after 2025 when portions of the individual cuts are set to expire. This criticism is pretty ironic, given that it is the liberals who would cause such cuts to not be extended. They're essentially saying "don't get too excited - here's what your rates will be if you elect more of us to office." Strange message.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2017, 09:48:40 AM
xmas light fund

Dude, you clearly haven't followed the xmas light thread. Because I bought smart, that was a one-time investment about 5 years ago. Follow my advice. KSUdub is wise.

i didn't realize your xmas light situation couldn't be improved in any way

No. It's AMAZING. :love:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 30, 2017, 10:03:38 AM
There should be more credits for SAHM and private schools IMO
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2017, 10:22:30 AM
McCain says he's a YES. Merry Christmas everyone!!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 30, 2017, 10:31:37 AM
ksuw-

do you have a site you are using to crunch the #'s?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 30, 2017, 10:35:14 AM
The one that I used had the CTC as $5,400, but aren't those going away?

Am I missing something?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 30, 2017, 10:39:48 AM
The calculator I ran gave me a $600 family/child credit. Do you still get the $300 credit for parents if you don't have kids?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 30, 2017, 10:49:02 AM
Guys don't worry about the deficit this will cause...the stock market will go up! Solved!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2017, 10:58:41 AM
I'm just using a spreadsheet because I haven't found a calculator that shows its work. Without seeing its work, I can't tell whether its assumptions accurately reflect the law, and some of the calcs I've looked at seem overly simplistic and/or outdated.

Keep in mind there is a difference between the Child Tax Credit and the Child and Dependent Care Credit. As I understand it, neither the House nor Senate plans are changing the dependent care credit. The CTC is increased from $1000 to $1600 per qualifying dependent and the Senate goes from $1000 to $2000. In both cases, the phase out threshold for this credit is significantly boosted, which is important to higher AGIs. Without boosting the phase out, higher AGIs wouldn't qualify for the CTC and would be adversely affected by elimination of the $4,050pp personal exemptions.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 30, 2017, 11:05:13 AM


I'm just using a spreadsheet because I haven't found a calculator that shows its work. Without seeing its work, I can't tell whether its assumptions accurately reflect the law, and some of the calcs I've looked at seem overly simplistic and/or outdated.

Keep in mind there is a difference between the Child Tax Credit and the Child and Dependent Care Credit. As I understand it, neither the House nor Senate plans are changing the dependent care credit. The CTC is increased from $1000 to $1600 per qualifying dependent and the Senate goes from $1000 to $2000. In both cases, the phase out threshold for this credit is significantly boosted, which is important to higher AGIs. Without boosting the phase out, higher AGIs wouldn't qualify for the CTC and would be adversely affected by elimination of the $4,050pp personal exemptions.

We so very trust your spreadsheet calcs!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 30, 2017, 11:12:23 AM
His calcs are probably accurate. It's not like the math is difficult.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 30, 2017, 11:16:02 AM
It was more a joke about him not being able to trust website calculators.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 30, 2017, 11:22:49 AM
the business equipment deduction increase is pretty dreamy
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2017, 11:24:15 AM
His calcs are probably accurate. It's not like the math is difficult.

I think it's accurate. I kept the scenarios simple.

Start with 2017:
1. AGI
2. Deduct personal exemptions (for joint filers, $4,050 for you, spouse, and kids under 18 in the home)
3. Deduct your standard or itemized deductions (I supplied hypothetical itemized deductions, which are probably on the high side for the AGIs I selected)
4. This gives you taxable income, which you tax according to the brackets I linked.
5. Subtract current CTC.

Repeat for House or Senate Bill:
1. AGI
2. No more personal exemptions
3. Subtract newly doubled standard deduction of $24,000 (I assumed that this new standard deduction is almost always going to exceed itemized deductions for middle class, especially after many of those deductions are eliminated)
4. Tax the taxable income according to the revised brackets.
5. Subtract the new CTC.

I didn't make any changes for child and dependent care credit because I don't think there are any changes.

I didn't include student loan interest in my scenarios, which deduction is being eliminated, but I still think my assumptions on itemized deductions for middle class erred on the high side.

What am I missing?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2017, 01:31:47 PM
Guys don't worry about the deficit this will cause...the stock market will go up! Solved!

This is probably a good spot to update how amazing President Business has been for the markets and folks' retirement accounts. The DJIA:

November 4, 2008 (election day): 9,625
November 5, 2009 (the next day): 9,139 (the market plummets 486 points - that is incredible)
November 27, 2009 (387 days later): 10,310 (1,171 points up from 11/5)

November 6, 2012 (election day): 13,246
November 7, 2012 (the next day): 12,933 (the market plummets 313 points - ouch)

November 8, 2016 (election day): 18,363
November 9, 2016 (the next day): 18,590 (the market leaps by 227 - weird....)
November 30, 2017 (387 days later): 24,251 (5,888 point gain)

Ok, so key takeaways:
1. The markets did quite well under Obama, gaining 9,224 points from his election to Trump's election.
2. But investors sure hated Obama being elected in general, punishing the markets the day after both his elections.
3. By contrast, investors loved Trump's election, adding 227 points the day he was elected.
4. And most staggering of all, the markets have added 5,888 points in the 387 days since Trump was elected.

That's right, in a little over one year under Trump, the markets have already achieved 2/3 of the total gains under Obama's 8 years.

Which segues nicely to the NYT's preeminent economist Paul Krugman, the night of Trump's election:

Quote
It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?

Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.

Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election-night-2016/paul-krugman-the-economic-fallout (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election-night-2016/paul-krugman-the-economic-fallout)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 30, 2017, 01:53:51 PM
That's quite a bit of flawed reasoning. Just use this.

http://www.macrotrends.net/2481/stock-market-performance-by-president
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2017, 02:01:18 PM
That's quite a bit of flawed reasoning. Just use this.

http://www.macrotrends.net/2481/stock-market-performance-by-president

:lol: Ok bub. I just stated numbers. You can rationalize it all you want, but the market's enthusiasm for Trump and tax reform is undeniable.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 30, 2017, 02:07:29 PM
That's quite a bit of flawed reasoning. Just use this.

http://www.macrotrends.net/2481/stock-market-performance-by-president

:lol: Ok bub. I just stated numbers. You can rationalize it all you want, but the market's enthusiasm for Trump and tax reform is undeniable.

If you look at percentages, which can also be stated as numbers, the stock market performance during Obama and Trump is extremely similar. And Obama did not have a major corporate tax cut. That seems like the opposite of what you are wanting to conclude.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2017, 02:38:21 PM
That's quite a bit of flawed reasoning. Just use this.

http://www.macrotrends.net/2481/stock-market-performance-by-president

:lol: Ok bub. I just stated numbers. You can rationalize it all you want, but the market's enthusiasm for Trump and tax reform is undeniable.

If you look at percentages, which can also be stated as numbers, the stock market performance during Obama and Trump is extremely similar. And Obama did not have a major corporate tax cut. That seems like the opposite of what you are wanting to conclude.

Extremely similar? In one year under Trump, the markets are up about 33%. They increased by 12% under Obama's first year, and that was coming out of a horrible recession. At this rate, Trump will vastly exceed Obama's market performance.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on November 30, 2017, 02:45:46 PM
many intl markets are up more than us indices over the same time span.  undeniable, the intl enthusiasm for trump.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 30, 2017, 02:51:24 PM
You arent this simple. Good gE'ing
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 30, 2017, 02:55:05 PM
Well, crap. What now?

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on November 30, 2017, 03:08:44 PM
That's quite a bit of flawed reasoning. Just use this.

http://www.macrotrends.net/2481/stock-market-performance-by-president

:lol: Ok bub. I just stated numbers. You can rationalize it all you want, but the market's enthusiasm for Trump and tax reform is undeniable.

If you look at percentages, which can also be stated as numbers, the stock market performance during Obama and Trump is extremely similar. And Obama did not have a major corporate tax cut. That seems like the opposite of what you are wanting to conclude.

Extremely similar? In one year under Trump, the markets are up about 33%. They increased by 12% under Obama's first year, and that was coming out of a horrible recession. At this rate, Trump will vastly exceed Obama's market performance.



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 30, 2017, 03:39:26 PM
There are no room.for facts in this thread.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on November 30, 2017, 03:41:46 PM
The propaganda machine has really roped KSUW in for sure.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on November 30, 2017, 03:45:18 PM
the trump echo chamber reverberates
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 30, 2017, 03:51:26 PM
Guys don't worry about the deficit this will cause...the stock market will go up! Solved!

This is probably a good spot to update how amazing President Business has been for the markets and folks' retirement accounts. The DJIA:

November 4, 2008 (election day): 9,625
November 5, 2009 (the next day): 9,139 (the market plummets 486 points - that is incredible)
November 27, 2009 (387 days later): 10,310 (1,171 points up from 11/5)

November 6, 2012 (election day): 13,246
November 7, 2012 (the next day): 12,933 (the market plummets 313 points - ouch)

November 8, 2016 (election day): 18,363
November 9, 2016 (the next day): 18,590 (the market leaps by 227 - weird....)
November 30, 2017 (387 days later): 24,251 (5,888 point gain)

Ok, so key takeaways:
1. The markets did quite well under Obama, gaining 9,224 points from his election to Trump's election.
2. But investors sure hated Obama being elected in general, punishing the markets the day after both his elections.
3. By contrast, investors loved Trump's election, adding 227 points the day he was elected.
4. And most staggering of all, the markets have added 5,888 points in the 387 days since Trump was elected.

That's right, in a little over one year under Trump, the markets have already achieved 2/3 of the total gains under Obama's 8 years.

Which segues nicely to the NYT's preeminent economist Paul Krugman, the night of Trump's election:

Quote
It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?

Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.

Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election-night-2016/paul-krugman-the-economic-fallout (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election-night-2016/paul-krugman-the-economic-fallout)

I responded to this the last time you posted it.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: michigancat on November 30, 2017, 03:53:10 PM
That's quite a bit of flawed reasoning. Just use this.

http://www.macrotrends.net/2481/stock-market-performance-by-president

:lol: Ok bub. I just stated numbers. You can rationalize it all you want, but the market's enthusiasm for Trump and tax reform is undeniable.

If you look at percentages, which can also be stated as numbers, the stock market performance during Obama and Trump is extremely similar. And Obama did not have a major corporate tax cut. That seems like the opposite of what you are wanting to conclude.

Extremely similar? In one year under Trump, the markets are up about 33%. They increased by 12% under Obama's first year, and that was coming out of a horrible recession. At this rate, Trump will vastly exceed Obama's market performance.

lol what a nut
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on November 30, 2017, 04:07:38 PM
Trump really got lucky to inherit such a great economy
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on November 30, 2017, 06:03:28 PM
since it's been clearly established that presidents have such a huge influence on the economy, I just know that KSUW will be the first to blame Trump for the upcoming market correction.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2017, 06:12:37 PM
There's a big market correction coming? Please PM me the details.  :Wha:

And for what it's worth, I don't think presidents have much impact on the economy at large. But I also think markets are sometimes driven by investor confidence not necessarily tethered to actual economic strength. And we're seeing a huge boost in confidence (and my 401k and other investments).
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 30, 2017, 06:13:21 PM
1 trillion to the debt but at least ksuw can now get Jr that new soccer uni.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2017, 06:17:03 PM
1 trillion to the debt but at least ksuw can now get Jr that new soccer uni.

Posts like this are so incredibly butthurt. Sad. Liberals are apoplectic that high wage earners might get a little less soaked if this passes. So envious that they cant even be happy getting a likely tax cut of their own.

Adding $1 trillion (maybe) evil. Adding $10 tril under Obama. :whistles:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on November 30, 2017, 06:26:21 PM
The point of two political and economic mindsets is to balance out the other side...hard for one side to complain about adding to debt if they want to do the exact same.

But playing the us vs them card is your thing..but you keep assuming that people raising criticism of this plan aren't big wager earners...I mean we are all :kstategrad: remember.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on November 30, 2017, 06:43:35 PM
Investors were pretty damn confident in 2007 when there were few regulations. I’d pump the brakes if I were you KSUW.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 30, 2017, 07:50:59 PM
There's a big market correction coming? Please PM me the details.  :Wha:

And for what it's worth, I don't think presidents have much impact on the economy at large. But I also think markets are sometimes driven by investor confidence not necessarily tethered to actual economic strength. And we're seeing a huge boost in confidence (and my 401k and other investments).

Boosts in confidence that are not tethered to actual economic strength are why big market corrections happen.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: bucket on November 30, 2017, 07:53:39 PM
There's a big market correction coming? Please PM me the details.  :Wha:

And for what it's worth, I don't think presidents have much impact on the economy at large. But I also think markets are sometimes driven by investor confidence not necessarily tethered to actual economic strength. And we're seeing a huge boost in confidence (and my 401k and other investments).

Boosts in confidence that are not tethered to actual economic strength are why big market corrections happen.

Impeachment too
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on November 30, 2017, 10:04:33 PM
There's a big market correction coming? Please PM me the details.  :Wha:

And for what it's worth, I don't think presidents have much impact on the economy at large. But I also think markets are sometimes driven by investor confidence not necessarily tethered to actual economic strength. And we're seeing a huge boost in confidence (and my 401k and other investments).

Boosts in confidence that are not tethered to actual economic strength are why big market corrections happen.

i'd like to be there when ksu-w figures out that the market going up costs him money.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 30, 2017, 10:38:52 PM
I’ll bite, why will it cost our pal money?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on November 30, 2017, 11:00:24 PM
he's not as old as you'd think.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on December 01, 2017, 12:16:52 AM
Oh ok, I want to be there too
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 01, 2017, 08:17:21 AM
Right now would be a decent time for a market correction for myself.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 08:56:22 AM
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/01/sen-steve-daines-one-of-the-last-gop-holdouts-will-back-senate-tax-bill-after-pass-through-tweak.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/01/sen-steve-daines-one-of-the-last-gop-holdouts-will-back-senate-tax-bill-after-pass-through-tweak.html) :Woot: :Woot:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on December 01, 2017, 09:00:17 AM
Raising my own retirement age to own the libs!  :Woot:  :Woot:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 09:07:49 AM
There's a big market correction coming? Please PM me the details.  :Wha:

And for what it's worth, I don't think presidents have much impact on the economy at large. But I also think markets are sometimes driven by investor confidence not necessarily tethered to actual economic strength. And we're seeing a huge boost in confidence (and my 401k and other investments).

Boosts in confidence that are not tethered to actual economic strength are why big market corrections happen.

i'd like to be there when ksu-w figures out that the market going up costs him money.

You say a lot of dumb things, but this is one of the dumbest. First, I invest when markets are going up. I invest when markets are going down. I just invest slow and steady. It's called dollar cost averaging. And in the long term, it pays off. Second, I invest for short term (dream fund), medium term (college savings), and long term (retirement) goals, so hoping for a market correction at any particular time frame is a mixed bag at best.

I know you guys are extremely butthurt about the possibility of allowing most people, and especially many of the highest federally taxed people, to keep more of their money (still not a sure thing), but you're really behaving like jerks. Go hop in the tub with Chum over in the Russia thread for a while. Sheesh.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 09:08:23 AM
Raising my own retirement age to own the libs!  :Woot:  :Woot:

 :lol: This might be the most creative rationalization yet!  :thumbs:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on December 01, 2017, 09:13:53 AM
Not keeping up with what my political party is plotting to own the libs.  :Woot:  :Woot:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 01, 2017, 10:17:21 AM
Welp ksuw was right... The president can influence the markets!

Invalid Tweet ID
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 10:21:28 AM
So markets fall on news that Trump might be in trouble (he isn't, btw). Kinda proving my point how much investors love this guy. So, so butthurt.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-tax-bill-picks-up-support-after-delay-over-deficit-fears-1512140345 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-tax-bill-picks-up-support-after-delay-over-deficit-fears-1512140345)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on December 01, 2017, 10:26:39 AM
I'm not 100% certain ksu-dub understands how corporate tax cuts work
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 01, 2017, 10:27:04 AM
Yeah, I'd say that one backfired pretty hard, phil.

Just red an article that says family of four making six figs saves thousands under both plans.  :Woot:

I'm buying another jet ski! #merica-fuckyeah!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 01, 2017, 10:28:43 AM
I'm not 100% certain ksu-dub understands how corporate tax cuts work

I for one am stunned that libtard dave opposes everything the pubs do, bc teams and stuff

AMAZE
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 10:30:32 AM
Yeah, I'd say that one backfired pretty hard, phil.

Just red an article that says family of four making six figs saves thousands under both plans.  :Woot:

I'm buying another jet ski! #merica-fuckyeah!

Pssshh. That might look like a big tax cut, FSD, but it'll only save you a few hundred dollars in 8 more years if you elect enough of us liberals to office. Also, don't you realize all the reasons why a booming economy and stock market hurt young people? :shakesfist: (Actual arguments ITT).
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 01, 2017, 10:32:47 AM
Yeah, I've seen the tortured "logic" employed by the brain damaged libtards in oppo to the plans. They'd be far better off just accusing the tax code of homophobic racism.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: IPA4Me on December 01, 2017, 10:34:33 AM
Right now would be a decent time for a market correction for myself.
Yes. I get my six month match in January.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 01, 2017, 11:09:45 AM
There's a big market correction coming? Please PM me the details.  :Wha:

And for what it's worth, I don't think presidents have much impact on the economy at large. But I also think markets are sometimes driven by investor confidence not necessarily tethered to actual economic strength. And we're seeing a huge boost in confidence (and my 401k and other investments).

Boosts in confidence that are not tethered to actual economic strength are why big market corrections happen.

i'd like to be there when ksu-w figures out that the market going up costs him money.

You say a lot of dumb things, but this is one of the dumbest. First, I invest when markets are going up. I invest when markets are going down. I just invest slow and steady. It's called dollar cost averaging. And in the long term, it pays off. Second, I invest for short term (dream fund), medium term (college savings), and long term (retirement) goals, so hoping for a market correction at any particular time frame is a mixed bag at best.

I know you guys are extremely butthurt about the possibility of allowing most people, and especially many of the highest federally taxed people, to keep more of their money (still not a sure thing), but you're really behaving like jerks. Go hop in the tub with Chum over in the Russia thread for a while. Sheesh.

I invest like this.  At least the firm I pay to invest for me should be doing this I assume.  They all have super nice cars
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 01, 2017, 11:11:11 AM
I just invest in my own happiness
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Tubesock on December 01, 2017, 11:20:38 AM
I just invest in my own happiness

 :lol: I think your account may be under funded
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on December 01, 2017, 02:27:39 PM
I invest when markets are going up. I invest when markets are going down. I just invest slow and steady. It's called dollar cost averaging. And in the long term, it pays off. Second, I invest for short term (dream fund), medium term (college savings), and long term (retirement) goals, so hoping for a market correction at any particular time frame is a mixed bag at best.

you're like 37, 38.  something like that, iirc.  if you're not a net buyer, you're lying about being a hinry.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 04:03:07 PM
The Senate Bill continues to be tweaked, and it keeps getting better and better. Myrtle says he has the votes and plans to pass later today. High points...

Quote
• Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, said “we have the votes” and the Senate will begin voting later today.

• Senator Susan Collins of Maine said she has secured the changes she needs to vote yes. For example, the bill will now include a $10,000 deduction for state and local property taxes.

• Three previous Republican holdouts — Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona, Steve Daines of Montana and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin — threw their support behind the bill.

• An effort by Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee to include future tax increases to offset the deficit impact of the bill appears to have been rejected by Senate leadership. [:woot:]

• Lawmakers are now considering reinstating a modified version of the alternative minimum tax on individuals and on corporations. [It'll be much higher threshold, so don't care]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/us/politics/senate-tax-bill-debate-vote.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/us/politics/senate-tax-bill-debate-vote.html)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 01, 2017, 04:12:24 PM
Is there a way to short the US economy? I can take this to the investing thread.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 04:15:27 PM
Is there a way to short the US economy? I can take this to the investing thread.

There's all kinds of ways to do that. Good luck.
Title: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on December 01, 2017, 04:16:58 PM
@KSU-Wildcats

Given your excitement about the various deals, I take it you aren't one who cares about not increasing the deficit, just less personal tax burden?

These changes will save me quite a bit of $$$, but it seems like an even worse bill than before.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: IPA4Me on December 01, 2017, 04:32:30 PM
Yeah for saving me some coin. Maybe $2500. In-state tuition is $12K. So, we'll need some more savings please. :/

Not happy at all about the continued deficit spending. I just don't see why we need to keep running like this.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on December 01, 2017, 04:36:33 PM
Yeah for saving me some coin. Maybe $2500. In-state tuition is $12K. So, we'll need some more savings please. :/

Not happy at all about the continued deficit spending. I just don't see why we need to keep running like this.

Just shows that all these "fiscally conservative" senators claiming to be concerned about the deficit don't actually care about anything but putting more cash in the pockets of rich people.  They may be giant hypocrites, but hey, we're all :kstategrad: anyway, right?   
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 04:54:08 PM
Yeah for saving me some coin. Maybe $2500. In-state tuition is $12K. So, we'll need some more savings please. :/

Not happy at all about the continued deficit spending. I just don't see why we need to keep running like this.

Just shows that all these "fiscally conservative" senators claiming to be concerned about the deficit don't actually care about anything but putting more cash in the pockets of rich people.  They may be giant hypocrites, but hey, we're all :kstategrad: anyway, right?

No, it is not hypocritical for fiscal conservatives to support tax cuts and deficit reduction. First, tax cuts can boost economic growth and possibly even increase revenue in the long term. In fact, you'll notice that tax revenue stays at a relatively steady 18-20% of GDP over time no matter the tax rate. We have a spending problem. Second, many fiscal conservatives are already massively overtaxed in comparison to other Americans, so it is no hypocritical to desire to keep a little bit more of their own hard-earned money.

What's annoying, to say the least, is that the GOP is going to take the relatively easy step of cutting taxes but not do a damned thing to cut spending. Just like the Kansas GOP did.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: IPA4Me on December 01, 2017, 04:58:07 PM
Yeah for saving me some coin. Maybe $2500. In-state tuition is $12K. So, we'll need some more savings please. :/

Not happy at all about the continued deficit spending. I just don't see why we need to keep running like this.

Just shows that all these "fiscally conservative" senators claiming to be concerned about the deficit don't actually care about anything but putting more cash in the pockets of rich people.  They may be giant hypocrites, but hey, we're all :kstategrad: anyway, right?

No, it is not hypocritical for fiscal conservatives to support tax cuts and deficit reduction. First, tax cuts can boost economic growth and possibly even increase revenue in the long term. In fact, you'll notice that tax revenue stays at a relatively steady 18-20% of GDP over time no matter the tax rate. We have a spending problem. Second, many fiscal conservatives are already massively overtaxed in comparison to other Americans, so it is no hypocritical to desire to keep a little bit more of their own hard-earned money.

What's annoying, to say the least, is that the GOP is going to take the relatively easy step of cutting taxes but not do a damned thing to cut spending. Just like the Kansas GOP did.
Slow down and read 8man's post again. They don't care about deficits / cutting spending. That's the hypocritical part. They've spent the last eight years trashing dems on deficits and don't do a damn thing about it when in power.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 05:00:21 PM
Any of you guys remember when Newsweek was a respected publication? Used to always be in doctors and dentists offices. Had big time respected, reasonable minded columnists like George Will and Robert Samuelson?

And then I guess somebody bought it and turned into some sort of leftwing blog. They've really gone off the deep end lately.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-tax-bill-gop-senate-riots-economy-money-wealth-wall-street-728400 (http://www.newsweek.com/trump-tax-bill-gop-senate-riots-economy-money-wealth-wall-street-728400)

Quote
When White People Riot: GOP Tax Reform

White people don’t riot. At least that’s the presumption of many white Americans, especially Trump supporters whose easily provoked fears have been fomented by decades of televised civil unrest and the urban wreckage at Ferguson, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and further back, Detroit and Watts.

But there’s a smash-and-grab underway in broad daylight, and it’s not at the Quikmart in Ferguson or Tom's Liquor at Normandie and Florence in L.A. One trillion dollars is about to pass out of the U.S. treasury and into the bank accounts of the beneficiaries of the Trump tax reform plan, according to the official congressional scorekeeper.

We associate looting with televised urban violence, because we can see it. After police in Ferguson, Missouri, left the body of Michael Brown in the street for nine hours, national television networks broke away to rioters burning and looting a Little Caesars, a Prime Beauty Supply, Sam’s Meat Market and other small businesses. The violence cost the town at least $5.7 million, according to local news reports.

After Baltimore cops couldn’t explain why Freddie Gray was tossed into a paddy wagon alive and found dead 20 minutes later in 2015, national television networks broke away and focused on looters and rioters, who ultimately caused between $9 million and $20 million in damages.

The mother of all riots in living memory cost Los Angeles $1 billion in 1992. Every minute of that three-day event was broadcast on live television. Images of black and brown people smashing and grabbing TVs, stereos and tennis shoes are seared into a generation of white suburbanite brains.

The urban riots have two things in common: they involve brown people and they were caught on camera.

When white people riot, it’s different. First, it costs a lot more. Second, it is not televised. When white people smash and grab, they do it from boardrooms, or Senate caucuses.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 01, 2017, 05:01:20 PM
I don't really care about the debt, but it's pretty great that if anything happens it will be kdubs kids who get mumped so he can own the libs
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 05:01:49 PM
Yeah for saving me some coin. Maybe $2500. In-state tuition is $12K. So, we'll need some more savings please. :/

Not happy at all about the continued deficit spending. I just don't see why we need to keep running like this.

Just shows that all these "fiscally conservative" senators claiming to be concerned about the deficit don't actually care about anything but putting more cash in the pockets of rich people.  They may be giant hypocrites, but hey, we're all :kstategrad: anyway, right?

No, it is not hypocritical for fiscal conservatives to support tax cuts and deficit reduction. First, tax cuts can boost economic growth and possibly even increase revenue in the long term. In fact, you'll notice that tax revenue stays at a relatively steady 18-20% of GDP over time no matter the tax rate. We have a spending problem. Second, many fiscal conservatives are already massively overtaxed in comparison to other Americans, so it is no hypocritical to desire to keep a little bit more of their own hard-earned money.

What's annoying, to say the least, is that the GOP is going to take the relatively easy step of cutting taxes but not do a damned thing to cut spending. Just like the Kansas GOP did.
Slow down and read 8man's post again. They don't care about deficits / cutting spending. That's the hypocritical part. They've spent the last eight years trashing dems on deficits and don't do a damn thing about it when in power.

I don't think that's what he said, but I absolutely agree that is a fair observation for many GOP pols.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on December 01, 2017, 05:04:43 PM
There is absolutely ZERO evidence this will increase revenues. Just because people [politicians and lobbyists] have said that doesn't make it true.

Speaking of who has claimed this tax bill isn't a completely idiotic way to boost the economy, the "137 economists" list was an utter fraud.

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/01/gops-list-of-economists-backing-tax-cut-includes-ghosts-office-assistants-ex-felons-and-a-sprinkling-of-real-economists/ (https://theintercept.com/2017/12/01/gops-list-of-economists-backing-tax-cut-includes-ghosts-office-assistants-ex-felons-and-a-sprinkling-of-real-economists/)

Quote
Another signatory to the RATE letter, Seth Bied, is not an economist. He is a low-level office assistant at the New York State Tax Department, whose spokesperson said Bied does not remember signing the economists’ letter.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 05:11:07 PM
There is absolutely ZERO evidence this will increase revenues. Just because people [politicians and lobbyists] have said that doesn't make it true.

Speaking of who has claimed this tax bill isn't a completely idiotic way to boost the economy, the "137 economists" list was an utter fraud.

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/01/gops-list-of-economists-backing-tax-cut-includes-ghosts-office-assistants-ex-felons-and-a-sprinkling-of-real-economists/ (https://theintercept.com/2017/12/01/gops-list-of-economists-backing-tax-cut-includes-ghosts-office-assistants-ex-felons-and-a-sprinkling-of-real-economists/)

Quote
Another signatory to the RATE letter, Seth Bied, is not an economist. He is a low-level office assistant at the New York State Tax Department, whose spokesperson said Bied does not remember signing the economists’ letter.


97% agree this will boost the economy. Denier.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on December 01, 2017, 05:14:50 PM
Re-read my post.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on December 01, 2017, 06:47:24 PM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on December 01, 2017, 09:18:14 PM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on December 01, 2017, 09:45:21 PM
So ksw is celebrating saving a buck while his kids are going to get death taxed out the Ass


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on December 01, 2017, 09:47:49 PM
I mean Christ, what a world view


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on December 01, 2017, 09:48:32 PM
I get an extra 1500 and my kids get mumped


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 01, 2017, 10:20:33 PM
Narcissist gonna narcissist
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 10:41:38 PM
Just irrational rage at this point. Sad.

So I'm watching CSPAN right now as they go through the theater of these last amendments. It is incredibly boring except for Ron Wyden from Oregon. Have you guys ever heard him speak before? I hadn't until tonight. The man sounds and looks, and I am not exaggerating, like he is mentally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). Go find any YouTube video.

One more observation: all the college students working as senate aides have to sit on the lowest step of the podium about 10" off the floor, like they're in kindergarten. Can't find any folding chairs for them? Bizarre.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 10:44:49 PM
I get an extra 1500 and my kids get mumped

So it's closer to 7 large under the Senate plan, per year, unless the newly re-inserted AMT bites me. Haven't seen the details on that yet. Might be in one of those hand-revised pages above the Dems are sobbing over. Kids are gonna be great if we can keep socialism in check. But thanks for your concern.

Oh, and invoking people's kids is a huge dickwad move, btw. Get mumped.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 01, 2017, 10:49:25 PM
We have to pass it to know what's in it
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 10:50:40 PM
We have to pass it to know what's in it

We'll have plenty of time to know what's in it during reconciliation.
Title: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 01, 2017, 10:56:01 PM
Just irrational rage at this point. Sad.

So I'm watching CSPAN right now as they go through the theater of these last amendments. It is incredibly boring except for Ron Wyden from Oregon. Have you guys ever heard him speak before? I hadn't until tonight. The man sounds and looks, and I am not exaggerating, like he is mentally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). Go find any YouTube video.

One more observation: all the college students working as senate aides have to sit on the lowest step of the podium about 10" off the floor, like they're in kindergarten. Can't find any folding chairs for them? Bizarre.


Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 01, 2017, 11:01:33 PM
KSUW, I don't know you other than your representation that you make a lot of money, but if this tax bill will save you $7k+ per year in taxes, you are doing something seriously wrong.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 11:04:10 PM
Seriously, turn on CSPAN2 and tell me I'm wrong about the aides.

And Wyden, if you're lucky you'll catch him speaking again - he seems to the be the designated guy for the Dems to object to the GOP's amendments. I swear you can practically see a little drool dripping down his chin as he speaks. US Senator Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 11:09:48 PM
ZOMG Pence just hit the floor to break a 50/50 tie break to vote in favor of a Cruz amendment expanding 529 usage for K-12 spending. The intrigue!

Next Tim Kaine says he wants to drop AMT back down to current levels. Which I guess means the current plan shoved the AMT to a much higher threshold! :woot:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 11:27:59 PM
Oh look, another Dem proposed amendment gets shown down on party lines. :zzz: Seriously how much more of this is Myrtle going to allow?

I'm amazed that not a single one of the senior citizens has fallen asleep yet. They must stay amped on redbull or cocaine. That might actually explain Wyden.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on December 01, 2017, 11:35:15 PM
Own the libs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 01, 2017, 11:37:47 PM
They are trying so hard to pass something, ANYTHING, at this point. You would think they would think something like this out in a responsible way, especially since so much winning. Yet since nothing has been accomplished they are gonna pass this turd and eff generations of people over. 
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 11:40:32 PM
Joe Manchin just got shushed. :lol: (he actually seems like a decent and intelligent guy).
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 11:41:28 PM
They are trying so hard to pass something, ANYTHING, at this point. You would think they would think something like this out in a responsible way, especially since so much winning. Yet since nothing has been accomplished they are gonna pass this turd and eff generations of people over.

Letting people keep more of their own money = rough ridin' generations of people over. Hysterical.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 01, 2017, 11:47:31 PM
They are trying so hard to pass something, ANYTHING, at this point. You would think they would think something like this out in a responsible way, especially since so much winning. Yet since nothing has been accomplished they are gonna pass this turd and eff generations of people over.

Letting people keep more of their own money = rough ridin' generations of people over. Hysterical.

I know you’re a short sited kind of guy that thinks only of himself. That’s fine, it’s your right. Being a HENRY the projections keep your taxes down. However what the CBO charts show fucks lower wage earners over the long term, which impacts generational poverty. Putting your knee in those peoples back is a good thing in your eyes, that’s fine. I’m just stating facts, which we all know you don’t care about.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 11:50:59 PM
They are trying so hard to pass something, ANYTHING, at this point. You would think they would think something like this out in a responsible way, especially since so much winning. Yet since nothing has been accomplished they are gonna pass this turd and eff generations of people over.

Letting people keep more of their own money = rough ridin' generations of people over. Hysterical.

I know you’re a short sited kind of guy that thinks only of himself. That’s fine, it’s your right. Being a HENRY the projections keep your taxes down. However what the CBO charts show fucks lower wage earners over the long term, which impacts generational poverty. Putting your knee in those peoples back is a good thing in your eyes, that’s fine. I’m just stating facts, which we all know you don’t care about.

What's it do for those folks in the short term?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 11:54:56 PM
Just saw Sanders on the floor! He is really old. Gotta be at least 75 right?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 01, 2017, 11:56:26 PM
They are trying so hard to pass something, ANYTHING, at this point. You would think they would think something like this out in a responsible way, especially since so much winning. Yet since nothing has been accomplished they are gonna pass this turd and eff generations of people over.

Letting people keep more of their own money = rough ridin' generations of people over. Hysterical.

I know you’re a short sited kind of guy that thinks only of himself. That’s fine, it’s your right. Being a HENRY the projections keep your taxes down. However what the CBO charts show fucks lower wage earners over the long term, which impacts generational poverty. Putting your knee in those peoples back is a good thing in your eyes, that’s fine. I’m just stating facts, which we all know you don’t care about.

What's it do for those folks in the short term?

Puts more money in their pocket to buy drugs and commit crimes. Which perpetuates the generational poverty. I know this is what you think. So in the end it creates a bigger gap in the wealth distribution charts.  You buy a new minivan and the poor pass on that burden to the next generation.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2017, 11:59:45 PM
They are trying so hard to pass something, ANYTHING, at this point. You would think they would think something like this out in a responsible way, especially since so much winning. Yet since nothing has been accomplished they are gonna pass this turd and eff generations of people over.

Letting people keep more of their own money = rough ridin' generations of people over. Hysterical.

I know you’re a short sited kind of guy that thinks only of himself. That’s fine, it’s your right. Being a HENRY the projections keep your taxes down. However what the CBO charts show fucks lower wage earners over the long term, which impacts generational poverty. Putting your knee in those peoples back is a good thing in your eyes, that’s fine. I’m just stating facts, which we all know you don’t care about.

What's it do for those folks in the short term?

Puts more money in their pocket to buy drugs and commit crimes. Which perpetuates the generational poverty. I know this is what you think. So in the end it creates a bigger gap in the wealth distribution charts.  You buy a new minivan and the poor pass on that burden to the next generation.

:sdeek:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 02, 2017, 12:03:17 AM
Maria Cantwell is seriously angry about opening 1/10,000 of ANWR to oil drilling. And Murkowski is all for it. Drill Baby Drill! :woot:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 02, 2017, 12:06:37 AM
No interns have been molested yet, that I can see. That's probably why they make them sit on the podium at the front as far away from the cloak room as possible.
Title: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 02, 2017, 01:01:32 AM
Turd Bill passes. Don’t get me wrong, I benefit from this thing, even after 2027, but it just feels slimy and not well done at all.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 02, 2017, 07:08:05 AM
I tried but couldn't stay up until the end. Too boring. I hope everyone at least got to see Wyden once.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: mocat on December 02, 2017, 08:21:32 AM
KSUW got wackyball'd last night itt
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 02, 2017, 08:30:34 AM
Quote
"Historians will mark today as one of the darkest black-letter days in the long history of this Senate," Schumer said just before that vote.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: mocat on December 02, 2017, 08:33:28 AM
"mentally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)"
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 02, 2017, 08:54:48 AM
"mentally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)"

That's Wyden, not Shumer. I'll try to find some video of him melting down.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: IPA4Me on December 02, 2017, 09:33:54 AM
Why are you ridiculing someone's physical appearance? I don't understand the point.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: mocat on December 02, 2017, 09:35:54 AM
"mentally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)"

That's Wyden, not Shumer. I'll try to find some video of him melting down.

oh no you misunderstood my post i think
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 02, 2017, 09:46:31 AM
Lower taxes for everyone! :Woot:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 02, 2017, 09:50:22 AM
"mentally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)"

That's Wyden, not Shumer. I'll try to find some video of him melting down.

oh no you misunderstood my post i think

His mental capacity is severely lacking.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 02, 2017, 10:15:28 AM
Lower taxes for everyone! :Woot:

“Everyone”

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171202/111e47752fe1ac09bd76af172b1debfc.jpg)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 02, 2017, 10:16:53 AM
Did they make this thing apply to this year’s taxes?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 02, 2017, 10:17:37 AM
The red boxes indicate paying more taxes. I know comprehension is hard for you FSD so I’m trying to be helpful.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 02, 2017, 10:34:30 AM
Ksuw just creamed his jeans

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: wetwillie on December 02, 2017, 10:38:35 AM
Ksuw just creamed his jeans


ksu's kids go to public school, this is a lsoc wet dream
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on December 02, 2017, 11:47:56 AM
Lower taxes for everyone! :Woot:

“Everyone”

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171202/111e47752fe1ac09bd76af172b1debfc.jpg)

yeah, but poor people in this country have had it too easy for too long. eff 'em, that's what i say.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: _33 on December 02, 2017, 11:52:05 AM
Can't believe Trump decided to pass this tax bill instead of passing a tax bill that will end generational poverty.   :curse:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 02, 2017, 12:17:46 PM
Lol at someone making less than $30k a year paying income taxes at all.

Libtards have gone full #fucktards. There's no coming back
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 02, 2017, 12:19:06 PM
The red boxes indicate paying more taxes. I know comprehension is hard for you FSD so I’m trying to be helpful.

No it means less refund. Those people have a negative income tax rate, fucktard
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 02, 2017, 12:20:26 PM
The red boxes indicate paying more taxes. I know comprehension is hard for you FSD so I’m trying to be helpful.

No it means less refund. Those people have a negative income tax rate, fucktard

So less refund would mean you are being taxed more, yes?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 02, 2017, 12:21:16 PM
Generational poverty  (whatever the eff that is) is totally back in play no that the poors are getting $72 less per year welfare.
- source: libtards who've gone full fucktard
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 02, 2017, 12:24:59 PM
The red boxes indicate paying more taxes. I know comprehension is hard for you FSD so I’m trying to be helpful.

No it means less refund. Those people have a negative income tax rate, fucktard

So less refund would mean you are being taxed more, yes?

If your income tax liability is zero dollars under both scenarios, how are your taxes going up, fucktard?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 02, 2017, 12:25:53 PM
Can't believe Trump decided to pass this tax bill instead of passing a tax bill that will end generational poverty.   :curse:

  :lol:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 02, 2017, 12:26:46 PM
The red boxes indicate paying more taxes. I know comprehension is hard for you FSD so I’m trying to be helpful.

No it means less refund. Those people have a negative income tax rate, fucktard

So less refund would mean you are being taxed more, yes?

If your income tax liability is zero dollars under both scenarios, how are your taxes going up, fucktard?

You only get a refund if you paid too much in taxes. So if you don’t get as big of refund you are paying more in taxes. Like I said, I know comprehension is hard for you.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 02, 2017, 12:28:51 PM
Thanks for taking over for a bit FSD. I went to see a movie and when I got back this thread went full Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). That chart! :love: I for one am appalled that people who currently pay no FIT might not get as big of a "refund." :lol:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 02, 2017, 12:30:52 PM
"mentally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)"

That's Wyden, not Shumer. I'll try to find some video of him melting down.

oh no you misunderstood my post i think

His mental capacity is severely lacking.

Oh no I understood exactly what you were doing. I just reinterpreted it to take another dig at Wyden.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 02, 2017, 12:33:38 PM
Why are you ridiculing someone's physical appearance? I don't understand the point.

It's not really about his physical appearance. Or not just about that. If I saw Wyden walking down the street I would just think "there's a dude with a really terrible haircut." But if you then listen to him talk... from a lectern on the Senate floor... it really hits home: This moron is a US Senator. Let me see if I can dig up a video from last night. It was a treat.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 02, 2017, 12:36:10 PM
I was gonna dig up more quotes of liberals losing their crap over letting people keep more of their money (and poor people getting to keep less of other people's money), but the liberal posters here seem to be providing excellent fodder.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 02, 2017, 12:46:25 PM
I'm pretty sure the big tuck genuinely does not understand the income tax system.

That Chris Hayes tweet was lol fucktarded
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 02, 2017, 12:51:49 PM
I'm pretty sure the big tuck genuinely does not understand the income tax system.

That Chris Hayes tweet was lol fucktarded

I’d love to read you trying to explain it.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 02, 2017, 12:52:01 PM
Did they make this thing apply to this year’s taxes?

Sadly almost positive it is not retroactive.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 02, 2017, 12:53:52 PM
I'm pretty sure the big tuck genuinely does not understand the income tax system.

That Chris Hayes tweet was lol fucktarded

I’d love to read you trying to explain it.

Google EIC. Prepare to have your mind blown.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 02, 2017, 01:02:12 PM
I'm pretty sure the big tuck genuinely does not understand the income tax system.

That Chris Hayes tweet was lol fucktarded

I’d love to read you trying to explain it.

Google EIC. Prepare to have your mind blown.

Why do you tease him like that? The minute he googles that he's gonna mostly see a lot of liberals bitching about how this bill effs the poors.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: wetwillie on December 02, 2017, 01:05:52 PM
so this thing is projected to add 1 trillion to the national debt huh?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: michigancat on December 02, 2017, 01:06:25 PM
Reagan called the EITC "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress”
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 02, 2017, 01:10:42 PM
What spending we going to cut now?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 02, 2017, 01:24:32 PM
I don't think the EIC is going away, it's just one of many examples of how people who don't pay income taxes get refunds. Trying to educate the libtarded is yeomans work.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 02, 2017, 01:27:56 PM
So how's my pass through LLC profits looking?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on December 02, 2017, 01:47:06 PM
So how's my pass through LLC profits looking?

there's no way to know, yet.  they have to reconcile.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 02, 2017, 01:56:35 PM
 :pray:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on December 02, 2017, 02:00:51 PM
i don't think pass-throughers like you and i would benefit regardless, but i'm very far from sure.  i haven't seen anything that well explains the senate details.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 02, 2017, 02:03:17 PM
I mean, lowering the rate would benefit
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on December 02, 2017, 02:09:37 PM
right, but i think we're still excluded.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 02, 2017, 02:18:48 PM
Quote
Lower taxes on pass-through business income: Most U.S. businesses are set up as pass-throughs, not corporations. That means their profits are passed through to the owners, shareholders and partners, who pay tax on them on their personal returns under ordinary income tax rates.

Both the House and Senate bills lower taxes on the business portion of a filer's passthrough income.

The House bill dropped the top income tax rate to 25% from 39.6%, while prohibiting anyone providing professional services (e.g., lawyers and accountants) from taking advantage of the lower rate. It also phases in a lower rate of 9% for businesses that earn less than $75,000.

The Senate bill lowers taxes on filers in pass-throughs by letting them deduct 23% of their income, up from 17.4% originally.

The 23% deduction would be prohibited for anyone in a service business -- except those with taxable incomes under $500,000 if married ($250,000 if single).

Prevent abuse of pass-through tax break: If the owner or partner in a pass-through also draws a salary from the business, that money would be subject to ordinary income tax rates.

But to prevent people from recharacterizing their wage income as business profits to get the benefit of the pass-through deduction, the Senate bill would automatically limit the deduction to half of the W-2 wages of the pass-through entity or its share to the individual taxpayer. The W-2 rule would not apply, however, if the filer's taxable income is under $500,000 if married, $250,000 if single.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on December 02, 2017, 02:31:17 PM
if this explanation is correct, it sounds like the senate version would benefit me (and presumably dugout).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2017/11/27/senates-five-haircuts-on-the-tax-deduction-for-pass-through-entities/#4967c0891fde
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 02, 2017, 03:03:51 PM
I'm happy for you guys!  :cheers:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 02, 2017, 03:36:18 PM
That's what it's all about guys!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 02, 2017, 04:34:43 PM
That's what it's all about guys!

How about you, Phil Titola?  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 02, 2017, 04:43:26 PM
That's what it's all about guys!

How about you, Phil Titola?  :thumbsup:

what I get out of this is the least of my concern here TBH.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on December 02, 2017, 04:45:43 PM
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2017/12/02/winners-and-losers-of-the-senate-tax-bill/#21511191254d
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on December 02, 2017, 04:57:28 PM
Butthurt lib article


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on December 02, 2017, 05:24:17 PM
ksu-dubs spreadsheet disagrees with lib slam piece
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 02, 2017, 05:36:38 PM
Winners:  Everyone ITT
Losers: the libtards, per usual
  :lol:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Spracne on December 02, 2017, 05:37:04 PM
I'd take a lib slam piece over W's spread sheet twice a day and three times on Sunday.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 03, 2017, 08:21:10 AM
Quote
BERNIE SANDERS: As I think about what's going on here today, I think this is in many ways a historic day, a day that historians will look back on: December 1, 2017.

And they will conclude that today is the day of one of the great robberies, criminal activities if you like, in the modern history of this country, because the federal treasury is being looted tonight.

Yup, to a socialist, letting people keep more of their money is robbery!

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/01/sanders_this_tax_bill_will_be_remembered_as_one_of_the_great_robberies_in_history.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/01/sanders_this_tax_bill_will_be_remembered_as_one_of_the_great_robberies_in_history.html)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 03, 2017, 08:27:59 AM
Quote
Political commentators are increasingly suggesting that we are in the midst of, or headed toward, another "civil war," metaphorically speaking. I'm not speaking metaphorically at all. This tax bill is not so much a tax bill as a declaration of war. A declaration of war on not just certain identifiable  states but also their predominant ideology and economic model.

He's not speaking metaphorically, guys.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2017-12-01/gop-tax-bill-declares-war-on-blue-states (https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2017-12-01/gop-tax-bill-declares-war-on-blue-states)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on December 03, 2017, 11:42:02 AM
I mean, reducing the property tax deduction does really eff over homeowners in NYC, Chicago, Boston etc. That kind of does seem targeted to affect Democrats disproportionately. At least if they keep it at $10k it will only affect people who won't miss it much.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 03, 2017, 12:45:41 PM
I mean, reducing the property tax deduction does really eff over homeowners in NYC, Chicago, Boston etc. That kind of does seem targeted to affect Democrats disproportionately. At least if they keep it at $10k it will only affect people who won't miss it much.

If sure their respective state and local governments will make it right.   :lol:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on December 03, 2017, 12:47:21 PM
I mean, reducing the property tax deduction does really eff over homeowners in NYC, Chicago, Boston etc. That kind of does seem targeted to affect Democrats disproportionately. At least if they keep it at $10k it will only affect people who won't miss it much.

If sure their respective state and local governments will make it right.   :lol:
Ha... Not likely.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 03, 2017, 02:29:34 PM
What spending we going to cut now?

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on December 03, 2017, 02:35:23 PM
What spending we going to cut now?
None. Republicans and Democrats don't care about increasing the deficit
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 03, 2017, 03:50:35 PM
What spending we going to cut now?

Hopefully spending on generational poverty, cuz that ain't working.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: IPA4Me on December 03, 2017, 05:26:08 PM
Apparently, Iowans in the 99% bracket have issues.

Quote
““I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.””

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2017/12/02/tax-reform-iowa-farmers-estate-tax/906946001/
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 03, 2017, 05:37:12 PM
republicans are so gross
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: bucket on December 03, 2017, 05:37:47 PM
Apparently, Iowans in the 99% bracket have issues.

Quote
““I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.””

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2017/12/02/tax-reform-iowa-farmers-estate-tax/906946001/

I'm an Iowan
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: michigancat on December 03, 2017, 05:37:57 PM
Apparently, Iowans in the 99% bracket have issues.

Quote
““I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.””

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2017/12/02/tax-reform-iowa-farmers-estate-tax/906946001/
I thought it was just a guy that said that. But nope, that was a senator. Unreal
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 03, 2017, 05:39:55 PM
I thought the whole point of cuts is to encourage spending.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: IPA4Me on December 03, 2017, 05:40:43 PM
Apparently, Iowans in the 99% bracket have issues.

Quote
““I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.””

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2017/12/02/tax-reform-iowa-farmers-estate-tax/906946001/

I'm an Iowan
Your senator has no respect for you.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on December 03, 2017, 08:32:17 PM
I thought the whole point of cuts is to encourage spending.

Rich people aren't all that great at spending money.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 03, 2017, 08:33:58 PM
Just weird to act like people who spend all their income should not be the biggest target of tax cuts.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: puniraptor on December 03, 2017, 08:36:04 PM
the REAL idea is that by lowering taxes on the rich, people will be incentivized to become rich. previously, being rich was so burdensome, it just wasn't worth it to make the jump.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on December 03, 2017, 08:45:31 PM
the REAL idea is that by lowering taxes on the rich, people will be incentivized to become rich. previously, being rich was so burdensome, it just wasn't worth it to make the jump.

I turn down offers to be paid more ALL the time. I mean, the govt is just going to take their cut and leave me with lots of money still.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on December 03, 2017, 09:04:40 PM
I think once this kicks in, I'll have my housekeeper come an extra time every week. TRICKLE DOWN, ROUGH RIDERS!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on December 03, 2017, 09:57:45 PM
Invalid Tweet ID
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 04, 2017, 08:10:59 AM
I'm basically at max spend now. I don't know how I'm going to trickle this down better. Can fsd or ksuw help me?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 04, 2017, 09:06:53 AM
I'm basically at max spend now. I don't know how I'm going to trickle this down better. Can fsd or ksuw help me?

Mrs. Titola should be a SAHM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 04, 2017, 09:34:45 AM

Dow soars 300 points higher to record as Street cheers Senate passing tax bill (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/04/us-stock-futures-dow-data-tax-plan-opec-politics-on-the-agenda.html)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on December 04, 2017, 10:20:08 AM
I really like this quote from a former Office Depot executive:

Quote
But Nelson said he doubted the cuts would generate significant corporate investment. Companies already need to be ruthless about lowering costs. He couldn’t imagine a company waiting for a tax cut to become more efficient. And he didn’t expect the tax cuts to translate into pay raises.

“There’s no such thing as trickle-down,” Nelson said.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 04, 2017, 11:38:49 AM
I really like this quote from a former Office Depot executive:

Quote
But Nelson said he doubted the cuts would generate significant corporate investment. Companies already need to be ruthless about lowering costs. He couldn’t imagine a company waiting for a tax cut to become more efficient. And he didn’t expect the tax cuts to translate into pay raises.

“There’s no such thing as trickle-down,” Nelson said.

Well there you have it: straight from a former Office Depot executive.

I like this quote....

this thing is DOA
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 04, 2017, 11:44:37 AM
The office depot by my house just went out of business.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 04, 2017, 12:30:35 PM
 
The office depot by my house just went out of business.

T's & P's
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 04, 2017, 12:36:59 PM
Should have given them one more payday loan
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 04, 2017, 12:44:06 PM
 If they tried to open an Office Depot in my neighborhood there would be a riot
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 04, 2017, 12:54:59 PM
So are kdub and fsd admitting that they think trickle down works?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 04, 2017, 01:12:12 PM
So are kdub and fsd admitting that they think trickle down works?

Yes, I think supply side economics works. So do a great many economists.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 04, 2017, 01:22:33 PM
So are kdub and fsd admitting that they think trickle down works?

Yes, I think supply side economics works. So do a great many economists.

Are you referring to such renowned economists as Gil Sylvia?

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=38387.msg1787086#msg1787086
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 04, 2017, 01:29:52 PM
being totally honest I intend to spend more with my tax cut.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 04, 2017, 01:33:02 PM
So are kdub and fsd admitting that they think trickle down works?

Yes, I think supply side economics works. So do a great many economists.

Are you referring to such renowned economists as Gil Sylvia?

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=38387.msg1787086#msg1787086

No. But I do appreciate that the "97%" crowd is suddenly interested in parsing a list of so-called experts. :cheers:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on December 04, 2017, 01:33:58 PM
To be perfectly honest, changes to the amount of taxes that I pay will not change my behavior in any way. I will not even notice a difference. I will have absolutely no idea if I am paying more or less in taxes.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 04, 2017, 01:39:38 PM
So are kdub and fsd admitting that they think trickle down works?

Yes, I think supply side economics works. So do a great many economists.

Are you referring to such renowned economists as Gil Sylvia?

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=38387.msg1787086#msg1787086

No. But I do appreciate that the "97%" crowd is suddenly interested in parsing a list of so-called experts. :cheers:

If the list represented even a significant fraction of real economists then you would be right, that would be a bit ironic.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on December 04, 2017, 01:40:18 PM
So are kdub and fsd admitting that they think trickle down works?

Yes, I think supply side economics works. So do a great many economists.

It's worked out so well for KS, hasn't it?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: mocat on December 04, 2017, 02:18:39 PM
To be perfectly honest, changes to the amount of taxes that I pay will not change my behavior in any way. I will not even notice a difference. I will have absolutely no idea if I am paying more or less in taxes.

yep
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Yard Dog on December 04, 2017, 03:38:21 PM
To be perfectly honest, changes to the amount of taxes that I pay will not change my behavior in any way. I will not even notice a difference. I will have absolutely no idea if I am paying more or less in taxes.

yep

100% this. Since the vast majority of people on salary pre pays their taxes throughout the year I would think they wouldn't notice much of a change at all. I'd almost think the annual COLA would cover the bump.

Someone with more knowledge than me, will my company automatically adjust the amount that will come out of my paycheck each month or will I need to do that?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Yard Dog on December 04, 2017, 03:40:23 PM
What spending we going to cut now?

I am still holding out hope that some sort of technology breakthrough will make the military a lot cheaper to operate without cutting salaries to any of our service men and women.

It is the balance between wanting to spend less on defense while still being able to wag our giant military willy around to make our enemies quiver in fear.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 04, 2017, 03:46:40 PM
To be perfectly honest, changes to the amount of taxes that I pay will not change my behavior in any way. I will not even notice a difference. I will have absolutely no idea if I am paying more or less in taxes.

yep

Weird to me to be so ambivalent toward your own finances that you wouldn't even a notice a difference in taxes.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 04, 2017, 03:50:22 PM
Most of us don't live beyond our means
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 04, 2017, 04:51:48 PM
I pay quarterly and expect to rev this economy up to 11 every quarter.  lets party
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 04, 2017, 04:55:18 PM
Pretty proud of Congressional Dems and their lemmings for doing a complete 180 from, "it's just numbers" and "it's only money".

Also good to see some good ironclad fiscal conservatism back in the Lib movement after being so Cucked for 8 years as the deficit was ratcheted up by $6 trillion.   Nice backbone!



Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: mocat on December 04, 2017, 04:56:48 PM
To be perfectly honest, changes to the amount of taxes that I pay will not change my behavior in any way. I will not even notice a difference. I will have absolutely no idea if I am paying more or less in taxes.

yep

Weird to me to be so ambivalent toward your own finances that you wouldn't even a notice a difference in taxes.

maybe if my income and insurance premiums and retirement savings all stayed fixed year-to-year i would notice a change in my federal taxes
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on December 04, 2017, 05:02:34 PM
Whoops.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: IPA4Me on December 04, 2017, 05:14:34 PM
Oh. That's rich.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 04, 2017, 05:41:24 PM
The deficit matters* - dax

*unless Republicans are adding to it then it doesn't matter
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 04, 2017, 05:43:45 PM
The deficit matters* - dax

*unless Republicans are adding to it then it doesn't matter

Didn't say that lib.

It's just hilarious to see Lib's now all about fiscal responsibility and melting down over projections while standing by completly Cucked as the actual numbers rolled in to the tune of $6 trillion (in spite of all time record tax receipts over the last 3 or 4 years).



Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 04, 2017, 05:50:03 PM
So only "libs" have done a 180 on the subject of fiscal responsibility? Have you seen ksuw literally masturbating because he gets to add to the debt?  No hilarity about ksuw bitching about insurance premiums for years (omabacare!!!  :curse: ) and then passing a bill that will for sure make premiums rise significantly?

Sad how cucked you are bud  :frown:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 04, 2017, 05:54:28 PM
So only "libs" have done a 180 on the subject of fiscal responsibility? Have you seen ksuw literally masturbating because he gets to add to the debt?  No hilarity about ksuw bitching about insurance premiums for years (omabacare!!!  :curse: ) and then passing a bill that will for sure make premiums rise significantly?

Sad how cucked you are bud  :frown:

LOL, I want to see spending cut. 

But you just stood by and said crap like "just numbers" and "only money" while your hero racked up all-time record debt aka more debt than any other president in U.S. history all the while collecting all time record annual tax receipts for 3 or 4 consecutive years.   

But nice little meltdown (as usual)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 04, 2017, 05:57:13 PM
You don't read very well when you're seething with rage do you?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 04, 2017, 06:00:56 PM
You don't read very well when you're seething with rage do you?

I read perfectly fine.

Ensure insurance premiums to rise?  LOL, they've risen every year since ObamaCare was passed, where were you then?

Libs have no standing on the debt, you went face down ass up for Obama, and let him ram $6 trillion in new debt and then you blew it all off with by saying things like "only numbers".   Now you're melting down over projections. :lol:





Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 04, 2017, 06:02:50 PM
You don't read very well when you're seething with rage do you?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 04, 2017, 06:03:56 PM
You don't read very well when you're seething with rage do you?

So, nothing, as usual.  Sad
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 04, 2017, 07:18:58 PM
what specific policies created more debt under Obama Dax?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on December 04, 2017, 07:36:14 PM
Title: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 04, 2017, 08:25:48 PM
Anyone in congress who is surprised by a move like that is way too gullible to represent millions of people.

They knew what was going to happen and are just too spineless to admit they fell in line against their principles.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 04, 2017, 08:27:41 PM
what specific policies created more debt under Obama Dax?

This is just begging to get “but Hillary-ed.”
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 04, 2017, 08:49:17 PM
what specific policies created more debt under Obama Dax?

LOL, so in essence your seeking to recuse the Obama administration from all culpability.   

Where does defense spending get initiated Phil?

Making tax cuts permanent (why was it okay back then?)






Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 04, 2017, 09:00:09 PM
It’s too bad we can’t get bipartisan support for lower insurance premiums and not deporting productive members of society that really should be citizens.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 04, 2017, 09:04:42 PM
It’s too bad we can’t get bipartisan support for lower insurance premiums and not deporting productive members of society that really should be citizens.

8 years to fix immigration in a real way, and instead it was just an open invitation to have a border free-for-all coupled with a weird deportation bent.

Purposeful?

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on December 04, 2017, 09:06:35 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/04/is-the-gop-tax-plan-an-unprecedented-windfall-for-the-wealthy-we-look-at-50-years-of-data-to-find-out/

Most regressive cut in 50 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 04, 2017, 09:15:23 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/04/is-the-gop-tax-plan-an-unprecedented-windfall-for-the-wealthy-we-look-at-50-years-of-data-to-find-out/

Most regressive cut in 50 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At the end of the day, the truly wealthy are already working every loophole there is to avoid taxation.   Using the term "unprecedented windfall" is hilariously disingenuous but it sells to the idiots.    The WaPo's owner (for example) has an army of lawyers and accountants doing everything they can for the boss and his companies to avoid paying taxes. 





Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 04, 2017, 09:55:54 PM
Lower taxes for everyone!  :Woot:

Libtard partisan bitching  :zzz:

Libtard concern for deficits  :Wha:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 04, 2017, 10:19:07 PM

Libtard concern for deficits  :Wha:

The funny thing is you’re calling people on this board libtards solely because they’re complaining about Republicans adding to the deficit.

I have not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in my entire life.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 04, 2017, 10:24:29 PM
So are kdub and fsd admitting that they think trickle down works?

Yes, I think supply side economics works. So do a great many economists.

It's worked out so well for KS, hasn't it?

8 consecutive months exceeding revenue projections :Wha: :Wha:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on December 04, 2017, 10:45:22 PM
So are kdub and fsd admitting that they think trickle down works?

Yes, I think supply side economics works. So do a great many economists.

It's worked out so well for KS, hasn't it?

8 consecutive months exceeding revenue projections :Wha: :Wha:

6 months of which is after Brownbacks veto was overridden and taxes were raised. Still a 320 million budget deficit. You moron.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 04, 2017, 10:51:25 PM
So are kdub and fsd admitting that they think trickle down works?

Yes, I think supply side economics works. So do a great many economists.

It's worked out so well for KS, hasn't it?

8 consecutive months exceeding revenue projections :Wha: :Wha:

6 months of which is after Brownbacks veto was overridden and taxes were raised. Still a 320 million budget deficit. You moron.

Only money, just numbers.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on December 04, 2017, 10:57:59 PM
So are kdub and fsd admitting that they think trickle down works?

Yes, I think supply side economics works. So do a great many economists.

It's worked out so well for KS, hasn't it?

8 consecutive months exceeding revenue projections :Wha: :Wha:

6 months of which is after Brownbacks veto was overridden and taxes were raised. Still a 320 million budget deficit. You moron.

Only money, just numbers.

Your strawman doesn't pertain to me
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on December 05, 2017, 07:43:27 AM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 06, 2017, 02:54:43 PM
get a haircut Wolfers
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 06, 2017, 03:34:17 PM

Again, everyone knew this going into it.  They just did not have the guts to kill the bill.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: bucket on December 06, 2017, 04:29:46 PM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 06, 2017, 04:31:21 PM
And it's the same guy suing john oliver
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 06, 2017, 04:36:04 PM
So are kdub and fsd admitting that they think trickle down works?

Yes, I think supply side economics works. So do a great many economists.

It's worked out so well for KS, hasn't it?

8 consecutive months exceeding revenue projections :Wha: :Wha:

6 months of which is after Brownbacks veto was overridden and taxes were raised. Still a 320 million budget deficit. You moron.

Only money, just numbers.



Your strawman doesn't pertain to me

The standard Dem answer to all deficit and budget matters for 8 consecutive years is absolutely applicable to this entire discussion.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 13, 2017, 01:44:40 PM
House and Senate are getting pretty close to a deal on the tax reform package. "Raising" the corporate rate to 21-22% makes it pretty easy to pay for the other changes necessary to resolve the differences. Sounds like the only remaining sticking point is rates and rules for pass-through business income.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gop-tax-plan-20171213-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gop-tax-plan-20171213-story.html)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 13, 2017, 01:49:09 PM
House and Senate are getting pretty close to a deal on the tax reform package. "Raising" the corporate rate to 21-22% makes it pretty easy to pay for the other changes necessary to resolve the differences. Sounds like the only remaining sticking point is rates and rules for pass-through business income.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gop-tax-plan-20171213-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gop-tax-plan-20171213-story.html)

I mean, that is the entire premise of his dipshit plan is to cut taxes for us so we go spend it or reinvest.  WTH is the problem with these gross losers actually following through?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 13, 2017, 02:01:16 PM
House and Senate are getting pretty close to a deal on the tax reform package. "Raising" the corporate rate to 21-22% makes it pretty easy to pay for the other changes necessary to resolve the differences. Sounds like the only remaining sticking point is rates and rules for pass-through business income.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gop-tax-plan-20171213-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gop-tax-plan-20171213-story.html)

I mean, that is the entire premise of his dipshit plan is to cut taxes for us so we go spend it or reinvest.  WTH is the problem with these gross losers actually following through?

Can you explain the issue?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 13, 2017, 02:15:32 PM
Here's how I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong (I am far far far from knowledgeable about this)...

Typical C-Corporations are subject to double taxation, at least theoretically. They pay taxes once on their profits, and then the shareholders are taxed again on any distributions from the business. I say theoretically because there are evidently all kinds of ways to essentially pay zero corporate income tax, but the shareholders still pay the personal income tax on distributions.

S-Corps and other pass-through entities don't have to pay corporate income tax, as long as they follow certain rules, but the shareholders still pay personal income tax on distributions, just like shareholders of C-Corps.

Do I have that right?

If so, I totally understand why we would reduce the corporate income tax rate on C-Corps, but why would S-Corps get a special personal income tax rate on their distributions? Aren't they already receiving favorable tax treatment by not having to pay any corporate income tax?

What's the argument?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on December 13, 2017, 02:37:59 PM
It looks like they are removing the stupid stuff that targeted grad students that you thought was a good idea.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 13, 2017, 02:46:09 PM
Here's how I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong (I am far far far from knowledgeable about this)...

Typical C-Corporations are subject to double taxation, at least theoretically. They pay taxes once on their profits, and then the shareholders are taxed again on any distributions from the business. I say theoretically because there are evidently all kinds of ways to essentially pay zero corporate income tax, but the shareholders still pay the personal income tax on distributions.

S-Corps and other pass-through entities don't have to pay corporate income tax, as long as they follow certain rules, but the shareholders still pay personal income tax on distributions, just like shareholders of C-Corps.

Do I have that right?

If so, I totally understand why we would reduce the corporate income tax rate on C-Corps, but why would S-Corps get a special personal income tax rate on their distributions? Aren't they already receiving favorable tax treatment by not having to pay any corporate income tax?

What's the argument?

Members of LLC's are employing people and buying office ferns - it's the engine of the economy bro.
Title: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 13, 2017, 02:53:55 PM
Fewer businesses (ESPECIALLY small businesses) are organized as C corporations. If the bill is cutting the corporate tax rate for the sake of creating jobs it makes no sense not to give similar breaks to LLCs and S Corps.

Of course, if the intent of cutting the corporate tax rate is to allow fatter bottom lines and bigger bonuses to mega corporation executives, then it is entirely consistent that the same breaks would not apply to s corps and LLCs.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 13, 2017, 03:04:20 PM
It looks like they are removing the stupid stuff that targeted grad students that you thought was a good idea.

This is very good
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 13, 2017, 03:05:18 PM
Fewer businesses (ESPECIALLY small businesses) are organized as C corporations. If the bill is cutting the corporate tax rate for the sake of creating jobs it makes no sense not to give similar breaks to LLCs and S Corps.

Of course, if the intent of cutting the corporate tax rate is to allow fatter bottom lines and bigger bonuses to mega corporation executives, then it is entirely consistent that the same breaks would not apply to s corps and LLCs.

that is really so obvious only a complete idiot couldn't see it
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: wetwillie on December 13, 2017, 03:05:52 PM
Big Grad with another power move to keep the public money flowing
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 13, 2017, 04:16:16 PM
It looks like they are removing the stupid stuff that targeted grad students that you thought was a good idea.

If by "target" you mean "treat them like everyone else" (or more specifically, require the universities to provide adequate compensation such that they can pay taxes on their scholarships), then it would be a shame for the GOP to back away from this. The higher ed lobby wins again, I guess.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 13, 2017, 04:26:31 PM
Fewer businesses (ESPECIALLY small businesses) are organized as C corporations. If the bill is cutting the corporate tax rate for the sake of creating jobs it makes no sense not to give similar breaks to LLCs and S Corps.

Um, sure it does? Again, s-corps and other pass-through entities already enjoyed a significant tax benefit over c-corps. The pass through entities aren't being double-taxed. They pay personal income taxes on their distributions, which seems fair to me. C-corps get a corporate tax cut to reduce the double taxation, and then still pay personal income tax on the distributions.

Right? So that's why the corporate income tax should be reduced: to lessen double taxation and bring them onto more equal footing with s-corps.

The question I have is why an owner (partner, shareholder, etc.) of an s-corp should pay less personal income tax than a W-2 wage earner. If the goal is to help "small businesses", the vast majority of those won't be impacted by this at all because their marginal personal income tax rate is already less than 25% (that's the proposed max rate for pass-throughs under the house bill). So the rate reduction would only seem to help folks who receive a big enough distribution from an s-corp that their marginal rate would exceed that 25%.

If we are trying to incentivize people to start businesses, seems like the s-corp structure was already a pretty good incentive: open a business and you won't pay any corporate income tax on your profits - you just pay personal income tax on what you take out of the business, same as everyone else.

I understand why Kansas eliminated taxes on s-corps: it was designed to lure businesses to Kansas. But that's a non-issue when implementing nationwide.

At the end of the day, I'm not begrudging anyone getting a better deal than me. I'm already getting a pretty sweet deal. Just seems odd to me that we'd allow two people earning the same amount to pay significantly different rates based on a legal fiction.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 13, 2017, 04:40:04 PM
You know businesses can choose their organizational structure, right?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 13, 2017, 04:47:04 PM
You know businesses can choose their organizational structure, right?

Sort of. As I understand it, there are certain restrictions in place. Not just any business can be an s-corp. I think there is a maximum number of shareholders, restrictions on share classifications, etc. So again, my questions above....
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 13, 2017, 04:50:36 PM
Fewer businesses (ESPECIALLY small businesses) are organized as C corporations. If the bill is cutting the corporate tax rate for the sake of creating jobs it makes no sense not to give similar breaks to LLCs and S Corps.

Um, sure it does? Again, s-corps and other pass-through entities already enjoyed a significant tax benefit over c-corps. The pass through entities aren't being double-taxed. They pay personal income taxes on their distributions, which seems fair to me. C-corps get a corporate tax cut to reduce the double taxation, and then still pay personal income tax on the distributions.

Right? So that's why the corporate income tax should be reduced: to lessen double taxation and bring them onto more equal footing with s-corps.

The question I have is why an owner (partner, shareholder, etc.) of an s-corp should pay less personal income tax than a W-2 wage earner. If the goal is to help "small businesses", the vast majority of those won't be impacted by this at all because their marginal personal income tax rate is already less than 25% (that's the proposed max rate for pass-throughs under the house bill). So the rate reduction would only seem to help folks who receive a big enough distribution from an s-corp that their marginal rate would exceed that 25%.

If we are trying to incentivize people to start businesses, seems like the s-corp structure was already a pretty good incentive: open a business and you won't pay any corporate income tax on your profits - you just pay personal income tax on what you take out of the business, same as everyone else.

I understand why Kansas eliminated taxes on s-corps: it was designed to lure businesses to Kansas. But that's a non-issue when implementing nationwide.

At the end of the day, I'm not begrudging anyone getting a better deal than me. I'm already getting a pretty sweet deal. Just seems odd to me that we'd allow two people earning the same amount to pay significantly different rates based on a legal fiction.

Because the member is not some schmuck w-2 wage earner. 
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: wetwillie on December 13, 2017, 04:52:09 PM
Fewer businesses (ESPECIALLY small businesses) are organized as C corporations. If the bill is cutting the corporate tax rate for the sake of creating jobs it makes no sense not to give similar breaks to LLCs and S Corps.

Um, sure it does? Again, s-corps and other pass-through entities already enjoyed a significant tax benefit over c-corps. The pass through entities aren't being double-taxed. They pay personal income taxes on their distributions, which seems fair to me. C-corps get a corporate tax cut to reduce the double taxation, and then still pay personal income tax on the distributions.

Right? So that's why the corporate income tax should be reduced: to lessen double taxation and bring them onto more equal footing with s-corps.

The question I have is why an owner (partner, shareholder, etc.) of an s-corp should pay less personal income tax than a W-2 wage earner. If the goal is to help "small businesses", the vast majority of those won't be impacted by this at all because their marginal personal income tax rate is already less than 25% (that's the proposed max rate for pass-throughs under the house bill). So the rate reduction would only seem to help folks who receive a big enough distribution from an s-corp that their marginal rate would exceed that 25%.

If we are trying to incentivize people to start businesses, seems like the s-corp structure was already a pretty good incentive: open a business and you won't pay any corporate income tax on your profits - you just pay personal income tax on what you take out of the business, same as everyone else.

I understand why Kansas eliminated taxes on s-corps: it was designed to lure businesses to Kansas. But that's a non-issue when implementing nationwide.

At the end of the day, I'm not begrudging anyone getting a better deal than me. I'm already getting a pretty sweet deal. Just seems odd to me that we'd allow two people earning the same amount to pay significantly different rates based on a legal fiction.

Because the member is not some schmuck w-2 wage earner. 

Wageist
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 13, 2017, 04:54:42 PM
I don't have a problem with reducing taxes on pass-throughs, per se. But I'd probably set it closer to 35% and use the savings to give everyone (including pass-through earners) an even sweeter tax cut.

I guess maybe this is what the House and Senate are currently arguing over (that, and how to structure this to prevent wealthy w-2 wage earners from incorporating). Seems like a worthwhile discussion. But I can't sympathize with the side pushing for a bigger pass-through cut.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 13, 2017, 04:55:33 PM
Fewer businesses (ESPECIALLY small businesses) are organized as C corporations. If the bill is cutting the corporate tax rate for the sake of creating jobs it makes no sense not to give similar breaks to LLCs and S Corps.

Um, sure it does? Again, s-corps and other pass-through entities already enjoyed a significant tax benefit over c-corps. The pass through entities aren't being double-taxed. They pay personal income taxes on their distributions, which seems fair to me. C-corps get a corporate tax cut to reduce the double taxation, and then still pay personal income tax on the distributions.

Right? So that's why the corporate income tax should be reduced: to lessen double taxation and bring them onto more equal footing with s-corps.

You're presuming these two organizational structures should be on equal footing, but why?  Are you just assuming that the legislators who allowed for s-corps accidentally made them way better than c-corps?  And regardless of that distinction, you can organize an LLC just about however you want.  If a c-corp really thought they were getting a raw deal, they would change organizational structures.

The question I have is why an owner (partner, shareholder, etc.) of an s-corp should pay less personal income tax than a W-2 wage earner. If the goal is to help "small businesses", the vast majority of those won't be impacted by this at all because their marginal personal income tax rate is already less than 25% (that's the proposed max rate for pass-throughs under the house bill). So the rate reduction would only seem to help folks who receive a big enough distribution from an s-corp that their marginal rate would exceed that 25%.

So you do or do not believe in trickle down economics?  Need an answer on that first, because that is exactly the point of allowing the owners of pass-through entities to keep more money.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: yoga-like_abana on December 13, 2017, 04:56:33 PM
so am I getting a crap ton or no crap for this lovely new tax deduction that was born in december?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 13, 2017, 04:57:36 PM
so am I getting a crap ton or no crap for this lovely new tax deduction that was born in december?

Should be golden for next year.  The year after, it likely will depend on what number you are on and how much you make.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 13, 2017, 04:58:34 PM
Fewer businesses (ESPECIALLY small businesses) are organized as C corporations. If the bill is cutting the corporate tax rate for the sake of creating jobs it makes no sense not to give similar breaks to LLCs and S Corps.

Um, sure it does? Again, s-corps and other pass-through entities already enjoyed a significant tax benefit over c-corps. The pass through entities aren't being double-taxed. They pay personal income taxes on their distributions, which seems fair to me. C-corps get a corporate tax cut to reduce the double taxation, and then still pay personal income tax on the distributions.

Right? So that's why the corporate income tax should be reduced: to lessen double taxation and bring them onto more equal footing with s-corps.

You're presuming these two organizational structures should be on equal footing, but why?  Are you just assuming that the legislators who allowed for s-corps accidentally made them way better than c-corps?  And regardless of that distinction, you can organize an LLC just about however you want.  If a c-corp really thought they were getting a raw deal, they would change organizational structures.

The question I have is why an owner (partner, shareholder, etc.) of an s-corp should pay less personal income tax than a W-2 wage earner. If the goal is to help "small businesses", the vast majority of those won't be impacted by this at all because their marginal personal income tax rate is already less than 25% (that's the proposed max rate for pass-throughs under the house bill). So the rate reduction would only seem to help folks who receive a big enough distribution from an s-corp that their marginal rate would exceed that 25%.

So you do or do not believe in trickle down economics?  Need an answer on that first, because that is exactly the point of allowing the owners of pass-through entities to keep more money.

I absolutely believe in supply side economics. But I think that applies regardless of whether someone is a w-2 wage earner or self incorporates. Again, pass throughs already get a big benefit of paying zero corporate income tax. Once you take a distribution, pay the same personal income tax as anyone else. Cut those taxes to the same levels for everyone.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: hjfklmor on December 13, 2017, 04:59:55 PM
Fewer businesses (ESPECIALLY small businesses) are organized as C corporations. If the bill is cutting the corporate tax rate for the sake of creating jobs it makes no sense not to give similar breaks to LLCs and S Corps.

Um, sure it does? Again, s-corps and other pass-through entities already enjoyed a significant tax benefit over c-corps. The pass through entities aren't being double-taxed. They pay personal income taxes on their distributions, which seems fair to me. C-corps get a corporate tax cut to reduce the double taxation, and then still pay personal income tax on the distributions.

Right? So that's why the corporate income tax should be reduced: to lessen double taxation and bring them onto more equal footing with s-corps.

The question I have is why an owner (partner, shareholder, etc.) of an s-corp should pay less personal income tax than a W-2 wage earner. If the goal is to help "small businesses", the vast majority of those won't be impacted by this at all because their marginal personal income tax rate is already less than 25% (that's the proposed max rate for pass-throughs under the house bill). So the rate reduction would only seem to help folks who receive a big enough distribution from an s-corp that their marginal rate would exceed that 25%.

If we are trying to incentivize people to start businesses, seems like the s-corp structure was already a pretty good incentive: open a business and you won't pay any corporate income tax on your profits - you just pay personal income tax on what you take out of the business, same as everyone else.

I understand why Kansas eliminated taxes on s-corps: it was designed to lure businesses to Kansas. But that's a non-issue when implementing nationwide.

At the end of the day, I'm not begrudging anyone getting a better deal than me. I'm already getting a pretty sweet deal. Just seems odd to me that we'd allow two people earning the same amount to pay significantly different rates based on a legal fiction.

S corps and partnerships are taxed on their earnings. Its the distributions that are tax free.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 13, 2017, 05:01:54 PM
man now kaz dub is a socialist?  gross
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 13, 2017, 05:03:14 PM
I also think it is a great idea to help small businesses. But I don't think the proposed rate reduction does that, because most truly small business won't pay a high enough marginal personal income tax rate to hit that max 25%. A better model to help small businesses would be make a certain amount of s-corp income tax free, rather than just imposing a max rate of 25% that most won't ever hit. As things currently stand, this is a nice windfall for the wealthy. I'm all about reducing taxes on the wealthy, but seems like everyone should get the same reduction regardless of whether you're a wealthy w-2 earner or pass-through recipient.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 13, 2017, 05:04:05 PM
Fewer businesses (ESPECIALLY small businesses) are organized as C corporations. If the bill is cutting the corporate tax rate for the sake of creating jobs it makes no sense not to give similar breaks to LLCs and S Corps.

Um, sure it does? Again, s-corps and other pass-through entities already enjoyed a significant tax benefit over c-corps. The pass through entities aren't being double-taxed. They pay personal income taxes on their distributions, which seems fair to me. C-corps get a corporate tax cut to reduce the double taxation, and then still pay personal income tax on the distributions.

Right? So that's why the corporate income tax should be reduced: to lessen double taxation and bring them onto more equal footing with s-corps.

The question I have is why an owner (partner, shareholder, etc.) of an s-corp should pay less personal income tax than a W-2 wage earner. If the goal is to help "small businesses", the vast majority of those won't be impacted by this at all because their marginal personal income tax rate is already less than 25% (that's the proposed max rate for pass-throughs under the house bill). So the rate reduction would only seem to help folks who receive a big enough distribution from an s-corp that their marginal rate would exceed that 25%.

If we are trying to incentivize people to start businesses, seems like the s-corp structure was already a pretty good incentive: open a business and you won't pay any corporate income tax on your profits - you just pay personal income tax on what you take out of the business, same as everyone else.

I understand why Kansas eliminated taxes on s-corps: it was designed to lure businesses to Kansas. But that's a non-issue when implementing nationwide.

At the end of the day, I'm not begrudging anyone getting a better deal than me. I'm already getting a pretty sweet deal. Just seems odd to me that we'd allow two people earning the same amount to pay significantly different rates based on a legal fiction.

S corps and partnerships are taxed on their earnings. Its the distributions that are tax free.

I did not know this. So how's that different from a c-corp?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 13, 2017, 05:06:00 PM
I also think it is a great idea to help small businesses. But I don't think the proposed rate reduction does that, because most truly small business won't pay a high enough marginal personal income tax rate to hit that max 25%. A better model to help small businesses would be make a certain amount of s-corp income tax free, rather than just imposing a max rate of 25% that most won't ever hit. As things currently stand, this is a nice windfall for the wealthy. I'm all about reducing taxes on the wealthy, but seems like everyone should get the same reduction regardless of whether you're a wealthy w-2 earner or pass-through recipient.

let's give a tax cut to the w-2 earner who makes my latte omg that will help the economy  :ROFL:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: hjfklmor on December 13, 2017, 05:06:20 PM
I also think it is a great idea to help small businesses. But I don't think the proposed rate reduction does that, because most truly small business won't pay a high enough marginal personal income tax rate to hit that max 25%. A better model to help small businesses would be make a certain amount of s-corp income tax free, rather than just imposing a max rate of 25% that most won't ever hit. As things currently stand, this is a nice windfall for the wealthy. I'm all about reducing taxes on the wealthy, but seems like everyone should get the same reduction regardless of whether you're a wealthy w-2 earner or pass-through recipient.

What you are proposing is the treatment that passthroughs get in the Senate version of the bill.

Quote
(a) In General.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there shall be allowed as a deduction for any taxable year an amount equal to the lesser of—

“(1) the combined qualified business income amount of the taxpayer, or

“(2) an amount equal to 23 percent of the excess (if any) of—

“(A) the taxable income of the taxpayer for the taxable year, over

“(B) any net capital gain (as defined in section 1(h)) of the taxpayer for the taxable year.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: hjfklmor on December 13, 2017, 05:09:51 PM
Fewer businesses (ESPECIALLY small businesses) are organized as C corporations. If the bill is cutting the corporate tax rate for the sake of creating jobs it makes no sense not to give similar breaks to LLCs and S Corps.

Um, sure it does? Again, s-corps and other pass-through entities already enjoyed a significant tax benefit over c-corps. The pass through entities aren't being double-taxed. They pay personal income taxes on their distributions, which seems fair to me. C-corps get a corporate tax cut to reduce the double taxation, and then still pay personal income tax on the distributions.

Right? So that's why the corporate income tax should be reduced: to lessen double taxation and bring them onto more equal footing with s-corps.

The question I have is why an owner (partner, shareholder, etc.) of an s-corp should pay less personal income tax than a W-2 wage earner. If the goal is to help "small businesses", the vast majority of those won't be impacted by this at all because their marginal personal income tax rate is already less than 25% (that's the proposed max rate for pass-throughs under the house bill). So the rate reduction would only seem to help folks who receive a big enough distribution from an s-corp that their marginal rate would exceed that 25%.

If we are trying to incentivize people to start businesses, seems like the s-corp structure was already a pretty good incentive: open a business and you won't pay any corporate income tax on your profits - you just pay personal income tax on what you take out of the business, same as everyone else.

I understand why Kansas eliminated taxes on s-corps: it was designed to lure businesses to Kansas. But that's a non-issue when implementing nationwide.

At the end of the day, I'm not begrudging anyone getting a better deal than me. I'm already getting a pretty sweet deal. Just seems odd to me that we'd allow two people earning the same amount to pay significantly different rates based on a legal fiction.

S corps and partnerships are taxed on their earnings. Its the distributions that are tax free.

I did not know this. So how's that different from a c-corp?

C corps are taxed on their earnings at a max rate of 35%, currently. Distributions (dividends) are taxed on the individual return at potentially beneficial rates.

S corps and partnerships are taxed on their earnings on each shareholder or partners individual return, potentially at a 39.6% marginal rate. S corp shareholders who work for their company (active investors) also receive a W-2 and are taxed on their wages.

Choice of entity isTaxes are complicated.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on December 13, 2017, 05:10:42 PM
It looks like they are removing the stupid stuff that targeted grad students that you thought was a good idea.

If by "target" you mean "treat them like everyone else" (or more specifically, require the universities to provide adequate compensation such that they can pay taxes on their scholarships), then it would be a shame for the GOP to back away from this. The higher ed lobby wins again, I guess.

Treating scholarships the same thing as income is a pretty radical idea. But sure, you can pretend like you are a normal person.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: cfbandyman on December 13, 2017, 05:14:00 PM
It looks like they are removing the stupid stuff that targeted grad students that you thought was a good idea.

If by "target" you mean "treat them like everyone else" (or more specifically, require the universities to provide adequate compensation such that they can pay taxes on their scholarships), then it would be a shame for the GOP to back away from this. The higher ed lobby wins again, I guess.

Treating scholarships the same thing as income is a pretty radical idea. But sure, you can pretend like you are a normal person.

:lol:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 13, 2017, 05:17:03 PM
let's give a tax cut to the w-2 earner who makes my latte omg that will help the economy  :ROFL:

You laugh, but I promise you it would help the economy more than cutting the corporate tax rate.  That money will go into bigger bonuses for top execs in the form of company shares which enjoy their own tax breaks and may end up in a trust somewhere just accumulating value.

At least if you give the barista a few more bucks in his pocket he is very likely to spend those at some overpriced cupcake shop or something which at least helps that owner stay employed.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 13, 2017, 05:24:29 PM
It looks like they are removing the stupid stuff that targeted grad students that you thought was a good idea.

If by "target" you mean "treat them like everyone else" (or more specifically, require the universities to provide adequate compensation such that they can pay taxes on their scholarships), then it would be a shame for the GOP to back away from this. The higher ed lobby wins again, I guess.

Treating scholarships the same thing as income is a pretty radical idea. But sure, you can pretend like you are a normal person.

:lol:

If the "scholarship" is offered as compensation to do a job, its income. Please explain why TA's deserve a special tax break.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: cfbandyman on December 13, 2017, 05:26:19 PM
let's give a tax cut to the w-2 earner who makes my latte omg that will help the economy  :ROFL:

You laugh, but I promise you it would help the economy more than cutting the corporate tax rate.  That money will go into bigger bonuses for top execs in the form of company shares which enjoy their own tax breaks and may end up in a trust somewhere just accumulating value.

At least if you give the barista a few more bucks in his pocket he is very likely to spend those at some overpriced cupcake shop or something which at least helps that owner stay employed.

I think that's what he was getting at but the whole exchange was weird. But yes, that is what will happen

Quote
That money will go into bigger bonuses for top execs in the form of company shares which enjoy their own tax breaks and may end up in a trust somewhere just accumulating value.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 13, 2017, 05:28:50 PM
I also think it is a great idea to help small businesses. But I don't think the proposed rate reduction does that, because most truly small business won't pay a high enough marginal personal income tax rate to hit that max 25%. A better model to help small businesses would be make a certain amount of s-corp income tax free, rather than just imposing a max rate of 25% that most won't ever hit. As things currently stand, this is a nice windfall for the wealthy. I'm all about reducing taxes on the wealthy, but seems like everyone should get the same reduction regardless of whether you're a wealthy w-2 earner or pass-through recipient.

What you are proposing is the treatment that passthroughs get in the Senate version of the bill.

Quote
(a) In General.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there shall be allowed as a deduction for any taxable year an amount equal to the lesser of—

“(1) the combined qualified business income amount of the taxpayer, or

“(2) an amount equal to 23 percent of the excess (if any) of—

“(A) the taxable income of the taxpayer for the taxable year, over

“(B) any net capital gain (as defined in section 1(h)) of the taxpayer for the taxable year.

Oh. Well how bout that? I should be a senator. This is a much better plan. Probably better for DD, too!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 13, 2017, 05:32:23 PM
KSUW could be the next Roy Moore.
Title: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 13, 2017, 07:27:25 PM
KSUW could be the next Roy Moore.

Theme parks are becoming the next great youngster hangout spot since malls are dying off.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 13, 2017, 07:45:10 PM
DEAL. With the exception of the Super Special TA Tax Break, everything about the House and Senate's compromise bill sounds even better than before!  :Woot:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/us/politics/tax-bill-republicans-deal.html (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/us/politics/tax-bill-republicans-deal.html)

(And they're sticking with the Senate's idea of using a small deduction for pass-throughs, rather than a max rate).
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 13, 2017, 09:16:37 PM
W is more liberal than me.  These are strange times guys
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on December 14, 2017, 12:19:44 AM
shareholders of c corps are subject to double taxation.  this is mitigated by the ability of c corps to retain earnings (deferring second taxation) and because both dividends from c corps and cap gains are subject to lower rates than ordinary income.

anything can be an s corp.  i have a guy at work who tells me almost every day that i should turn myself into an s corp.  "shareholders" in an s corp pay tax on profits as ordinary income.  the tax break is that they don't have to pay payroll taxes.  that's why people turn themselves into s corps, to pay themselves a wage that is less than their profit and only pay payroll taxes on the wage part of their profit.


the pass through tax breaks are pretty much a huge scam that r johnson and his ilk assume people are too dumb to figure out because americans instinctively hate big businesses (c corps) and fellate small businesses (pass throughs).  99.9% of pass throughs aren't comparable to c corps, they're comparable to wage earners. 
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 14, 2017, 07:02:40 AM
Sys, you’re usually pretty good at this, but there are a couple pretty bad takes in the above.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on December 14, 2017, 08:40:59 AM
there's always a chance that i'm wrong, but it's far more likely that you are.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on December 14, 2017, 08:48:48 AM
Sys, you’re usually pretty good at this, but there are a couple pretty bad takes in the above.

So is this a cliffhanger?  Do yo think I have time for this crap?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 14, 2017, 09:12:35 AM
anything can be an s corp. 

According to the IRS:

Quote
To qualify for S corporation status, the corporation must meet the following requirements:

Be a domestic corporation
Have only allowable shareholders
May be individuals, certain trusts, and estates and
May not be partnerships, corporations or non-resident alien shareholders
Have no more than 100 shareholders
Have only one class of stock
Not be an ineligible corporation (i.e. certain financial institutions, insurance companies, and domestic international sales corporations).
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/s-corporations

i have a guy at work who tells me almost every day that i should turn myself into an s corp.  "shareholders" in an s corp pay tax on profits as ordinary income.  the tax break is that they don't have to pay payroll taxes.  that's why people turn themselves into s corps, to pay themselves a wage that is less than their profit and only pay payroll taxes on the wage part of their profit.

I know this has been discussed before, but I really think you should get a qualified opinion on this.  If you are an employee, your employer is almost certainly required to withhold payroll taxes from your income.  Does not matter whether you are a flesh and blood person or an s-corp.  I mean, if we employ a nanny for more than $2,000/year we are required to withhold payroll taxes.

the pass through tax breaks are pretty much a huge scam that r johnson and his ilk assume people are too dumb to figure out because americans instinctively hate big businesses (c corps) and fellate small businesses (pass throughs). 

Yes, practically all small businesses are pass-throughs, but tons of big businesses are too.  Publicly traded partnerships are actually becoming a popular business model because it allows businesses to be governed almost entirely by contract. (https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/publicly-traded-partnerships).  And, if you organize in Delaware at least, they can specifically disclaim most fiduciary duties. 

Also, if you look at the organizational structure of almost any huge business you will see that they actually operate through LLCs and LPs mostly.  The top entity is usually a INC, but the ones actively bringing in the income are not.

99.9% of pass throughs aren't comparable to c corps, they're comparable to wage earners.

I'm not sure exactly how to look this figure up, but...come on.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: hjfklmor on December 14, 2017, 09:29:31 AM
Sys' "guy at work" strategy is potentially one that will be used to game the new passthrough deduction.

There is technically nothing in the language of the Senate bill that prevents employees from forming their own partnership and having that partnership contract with their employer, allowing them to take the passthrough deduction proposed in the Senate.

For example, take an associate at a law firm that makes $200,000. They could be a regular employee and take a $200,000 wage, pay payroll taxes, and have it taxed like it has always been. Or, they could form a partnership to contract with their employer, give themselves a profits interest in that partnership (meaning no wages), and enjoy the passthrough deduction - avoiding payroll taxes and getting 23% (or 20% or whatever it ends up being) essentially tax free.

Its a risky strategy, and the IRS would likely litigate and there's a decent change you would lose, but considering the IRS is incredibly poorly funded it will probably take them a while, if ever, to notice. I guarantee people will be doing this if that section goes through as it is currently written.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 14, 2017, 09:33:14 AM
What sys said is partially right, and partially wrong. It is true that one tax advantage of s-corps is being able to avoid payroll tax on "profit," but the IRS has some rules about how much of your distribution you can classify as profit versus wage. This tax advantage probably isn't as a big a deal as it seems given that payroll tax already caps out at approx. $115k.

The other advantage is no corporate income tax, which actually seems like a bigger advantage.

Many businesses are far too big to be s-corps, but just about any individual could form an s-corp. You'd just have to jump through the hoops of incorporating, pay your annual registration fees, etc.

But if you're thinking anybody can just switch from being a wage-earning employee to an s-corp independent contractor with your employer, :lol: no it doesn't work that way. The IRS anticipated this and has rules against it. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-self-employed-or-employee (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-self-employed-or-employee)

Moreover, even if your employer allowed you to do this, let's say you suddenly reclassified have of what used to be your wage as "profit." You really think that would fly with the IRS? You might not get caught, but that doesn't make it legal.

I agree that heaping on additional tax breaks for pass-through entities, especially under the House way of doing it (setting a max rate that would have been lower than the marginal personal income tax rate for high earners), was basically a huge giveaway to wealthy attorneys, doctors, and other typical pass-through recipients. As I said, I'm all for reducing taxes on the wealthy - I just don't see any meaningful reason to reduce one guy's taxes more than another, both making the same money, just because one is an s-corp recipient versus a wage earner.

It the goal is really to help small businesses, the Senate plan (which appears to be what has made it into the compromise bill) is the better way to do it: offering a deduction that makes more of that lower income tax free.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 14, 2017, 09:37:17 AM
For example, take an associate at a law firm that makes $200,000. They could be a regular employee and take a $200,000 wage, pay payroll taxes, and have it taxed like it has always been. Or, they could form a partnership to contract with their employer, give themselves a profits interest in that partnership (meaning no wages), and enjoy the passthrough deduction - avoiding payroll taxes and getting 23% (or 20% or whatever it ends up being) essentially tax free.

You would be hard pressed to find a company able to otherwise pay its employees $200k but be willing to go in on a scheme like this.  Why not just make everyone a partner with a limited voting interest since just about every law firm is organized as an LLP anyway?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 14, 2017, 09:39:38 AM
Sys' "guy at work" strategy is potentially one that will be used to game the new passthrough deduction.

There is technically nothing in the language of the Senate bill that prevents employees from forming their own partnership and having that partnership contract with their employer, allowing them to take the passthrough deduction proposed in the Senate.

For example, take an associate at a law firm that makes $200,000. They could be a regular employee and take a $200,000 wage, pay payroll taxes, and have it taxed like it has always been. Or, they could form a partnership to contract with their employer, give themselves a profits interest in that partnership (meaning no wages), and enjoy the passthrough deduction - avoiding payroll taxes and getting 23% (or 20% or whatever it ends up being) essentially tax free.

Its a risky strategy, and the IRS would likely litigate and there's a decent change you would lose, but considering the IRS is incredibly poorly funded it will probably take them a while, if ever, to notice. I guarantee people will be doing this if that section goes through as it is currently written.

People will try, and they will lose. Because they won't truly be "independent contractors." As I mentioned above, the IRS already has rules against this. Start with this....

Quote
Common Law Rules

Facts that provide evidence of the degree of control and independence fall into three categories:
1) Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?
2) Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)
3) Type of Relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?

Businesses must weigh all these factors when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Some factors may indicate that the worker is an employee, while other factors indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. There is no “magic” or set number of factors that “makes” the worker an employee or an independent contractor, and no one factor stands alone in making this determination. Also, factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another.

The keys are to look at the entire relationship, consider the degree or extent of the right to direct and control, and finally, to document each of the factors used in coming up with the determination.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: hjfklmor on December 14, 2017, 09:41:31 AM
For example, take an associate at a law firm that makes $200,000. They could be a regular employee and take a $200,000 wage, pay payroll taxes, and have it taxed like it has always been. Or, they could form a partnership to contract with their employer, give themselves a profits interest in that partnership (meaning no wages), and enjoy the passthrough deduction - avoiding payroll taxes and getting 23% (or 20% or whatever it ends up being) essentially tax free.

You would be hard pressed to find a company able to otherwise pay its employees $200k but be willing to go in on a scheme like this.  Why not just make everyone a partner with a limited voting interest?

That would also be a solution, and probably a better one, but in my experience most places would rather go in on a scheme like this than have associates be considered partners of any kind, especially when most law firms like my example put a pretty large emphasis on profits per partner.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: hjfklmor on December 14, 2017, 09:43:15 AM
Sys' "guy at work" strategy is potentially one that will be used to game the new passthrough deduction.

There is technically nothing in the language of the Senate bill that prevents employees from forming their own partnership and having that partnership contract with their employer, allowing them to take the passthrough deduction proposed in the Senate.

For example, take an associate at a law firm that makes $200,000. They could be a regular employee and take a $200,000 wage, pay payroll taxes, and have it taxed like it has always been. Or, they could form a partnership to contract with their employer, give themselves a profits interest in that partnership (meaning no wages), and enjoy the passthrough deduction - avoiding payroll taxes and getting 23% (or 20% or whatever it ends up being) essentially tax free.

Its a risky strategy, and the IRS would likely litigate and there's a decent change you would lose, but considering the IRS is incredibly poorly funded it will probably take them a while, if ever, to notice. I guarantee people will be doing this if that section goes through as it is currently written.

People will try, and they will lose. Because they won't truly be "independent contractors." As I mentioned above, the IRS already has rules against this.

The FAQ page from IRS.gov you linked is overly simplified. This independent contractor scheme already exists for partnerships currently. People who don't want to pay SE tax on their partnership earnings form an S corp to be a partner in their partnership and pay themselves a wage from the S corp.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 14, 2017, 09:44:02 AM
Sys' "guy at work" strategy is potentially one that will be used to game the new passthrough deduction.

There is technically nothing in the language of the Senate bill that prevents employees from forming their own partnership and having that partnership contract with their employer, allowing them to take the passthrough deduction proposed in the Senate.

For example, take an associate at a law firm that makes $200,000. They could be a regular employee and take a $200,000 wage, pay payroll taxes, and have it taxed like it has always been. Or, they could form a partnership to contract with their employer, give themselves a profits interest in that partnership (meaning no wages), and enjoy the passthrough deduction - avoiding payroll taxes and getting 23% (or 20% or whatever it ends up being) essentially tax free.

Its a risky strategy, and the IRS would likely litigate and there's a decent change you would lose, but considering the IRS is incredibly poorly funded it will probably take them a while, if ever, to notice. I guarantee people will be doing this if that section goes through as it is currently written.

cool then they can also set up their own 401 k (and match it themselves) and get their own health insurance.  I'd love that
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: hjfklmor on December 14, 2017, 09:46:21 AM
Sys' "guy at work" strategy is potentially one that will be used to game the new passthrough deduction.

There is technically nothing in the language of the Senate bill that prevents employees from forming their own partnership and having that partnership contract with their employer, allowing them to take the passthrough deduction proposed in the Senate.

For example, take an associate at a law firm that makes $200,000. They could be a regular employee and take a $200,000 wage, pay payroll taxes, and have it taxed like it has always been. Or, they could form a partnership to contract with their employer, give themselves a profits interest in that partnership (meaning no wages), and enjoy the passthrough deduction - avoiding payroll taxes and getting 23% (or 20% or whatever it ends up being) essentially tax free.

Its a risky strategy, and the IRS would likely litigate and there's a decent change you would lose, but considering the IRS is incredibly poorly funded it will probably take them a while, if ever, to notice. I guarantee people will be doing this if that section goes through as it is currently written.

cool then they can also set up their own 401 k (and match it themselves) and get their own health insurance.  I'd love that

I don't recommend doing any of this by the way, its overly complicated for the benefit you get. I'm just pointing out that there are ways to game the new rules and because we are all in a tizzy to get things passed by Christmas, no one seems to care or they are making it the problem of an already overburdened IRS.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on December 14, 2017, 09:47:09 AM
My sister in law is in financial tech industry, shes gamed the crap out of this stuff for years as an independent contractor. I think she’s working on a federal project now where they are building databases for the sec or something.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 14, 2017, 09:48:59 AM
Sys' "guy at work" strategy is potentially one that will be used to game the new passthrough deduction.

There is technically nothing in the language of the Senate bill that prevents employees from forming their own partnership and having that partnership contract with their employer, allowing them to take the passthrough deduction proposed in the Senate.

For example, take an associate at a law firm that makes $200,000. They could be a regular employee and take a $200,000 wage, pay payroll taxes, and have it taxed like it has always been. Or, they could form a partnership to contract with their employer, give themselves a profits interest in that partnership (meaning no wages), and enjoy the passthrough deduction - avoiding payroll taxes and getting 23% (or 20% or whatever it ends up being) essentially tax free.

Its a risky strategy, and the IRS would likely litigate and there's a decent change you would lose, but considering the IRS is incredibly poorly funded it will probably take them a while, if ever, to notice. I guarantee people will be doing this if that section goes through as it is currently written.

cool then they can also set up their own 401 k (and match it themselves) and get their own health insurance.  I'd love that

I don't recommend doing any of this by the way, its overly complicated for the benefit you get. I'm just pointing out that there are ways to game the new rules and because we are all in a tizzy to get things passed by Christmas, no one seems to care or they are making it the problem of an already overburdened IRS.

No one is actually doing this but it is not a new concept.  I think it would be an interesting solution for associates who don't have what it takes to make partner and will stay at w-2 status but would like to get some tax advantages
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 14, 2017, 09:52:45 AM
For example, take an associate at a law firm that makes $200,000. They could be a regular employee and take a $200,000 wage, pay payroll taxes, and have it taxed like it has always been. Or, they could form a partnership to contract with their employer, give themselves a profits interest in that partnership (meaning no wages), and enjoy the passthrough deduction - avoiding payroll taxes and getting 23% (or 20% or whatever it ends up being) essentially tax free.

You would be hard pressed to find a company able to otherwise pay its employees $200k but be willing to go in on a scheme like this.  Why not just make everyone a partner with a limited voting interest?

That would also be a solution, and probably a better one, but in my experience most places would rather go in on a scheme like this than have associates be considered partners of any kind, especially when most law firms like my example put a pretty large emphasis on profits per partner.

Yea, but for the same reason I think they'd prefer to keep the profit sharing to themselves and go mostly with paying a tax-deducible wage to their employees.  Honestly, if any employee is valuable enough for a company to be willing to work out that kind of a scheme (I'm not sure what it benefits the company) then they probably would just make them a partner.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: hjfklmor on December 14, 2017, 09:54:51 AM
For example, take an associate at a law firm that makes $200,000. They could be a regular employee and take a $200,000 wage, pay payroll taxes, and have it taxed like it has always been. Or, they could form a partnership to contract with their employer, give themselves a profits interest in that partnership (meaning no wages), and enjoy the passthrough deduction - avoiding payroll taxes and getting 23% (or 20% or whatever it ends up being) essentially tax free.

You would be hard pressed to find a company able to otherwise pay its employees $200k but be willing to go in on a scheme like this.  Why not just make everyone a partner with a limited voting interest?

That would also be a solution, and probably a better one, but in my experience most places would rather go in on a scheme like this than have associates be considered partners of any kind, especially when most law firms like my example put a pretty large emphasis on profits per partner.

Yea, but for the same reason I think they'd prefer to keep the profit sharing to themselves and go mostly with paying a tax-deducible wage to their employees.  Honestly, if any employee is valuable enough for a company to be willing to work out that kind of a scheme (I'm not sure what it benefits the company) then they probably would just make them a partner.

Payments to a contractor (Law Firm Peon, LLC) are still deductible to the employer. The effect is neutral to the employer.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: hjfklmor on December 14, 2017, 09:59:03 AM
This is all purely academic anyhow, no one is going to take the time to pay for someone to set all this up. I was attempting to point out that this crap is complicated and rushing it through is idiotic and making it more complicated. I regret getting lost in the weeds here.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 14, 2017, 10:01:01 AM
This is all purely academic anyhow, no one is going to take the time to pay for someone to set all this up. I was attempting to point out that this crap is complicated and rushing it through is idiotic and making it more complicated. I regret getting lost in the weeds here.

I think every rational human being agrees with you on that.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 14, 2017, 10:04:23 AM
A pretty simple solution to the "wage earner" scheme is to make the same corporate tax deduction applicable to pass-throughs that either (1) generate a certain level of income; or (2) employ a certain number of individuals (subject to minimum wages to avoid any gaming).

Not that I'm really advocating for any of this because business growth is driven by demand, not profits.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 14, 2017, 10:12:10 AM
This has been a very informative discussion. Thanks everyone.

Who at goEMAW is in charge of the art department? I'd like to request an emoticon of a mouse pushing a wheelbarrow full of cash. Would be super cute and useful for this thread.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on December 14, 2017, 12:33:52 PM
Sounds good.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 14, 2017, 12:42:19 PM
In fairness, it is REALLY hard giving major tax breaks to corporations and families of super rich dead guys without digging ourselves too deep into the deficit.  Gotta make some sacrifices somewhere.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on December 14, 2017, 12:55:19 PM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 14, 2017, 12:57:01 PM
Best way to kill this thing is to try to help the poors
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 14, 2017, 01:41:31 PM
Thanks for the update Chum! Try not to be too bitter, ok? It's the holidays!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on December 14, 2017, 01:42:20 PM
add lil' Marco to the list of butthurt bill killers
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 14, 2017, 02:45:26 PM
What happens if they don’t get this thing done?  :ohno:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 14, 2017, 02:47:57 PM
Probably investigate Benghazi.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 14, 2017, 02:59:13 PM
What happens if they don’t get this thing done?  :ohno:

pwn libs some other way
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on December 14, 2017, 02:59:40 PM
pwn the libs by not passing tax reform
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on December 14, 2017, 03:22:44 PM
Maybe someone should tell people like Rubio, Collins, and Flake that they have more leverage if they wait to vote until after Doug Jones is seated.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on December 14, 2017, 03:34:51 PM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 14, 2017, 03:47:14 PM
Maybe someone should tell people like Rubio, Collins, and Flake that they have more leverage if they wait to vote until after Doug Jones is seated.

It’s fun to live in a fantasy land where more than 1-2 senators have firm principles, but I don’t think this will lead anywhere. And I REALLY don’t think folks like Rubio are actually willing to vote against the bill if they think it will cause the bill to fail.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 14, 2017, 09:15:55 PM
Nobody seriously thinks Rubio is actually a no. Except for maybe Chum. This is the last scrum to see what people can wring out before they all fall in line.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on December 14, 2017, 09:22:53 PM
Actually, it's more about Rubio's presidential aspirations.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 14, 2017, 10:06:25 PM
KSUW isn't really a "big picture" kind of guy.  His entire universe revolves around him, and him alone.  So him answering questions outside of him is a lost cause.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 14, 2017, 10:14:26 PM
700 club talking really positive about the tax cuts (and very negative about the Mueller investigation).
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 14, 2017, 10:24:41 PM
Nobody seriously thinks Rubio is actually a no. Except for maybe Chum. This is the last scrum to see what people can wring out before they all fall in line.

Yup, much like the healthcare bill, but Obama had to buy off like six or seven.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on December 15, 2017, 06:41:19 AM
What if John McCain votes no from his death bed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 15, 2017, 08:06:56 AM
A final thumbs down would be pretty badass.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 15, 2017, 08:22:51 AM
This will not pass in 2017.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 15, 2017, 10:55:42 AM
This will not pass in 2017.

Pretty big time owning of libs
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 15, 2017, 11:34:06 AM
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/15/us/politics/republican-tax-bill.html (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/15/us/politics/republican-tax-bill.html)

Rubio just received his expansion of the CTC so folks who already owed no FIT get a bigger chunk "refunded." Bill set to be finalized this afternoon.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 15, 2017, 11:51:34 AM
You don't get the CTC if you don't owe federal income tax, K-S-U.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: renocat on December 15, 2017, 11:52:46 AM
I like this.  I now have more cash to pay my medical insurance premiums cause inept so called Republicans can't govern with a majority.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Institutional Control on December 15, 2017, 12:07:13 PM
I like this.  I now have more cash to pay my medical insurance premiums cause inept so called Republicans can't govern with a majority.

You don't need to get insurance now. Just wait until you get sick and then get it.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 15, 2017, 12:28:38 PM
I like this.  I now have more cash to pay my medical insurance premiums cause inept so called Republicans can't govern with a majority.

You don't need to get insurance now. Just wait until you get sick and then get it.

Just go to the ER
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 15, 2017, 12:31:19 PM
You don't get the CTC if you don't owe federal income tax, K-S-U.

Please explain.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on December 15, 2017, 12:33:20 PM
good for rubio
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 15, 2017, 12:38:12 PM
You don't get the CTC if you don't owe federal income tax, K-S-U.

Please explain.

You are only eligible for the credit if the credit is less than the amount of taxes you owe.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: hjfklmor on December 15, 2017, 12:44:45 PM
You don't get the CTC if you don't owe federal income tax, K-S-U.

Please explain.

You are only eligible for the credit if the credit is less than the amount of taxes you owe.

I mean, I suppose you are technically correct in that the refundable portion is a different credit with the name "Additional" Child Tax Credit.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 15, 2017, 12:47:29 PM
Yeah, I missed that. Sorry, K-S-U.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: hjfklmor on December 15, 2017, 12:48:59 PM
It's pretty hard to qualify for, so from a certain perspective you're both right!  :cheers: :cheers:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 15, 2017, 01:53:18 PM
Yeah, I missed that. Sorry, K-S-U.

No apology necessary. I don't assume I know anything about taxes. I'm just going off what I read.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 15, 2017, 02:54:57 PM
Corker flips to Yes. Now that passage is assured, will any red state Dems hop aboard the tax cut train?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bob-corker-flips-will-vote-yes-on-tax-bill/article/2643657 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bob-corker-flips-will-vote-yes-on-tax-bill/article/2643657)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 15, 2017, 02:56:51 PM
It helps poor people, so doubtful.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 15, 2017, 02:58:55 PM
this thing is DOA

This will not pass in 2017.

Butthurt butthurt butthurt (and tweets by other butthurt libs)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on December 15, 2017, 03:56:28 PM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: LickNeckey on December 15, 2017, 03:56:40 PM
"After great thought and consideration, I believe that this once-in-a-generation opportunity to make U.S. businesses domestically more productive and internationally more competitive is one we should not miss," Corker said in a statement about the joint House-Senate version of the bill, which was finalized Friday.

Sounds like a effective middle class tax cut.

 :bartender:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: wetwillie on December 15, 2017, 04:39:20 PM
What is the final bills position on pass thrus for our guy dugout ?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 15, 2017, 04:44:53 PM
Different rates for single/joint is one of the most absurd things about our tax system
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 15, 2017, 05:24:58 PM
What is the final bills position on pass thrus for our guy dugout ?

Quote
The plan would set a 20 percent business income deduction for the first $315,000 in income earned by pass-through businesses.

But there might be restriction upon which services are eligible for the deduction.

It sounds like on the personal side, this is basically the same as the Senate plan! :cashmoney:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/15/gop-releases-its-final-tax-plan--heres-whats-in-it.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/15/gop-releases-its-final-tax-plan--heres-whats-in-it.html)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 15, 2017, 05:53:29 PM
Hey look! Another butthurt post by Chum quoting an equally butthurt tweet!

Last time I checked, the senate's 7 brackets actually result in a lower marginal rate than the house's 4, at least for most people.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on December 15, 2017, 06:09:18 PM
Hey look! Another butthurt post by Chum quoting an equally butthurt tweet!

Last time I checked, the senate's 7 brackets actually result in a lower marginal rate than the house's 4, at least for most people.
Wasn't the point to simplify? What about the postcard?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 15, 2017, 06:33:05 PM
Hey look! Another butthurt post by Chum quoting an equally butthurt tweet!

Last time I checked, the senate's 7 brackets actually result in a lower marginal rate than the house's 4, at least for most people.
Wasn't the point to simplify? What about the postcard?

I'd rather keep more of my money. But maybe that's just me.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on December 15, 2017, 06:33:18 PM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on December 15, 2017, 06:35:59 PM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on December 15, 2017, 08:22:00 PM

good for POTUS BFF robert kraft
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on December 15, 2017, 09:09:19 PM
what makes anyone think that this is going to turn out better than 1981?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 15, 2017, 09:35:43 PM

 :love: this is better than the Facebook thread!!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on December 15, 2017, 10:03:56 PM
Invalid Tweet ID
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 15, 2017, 10:15:00 PM
Surprised = nobody
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 15, 2017, 11:01:40 PM
Invalid Tweet ID

And you won’t BELIEVE what it is!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on December 16, 2017, 12:07:23 AM
I have three of these  :love: but I don’t get it and the shitty reporter doesn’t explain it.  I pay regular personal income tax on my k-1 income, real estate is already an asset I can depreciate.  Are they saying my LLP’s will be taxed at 20 or 23 percent instead of ordinary income?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 16, 2017, 07:12:31 AM
Invalid Tweet ID

And you won’t BELIEVE what it is!

 :lol: :thumbs:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 16, 2017, 07:54:12 AM
Congrats guys. Proud of you all.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 16, 2017, 08:06:04 AM
Congrats guys. Proud of you all.

Congrats to you, too! How much more of your money are you going to get to keep?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 16, 2017, 08:19:50 AM
Enough to trickle down to some suckas
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 16, 2017, 08:22:24 AM
I honestly didn't think they would get it done, but apparently the republican desire to consolidate wealth at the top is greater than their desire to let people die in the street if they get sick.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 16, 2017, 08:36:26 AM
I honestly didn't think they would get it done, but apparently the republican desire to consolidate wealth at the top is greater than their desire to let people die in the street if they get sick.

Yes, they can't agree on much, but at least the GOP is still uniformly in favor of letting people keep more of their money!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 16, 2017, 08:38:03 AM
I honestly didn't think they would get it done, but apparently the republican desire to consolidate wealth at the top is greater than their desire to let people die in the street if they get sick.

Yes, they can't agree on much, but at least the GOP is still uniformly in favor of letting people keep more of their money!

Yep. That and raising the deficit.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 16, 2017, 08:56:06 AM
I honestly didn't think they would get it done, but apparently the republican desire to consolidate wealth at the top is greater than their desire to let people die in the street if they get sick.

Yes, they can't agree on much, but at least the GOP is still uniformly in favor of letting people keep more of their money!

It's something everyone should agree upon.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 16, 2017, 09:45:15 AM
Does it still take more of winner's money (LLC owners) and give it to losers (W2 employees)?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 16, 2017, 10:28:02 AM
Without a doubt the biggest winners are:

1. People who make over $600k in regular wages

2. Top corporate executives

3. Old money
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 16, 2017, 10:53:23 AM
What about midwesterners with lots of dependent kids and a high enough wage that they never qualified for the CTC before? Those (me) might be bigger winners that just people with super high wages. The higher the wage, the more likely those folks live in a high tax state so their gains in reduced marginal rate will be at least somewhat offset by dramatically reducing SALT deduction.

Man I'm winning so hard right now. But I'm definitely not tired of winning yet.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on December 16, 2017, 11:09:57 AM

$2k a month for a daycare for dogs maybe. If you want your kids survival rate to be above 50% you’re paying a lot more than that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 16, 2017, 11:32:09 AM
You only have to pay for daycare for a few years. Then you get 13 years of free daycare, courtesy of taxpayers with no kids.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: wetwillie on December 16, 2017, 11:56:42 AM
The taxpayers benefit greatly from educated kids entering the workforce
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 16, 2017, 11:57:58 AM
Childless taxpayers could really help me out by picking up private school tab
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: bucket on December 16, 2017, 11:59:56 AM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 16, 2017, 12:06:41 PM
I didn't mean to sound like a Scrooge itt.  We rely on you 9-5 lunch pailers to get the dirty work done.  Ignore my previous comments about W-2'ers
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 16, 2017, 12:12:34 PM
What about midwesterners with lots of dependent kids and a high enough wage that they never qualified for the CTC before? Those (me) might be bigger winners that just people with super high wages. The higher the wage, the more likely those folks live in a high tax state so their gains in reduced marginal rate will be at least somewhat offset by dramatically reducing SALT deduction.

Man I'm winning so hard right now. But I'm definitely not tired of winning yet.

Neither is David Beaty...which is about what this win amounts to for the administration.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 16, 2017, 02:23:05 PM
Without a doubt the biggest winners are:

1. People who make over $600k in regular wages

2. Top corporate executives

3. Old money

4. Everyone who pays income tax
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on December 16, 2017, 05:43:28 PM
Daycare is for losers that just refuse to live within their means and pimp the woman they supposedly love off to help scrape up enough bucks to run their campsite.  Then they turn their children over to some oxy-fueled trash outfit to nurture them.  Awful people with mixed up priorities iyam.  :frown:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 17, 2017, 09:53:25 AM
Daycare is for losers that just refuse to live within their means and pimp the woman they supposedly love off to help scrape up enough bucks to run their campsite.  Then they turn their children over to some oxy-fueled trash outfit to nurture them.  Awful people with mixed up priorities iyam.  :frown:

Are you suggesting that a family doesn't need two brand new suv's (0 down, 84 month note) to make ends meet?  :nono:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 17, 2017, 09:56:13 AM
Daycare is for losers that just refuse to live within their means and pimp the woman they supposedly love off to help scrape up enough bucks to run their campsite.  Then they turn their children over to some oxy-fueled trash outfit to nurture them.  Awful people with mixed up priorities iyam.  :frown:

Are you suggesting that a family doesn't need two brand new suv's (0 down, 84 month note) to make ends meet?  :nono:

I have those but mrs stone hasn't worked since second little stone came
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 17, 2017, 10:12:44 AM
The funny thing about the daycare contingent is the family paying $36k per year for daycare with one of the spouses hauling in $46k in pretax salary. They literally lose money on their job.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 17, 2017, 10:46:07 AM
No one actually makes that lol
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on December 17, 2017, 12:13:36 PM
Daycare is for losers that just refuse to live within their means and pimp the woman they supposedly love off to help scrape up enough bucks to run their campsite.  Then they turn their children over to some oxy-fueled trash outfit to nurture them.  Awful people with mixed up priorities iyam.  :frown:

Are you suggesting that a family doesn't need two brand new suv's (0 down, 84 month note) to make ends meet?  :nono:

I have those but mrs stone hasn't worked since second little stone came

Why did she work with one kid but stay home with two kids?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: wetwillie on December 17, 2017, 12:22:05 PM
Daycare is for losers that just refuse to live within their means and pimp the woman they supposedly love off to help scrape up enough bucks to run their campsite.  Then they turn their children over to some oxy-fueled trash outfit to nurture them.  Awful people with mixed up priorities iyam.  :frown:

Are you suggesting that a family doesn't need two brand new suv's (0 down, 84 month note) to make ends meet?  :nono:

I have those but mrs stone hasn't worked since second little stone came

Why did she work with one kid but stay home with two kids?

Twins, it's him being clever
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 17, 2017, 12:40:42 PM
No one actually makes that lol

Lol, kcmo is so broke

Quote
Kansas City, Missouri Income and Salaries
The income per capita is $27,282, which includes all adults and children. The median household income is $45,376.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 17, 2017, 12:53:28 PM
Daycare is for losers that just refuse to live within their means and pimp the woman they supposedly love off to help scrape up enough bucks to run their campsite.  Then they turn their children over to some oxy-fueled trash outfit to nurture them.  Awful people with mixed up priorities iyam.  :frown:

Are you suggesting that a family doesn't need two brand new suv's (0 down, 84 month note) to make ends meet?  :nono:

I have those but mrs stone hasn't worked since second little stone came

Why did she work with one kid but stay home with two kids?

She wanted to
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on December 17, 2017, 12:58:49 PM
That’s a tough one, t’s and p’s
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 17, 2017, 01:02:49 PM
Thx, marrying a successful girl is sometimes hard
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on December 17, 2017, 01:08:16 PM
No that’s not it, but it’s probably not appropriate to point out here.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 17, 2017, 01:11:16 PM
Weird
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 17, 2017, 01:14:37 PM
Very weird
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on December 17, 2017, 01:17:25 PM
It’s all in what he told us, but I’m gonna drop it
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Spracne on December 17, 2017, 02:02:48 PM
It’s all in what he told us, but I’m gonna drop it
(https://m.popkey.co/677bb1/jrVeZ.gif)

Yeah you're God damn right you are...

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on December 17, 2017, 02:18:53 PM
It’s all in what he told us, but I’m gonna drop it
(https://m.popkey.co/677bb1/jrVeZ.gif)

Yeah you're God damn right you are...

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

It’s just heartbreaking that’s all........
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on December 17, 2017, 03:42:33 PM
sorry to be so long in responding.

According to the IRS:

Quote
To qualify for S corporation status, the corporation must meet the following requirements:

Be a domestic corporation
Have only allowable shareholders
May be individuals, certain trusts, and estates and
May not be partnerships, corporations or non-resident alien shareholders
Have no more than 100 shareholders
Have only one class of stock
Not be an ineligible corporation (i.e. certain financial institutions, insurance companies, and domestic international sales corporations).

fair enough.  i was going more for a ham sandwich can be an s corp rather than hormel can be an s corp, but i was imprecise - you're right most c corps could not be s corps.


I know this has been discussed before, but I really think you should get a qualified opinion on this.  If you are an employee, your employer is almost certainly required to withhold payroll taxes from your income.  Does not matter whether you are a flesh and blood person or an s-corp.  I mean, if we employ a nanny for more than $2,000/year we are required to withhold payroll taxes.

i'm not an employee.  neither are any of the people i work with (at least not the ones contracting through the same company that contracts me).  we are all independent contractors, the discussion is simply whether to be sole props, partners or s corps.


I'm not sure exactly how to look this figure up, but...come on.

you're looking at stuff that doesn't matter (employees, size) as well as stuff that matters less (capital investment).  we're talking about taxes.  what matters is the tax structure.  personnel expenses occur prior to taxation - they are irrelevant.  the key difference is what ksu-w identified:  s corps are taxed once, just like an individual.  c corps are independent entities - their income does not pass through to the owners, hence profits are (eventually) taxed twice.  to give an s corp a tax rate comparable to a c corp would be inherently unfair to the owners of the c corp because the c corp shareholders would be subject to additional taxation before assuming control of that income.  to give an s corp a rate lower than an wage-earning individual is inherently unfair to the wage earner because the income of the s corp passes through directly to the owner(s) in exactly the same fashion that wages pass to wage earners.

i'll give you that there is some distinction between the income of a pass through attributable to return on capital invested vs compensation for labor.  however, the lower tax rates on income from capital than income from labor seems to me to be the root problem in our tax code, so i'm not particularly sympathetic to that argument.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on December 17, 2017, 03:47:43 PM
this is an interesting article on the subject.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-pass-through-businesses-let-the-tax-games-begin-1513161000


for all i think this is a remarkably poor attempt at tax reform, if i understand the reconciled bill correctly, and if my 2018 income is similar to my 2017 income, it's going to give me a lot of money.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on December 17, 2017, 03:53:27 PM
If the "scholarship" is offered as compensation to do a job, its income. Please explain why TA's deserve a special tax break.

if you use a coupon, should you be taxed on the difference from list price?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on December 17, 2017, 04:02:47 PM
I don't recommend doing any of this by the way, its overly complicated for the benefit you get.

the generous limit on how much income you can shelter in a solo 401k is a huge benefit.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on December 17, 2017, 04:08:27 PM
This is all purely academic anyhow, no one is going to take the time to pay for someone to set all this up.

I think every rational human being agrees with you on that.

i think the more likely scenario is that employees will leave employers and begin working with other entities as independent contractors, not that employers will voluntarily reorganize to benefit their former employees.  that's what i did earlier this year.  the new tax cuts for independent contractors would just make that decision that much more attractive.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 17, 2017, 04:35:46 PM
If the "scholarship" is offered as compensation to do a job, its income. Please explain why TA's deserve a special tax break.

if you use a coupon, should you be taxed on the difference from list price?

Am I being given the coupon as compensation to do a job?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on December 17, 2017, 04:38:43 PM
are lottery winners subject to taxation?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 17, 2017, 04:40:56 PM
yes
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 17, 2017, 04:41:35 PM
If the "scholarship" is offered as compensation to do a job, its income. Please explain why TA's deserve a special tax break.

if you use a coupon, should you be taxed on the difference from list price?

Am I being given the coupon as compensation to do a job?

an employee discount would be more analogous
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 17, 2017, 05:53:43 PM
Employers eat the tax on a lot of benefits they offer to employees.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 17, 2017, 06:02:44 PM
This is all purely academic anyhow, no one is going to take the time to pay for someone to set all this up.

I think every rational human being agrees with you on that.

i think the more likely scenario is that employees will leave employers and begin working with other entities as independent contractors, not that employers will voluntarily reorganize to benefit their former employees.  that's what i did earlier this year.  the new tax cuts for independent contractors would just make that decision that much more attractive.

Do you really, though?  I read a study about how employees were told they could get $X more employer contribution to their retirement account (or something along those lines), they just had to sign a form and take it down to HR.  Something like 20-30% of employees did it.

You might need to spend some more time with the common man if you think he is going to cease being a regular employee, organize his own business, and shop himself around to employers as an independent contractor.

Also, I believe it has been discussed earlier but the vast majority of wage earners cannot simply do the same work as an independent contractor.  At least not in a way that employers are comfortable with.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on December 17, 2017, 06:23:13 PM
it only makes sense for people that are making/would be making pretty good money.  if there is a sense that this change is likely to be long-lasting, i do think a noticeable % of that population can and will make a change.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 17, 2017, 06:46:43 PM
LLC >>>>> S Corp
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on December 18, 2017, 11:32:57 AM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on December 18, 2017, 11:39:44 AM
Raise my taxes to own the libs
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 18, 2017, 05:47:18 PM

Which just goes to show how effective the Dem propaganda has been. If you're a liberal, are you happy that people are so misinformed?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 18, 2017, 05:50:40 PM
So, like, the propaganda machine from Trumps Twitter is all true?  We are not being misinformed?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 18, 2017, 05:52:24 PM
I guess Sanders said it best:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/white-house-it-doesnt-matter-if-anti-muslim-videos-are-real-the-threat-is-real.html
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 18, 2017, 06:03:43 PM
So, like, the propaganda machine from Trumps Twitter is all true?  We are not being misinformed?

Wait.... did you just compare the claims of a politician to the claims of a supposedly neutral media?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 18, 2017, 06:06:19 PM
So, like, the propaganda machine from Trumps Twitter is all true?  We are not being misinformed?

Wait.... did you just compare the claims of a politician to the claims of a supposedly neutral media?

The politician is the president of the United States, who isn’t just any politician.  Secondly it’s a free press.  Just because you don’t like what they say and your feelings are hurt doesn’t make them wrong.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on December 18, 2017, 08:14:12 PM
everyone who believes in supply-side economics has been misinformed
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 18, 2017, 09:11:06 PM
NYT app thing says I'm saving $5k in taxes next year. :Woot:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 18, 2017, 09:14:03 PM
So, like, the propaganda machine from Trumps Twitter is all true?  We are not being misinformed?

The poll says half of Americans think their taxes are going up under the plan, which is egregiously inaccurate. That's how misinformed the public is by the media (bc Don sure as crap isn't saying that)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 18, 2017, 09:18:10 PM
So, like, the propaganda machine from Trumps Twitter is all true?  We are not being misinformed?

The poll says half of Americans think their taxes are going up under the plan, which is egregiously inaccurate. That's how misinformed the public is by the media (bc Don sure as crap isn't saying that)

Exactly where is the cutoff? How many people taxes are going up? I’m sure you have studied the plan and compared and contrasted with the CBO results? What percentage of people are misinformed?

*Data May have changed but I couldn’t find a new picture
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171219/b9a3a4bb145136fd1daa7fb60633e5e9.jpg)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 18, 2017, 09:21:25 PM
I just want to clear this up FSD. Wouldn’t want you spreading misinformation based on a lack of facts or anything.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 18, 2017, 09:43:15 PM
That's a great example of how the media is misinforming the public.

I honestly can't believe you went back to that graphic after getting humiliated for referencing it and defending it weeks back itt. The gross misrepresentations were explained to you in great detail at that time. Apparently you learned nothing, which is a recurring theme.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 18, 2017, 09:59:38 PM
I would be totally fine with that graphic at first glimpse.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 18, 2017, 10:09:30 PM
That's a great example of how the media is misinforming the public.

I honestly can't believe you went back to that graphic after getting humiliated for referencing it and defending it weeks back itt. The gross misrepresentations were explained to you in great detail at that time. Apparently you learned nothing, which is a recurring theme.

Oh?  I don’t remember factual statements cementing the 50% mark. Perhaps you have them now and can share? This being the second time I have asked to prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 18, 2017, 10:29:05 PM
Do you actually believe half of American's income tax liability will go up as a result of this bill?

Simple arithmetic alone belies that assertion.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 18, 2017, 10:34:15 PM
Serious non-partisan question:  Those projected 2027 numbers are nonsense, correct?  My assumption is each successive majority party will enact a different version of "tax reform" as they get elected and the conditions in our economy and demographics change.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 18, 2017, 10:37:34 PM
Serious non-partisan question:  Those projected 2027 numbers are nonsense, correct?  My assumption is each successive majority party will enact a different version of "tax reform" as they get elected and the conditions in our economy and demographics change.

If they dont, they'll be raising taxes on the poor.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 18, 2017, 10:39:00 PM
Serious non-partisan question:  Those projected 2027 numbers are nonsense, correct?  My assumption is each successive majority party will enact a different version of "tax reform" as they get elected and the conditions in our economy and demographics change.

If they dont, they'll be raising taxes on the poor.

If that graphic is right, no doubt
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on December 18, 2017, 10:43:05 PM
Serious non-partisan question:  Those projected 2027 numbers are nonsense, correct?  My assumption is each successive majority party will enact a different version of "tax reform" as they get elected and the conditions in our economy and demographics change.

i would be very surprised if the democrats don't raise taxes on the rich & pass throughs & corps in 2020 if they are able.


longer term, eventually, an increase in tax revenue is inevitable.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on December 18, 2017, 11:36:56 PM
Serious non-partisan question:  Those projected 2027 numbers are nonsense, correct?  My assumption is each successive majority party will enact a different version of "tax reform" as they get elected and the conditions in our economy and demographics change.

i would be very surprised if the democrats don't raise taxes on the rich & pass throughs & corps in 2020 if they are able.


longer term, eventually, an increase in tax revenue is inevitable.

Yeah the 2027 projection is dumb for lots of reasons, the only reason it is being done is to game the CBO. Bush tax cuts did the same thing.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 19, 2017, 06:34:39 AM

Which just goes to show how effective the Dem propaganda has been. If you're a liberal, are you happy that people are so misinformed?

Yes, very difficult for Republicans to get their message out when they control congress and the WH.

The truth is, even if the Democrats are just spinning lies in this case, Republicans have had such a hard time refuting it because they came into this whole thing without any good evidence that it would work. They didn’t even let anyone else look at the thing until they were voting on it. That’s why they’ve been so impotent in their response.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on December 19, 2017, 07:01:51 AM
Corporate welfare


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 19, 2017, 08:14:02 AM
Can we get some examples of the media misinforming the public ?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 19, 2017, 08:51:20 AM
Hillary did it.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: chum1 on December 19, 2017, 09:10:50 AM
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 19, 2017, 09:15:42 AM
Selfish old people don’t want this country to bankrupt itself. SMDH.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on December 19, 2017, 09:15:53 AM
LMAO
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 19, 2017, 04:21:25 PM
Really going to miss making fun of Dems and their "just numbers" . . . "just money" routine vis-a-vis budgets and deficits.

Dems are so full of zeal and verve on the budget and deficits now!! 


Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 19, 2017, 04:26:53 PM
NYT app thing says I'm saving $5k in taxes next year. :Woot:

Haven't tried that app yet. I'm gonna save over $8k in the first year and reduce my effective FIT rate by over 3%!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 19, 2017, 04:29:46 PM
That's a great example of how the media is misinforming the public.

I honestly can't believe you went back to that graphic after getting humiliated for referencing it and defending it weeks back itt. The gross misrepresentations were explained to you in great detail at that time. Apparently you learned nothing, which is a recurring theme.

Oh?  I don’t remember factual statements cementing the 50% mark. Perhaps you have them now and can share? This being the second time I have asked to prove me wrong.

ZOMG, TBT brought out that idiotic chart again! :lol:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 19, 2017, 05:16:11 PM
Really going to miss making fun of Dems and their "just numbers" . . . "just money" routine vis-a-vis budgets and deficits.

Dems are so full of zeal and verve on the budget and deficits now!!

Plenty of opportunity to make fun of all the so called conservative deficit hawks
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Institutional Control on December 19, 2017, 08:39:58 PM
$7820 tax cut per the NYT site.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on December 19, 2017, 08:48:53 PM
$7820 tax cut per the NYT site.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

$15,020 which is complete horseshit
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on December 19, 2017, 09:19:37 PM
Nah, doesn’t even wash out how much more Obamacare is costing you
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on December 19, 2017, 09:25:17 PM
Premiums have doubled to tripled, deductibles have done the same, and I think you get an extra 3% income tax as a bonus.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 19, 2017, 09:33:09 PM
blinded by a little nugget thrown at them while lobbyist and the 1% get the real payday....way to drain the swamp guys!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 19, 2017, 11:01:43 PM
If there's one thing we've always known, and that's the fact that the 1% (of which many are huge libs) never figure out ways to avoid paying taxes, they're just forced to sit there and wait on the politicians

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 20, 2017, 08:14:09 AM
If there's one thing we've always known, and that's the fact that the 1% (of which many are huge libs) never figure out ways to avoid paying taxes, they're just forced to sit there and wait on the politicians
That was supposed to be fixed by the simplification of the tax code that could be done on a postcard and got rid of corporate loopholes. Another promise broke that you guys can't wait to ignore.

But hey you are getting 10 bucks in your take home pay extra...go wild.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 20, 2017, 08:25:05 AM
Never ceases to amaze me how butthurt liberals are that nearly everyone is going to be able to keep more of their own money under this bill.

The bill even redistributes more of other people's money to the poor with children (thanks to increasing the amount of the CTC and the amount of its refundability). Still, liberals are furious.

Put aside all the bluster, lies, and class warfare, and the true reason for liberal outrage is this: tax cuts means potentially less money to feed the government beast, less redistribution, and simply put, a teensy bit less socialism.

So go ahead, wallow in your disappointment. I'm going to enjoy my $8,000 "nugget" next year - money that I worked for.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 20, 2017, 08:28:27 AM
Kdub certainly has liberals figured out
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: wetwillie on December 20, 2017, 08:30:03 AM
Will you be creating new jobs with your new found 8k?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 20, 2017, 08:33:07 AM
Extra minivan
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 20, 2017, 08:48:37 AM
Hopefully it helps him live within his means
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 20, 2017, 08:55:33 AM
I think removing the individual mandate is going to end up costing us all more than we realize.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 20, 2017, 09:28:10 AM
I think removing the individual mandate is going to end up costing us all more than we realize.

Only if we keep stuffing more money into the Obamacare sinkhole to shore it up.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on December 20, 2017, 09:30:31 AM
The petty bourgeoisie are cucks for the truly wealthy so large adult failsons like this gets to pursue their whims with even more money.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BYZH4TsloS6/?taken-by=wyatt.ingraham (https://www.instagram.com/p/BYZH4TsloS6/?taken-by=wyatt.ingraham)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 20, 2017, 09:39:07 AM
For what its worth, a whole lotta rich people in blue states may actually pay more in taxes due to significant reduction in itemized deductions. And even most democrats privately acknowledge that the 35% corporate tax rate was absurd (Obama publicly acknowledged it a few years ago). So the class warfare arguments never really held water, but that won't stop the libs from making them.

Just be happy guys! Are any of you paying higher taxes due to this bill? How much more of your money will you get to keep? :cheers:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on December 20, 2017, 09:53:55 AM
For what its worth, a whole lotta rich people in blue states may actually pay more in taxes due to significant reduction in itemized deductions. And even most democrats privately acknowledge that the 35% corporate tax rate was absurd (Obama publicly acknowledged it a few years ago). So the class warfare arguments never really held water, but that won't stop the libs from making them.

Just be happy guys! Are any of you paying higher taxes due to this bill? How much more of your money will you get to keep? :cheers:

(https://www.palmbeachermagazine.com/sites/default/files/profiles/20171107-dsc_6006.jpg)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 8manpick on December 20, 2017, 10:00:50 AM
I'm very likely to be paying more. We'll see though
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 20, 2017, 10:04:50 AM
I think I'm going to come out about $1k richer.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 20, 2017, 10:39:50 AM
I’ll keep a bit more money most likely, but doubling the standard deduction will do nothing for me.

I fully expect to end up paying the difference in increased insurance premiums now that most healthy people have no real reason to buy health insurance.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on December 20, 2017, 10:40:52 AM
How rich are we going to be for buying a house mid year?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 20, 2017, 10:44:46 AM
How rich are we going to be for buying a house mid year?

That probably will not help you at all. The standard deduction is going to be pretty hard to beat now.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 20, 2017, 10:47:18 AM
How rich are we going to be for buying a house mid year?

That probably will not help you at all. The standard deduction is going to be pretty hard to beat now.

Well and also these don't apply to 2017
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on December 20, 2017, 10:53:03 AM
Posted by a board member

Federal Tax Reform Bill Eliminates Advance Refinancing of Bonds

I want to make you aware of one of the changes approved today in the federal tax reform bill that will impact bond issues.  This change primarily impacts school districts and local governments and ultimately your pocketbook!

The federal tax reform bill eliminates the ability for advance refinancing of bonds, which is when an entity refinances bonds in advance of the call date or redemption date on the bond.  Historically the IRS has allowed one advanced refinance prior to the call date so school districts or local governments could refinance the bond if there are circumstances that would allow them to capture savings or shorten the terms.  This is no longer allowed. 

Why Did Congress Include This In The Tax Bill?
One can only guess, but I believe it's an off setting revenue-loss feature.  In other words, in order to "pay for" the tax cut this is a small way to have an off-setting impact and here's how it's done:   Advanced refinancing increases the number of bonds in the bond market. Currently about half of the bond issues in the country are these type of advanced refinancing bonds and they are tax-exempt..  The buyers of these tax exempt bonds don't pay income tax on these bonds.  If you take away this form of refinancing there will be less tax-exempt bonds in the marketplace.  So now the bond market will be reduced and investors will now have more limited investment options and will be driven to buy different kinds of securities that now they'll be paying tax on, thus off-setting the revenue loss due to the tax cuts. 

Where The Rubber Meets The Road (aka "Why Should I Care!?")
This week, the Olathe School District Board of Education approved the advance refinancing of two bonds.  We captured great savings and reduced the term.  This single action saved  $2.3 million dollars while paying off the bonds five years faster than originally planned. 

Here's the real news...the grand total we've saved due to advanced refinancing since 2014 is $25.5 million.  Let me say that again, in the past three years due to our strategic planning and the use of advanced refinancing of our bonds the Olathe School District has saved our citizens $25.5 million dollars and shorted the length of indebtedness by five years.  This is something to celebrate! 

In addition to the large savings and shorter terms, an early and aggressive amortization plan has allowed us to create a plan that will pay off 90% of our total bond indebtedness in just 16 years.  For our growing district, this is a very impressive strategy that will save our district mlutiple-millions and this also allows us to have greater flexibility in the future.

Where Do We Go From Here?
The good news for OSD is that we've done all we can do to capture savings now.  However, this effects us in the future and limits our ability to save money by advance refinancing future bonds.  We likely won't need additional bonds until 2022-ish (based on my unofficial projections) and at that time we will have to be more creative with issuing future bonds that would have unique call features that allow prepayment of bonds earlier than the call date. This handcuffs our flexibility and limits our ability to capture savings in favorable market situations.

I wanted to make you aware of this change and how it will impact us here locally moving forward.  If you care to reach out to our federally elected folks and share your thoughts on this please do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on December 20, 2017, 10:53:51 AM
This is the kind of bullshit that ksw will be bitching about when his kids schools come knocking


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 20, 2017, 10:54:58 AM
How rich are we going to be for buying a house mid year?

That probably will not help you at all. The standard deduction is going to be pretty hard to beat now.

Well and also these don't apply to 2017

Oh, yeah. Buying that house might actually save Wacky some money this year. Just have to come up with about $12.5k in deductions.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on December 20, 2017, 10:59:00 AM
 :frown:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 20, 2017, 10:59:44 AM
What month did you buy the house, wacky?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on December 20, 2017, 11:05:20 AM
What month did you buy the house, wacky?
September. Yeah, we'll get nothing. For some reason I thought it was July.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 20, 2017, 01:26:47 PM
Was it just impossible to make this tax cut retroactive or did the republicans choose to not do that to keep the cost under $1.5 trillion? Because if they chose not to make it retroactive that is just incredibly stupid. A whole lot of voters who are going to save money under this deal think their taxes are going up and the next election will be before people do their taxes under the new law.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 20, 2017, 01:36:23 PM
Was it just impossible to make this tax cut retroactive or did the republicans choose to not do that to keep the cost under $1.5 trillion? Because if they chose not to make it retroactive that is just incredibly stupid. A whole lot of voters who are going to save money under this deal think their taxes are going up and the next election will be before the cut takes effect.

That won't matter because there will be a tidal wave of new jobs entering this country and everyone's employers will give them raises since they will expect to make extra money now.

Seriously though, this will impact no one's voting decision in the near term.  Nearly half the country disapproved of the bill as written.  If anything they will be happy it does not take effect in 2018.

Also, Republicans are banking on the fact that people will start seeing more money in their paychecks because their employers will withhold less per revised IRS guidelines come February 2018 or so.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 20, 2017, 01:44:01 PM
Was it just impossible to make this tax cut retroactive or did the republicans choose to not do that to keep the cost under $1.5 trillion? Because if they chose not to make it retroactive that is just incredibly stupid. A whole lot of voters who are going to save money under this deal think their taxes are going up and the next election will be before the cut takes effect.

That won't matter because there will be a tidal wave of new jobs entering this country and everyone's employers will give them raises since they will expect to make extra money now.

Seriously though, this will impact no one's voting decision in the near term.  Nearly half the country disapproved of the bill as written.  If anything they will be happy it does not take effect in 2017.

Also, Republicans are banking on the fact that people will start seeing more money in their paychecks because their employers will withhold less per revised IRS guidelines come February 2017 or so.

I think it will make a pretty substantial impact. A very large percentage of voters believe their taxes are going up, when that is only true for a very small portion of the population. Distributing an extra $1,000 plus to most of these people when they do their taxes would really go a long way toward changing minds. The republicans just won't get the same effect with that cut distributed over 12-24 paychecks. People won't notice it. You would think the republicans of all people would understand how much more important beliefs are than facts in an election after 2016.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 20, 2017, 03:01:11 PM
I’ll keep a bit more money most likely, but doubling the standard deduction will do nothing for me.

I fully expect to end up paying the difference in increased insurance premiums now that most healthy people have no real reason to buy health insurance.

You should look at buying a policy that doesn't cover a crap ton of stuff you'll never need. Oh wait... that's illegal.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 20, 2017, 03:06:10 PM
Was it just impossible to make this tax cut retroactive or did the republicans choose to not do that to keep the cost under $1.5 trillion? Because if they chose not to make it retroactive that is just incredibly stupid. A whole lot of voters who are going to save money under this deal think their taxes are going up and the next election will be before people do their taxes under the new law.

Yes, they didn't make it retroactive to stay under the artificial cap. Yes, the vast majority of people will notice because their withholding is automatically adjusted for new rates, so their paychecks will get larger.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 20, 2017, 03:09:14 PM
This is the kind of bullshit that ksw will be bitching about when his kids schools come knocking

If I understand it correctly, and maybe I don't, this refinancing is exactly the bullshit I hate. It allows a district to extend a bond for another 20 years and tell the residents "vote for this and your taxes won't go up at all!" when the truth is that if the bond expired their taxes would go down. This is the sneaky bullshit that public educators pull all the time. So if it will now be harder for them to do that, great.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: cfbandyman on December 20, 2017, 03:10:49 PM
How rich are we going to be for buying a house mid year?

That probably will not help you at all. The standard deduction is going to be pretty hard to beat now.

Well and also these don't apply to 2017

Yup, bought a house here too, when I run the math, I maybe get a couple hundred dollars, maybe. My work just gave me more money just to buy a fitness band.

Major victory here guys, like yuge.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: cfbandyman on December 20, 2017, 03:13:34 PM
For what its worth, a whole lotta rich people in blue states may actually pay more in taxes due to significant reduction in itemized deductions. And even most democrats privately acknowledge that the 35% corporate tax rate was absurd (Obama publicly acknowledged it a few years ago). So the class warfare arguments never really held water, but that won't stop the libs from making them.

Just be happy guys! Are any of you paying higher taxes due to this bill? How much more of your money will you get to keep? :cheers:

You're an idiot but w/e. It's ok, we'll keep ruining it for the poors.

Corporate rate might be high, but that's all this whole crap was about, giving everyone in the middle and low peanuts to get a bigger bump at the top.

Trickle down never, ever, ever has worked.

Oh well.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 20, 2017, 03:20:30 PM
So basically "you're an idiot" is what you're down to, now. Ok. Merry Christmas! Hope you enjoy keeping some more of your money!  :cheers:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 20, 2017, 03:34:45 PM
Was it just impossible to make this tax cut retroactive or did the republicans choose to not do that to keep the cost under $1.5 trillion? Because if they chose not to make it retroactive that is just incredibly stupid. A whole lot of voters who are going to save money under this deal think their taxes are going up and the next election will be before people do their taxes under the new law.

Yes, they didn't make it retroactive to stay under the artificial cap. Yes, the vast majority of people will notice because their withholding is automatically adjusted for new rates, so their paychecks will get larger.

I just don't think a ~2% increase in the size of somebody's paycheck is going to be all that noticeable. A huge refund check this March would be very noticeable. Has any other big tax cut been polled as unfavorably as this one? It's really weird to me that so many people believe their taxes are actually going up.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 20, 2017, 03:42:13 PM
Was it just impossible to make this tax cut retroactive or did the republicans choose to not do that to keep the cost under $1.5 trillion? Because if they chose not to make it retroactive that is just incredibly stupid. A whole lot of voters who are going to save money under this deal think their taxes are going up and the next election will be before people do their taxes under the new law.

Yes, they didn't make it retroactive to stay under the artificial cap. Yes, the vast majority of people will notice because their withholding is automatically adjusted for new rates, so their paychecks will get larger.

I just don't think a ~2% increase in the size of somebody's paycheck is going to be all that noticeable. A huge refund check this March would be very noticeable. Has any other big tax cut been polled as unfavorably as this one? It's really weird to me that so many people believe their taxes are actually going up.

Do you really think it is weird? Google "tax reform" and you'll see one negative headline after another. It's been a steady barrage of negative coverage. One more reason why a partisan media makes a big difference. I agree that a lump sum refund will be much more noticeable. But I still think most people will notice their paycheck increased, even a little. And most people can then multiply that increase by 12, 24, or 26nto realize that Trump just saved them hundreds to thousands of dollars.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 20, 2017, 04:21:58 PM
"Partisan media" is one explanation why people believe their taxes will go up.  Here are some others:

1. Republicans have been unable to put together a convincing story yet because they were too focused on ramming the bill through congress

2. People realize that, if a Republican controlled congress led by a Republican controlled president chooses to add 1.5 trillion to the deficit instead of doing anything about spending, they are going to be totally mumped down the road

3. Because they are so bad about curbing spending and unwilling to try to gain any bi-partisan support, Republicans had to make tax cuts temporary on individuals

4. Trump is the least believed and least liked of any president in history (that we can measure), and he says the tax cuts are going to be fantastic
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: cfbandyman on December 20, 2017, 04:26:26 PM
So basically "you're an idiot" is what you're down to, now. Ok. Merry Christmas! Hope you enjoy keeping some more of your money!  :cheers:

Reran it, I don't actually.  Andyou're an idiot, and I'm not even down to that, I told you a long time ago all the issues with it.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 20, 2017, 04:45:13 PM
"Partisan media" is one explanation why people believe their taxes will go up.  Here are some others:

1. Republicans have been unable to put together a convincing story yet because they were too focused on ramming the bill through congress

2. People realize that, if a Republican controlled congress led by a Republican controlled president chooses to add 1.5 trillion to the deficit instead of doing anything about spending, they are going to be totally mumped down the road

3. Because they are so bad about curbing spending and unwilling to try to gain any bi-partisan support, Republicans had to make tax cuts temporary on individuals

4. Trump is the least believed and least liked of any president in history (that we can measure), and he says the tax cuts are going to be fantastic

Yeah those are all good and not so good excuses, but I think we both know (if we're being honest) that it's the constantly drumbeat of negativity from the media. Hopefully people are financially aware enough to realize when their paychecks increase.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 20, 2017, 04:53:57 PM
The media hasn't outright lied about the tax cuts. At least not that I have seen. They are painting them in a negative light and reporting poll results about a lot of people believing they are getting tax increases in a way that a casual observer might read the article and conclude that a lot of people actually are getting an increase, though. The reporting of this issue has been pretty poor.

I really think this whole thing could have been handled much more effectively by the Republicans and Trump. It shouldn't be that difficult to pass a tax cut that is actually a cut for everyone. The fact that some people get a tax increase is really confusing to the general public, and it makes it easy for opponents to sell to their base that they are the ones getting the increase.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 20, 2017, 05:16:54 PM
You have a president who can't deliver a message trying to promote a package that will greatly benefit him and his business...And he didn't deliver things like eliminating carried interest and simplifying the code that he promised. What do you expect the public reaction to be? People are smart enough not to fall for the "you get 3% more back" and be like ohhhhhh okay.

Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 20, 2017, 06:17:39 PM
Whole lotta excuses going on here for a misleading media in the tank for one party.... It's hard for liberals to comprehend the bias because they don't have to deal with it.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 20, 2017, 06:48:20 PM
because it's not there
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 20, 2017, 07:05:05 PM
Well this is neat. AT&T, Wells, Fifth Third... I wonder if any other companies will follow suit?

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/fifth-third-bancorp-unveils-bonuses-minimum-wage-hike-after-tax-bill-passage.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/fifth-third-bancorp-unveils-bonuses-minimum-wage-hike-after-tax-bill-passage.html)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: bucket on December 20, 2017, 07:17:29 PM
Well this is neat. AT&T, Wells, Fifth Third... I wonder if any other companies will follow suit?

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/fifth-third-bancorp-unveils-bonuses-minimum-wage-hike-after-tax-bill-passage.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/fifth-third-bancorp-unveils-bonuses-minimum-wage-hike-after-tax-bill-passage.html)

It's a start. Albeit just three companies and how big of a wage increase is it? I'm more interested in how wages for low level employees and middle management increase compared to CEO's and senior management.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: wetwillie on December 20, 2017, 07:20:25 PM
I bet walmart follows suit tomorrow
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 20, 2017, 07:44:24 PM
Did the rate cut on pass through llc's make it or did they decide to reward the lazy and punish the job makers?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: puniraptor on December 20, 2017, 08:18:17 PM
I rent out my primary residence and also am tax liable responsible for a vacation rental. This passthrough stuff should boost me from MENHY to MEDoJFi, right?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 20, 2017, 08:28:10 PM
I'll be deferring a bunch of income until next year and getting a ridic return for this year 


#thankstrump :Woot:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 20, 2017, 08:42:11 PM

Guys, remember, the amount your accountant puts on your tax for as owed is the minimum you must pay. You can ignore your lower tax rate and pay more.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: steve dave on December 20, 2017, 08:43:49 PM
heh, birther dougie chimes in with some hot quips
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 20, 2017, 09:27:13 PM
Whole lotta excuses going on here for a misleading media in the tank for one party.... It's hard for liberals to comprehend the bias because they don't have to deal with it.

we hear it plenty from you spinning how this is the greatest presidential year ever...and we can look with our own two eyes he's 25% approval and done nothing (except this tax bill now, which he'd have to be a fool not to get with Rep congress tripping over themselves to get their donors a taxbreak)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 20, 2017, 09:28:51 PM
heh, birther dougie chimes in with some hot quips

You seemed especially upset at your tax break.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 20, 2017, 09:41:47 PM
I don't think anyone has congratulated KSUW yet on this accomplishment.  Good thing we have Murphy's Law to explain this.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 20, 2017, 09:42:00 PM
Whole lotta excuses going on here for a misleading media in the tank for one party.... It's hard for liberals to comprehend the bias because they don't have to deal with it.

we hear it plenty from you spinning how this is the greatest presidential year ever...and we can look with our own two eyes he's 25% approval and done nothing (except this tax bill now, which he'd have to be a fool not to get with Rep congress tripping over themselves to get their donors a taxbreak)

Gorsuch and other textual judges, slashing regulations, rescinding absurd DOE guidances, cutting taxes, booming economy and investments, ISIS in tatters. All in all a pretty good year for America and the Trumpster! And all you can point to is the Don's approval rating which, if anything, is just further indication of the constant negative drumbeat from the press.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on December 20, 2017, 09:56:00 PM
Guys I have to tell you this 1st year of accomplishments toward American Greatness comes as no surprise to me  :driving:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: bucket on December 20, 2017, 10:02:15 PM
Whole lotta excuses going on here for a misleading media in the tank for one party.... It's hard for liberals to comprehend the bias because they don't have to deal with it.

we hear it plenty from you spinning how this is the greatest presidential year ever...and we can look with our own two eyes he's 25% approval and done nothing (except this tax bill now, which he'd have to be a fool not to get with Rep congress tripping over themselves to get their donors a taxbreak)

Gorsuch and other textual judges, slashing regulations, rescinding absurd DOE guidances, cutting taxes, booming economy and investments, ISIS in tatters. All in all a pretty good year for America and the Trumpster! And all you can point to is the Don's approval rating which, if anything, is just further indication of the constant negative drumbeat from the press.

 :lol:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 20, 2017, 10:13:29 PM
Whole lotta excuses going on here for a misleading media in the tank for one party.... It's hard for liberals to comprehend the bias because they don't have to deal with it.

we hear it plenty from you spinning how this is the greatest presidential year ever...and we can look with our own two eyes he's 25% approval and done nothing (except this tax bill now, which he'd have to be a fool not to get with Rep congress tripping over themselves to get their donors a taxbreak)

Gorsuch and other textual judges, slashing regulations, rescinding absurd DOE guidances, cutting taxes, booming economy and investments, ISIS in tatters. All in all a pretty good year for America and the Trumpster! And all you can point to is the Don's approval rating which, if anything, is just further indication of the constant negative drumbeat from the press.

name 3 impactful regulations slashed....you know like the ones he named like Dodd Frank?    LOL giving "booming economy" and "ISIS in tatters" to Trump.

Great job proving my point though....appreciate it.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: The Big Train on December 20, 2017, 10:15:49 PM
KSUW only projects what the propaganda machine puts out. It's his only source of information.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on December 20, 2017, 10:18:47 PM
 :driving:  :curse:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 20, 2017, 10:23:45 PM
Happy for you 27
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: gatoveintisiete on December 20, 2017, 10:28:02 PM
Thanks bud
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: treysolid on December 20, 2017, 10:56:09 PM
Well this is neat. AT&T, Wells, Fifth Third... I wonder if any other companies will follow suit?

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/fifth-third-bancorp-unveils-bonuses-minimum-wage-hike-after-tax-bill-passage.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/fifth-third-bancorp-unveils-bonuses-minimum-wage-hike-after-tax-bill-passage.html)

It's a start. Albeit just three companies and how big of a wage increase is it? I'm more interested in how wages for low level employees and middle management increase compared to CEO's and senior management.

These aren't wage increases, just bonuses. They'll evaporate and companies will bump up prices to make up for the difference once it's obvious that the tax plan doesn't add demand like they thought it would.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Cire on December 20, 2017, 11:17:21 PM
This is the kind of bullshit that ksw will be bitching about when his kids schools come knocking

If I understand it correctly, and maybe I don't, this refinancing is exactly the bullshit I hate. It allows a district to extend a bond for another 20 years and tell the residents "vote for this and your taxes won't go up at all!" when the truth is that if the bond expired their taxes would go down. This is the sneaky bullshit that public educators pull all the time. So if it will now be harder for them to do that, great.
eff over my community to own the libs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: mocat on December 21, 2017, 07:27:41 AM
isis in tatters omg ksuw
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 21, 2017, 09:57:52 AM
isis in tatters omg ksuw

Are you suggesting that massive progress hasn't been made against ISIS in the past year? Start here...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/opinion/sunday/war-trump-islamic-state.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/opinion/sunday/war-trump-islamic-state.html)

Even the more liberal assessment from PolitiFact, while arguing that Trump can't take full credit (true), begrudgingly acknowledges the acceleration in progress this past year thanks in part to the new administration.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/26/donald-trump/trump-takes-full-credit-gains-against-isis/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/26/donald-trump/trump-takes-full-credit-gains-against-isis/)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 21, 2017, 10:18:36 AM
I equate this to when I twist real hard on a jar lid for a long time then hand it to someone else and they pop it open with ease....sure they opened the jar.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 21, 2017, 10:29:03 AM
First of all, this is the tax thread.

Second, the best short term solution for ISIS is always going to be additional military presence, which Republicans are more likely to push for. Ironically, the best long term solution is probably the opposite, which honestly only a libertarian could really pull off.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 21, 2017, 11:00:41 AM
I equate this to when I twist real hard on a jar lid for a long time then hand it to someone else and they pop it open with ease....sure they opened the jar.

:lol: Did you really just bust out the "well I loosened it for you" excuse? That is perfect! I'm envisioning a Facebook meme of Obama in his mom jeans sweating over a jar of ISIS (or the economy, etc.) before handing it to Trump....
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: sys on December 21, 2017, 11:34:44 AM
The media hasn't outright lied about the tax cuts. At least not that I have seen. They are painting them in a negative light and reporting poll results about a lot of people believing they are getting tax increases in a way that a casual observer might read the article and conclude that a lot of people actually are getting an increase, though. The reporting of this issue has been pretty poor.

I really think this whole thing could have been handled much more effectively by the Republicans and Trump. It shouldn't be that difficult to pass a tax cut that is actually a cut for everyone. The fact that some people get a tax increase is really confusing to the general public, and it makes it easy for opponents to sell to their base that they are the ones getting the increase.

this silver piece gets it right, i think. 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-are-skeptical-of-the-gop-tax-bill-overall-not-just-whether-theyll-get-a-cut/

people don't like the bill because they see it as an unsustainable raid on the nation's piggy bank with the gains disproportionately going to people other than themselves.  they then transfer that dislike to feel as if they won't get a tax cut because it is cognitively uncomfortable to acknowledge a tangible benefit from something you dislike.  it's not likely that many of those people will change their minds about the bill if they see a little more coming home in their monthly paychecks (as noted many times, many people won't even notice a small plus/minus in their pay, i certainly wouldn't have).  the fairly substantial slice of the electorate that is undecided may swing to favor the cut, though.

i don't think making the cut retroactive would necessarily have been great politics, it definitely would not have been good policy.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 21, 2017, 02:03:44 PM
I equate this to when I twist real hard on a jar lid for a long time then hand it to someone else and they pop it open with ease....sure they opened the jar.

Did you really just bust out the "well I loosened it for you" excuse? That is perfect! I'm envisioning a Facebook meme of Obama in his mom jeans sweating over a jar of ISIS (or the economy, etc.) before handing it to Trump....
The best
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Kat Kid on December 21, 2017, 02:20:21 PM
You are both right.

The 2001 Bush tax cuts resulted in people getting cut a physical check for their 2000 returns.  It was pretty popular and it is easy to see why.  It also is a much better way to stimulate the economy.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 21, 2017, 02:25:26 PM
i don't think making the cut retroactive would necessarily have been great politics, it definitely would not have been good policy.

I think it would be great politics and agree it wouldn't have been good policy, but I don't really believe good policy is all that important to the republican party right now.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Stupid Fitz on December 21, 2017, 07:25:17 PM
You have a president who can't deliver a message trying to promote a package that will greatly benefit him and his business...And he didn't deliver things like eliminating carried interest and simplifying the code that he promised. What do you expect the public reaction to be? People are smart enough not to fall for the "you get 3% more back" and be like ohhhhhh okay.

This is my favorite thing I think. Cohn (sp?) was on CNBC the other day and said, "yeah, we have tried multiple times to end the carried interest exemption, and the president keeps saying he wants to, but the lobby is just too powerful". Saying this crap on TV rough ridin' blows my mind. Yep, rich people have lots of money and buy politicians and there is nothing we can do about it, but yeah, eff those poor people. We can eliminate all of their crap and no one can do anything about it. Everyone enjoy your $28 a week!!!!!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 22, 2017, 08:07:04 AM
You have a president who can't deliver a message trying to promote a package that will greatly benefit him and his business...And he didn't deliver things like eliminating carried interest and simplifying the code that he promised. What do you expect the public reaction to be? People are smart enough not to fall for the "you get 3% more back" and be like ohhhhhh okay.

This is my favorite thing I think. Cohn (sp?) was on CNBC the other day and said, "yeah, we have tried multiple times to end the carried interest exemption, and the president keeps saying he wants to, but the lobby is just too powerful". Saying this crap on TV rough ridin' blows my mind. Yep, rich people have lots of money and buy politicians and there is nothing we can do about it, but yeah, eff those poor people. We can eliminate all of their crap and no one can do anything about it. Everyone enjoy your $28 a week!!!!!

I like the honesty, personally. Both GOP and Dems are absolutely beholden to special interests. Just like the absurd tax break preserved for higher ed.

And keeping an extra $28 a week is a pretty big deal for people who don't make much money. Do you have any idea how condescending you sound when you dismiss that? That amounts to over $1000 more per year and perhaps a 5% or more tax reduction for a poor household. Cant believe you'd smirk at that.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 22, 2017, 08:16:13 AM
You have a president who can't deliver a message trying to promote a package that will greatly benefit him and his business...And he didn't deliver things like eliminating carried interest and simplifying the code that he promised. What do you expect the public reaction to be? People are smart enough not to fall for the "you get 3% more back" and be like ohhhhhh okay.

This is my favorite thing I think. Cohn (sp?) was on CNBC the other day and said, "yeah, we have tried multiple times to end the carried interest exemption, and the president keeps saying he wants to, but the lobby is just too powerful". Saying this crap on TV rough ridin' blows my mind. Yep, rich people have lots of money and buy politicians and there is nothing we can do about it, but yeah, eff those poor people. We can eliminate all of their crap and no one can do anything about it. Everyone enjoy your $28 a week!!!!!

I like the honesty, personally. Both GOP and Dems are absolutely beholden to special interests. Just like the absurd tax break preserved for higher ed.

And keeping an extra $28 a week is a pretty big deal for people who don't make much money. Do you have any idea how condescending you sound when you dismiss that? That amounts to over $1000 more per year and perhaps a 5% or more tax reduction for a poor household. Cant believe you'd smirk at that.
Poor households aren't keeping that much per paycheck.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 22, 2017, 09:06:19 AM
KSUW cares about poor people as long as it doesn’t cost him anything.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 22, 2017, 10:18:13 AM
You have a president who can't deliver a message trying to promote a package that will greatly benefit him and his business...And he didn't deliver things like eliminating carried interest and simplifying the code that he promised. What do you expect the public reaction to be? People are smart enough not to fall for the "you get 3% more back" and be like ohhhhhh okay.

This is my favorite thing I think. Cohn (sp?) was on CNBC the other day and said, "yeah, we have tried multiple times to end the carried interest exemption, and the president keeps saying he wants to, but the lobby is just too powerful". Saying this crap on TV rough ridin' blows my mind. Yep, rich people have lots of money and buy politicians and there is nothing we can do about it, but yeah, eff those poor people. We can eliminate all of their crap and no one can do anything about it. Everyone enjoy your $28 a week!!!!!

I like the honesty, personally. Both GOP and Dems are absolutely beholden to special interests. Just like the absurd tax break preserved for higher ed.

And keeping an extra $28 a week is a pretty big deal for people who don't make much money. Do you have any idea how condescending you sound when you dismiss that? That amounts to over $1000 more per year and perhaps a 5% or more tax reduction for a poor household. Cant believe you'd smirk at that.
Poor households aren't keeping that much per paycheck.

They aren't? Consider 4 scenarios....

Married couple with 2 kids and $30k AGI: -$6,222 (2017), -$7,732 (2018)  A $1,510 (5.03%) "savings"

Married couple with 2 kids and $20k AGI: -$7,616 (2017), -$9,616 (2018)  A $2,000 (10.00%) "savings"

Married couple with 1 kid and $30k AGI: -$2,911 (2017), -3,826 (2018)  A $915 (3.05%) "savings"

Married couple with 1 kid and $20k AGI: -4,400 (2017), -$5,400 (2018)  A $1,000 (5.00%) "savings"

I put "savings" in quotations because these folks already owed less than zero Federal Income Tax. They are eligible for these large "refunds" because the CTC and EITC are fully refundable at these income levels, both in 2017 and 2018. (If you're wondering how these refunds could possibly be this high, the Earned Income Tax Credit is a massive subsidy for poor working families. Go here to run the calculations if you don't believe me. http://www.eitcoutreach.org/help/ (http://www.eitcoutreach.org/help/))

So these savings mean they're getting even more of other peoples' money under the new bill. But I digress. Regardless, every one of the families in the above scenarios is reaping $915 to $2,000 extra under the new plan.

You think any of these families isn't going to notice or appreciate an extra 1-2 thousand dollars a year? :dunno: Or will they be too consumed with class envy that the millionaire paying over $100k in taxes is getting more money back? I think it's going to be the former.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 22, 2017, 10:42:37 AM

The responses are hilarious
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 22, 2017, 10:44:18 AM
He has to concentrate so deeply just to sign his name lol
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 22, 2017, 10:53:46 AM
He has to concentrate so deeply just to sign his name lol

(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2954431.1485279763!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/aptopix-trump.jpg)

I actually think his signature kicks serious ass. I would have to concentrate on that, too.

This is a lot closer to my own style of signature - much lazier.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Barack_Obama_signature.svg)
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: resident LibBot dick holder on December 22, 2017, 10:57:42 AM
Yes, mine is super lazy
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Stupid Fitz on December 22, 2017, 11:11:53 AM
You have a president who can't deliver a message trying to promote a package that will greatly benefit him and his business...And he didn't deliver things like eliminating carried interest and simplifying the code that he promised. What do you expect the public reaction to be? People are smart enough not to fall for the "you get 3% more back" and be like ohhhhhh okay.

This is my favorite thing I think. Cohn (sp?) was on CNBC the other day and said, "yeah, we have tried multiple times to end the carried interest exemption, and the president keeps saying he wants to, but the lobby is just too powerful". Saying this crap on TV rough ridin' blows my mind. Yep, rich people have lots of money and buy politicians and there is nothing we can do about it, but yeah, eff those poor people. We can eliminate all of their crap and no one can do anything about it. Everyone enjoy your $28 a week!!!!!

I like the honesty, personally. Both GOP and Dems are absolutely beholden to special interests. Just like the absurd tax break preserved for higher ed.

And keeping an extra $28 a week is a pretty big deal for people who don't make much money. Do you have any idea how condescending you sound when you dismiss that? That amounts to over $1000 more per year and perhaps a 5% or more tax reduction for a poor household. Cant believe you'd smirk at that.

I'm not dismissing it at all. I'm happy for those that are getting a break that really need it. It is just bullshit that they keep trying to sell this as a "middle income" tax break yet those "middle income" people are getting the smallest piece of it. How about they do 22% for corporations and give lower income people a bit of a bigger break? Nope, those corporations give money to these corrupt fucks and remember, corporations are "people" so, welp, nothing we can do about it!!!!
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 22, 2017, 11:14:34 AM
You are welcome unmotivated W2 wage earners.  keep grinding
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 22, 2017, 11:47:44 AM
You have a president who can't deliver a message trying to promote a package that will greatly benefit him and his business...And he didn't deliver things like eliminating carried interest and simplifying the code that he promised. What do you expect the public reaction to be? People are smart enough not to fall for the "you get 3% more back" and be like ohhhhhh okay.

This is my favorite thing I think. Cohn (sp?) was on CNBC the other day and said, "yeah, we have tried multiple times to end the carried interest exemption, and the president keeps saying he wants to, but the lobby is just too powerful". Saying this crap on TV rough ridin' blows my mind. Yep, rich people have lots of money and buy politicians and there is nothing we can do about it, but yeah, eff those poor people. We can eliminate all of their crap and no one can do anything about it. Everyone enjoy your $28 a week!!!!!

I like the honesty, personally. Both GOP and Dems are absolutely beholden to special interests. Just like the absurd tax break preserved for higher ed.

And keeping an extra $28 a week is a pretty big deal for people who don't make much money. Do you have any idea how condescending you sound when you dismiss that? That amounts to over $1000 more per year and perhaps a 5% or more tax reduction for a poor household. Cant believe you'd smirk at that.

I'm not dismissing it at all. I'm happy for those that are getting a break that really need it. It is just bullshit that they keep trying to sell this as a "middle income" tax break yet those "middle income" people are getting the smallest piece of it. How about they do 22% for corporations and give lower income people a bit of a bigger break? Nope, those corporations give money to these corrupt fucks and remember, corporations are "people" so, welp, nothing we can do about it!!!!

Yes, the primary thrust of the bill was reducing corporate taxes. Believe it or not, there used to be (even recently, and even now - privately) bipartisan agreement that our corporate tax rate is absurdly uncompetitive. The GOP decided to do a bill that cut both personal and business taxes and, ironically, the Dems used this as an opportunity to trot out their tired old class warfare screams.

If your complaint is simply that you don't like politicians pointing to a tax break for the middle class because that's not the primary thrust of the bill - ok - but that's what every politician does, every time, with every bill. Weird thing to be upset about.

I feel like we should all be happy we're evening the global playing field on the business front, while likely getting to keep more of our money and padding our 401k's to boot. There really are very few people getting the shaft with this bill. Yes, debt is a valid concern (just incredibly hypocritical coming from liberals), but debt is much more a function of spending than revenue. And besides, revenue is driven more by economic vitality than tax rate, to an extent.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: catastrophe on December 22, 2017, 12:03:39 PM
If the U.S. really wanted to bring back corporations we should just go full third-world country and abolish environmental regulations and the minimum wage.  To their credit, Republicans are being consistent in this regard at least.  The big contradiction is trying so hard to keep cheap (non-white) labor sources out of the country.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 22, 2017, 12:05:02 PM
The income level to phase out the pass through % is too low.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Phil Titola on December 22, 2017, 12:18:46 PM
When you've signed as many bankruptcy docs as he has, you get an angry signature like that.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 22, 2017, 12:24:50 PM
If the U.S. really wanted to bring back corporations we should just go full third-world country and abolish environmental regulations and the minimum wage.  To their credit, Republicans are being consistent in this regard at least.  The big contradiction is trying so hard to keep cheap (non-white) labor sources out of the country.

First LOl at "abolishing the minimum wage." But regardless, the whole point of taking these steps to make America more competitive globally is to help.... Americans. So I don't think that is contradictory in a goals-based sense. Sure, we might encourage even more businesses to come here by flooding the market with cheaper labor, but that seems a bit counterproductive.
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 22, 2017, 12:41:18 PM
If we truly want to be competitive stop rewarding the failed w2's and give them better motivation to be owners.  just my  :th_twocents:
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on December 22, 2017, 12:45:08 PM
Just wondering, is it normal to sign legal documents with a Sharpie?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 22, 2017, 12:58:17 PM
Just wondering, is it normal to sign legal documents with a Sharpie?

Are you sure that's not a regular pen that just looks bigger in his undersized hand?
Title: Re: Taxes (GOP 2017 edition)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 22, 2017, 01:10:03 PM