PDA

View Full Version : Skeptical on the tax cut by Trump


JustRalph
12-05-2017, 05:56 PM
I still donít think this is going to happen. Somebody is going to muck this up

Itís going to soak blue state populations so hard......something is going to happen yet.

About 40 States are about to get serious personal income hair cuts. They get to deduct State and Local Taxes from their Federal liability. If this bill comes out of committee as it went in.....those deductions are gone.

Especially those states where the state income tax is exorbitant. California and NY to name a few.

Somebody will get bribed to throw a monkey wrench into this thing yet............

chadk66
12-05-2017, 06:54 PM
That will never happen. Those deductions will remain.

chadk66
12-05-2017, 06:55 PM
I redid my taxes from last year using these new figures and I'll keep $6600 more of my money:headbanger:

boxcar
12-05-2017, 07:00 PM
That will never happen. Those deductions will remain.

That's what I'm thinking...even though it's always the libs crying and whining about tax loopholes.

FantasticDan
12-05-2017, 07:05 PM
I redid my taxes from last year using these new figures and I'll keep $6600 more of my money:headbanger:Wow, just a couple days ago you said you re-did them and would save $5K. Can't wait to check back with you this weekend when you'll be saving $8K! :jump: :jump:

davew
12-05-2017, 07:25 PM
you start with a higher standard deduction, so will only get screwed if have high mortgage interest on 2 homes and donate big bucks to charities like the Clinton Foundation.

garyscpa
12-05-2017, 07:28 PM
I redid my taxes from last year using these new figures and I'll keep $6600 more of my money:headbanger:

You mean the track's money. :)

AndyC
12-05-2017, 07:35 PM
One thing that you never hear discussed about the SALT deductions is that many taxpayers who have high SALT deductions are paying the Alt Min Tax and consequently don't get to write those deductions off in any event. Losing that deduction is not much of a loss. Not having to pay the Alt Min Tax will be to their benefit.

elysiantraveller
12-05-2017, 07:54 PM
One thing that you never hear discussed about the SALT deductions is that many taxpayers who have high SALT deductions are paying the Alt Min Tax and consequently don't get to write those deductions off in any event. Losing that deduction is not much of a loss. Not having to pay the Alt Min Tax will be to their benefit.

Every tax bracket should have a Minimum Tax requirement. EVERY BRACKET.

davew
12-05-2017, 08:01 PM
Every tax bracket should have a Minimum Tax requirement. EVERY BRACKET.

just more paperwork since half of the country GETS money from everyone else

garyscpa
12-05-2017, 08:03 PM
Every tax bracket should have a Minimum Tax requirement. EVERY BRACKET.

Yep, the minimum tax right now for the lower brackets is a negative number.

elysiantraveller
12-05-2017, 11:13 PM
just more paperwork since half of the country GETS money from everyone else

I don't care if people come out ahead when benefits and stuff are factored in but... everyone should have a minimum tax liability based on income.

JustRalph
12-06-2017, 12:02 AM
I don't care if people come out ahead when benefits and stuff are factored in but... everyone should have a minimum tax liability based on income.

38% of Americans pay no tax at all

Thatís a problem

Burls
12-06-2017, 01:23 AM
38% of Americans pay no tax at all

Thatís a problem
No FEDERAL tax.
But they pay PAYROLL tax, SALES tax, etc.

Fager Fan
12-06-2017, 01:47 AM
No FEDERAL tax.
But they pay PAYROLL tax, SALES tax, etc.

So what? Everyone else pays those taxes too.

Fager Fan
12-06-2017, 01:50 AM
I don't care if people come out ahead when benefits and stuff are factored in but... everyone should have a minimum tax liability based on income.

I do. You shouldn't ever get a tax refund for more than you paid in. At most, it should make a person owe $0.

But otherwise agree with you that everyone should at least have a small sum of tax liability.

Fager Fan
12-06-2017, 01:55 AM
I still donít think this is going to happen. Somebody is going to muck this up

Itís going to soak blue state populations so hard......something is going to happen yet.

About 40 States are about to get serious personal income hair cuts. They get to deduct State and Local Taxes from their Federal liability. If this bill comes out of committee as it went in.....those deductions are gone.

Especially those states where the state income tax is exorbitant. California and NY to name a few.

Somebody will get bribed to throw a monkey wrench into this thing yet............

I can't say I can muster up too much sorry for CA and NY, particularly CA. Liberal bastion who lives way beyond its means and will be expecting a bailout by the Feds.

I'm not sure why this tax deduction exists in the first place. To try to even the playing field a little bit with the states that have no state income tax? Maybe it'd be better for those in the states with high state taxes to feel it a little more. Then maybe they'll rein in spending else lose more residents.

JustRalph
12-06-2017, 07:57 AM
No FEDERAL tax.
But they pay PAYROLL tax, SALES tax, etc.

What the hell is "payroll tax?Ē

barahona44
12-06-2017, 09:16 AM
I can't say I can muster up too much sorry for CA and NY, particularly CA. Liberal bastion who lives way beyond its means and will be expecting a bailout by the Feds.

I'm not sure why this tax deduction exists in the first place. To try to even the playing field a little bit with the states that have no state income tax? Maybe it'd be better for those in the states with high state taxes to feel it a little more. Then maybe they'll rein in spending else lose more residents.High income states don't even come close to getting back from the federal government what they send in.Blue states have been subsidizing red states for years.

Is a little graditude too much to ask?

But most welfare recipients just put their hand out with one simple word.

"More" :D :bang:

Fager Fan
12-06-2017, 09:23 AM
High income states don't even come close to getting back from the federal government what they send in.Blue states have been subsidizing red states for years.

Is a little graditude too much to ask?

But most welfare recipients just put their hand out with one simple word.

"More" :D :bang:

What are you talking about? That's crazy to consider federal taxes as subsidies.

JustRalph
12-06-2017, 10:26 AM
High income states don't even come close to getting back from the federal government what they send in.Blue states have been subsidizing red states for years.

Is a little graditude too much to ask?

But most welfare recipients just put their hand out with one simple word.

"More" :D :bang:

Youíre doing apples to oranges.......

Two different issues all together.

davew
12-06-2017, 10:47 AM
What the hell is "payroll tax?Ē

social security deductions, Medicare, some states unemployment....

elysiantraveller
12-06-2017, 10:58 AM
I do. You shouldn't ever get a tax refund for more than you paid in. At most, it should make a person owe $0.

But otherwise agree with you that everyone should at least have a small sum of tax liability.

You're not reading me right. We agree. There needs to be a minimum tax floor per bracket. $0-12,000 for instance needs to pay something. I don't care if its only $250 for the year and the rest is refunded... everyone should put in the till.

barahona44
12-06-2017, 11:03 AM
When you're getting more than you're sending out,it makes it easier to lower your state's tax burden and more difficult when you don't.I don't see how you can think otherwise.Seniority rules in Congress ensures that money gets steered to those states.And that usually(but not always)favors red states as they are less likely to turn away incumbents.

I'm not questioning the need for states like California, New Jersey and New York to tighten their belts.EVERYBODY needs to tighten their belts.

AndyC
12-06-2017, 11:30 AM
High income states don't even come close to getting back from the federal government what they send in.Blue states have been subsidizing red states for years.

Is a little graditude too much to ask?

But most welfare recipients just put their hand out with one simple word.

"More" :D :bang:

How exactly is that measured? Does social security count as getting back from the government? How is the cost of the military apportioned? It seems to me that you could come up with any answer you wanted.

boxcar
12-06-2017, 12:44 PM
Youíre doing apples to oranges.......

Two different issues all together.

Exactly right! What's really going on is that this state tax deduction is a loophole that favors mostly the rich -- the very thing libs decry whenever the 15% tax bracket is being talked about to being reduced to 12% so that lower to low-middle income families would actually see some real money in their pockets. :bang::bang:

zico20
12-06-2017, 12:48 PM
I can't say I can muster up too much sorry for CA and NY, particularly CA. Liberal bastion who lives way beyond its means and will be expecting a bailout by the Feds.

I'm not sure why this tax deduction exists in the first place. To try to even the playing field a little bit with the states that have no state income tax? Maybe it'd be better for those in the states with high state taxes to feel it a little more. Then maybe they'll rein in spending else lose more residents.

But only if Republicans move out of state. We do not need liberals moving into red states and polluting their new state government with massive tax and spending increases.

zico20
12-06-2017, 12:51 PM
You're not reading me right. We agree. There needs to be a minimum tax floor per bracket. $0-12,000 for instance needs to pay something. I don't care if its only $250 for the year and the rest is refunded... everyone should put in the till.

I agree with you. If you only make 1000 dollars then pay maybe 50 bucks in taxes. Something, anything so you can be a contributing member of society.

elysiantraveller
12-06-2017, 01:02 PM
I agree with you. If you only make 1000 dollars then pay maybe 50 bucks in taxes. Something, anything so you can be a contributing member of society.

Exactly.

Lowest bracket pays 1-3%... I don't care... Just something...

Part of being a Citizen and taking ownership for the role your government plays in your life.

linrom1
12-06-2017, 01:19 PM
38% of Americans pay no tax at all

Thatís a problem

Why is this a problem? Of course if one eliminated all tax on super wealthy than it would be great?

JustRalph
12-06-2017, 01:31 PM
Why is this a problem? Of course if one eliminated all tax on super wealthy than it would be great?

No skin in the game

chadk66
12-06-2017, 06:48 PM
Wow, just a couple days ago you said you re-did them and would save $5K. Can't wait to check back with you this weekend when you'll be saving $8K! :jump: :jump:that was a quick go over. I spent more time on it and I had messed up on one deduction. Like it more everyday.

chadk66
12-06-2017, 06:49 PM
No FEDERAL tax.
But they pay PAYROLL tax, SALES tax, etc.payroll tax is federal tax

JustRalph
12-06-2017, 08:52 PM
payroll tax is federal tax

Thatís what I thought........they donít pay federal

JustRalph
12-14-2017, 07:08 PM
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-media-keep-saying-the-gop-tax-bill-is-best-for-rich-families-theyre-wrong/article/2643536

Best for rich?

I still think it dies.....Rubio going to take it down

Lemon Drop Husker
12-14-2017, 07:21 PM
Well, according to the never lying CNN the blue states of California, New York, Illinois, etc., are some of the biggest benefactors of this tax bill if you truly are middle class.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/politics/calculate-americans-taxes-senate-reform-bill/index.html

Lemon Drop Husker
12-14-2017, 07:22 PM
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-media-keep-saying-the-gop-tax-bill-is-best-for-rich-families-theyre-wrong/article/2643536

Best for rich?

I still think it dies.....Rubio going to take it down

Struggling to find it getting through the Senate.

zico20
12-14-2017, 08:00 PM
Well, according to the never lying CNN the blue states of California, New York, Illinois, etc., are some of the biggest benefactors of this tax bill if you truly are middle class.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/politics/calculate-americans-taxes-senate-reform-bill/index.html

I played with that calculator they provided. The biggest beneficiaries are people who have two or more kids. It doesn't seem to matter what income bracket you are in as far as what percent you are going to get reduced. Kids are the number one selling point to this tax plan.

forced89
12-14-2017, 08:12 PM
I still don’t think this is going to happen. Somebody is going to muck this up...

I tend to agree. Too many moving parts...

Lemon Drop Husker
12-14-2017, 08:23 PM
I played with that calculator they provided. The biggest beneficiaries are people who have two or more kids. It doesn't seem to matter what income bracket you are in as far as what percent you are going to get reduced. Kids are the number one selling point to this tax plan.

Shouldn't they be?

Isn't the American Dream owning your own home, with a family of 2 or more kids, being able to afford well for your family and give forth a same or better dream/life for your children in the future?

Clocker
12-14-2017, 10:43 PM
Isn't the American Dream owning your own home, with a family of 2 or more kids, being able to afford well for your family and give forth a same or better dream/life for your children in the future?

If two people make the same wage and one is single and the other has two kids, why should the one with two kids get a tax break? Why should the single guy subsidize the married guy's "American Dream"?

Look at the facts. The guy with two kids is using a lot more government services than the single guy, but paying a smaller share of the costs. Or no share at all if his two kids puts him into the category that pay no federal taxes. How is that the "American Dream"?

Lemon Drop Husker
12-14-2017, 11:01 PM
If two people make the same wage and one is single and the other has two kids, why should the one with two kids get a tax break? Why should the single guy subsidize the married guy's "American Dream"?

Look at the facts. The guy with two kids is using a lot more government services than the single guy, but paying a smaller share of the costs. Or no share at all if his two kids puts him into the category that pay no federal taxes. How is that the "American Dream"?

You are arguing against a single guy with no kids.

Lemon Drop Husker
12-14-2017, 11:03 PM
You are arguing against a single guy with no kids.

For the greater good. :ThmbUp:

JustRalph
12-14-2017, 11:56 PM
I played with that calculator they provided. The biggest beneficiaries are people who have two or more kids. It doesn't seem to matter what income bracket you are in as far as what percent you are going to get reduced. Kids are the number one selling point to this tax plan.

Keep it down, you will ruin the GOP Rep!

Clocker
12-15-2017, 12:08 AM
For the greater good. :ThmbUp:
This argument is usually focused on education. It is debatable in theory, but a failure in practice. Much of that failure falls on the federal government, which has turned the public schools into day care centers providing safe spaces that turn kids into snowflakes, protected from the real world.

Decisions about, and funding for, education belong at the local level. That gives parent a greater role in the education of their children, and gives non-parents the option of considering local taxes in the decision as to where to live.

And I would also point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that suggests a role for federal involvement in education.

Lemon Drop Husker
12-15-2017, 12:11 AM
This argument is usually focused on education. It is debatable in theory, but a failure in practice. Much of that failure falls on the federal government, which has turned the public schools into day care centers providing safe spaces that turn kids into snowflakes, protected from the real world.

Decisions about, and funding for, education belong at the local level. That gives parent a greater role in the education of their children, and gives non-parents the option of considering local taxes in the decision as to where to live.

And I would also point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that suggests a role for federal involvement in education.

You are now arguing about paying more.

You are getting a tax cut.

Clocker
12-15-2017, 12:48 AM
You are now arguing about paying more.



I am arguing that it is not equitable for a single person to pay more than a married person with kids. And I haven't looked at the tax bill, but the discussion here indicates that the bill will increase the current inequity.

Tom
12-15-2017, 10:06 AM
And I would also point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that suggests a role for federal involvement in education.

Including having one!

zico20
12-15-2017, 10:23 AM
This argument is usually focused on education. It is debatable in theory, but a failure in practice. Much of that failure falls on the federal government, which has turned the public schools into day care centers providing safe spaces that turn kids into snowflakes, protected from the real world.

Decisions about, and funding for, education belong at the local level. That gives parent a greater role in the education of their children, and gives non-parents the option of considering local taxes in the decision as to where to live.

And I would also point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that suggests a role for federal involvement in education.

Clocker, you should become a good liberal and stick your nose a little deeper in the Constitution and find something. After all, liberals "discovered" that the right to privacy and abortion are in the Constitution. You just need to become a little more creative. :D

Lemon Drop Husker
12-15-2017, 10:31 AM
Keep it down, you will ruin the GOP Rep!

Yeah, crap forbid those raising children, contributing to society, and paying more than their share of local, state, and federal taxes.

Such a dreadful people they are. :pout:

Lemon Drop Husker
12-15-2017, 10:34 AM
I am arguing that it is not equitable for a single person to pay more than a married person with kids. And I haven't looked at the tax bill, but the discussion here indicates that the bill will increase the current inequity.

Part of being a contributing member to society is putting forth any kind of effort for its future.

Having children, is a fantastic earmark in that effort. (Now, raising them right would be a massive kudos, but I won't go there quite yet).

Other than taking up quality air, a dwelling I assume of decent nature, and saturating your own individual pocket book, what do you contribute to society as a single person?

AndyC
12-15-2017, 11:43 AM
I am arguing that it is not equitable for a single person to pay more than a married person with kids. And I haven't looked at the tax bill, but the discussion here indicates that the bill will increase the current inequity.

True. And it also isn't equitable to have different tax rates based on your level of income. It is, however, the most pragmatic way to raise revenue and to help with the costs of raising children. When society decides that children are no longer important you might get your equitable tax scenario.

Clocker
12-15-2017, 12:06 PM
Other than taking up quality air, a dwelling I assume of decent nature, and saturating your own individual pocket book, what do you contribute to society as a single person?

On what basis do you question my "contribution to society"? I did not say that I am or am not single, or that I do or do not have children. You seem to imply that simply producing children is a greater "contribution to society" than anything a non-producer could contribute.

And the last thing we should want or allow is to have the federal government decide the value of anyone's contribution to society.

JustRalph
12-15-2017, 12:25 PM
Iíve never had kids and have been screwed royally on it. Mostly with high school taxes. I moved......to avoid them......problem solved.

Lemon Drop Husker
12-15-2017, 12:26 PM
On what basis do you question my "contribution to society"? I did not say that I am or am not single, or that I do or do not have children. You seem to imply that simply producing children is a greater "contribution to society" than anything a non-producer could contribute.

And the last thing we should want or allow is to have the federal government decide the value of anyone's contribution to society.

OK. Who should decide what taxes one should pay for being a citizen of the United States?

I'm all ears.

Clocker
12-15-2017, 12:43 PM
Iíve never had kids and have been screwed royally on it. Mostly with high school taxes. I moved......to avoid them......problem solved.

That's unpatriotic in the minds of some. You have not made a significant contribution to society and you have avoided helping those who did.

You should pay more taxes to make up for that, right? If you don't have kids in high school, then political "logic" says you should pay a larger share of the costs of those schools because you can.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Clocker
12-15-2017, 02:45 PM
OK. Who should decide what taxes one should pay for being a citizen of the United States?



Any decision should be made as low on the government food chain as possible. First at the local level, then county, then state, and then federal for anything beyond the scope of lower entities. The lower the level of government involved, the greater the opportunity for the individual to affect the decision or, as in Ralph's case above, do something about it.

And the decisions should be based on objective measures, not on value judgements about things like "contribution to society".

Assume for discussion that I have no children and my neighbor with two kids in public school lives in a similar house and makes a similar salary. There is no reason to doubt that he imposes greater costs on society than I do. By what objective, not emotional, standard can one conclude that he contributes more to society and that therefore I should pay more taxes than he does?

Lemon Drop Husker
12-15-2017, 02:56 PM
Any decision should be made as low on the government food chain as possible. First at the local level, then county, then state, and then federal for anything beyond the scope of lower entities. The lower the level of government involved, the greater the opportunity for the individual to affect the decision or, as in Ralph's case above, do something about it.

And the decisions should be based on objective measures, not on value judgements about things like "contribution to society".

Assume for discussion that I have no children and my neighbor with two kids in public school lives in a similar house and makes a similar salary. There is no reason to doubt that he imposes greater costs on society than I do. By what objective, not emotional, standard can one conclude that he contributes more to society and that therefore I should pay more taxes than he does?

There is no I in me.

50 years from, who is paying taxes?

zico20
12-15-2017, 04:11 PM
True. And it also isn't equitable to have different tax rates based on your level of income. It is, however, the most pragmatic way to raise revenue and to help with the costs of raising children. When society decides that children are no longer important you might get your equitable tax scenario.

Part of society already has this view. They are the climate alarmists. Many say having children is the biggest threat to human existence. So you may be on to something. No tax breaks for kids! :jump:

https://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change

lefty359
12-15-2017, 05:30 PM
Nobody mentioned the growth this plan will provide. Plus overseas money coming back to the U.S. More jobs and more taxpayers. And right now, it looks like a go.

davew
12-16-2017, 03:12 AM
Nobody mentioned the growth this plan will provide. Plus overseas money coming back to the U.S. More jobs and more taxpayers. And right now, it looks like a go.

and it is a tax reform - far less people will need a CPA or tax lawyer to fill out all their forms.

AndyC
12-16-2017, 12:15 PM
and it is a tax reform - far less people will need a CPA or tax lawyer to fill out all their forms.

The bill will mean more taxpayers will be using the standard deduction but I can't see too many people opting to go it alone.

Tom
12-16-2017, 03:09 PM
The dems are the one who really want to simplify that taxes.
Their proposed 1040 Form:

1. How much did you earn last year?
2. Send it in.

porchy44
12-17-2017, 12:34 PM
With this tax bill. borrowing money for tax breaks is STEALING from future generations. Republicans and Democrats alike are culpable for the inevitable some day (when debt becomes unsustainable.). The Republican party was the last hope. I remember a day when the party was responsible and cared about the deficit. Only a dope or someone disingenuous would think that growth will make up for the deficit.

I would be for some tax breaks for corporations if they would only be in relationship for the number of employees that are employed in the USA. Then cut some unnecessary spending to make up for it.

It has been said by someone on this board that "you cannot trust the government'. I definitely am beginning to believe it.

davew
12-17-2017, 01:41 PM
The dems are the one who really want to simplify that taxes.
Their proposed 1040 Form:

1. How much did you earn last year?
2. Send it in.

what about the tax credit for donations to progressive causes?

Track Collector
12-19-2017, 03:39 AM
what about the tax credit for donations to progressive causes?

It is hardly worth it. I hear you only automatically qualify for food stamps and disability benefits for the year in question.

JustRalph
12-20-2017, 02:53 PM
That will never happen. Those deductions will remain.

Apparently they survived, but only up to 10k. Avg deduction by a California resident was 18k according to D. Feinstein. So thatís a considerable haircut for California and NY residents

davew
12-20-2017, 03:27 PM
This is just a smokescreen - just wait until 2026 when the taxes take a big jump.

All the dimocrat leaders predict this is the beginning of the downfall of the Republican domination - I hope they can still be in office to see it happen.

AndyC
12-21-2017, 12:19 PM
Apparently they survived, but only up to 10k. Avg deduction by a California resident was 18k according to D. Feinstein. So thatís a considerable haircut for California and NY residents

A bogus stat. The majority of people in CA don't itemize so their deduction was zero. In order to have a SALT deduction of $18K you need to be making a pretty high salary and/or own an expensive house. And what is never talked about is that people who have high SALT deductions are usually paying the Alternative Minimum Tax meaning they don't get to deduct their SALT expenditures!

boxcar
12-21-2017, 12:44 PM
With this tax bill. borrowing money for tax breaks is STEALING from future generations. Republicans and Democrats alike are culpable for the inevitable some day (when debt becomes unsustainable.). The Republican party was the last hope. I remember a day when the party was responsible and cared about the deficit. Only a dope or someone disingenuous would think that growth will make up for the deficit.

I would be for some tax breaks for corporations if they would only be in relationship for the number of employees that are employed in the USA. Then cut some unnecessary spending to make up for it.

It has been said by someone on this board that "you cannot trust the government'. I definitely am beginning to believe it.

I can't understand how people can't "care for the deficit" and also "care for real economic growth" all at once and simultaneously. Why are these mutually exclusive concepts? Maybe some liberal out there would care to explain this to us. Why must it be one or the other?

elysiantraveller
12-21-2017, 12:50 PM
I can't understand how people can't "care for the deficit" and also "care for real economic growth" all at once and simultaneously. Why are these mutually exclusive concepts? Maybe some liberal out there would care to explain this to us. Why must it be one or the other?

I care for both. Cut regulation. Lower corporate tax rate a bit. Growth problem solved. Sweeping tax cuts aren't needed or necessary.

There is a significant number of think tanks both conservative and liberal leaning that are skeptical about the type of growth being used to pitch this as deficit neutral.

xtb
12-21-2017, 01:23 PM
I would be for some tax breaks for corporations if they would only be in relationship for the number of employees that are employed in the USA.


I would like to see an inverse relationship between the percentage of the total number of employees of a company working in the US and the company's tax rate.

20% of employees work in the US = 80% tax rate
40% of employees work in the US = 60% tax rate
60% of employees work in the US = 40% tax rate
80% of employees work in the US = 20% tax rate
100% of employees work in the US = 0% tax rate

What most people don't realize is that "corporations" don't pay income tax, it is built into their products/services.

boxcar
12-21-2017, 02:21 PM
I care for both. Cut regulation. Lower corporate tax rate a bit. Growth problem solved. Sweeping tax cuts aren't needed or necessary.

There is a significant number of think tanks both conservative and liberal leaning that are skeptical about the type of growth being used to pitch this as deficit neutral.

Sweeping tax cuts are absolutely necessary and foundational to an economy you want to grow it.

davew
12-21-2017, 02:38 PM
What most people don't realize is that "corporations" don't pay income tax, it is built into their products/services.

I am not sure what you implying - corporations pay taxes on their profits and shareholders pay taxes on dividends

Lemon Drop Husker
12-21-2017, 02:42 PM
I would like to see an inverse relationship between the percentage of the total number of employees of a company working in the US and the company's tax rate.

20% of employees work in the US = 80% tax rate
40% of employees work in the US = 60% tax rate
60% of employees work in the US = 40% tax rate
80% of employees work in the US = 20% tax rate
100% of employees work in the US = 0% tax rate

What most people don't realize is that "corporations" don't pay income tax, it is built into their products/services.

Right.

So a 14% tax cut will mean absolutely nothing to them.

What part of Disneyland did you wake up in today?

NJ Stinks
12-21-2017, 02:51 PM
A bogus stat. The majority of people in CA don't itemize so their deduction was zero. In order to have a SALT deduction of $18K you need to be making a pretty high salary and/or own an expensive house. And what is never talked about is that people who have high SALT deductions are usually paying the Alternative Minimum Tax meaning they don't get to deduct their SALT expenditures!

In 2005 about 40% of California residents itemized their deductions. Maybe you think 40% is what? Meaningless? Not relevant? Bogus? What?

Here's a link to backup what I wrote. Try it sometime.

https://taxfoundation.org/most-americans-dont-itemize-their-tax-returns/

boxcar
12-21-2017, 02:57 PM
In 2005 about 40% of California residents itemized their deductions. Maybe you think 40% is what? Meaningless? Not relevant? Bogus? What?

Not the majority as Andy claimed? :coffee:

NJ Stinks
12-21-2017, 03:06 PM
Not the majority as Andy claimed? :coffee:

What exactly is the"bogus stat' Andy was referring to? It sounded a lot like itemized deductions don't mean squat to people living in California.

I figured somebody should get the 40% out there. So everybody could grasp for themselves what Andy considers to be a "bogus stat".

xtb
12-21-2017, 03:46 PM
I am not sure what you implying - corporations pay taxes on their profits and shareholders pay taxes on dividends

Officially they do, effectively the costs are passed on to the consumer or reduced by offshoring jobs.

boxcar
12-21-2017, 03:57 PM
Officially they do, effectively the costs are passed on to the consumer or reduced by offshoring jobs.

Okay...you got the minority fig out there. Don't dislocate your shoulder while patting yourself on the back.

xtb
12-21-2017, 04:00 PM
Right.

So a 14% tax cut will mean absolutely nothing to them.

What part of Disneyland did you wake up in today?

I think a 14% cut is good, more would be better. A bigger incentive to bring jobs back to this country is better still. Chinese workers pay zero US income tax.

I've never been to Disneyland and have no desire to go there after they outsourced hundreds of tech jobs to India.

chadk66
12-21-2017, 04:02 PM
for the most part if your itemizing your making big money so you don't need a tax cut. that's what the left thinks anyway.

Tom
12-21-2017, 04:08 PM
14% is huge.

Lemon Drop Husker
12-21-2017, 04:15 PM
14% is huge.

No.

It is YUUUUUGE!

AndyC
12-21-2017, 09:40 PM
In 2005 about 40% of California residents itemized their deductions. Maybe you think 40% is what? Meaningless? Not relevant? Bogus? What?

Here's a link to backup what I wrote. Try it sometime.

https://taxfoundation.org/most-americans-dont-itemize-their-tax-returns/

Thanks for the current stats, you're only 12 years old on those. But in any event you missed the point of my post. People with large SALT deductions are very often subject to the AMT and hence do not get to take advantage of the deduction. I assume you know how the AMT is computed.

NJ Stinks
12-21-2017, 11:32 PM
Thanks for the current stats, you're only 12 years old on those. But in any event you missed the point of my post. People with large SALT deductions are very often subject to the AMT and hence do not get to take advantage of the deduction. I assume you know how the AMT is computed.

I didn't miss your point. Find something that says less than 40% of California residents don't itemize. I don't care why they don't itemize.

Your point is that losing SALT deductions is no big deal to CA residents. "Bogus stats" you said.

I disagree.

davew
12-21-2017, 11:47 PM
I didn't miss your point. Find something that says less than 40% of California residents don't itemize. I don't care why they don't itemize.

Your point is that losing SALT deductions is no big deal to CA residents. "Bogus stats" you said.

I disagree.

this article says closer to 34%

https://www.ocregister.com/2017/10/27/congress-might-eliminate-california-state-and-local-tax-deductions-heres-a-look-at-the-numbers/

NJ Stinks
12-21-2017, 11:58 PM
this article says closer to 34%

https://www.ocregister.com/2017/10/27/congress-might-eliminate-california-state-and-local-tax-deductions-heres-a-look-at-the-numbers/

Thanks for the info. To be clear, my point is that if 1/3 of all CA residents itemize, this is a big deal - not some "bogus" complaint about the tax law changes just passed.

JustRalph
12-22-2017, 12:04 AM
Thanks for the info. To be clear, my point is that if 1/3 of all CA residents itemize, this is a big deal - not some "bogus" complaint about the tax law changes just passed.

Absolutely

Fager Fan
12-22-2017, 12:07 AM
Thanks for the info. To be clear, my point is that if 1/3 of all CA residents itemize, this is a big deal - not some "bogus" complaint about the tax law changes just passed.

Why should anyone's tax payments be tax deductible anyway? I'd love if my federal taxes were tax deductible.

Taking away this deduction should ultimately help the citizens of high tax states. If enough people start getting pissy about their spending, maybe they'll learn to quit spending so much.

AndyC
12-22-2017, 12:50 AM
I didn't miss your point. Find something that says less than 40% of California residents don't itemize. I don't care why they don't itemize.

Your point is that losing SALT deductions is no big deal to CA residents. "Bogus stats" you said.

I disagree.

No, I responded to the Diane Feinstein remark about the "average SALT deduction" of $18,000. I would have to believe that of the 34% who do itemize a large percentage would be subject to ATM and once again would not get SALT deductions.

I won't shed a tear for the high earner who is highly leveraged with an expensive house paying high property taxes. If that is what the Dems want to go to war about it is a losing battle.

Over the past 35 years I have done thousands of California income tax returns. I have done many comparisons between old law and new law for this new bill and have found that very few get hit with higher taxes.

AndyC
12-22-2017, 12:58 AM
Thanks for the info. To be clear, my point is that if 1/3 of all CA residents itemize, this is a big deal - not some "bogus" complaint about the tax law changes just passed.

You assume that all of the 1/3 are writing off extensive SALT deductions. Not true. You totally disregard the effect of the AMT.

There might be 10-15% of the people who are affected by the SALT deductions and some the affect is mitigated by the lower tax rates and child tax credits. The affected group is mainly the "wealthy" that the Dems want to soak anyway. Those wealthy are big political contributors so the congressman have to act like they are really concerned for their welfare. It's all bogus.

davew
12-22-2017, 07:17 AM
The dimocrats are going to use this tax cut fraud as a major campaign issue to help them win back the House. Polling shows them a third of the population is strongly against this bill because it only helps the ultra rich and is bad for everyone else.

go Chuck and Nancy, go ...

forced89
12-22-2017, 09:37 AM
I don't know if I will be paying more or less because of this legislation. What I do know is that my Son will no longer have to pay the $795 penalty for buying non ACA Compliant Health Insurance.

Dems say repealing the Mandate will result in 13 million people losing insurance. I wonder how may of these are buying near worthless insurance only to avoid the $795 ($1,590 for a couple) penalty.

AndyC
12-22-2017, 09:46 AM
I don't know if I will be paying more or less because of this legislation. What I do know is that my Son will no longer have to pay the $795 penalty for buying non ACA Compliant Health Insurance.

Dems say repealing the Mandate will result in 13 million people losing insurance. I wonder how may of these are buying near worthless insurance only to avoid the $795 ($1,590 for a couple) penalty.

There will be one more year of the penalty. 2019 will be when the nonsense ends.

Tom
12-22-2017, 09:52 AM
So Obama's legacy is you have to pay for something you did not want and did not get.

GAWD, democrats are naussiating people.

boxcar
12-22-2017, 12:04 PM
So Obama's legacy is you have to pay for something you did not want and did not get.

GAWD, democrats are naussiating people.

Ahh...so the slight taste of totalitarianism is bitter in your mouth? Mine too. :ThmbDown::ThmbDown:

woodtoo
12-22-2017, 02:51 PM
If you get a bigger paycheck and big bonus Nancy says "We're gonna all die."

boxcar
12-22-2017, 02:53 PM
If you get a bigger paycheck and big bonus Nancy says "We're gonna all die."

Yes...and I'm sure that CNN will be televising all the bodies laying in the streets across America.

chadk66
12-22-2017, 03:57 PM
Why should anyone's tax payments be tax deductible anyway? I'd love if my federal taxes were tax deductible.

Taking away this deduction should ultimately help the citizens of high tax states. If enough people start getting pissy about their spending, maybe they'll learn to quit spending so much.This is exactly what needs to happen.

chadk66
12-22-2017, 03:59 PM
The dimocrats are going to use this tax cut fraud as a major campaign issue to help them win back the House. Polling shows them a third of the population is strongly against this bill because it only helps the ultra rich and is bad for everyone else.

go Chuck and Nancy, go ...hmm. probably the same pollsters that had Hillary in a landslide lol. Nobody believes polls anymore.

davew
12-22-2017, 04:09 PM
hmm. probably the same pollsters that had Hillary in a landslide lol. Nobody believes polls anymore.

the dimocrats and lamestream media do - they actually pay to run them

NJ Stinks
12-22-2017, 07:25 PM
Over the past 35 years I have done thousands of California income tax returns. I have done many comparisons between old law and new law for this new bill and have found that very few get hit with higher taxes.

Andy, I respect your background and experience in California. I'm backing off my perch slowly....

Lest I crash on the rocks below!