SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,266
|
Post by SSHoya on Nov 4, 2017 7:32:06 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Nov 4, 2017 18:31:04 GMT -5
The sainted Washington Post gave the Dems four Pinnochios for the claim that a family with two kids and earning $59k would get a tax increase. 70% of income tax filers use the standard deduction so they are not affected by things like mortgage or state tax deductions. What they are affected by is the Standard Deduction which is proposed to be raised. You continue to talk like the money belongs to the government. It doesn't and the government is confiscating an enormous amount of it from individuals and corporations, which are owned by real people/shareholders. The top 1% of taxpayers already are paying half of all income taxes, so if we are to lower taxes, they will also be able to keep more of their earnings. The government would not be giving them anything, just agreeing to confiscate less of their money. Considering that the top 1% of taxpayers hold close to 40% of the wealth in this country, it's actually pretty appropriate that they foot about half of the tax bill. Because - you know - math. And I love the use of the word "confiscate". Makes it sound like the government doesn't actually do anything with that money. It's called living in a freaking civil society. I mean, there are a lot of common goods that we all benefit from, like interstate highways, golf carts at Mar-A-Lago, and a god damn military. There's a reasonable debate to be had about how tax dollars should be spent and how large the government should be, but if you're going to start from a place of "Taxes = the government confiscating people's money", you're clearly not open to having that reasonable debate. First, my bad for Pinnochioing the wrong numbers. Guess everybody could choose a certain set of conditions to back up their case. The fact that 1% of taxpayers holding 40% of wealth in the country should have no bearing on them paying half the income taxes. I remind you its their money, not the government's. If the government takes 10% of my income for taxes, I see that as the cost of running the government. If they take 40%, that's confiscation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 8:09:28 GMT -5
Considering that the top 1% of taxpayers hold close to 40% of the wealth in this country, it's actually pretty appropriate that they foot about half of the tax bill. Because - you know - math. And I love the use of the word "confiscate". Makes it sound like the government doesn't actually do anything with that money. It's called living in a freaking civil society. I mean, there are a lot of common goods that we all benefit from, like interstate highways, golf carts at Mar-A-Lago, and a god damn military. There's a reasonable debate to be had about how tax dollars should be spent and how large the government should be, but if you're going to start from a place of "Taxes = the government confiscating people's money", you're clearly not open to having that reasonable debate. First, my bad for Pinnochioing the wrong numbers. Guess everybody could choose a certain set of conditions to back up their case. The fact that 1% of taxpayers holding 40% of wealth in the country should have no bearing on them paying half the income taxes. I remind you its their money, not the government's. If the government takes 10% of my income for taxes, I see that as the cost of running the government. If they take 40%, that's confiscation. And if the government takes 10% of your income for taxes and 10% of your neighbor’s income for taxes, but you make $100 a year and your neighbor makes $50 a year, then half of the people (you) are paying two-thirds of the tax bill. Is that unfair? Because that’s basically the argument you seem to be making about the top 1% above. Or at you arguing that every citizen should just pay flat-fee taxes? Say, $5,000 per citizen, regardless of income? In that case, the top 1% of earners would pay exactly 1% if the tax bill. If so, you’ve found a pretty simple way to ensure that the poorest people stay really poor and the richest stay really rich. Which seems to be the goal of Repubicans, anyway.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Nov 5, 2017 9:25:01 GMT -5
I'm confused. Trump keeps touting how great the economy has been under his administration and uses the (misleading) Dow as his lead indicator. If that's the case, why do we as people, and corporations especially, need the largest tax cut in the history of the country? It must be because of the time-tested (and fallacious) economic principle that corporate savings on taxes lead to more jobs. Who believes that the corporate rate is going to get major corporations to pay the effective tax rate that they avoid paying as a rule? What happened to the closure of the carried interest provision? If the record bonuses in the wake of the TARP bailout wasn't a clear indicator of how many businesses run and manage additional funds, I don't know what is.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,266
|
Post by SSHoya on Nov 7, 2017 16:54:57 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2017 14:44:58 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 9:52:19 GMT -5
Gary Cohn: " The most excited group out there are big CEOs, about our tax plan."
Lindsey Graham: “the financial contributions will stop” if tax reform fails. _
Trickle down is back baby. Just what the middle class needs....
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,266
|
Post by SSHoya on Nov 13, 2017 17:14:49 GMT -5
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,199
|
Post by hoyarooter on Nov 13, 2017 21:10:38 GMT -5
So? Anyone who believed P.T. Trump and thought that the tax proposal would be anything different than what it was is a sap and deserves what he gets, right? That's what good old P.T. would say privately (but he won't tweet that).
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Nov 13, 2017 23:10:05 GMT -5
One of my favorite parts is how it cuts out the deduction for student loan interest but provides tax breaks on the tuition for private primary and secondary schools. Way to toss out the elites and go with the guy who's "one of us" and "beholden to no one" politically.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Nov 14, 2017 9:03:24 GMT -5
Newest idea is to tax stock options and RSUs at the time of vesting - which makes them a liability rather than a lottery ticket. It means that you're going to highly tax someone making a nominal salary and a bunch of options that they can't exercise on the idea that the stock options might some day have real value. How's a startup going to find any talent if they can't offer stock options? www.recode.net/2017/11/13/16644784/us-house-senate-congress-tech-tax-bill-startup-compensationMy personal experience : my first job out of school I worked for a small 20-person startup that was acquired by a larger company during the tech boom (1998-2001). I didn't have a lot of stock, and I wasn't paid a lot, but our options automatically vested at acquisition. Part of the acquisition agreement was that we could not exercise for a year. During that year, the dot com bubble market crash destroyed any value of the stock options - I think by the end of the year, the options were worth maybe 1/10 of what they were said to be worth at the time of vesting. Under this proposal, I'd have owed a ton of money in tax on something that I never exercised, that I could never have converted into a gain, and that I never made any money off of. These are ridiculous proposals and the only economic principles here seem to be to screw blue states or screw liberals (tech industry is seen in general as liberal) and reward the Republican 0.1% donor class. I haven't seen any good arguments about how these proposals are going to spur growth, create jobs, how they are going to incentivize investment, how they are going to make it easier to pay for education, how they are going to improve the country.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 3,906
|
Post by Filo on Nov 14, 2017 12:25:15 GMT -5
Newest idea is to tax stock options and RSUs at the time of vesting - which makes them a liability rather than a lottery ticket. It means that you're going to highly tax someone making a nominal salary and a bunch of options that they can't exercise on the idea that the stock options might some day have real value. How's a startup going to find any talent if they can't offer stock options? www.recode.net/2017/11/13/16644784/us-house-senate-congress-tech-tax-bill-startup-compensationMy personal experience : my first job out of school I worked for a small 20-person startup that was acquired by a larger company during the tech boom (1998-2001). I didn't have a lot of stock, and I wasn't paid a lot, but our options automatically vested at acquisition. Part of the acquisition agreement was that we could not exercise for a year. During that year, the dot com bubble market crash destroyed any value of the stock options - I think by the end of the year, the options were worth maybe 1/10 of what they were said to be worth at the time of vesting. Under this proposal, I'd have owed a ton of money in tax on something that I never exercised, that I could never have converted into a gain, and that I never made any money off of. These are ridiculous proposals and the only economic principles here seem to be to screw blue states or screw liberals (tech industry is seen in general as liberal) and reward the Republican 0.1% donor class. I haven't seen any good arguments about how these proposals are going to spur growth, create jobs, how they are going to incentivize investment, how they are going to make it easier to pay for education, how they are going to improve the country. Couple it with the impact on PHD programs, etc. that was mentioned above, and it is pretty clear that this administration will destroy entrepreneurship and research. This country has fallen off its leadership role in so many areas. Biotech research is one of the few areas where we lead. That position will vanish almost overnight if Trump and his cronies get their way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2017 12:34:04 GMT -5
Who wants to tell him?
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Nov 14, 2017 18:43:33 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 11:47:29 GMT -5
The tax bill has breaks for private jets, golf course owners and people inheriting millions of dollars. It increases taxes on teachers, and grad students. It also cuts medicaid, and the minor deductions received by middle class folks would likely be wiped away by the increase in insurance cost due to the repeal of the individual mandate according to Republican Senator Susan Collins. - The math behind Senate Republican's new child tax credit: Marco Rubio would get $2,200 a year more. A poor single mom would get $75. t.co/9v5Wta060Q
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 12:15:27 GMT -5
According to this study 50 percent of US households would eventually get a tax increase... Remember when folks were saying T was a populist?
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,199
|
Post by hoyarooter on Nov 21, 2017 20:03:32 GMT -5
According to this study 50 percent of US households would eventually get a tax increase... Remember when folks were saying T was a populist? Faux populist. Said so from the get go. P.T. just convinced the gullible into believing that he's a populist.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,266
|
Post by SSHoya on Nov 27, 2017 5:37:13 GMT -5
The Senate Republican tax plan gives substantial tax cuts and benefits to Americans earning more than $100,000 a year, while the nation’s poorest would be worse off, according to a report released Sunday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. By 2019, Americans earning less than $30,000 a year would be worse off under the Senate bill, CBO found. By 2021, Americans earning $40,000 or less would be net losers, and by 2027, most people earning less than $75,000 a year would be worse off. On the flip side, millionaires and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 would be big beneficiaries, according to the CBO’s calculations. www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/26/senate-gop-tax-bill-hurts-the-poor-more-than-originally-thought-cbo-finds/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_cbo-tax-915pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.70e5eaf3675eWASHINGTON— Bishop Frank J. Dewane of Venice, Florida, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, called for amendments to the Senate tax reform proposal to "ensure a just and moral framework for all." "The Senate bill doubles the standard deduction, which will provide tax relief to many. However, the 'Chairman's Mark,' as written, will raise income taxes on the working poor while simultaneously providing a large tax cut to the wealthy," wrote Bishop Dewane. "Tax breaks for the financially secure, including millionaires and billionaires, should not be made possible by increased taxes to families struggling to meet their daily needs." www.usccb.org/news/2017/17-230.cfm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 11:52:24 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2017 11:16:29 GMT -5
|
|