Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, December 05, 2017

Now that both the Senate and House have passed their version of tax relief, MarketWatch has the calculator to show how the bills would potentially impact your finances. The legislation, called the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, cuts individual tax rates and slashes corporate taxes, among other things. But not everyone's a winner. The mortgage-interest deduction is limited in the House version, and state and local income tax deductions are zapped in both the House and Senate plan. It's only meant to give a look at what happens in the first year after enactment, as the individual tax rates are set to sunset. The calculator also doesn't address more complicated scenarios, like the new tax rates on so-called pass-through companies.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Kind of basic, but you can figure out your contribution to the billionaire relief act of 2017.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

In 2017, my taxes go down, even though I am losing my SALT deduction here in CA.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-05 04:30 PM | Reply

Andrea gets a new sailboat which the rest of you guys kids and grandparents are paying for.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-05 04:37 PM | Reply

Whelp, my taxes are going up. And they'll go up even higher with my pending promotion.

I'm about to double my taxable income in the near future and with that will come a TRIPLING of the taxes I pay. Not sure how that works, but okay. Guess I'll be in the "big boy" bracket.

#3 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-12-05 04:44 PM | Reply

#3

That happens in higher brackets Rsty, congrats on the promotion.

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-05 04:49 PM | Reply

The true cost isn't just what we pay in taxes.

Some would much rather save $200 a year on taxes rather than pave the roads that would save them thousands of dollars on car repairs out of their own pocket.

#5 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2017-12-05 04:49 PM | Reply

That happens in higher brackets Rsty, congrats on the promotion.
#4 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Thanks, I'm learning as I go and slowly deconstructing my naïveté.

#6 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-12-05 04:56 PM | Reply

"Guess I'll be in the "big boy" bracket."

No, the big boy bracket is where your income goes up and your taxes go down.

You're in the "squeeze the middle even harder" bracket.

Which admittedly is better than the "tax the poor more while cutting social services" bracket.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-05 04:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#7 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

That doesn't sound like the "big boy" bracket. That sounds like the "big lobby" bracket. Big boys pay their fair share :-P

#8 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-12-05 05:03 PM | Reply

#7

Sorry to bust your narrative Snoof, but if his income is doubling then his taxes will be lower in 2017 than they would have been in 2016, since either bill will reduce his true taxable rate by between 8-11% once enacted.

Rsty is still going to pay at double the tax rate for the amount over 65K that his promotion covers (from 12% to either 22% or 25%) but if Rsty itemizes then his tax reduction will be maximized.

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-05 05:07 PM | Reply

Ask not what you can do for your country but rather what your country can do for you.
-Republican Motto

#10 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-12-05 05:16 PM | Reply

"but if his income is doubling then his taxes will be lower in 2017 than they would have been in 2016"

I assume you mean his rate, but either way, my point is, that's a regressive tax code. Your tax rate goed up as your income goes up under a progressive tax regime. Not the other way.

The half of this that isn't a handout to the rich is to drive up deficits so people like RoC can make the claim we need to cut Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid taxes to stay solvent. Which is just another handout to the rich, when you think about it.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-05 05:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

but if Rsty itemizes then his tax reduction will be maximized.
#9 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

I'm single, no kids, and rent. What could I itemize? I understand if you don't want to get into it; I know that's what CPAs are for, just curious considering I'm still basically a big kid living with a (decent) taxable income.

#12 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-12-05 05:20 PM | Reply

I assume you mean his rate, but either way, my point is, that's a regressive tax code. Your tax rate goed up as your income goes up under a progressive tax regime. Not the other way.

Our tax rates go up as income goes up, how did you think it worked?

Because his income is doubling, his tax rate goes up. The point is that rate in 2017 will be lower than it would have been in 2016.

#13 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-05 05:32 PM | Reply

"Our tax rates go up as income goes up, how did you think it worked?"

They'll do that less now. Hence, this bill being called a tax break for the rich.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-05 05:45 PM | Reply

#12

I would defer to Danforth on that, he is the accountant. I have a house, a son, property taxes, a mortgage, charitable donations, a small business, etc. so have someone like him figure it out for me.

#15 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-05 05:50 PM | Reply

#14

That's why it is called a "tax cut". Glad you figured that out.

As for Social Security, even if we did nothing it will go broke in 2030, and Medicare for All is inevitable, so no matter what happened those both need to be fixed.

#16 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-05 05:52 PM | Reply

"That's why it is called a "tax cut". "

At least in one of the bills, there is a pocket where taxes go up.

In both the bills, everyone making under $75K will see their taxes go up once the law comes into full fruition.

"As for Social Security, even if we did nothing it will go broke in 2030"

Then let's do something, like add a point to each side, or raise the cap, or eliminate the cap but taper the excise taxes above a threshold, or....

"no matter what happened those both need to be fixed."

The longer we wait, the more expensive the fix. In the meantime, you're voting for the folks who want to end it, not fix it.

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-05 06:22 PM | Reply

#12

Most important is you max out your 401k, and put as much money into an IRA or Roth IRA as you can. The rest happens as it happens.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-05 06:23 PM | Reply

The tax calculator is woefully misleading. It basically cherry-picks good scenarios. Notice it doesn't ask how much you pay in student loan interest, or whether you are going to school, if you moved, if you're paying alimony, or if you have an HSA. It doesn't ask if you're a W-2 worker, work for a charity, or donate to charity. And no part of the equation asks about high real estate taxes, if you're paying PMI, or if you stand to inherit otherwise taxable money.

Go figure!

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-05 06:27 PM | Reply

19

yeah...but other than that stuff.....

#20 | Posted by eberly at 2017-12-05 06:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"That's why it is called a "tax cut"."

It's almost entirely a tax cut for the rich.

If you rely on deductions that are being axed, it's probably a tax hike.

Unless of course you're rich and the loss of those deductions is more than offset by the lowered rate on income.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-05 06:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The entire reason for the tax overhaul is so Donnie doesn't have to pay an estate tax.

It's absolutely for his own personal gain.

#22 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-12-05 07:22 PM | Reply

At least in one of the bills, there is a pocket where taxes go up.

Yes, but they are already talking about reconciling that out.

In both the bills, everyone making under $75K will see their taxes go up once the law comes into full fruition.

2027 is a long way away.

Then let's do something, like add a point to each side, or raise the cap, or eliminate the cap but taper the excise taxes above a threshold, or....

Agreed.

The longer we wait, the more expensive the fix.

Agreed, but it is going to take serious political fortitude to do it.

In the meantime, you're voting for the folks who want to end it, not fix it.

That's funny, I didn't realize that Gary Johnson, Ted Lieu and Kamala Harris wanted to end Medicare and Medicade...I better email them right now!

#23 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-05 08:07 PM | Reply

Medicade=Medicaid

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-05 08:07 PM | Reply

Most important is you max out your 401k, and put as much money into an IRA or Roth IRA as you can. The rest happens as it happens.
#18 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Awesome! Thanks!

#25 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-12-05 08:34 PM | Reply

"Awesome! Thanks!''

My pleasure. I always try to grab folks who are about to see a jump in wages and tell them "Don't get used to that raise! Max out your retirement accounts first!!!"

Also, have a little more withheld, as a percentage. Especially the first year, you'd rather get a refund than a nasty surprise.

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-05 08:41 PM | Reply

"2027 is a long way away."

Not really. It's less than a decade away. Choices we make now will matter then. You pretend otherwise, which is like a Sniper level of intellect thing to do. It grows tiresome.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-05 10:34 PM | Reply

LMFAO.
You didn't know Gary Johnson wants the the market to deliver health care, and get the government out?
This issue must not be on your radar. Nobody's this blind.

"Johnson opposed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and believes it should be repealed.[8] He also opposed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, which he calls "the failed Medicare prescription drug plan," and believes it should be repealed."
...
He does "not believe that government should be taking over the health care system." Instead, he believes that a "market-based approach should be the foundation of any solution. A health care insurance system that is privately owned and managed is the best approach to solving our health care problems."
...
"wants Congress to investigate privatizing part or all of Social Security with the goal being that the investment of contributions could be self-directed"

en.wikipedia.org

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-05 10:45 PM | Reply

Not really. It's less than a decade away.

And the last time that tax cuts that were declared the "biggest disaster ever" by the economically challenged Left they were quietly made permanent by the Obama Administration 10 years later when they realized that they worked.

You didn't know Gary Johnson wants the the market to deliver health care, and get the government out?

He opposed the ACA, but did not advocate ending either Medicare or Medicaid. Nice try though.

If you care to read my #23 again, I said nothing about Johnson's approach to SS, which I actually agree with on a phase in basis (as does Danforth, as set forth in his #18).

#29 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-05 11:19 PM | Reply

the economically challenged Left

Sorry, but anyone who supports supply side doesn't get to call anyone else "challenged".

they were quietly made permanent by the Obama Administration 10 years later when they realized that they worked.

LOL the Bush tax cuts worked? By what metric?

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-05 11:25 PM | Reply

Sorry, but anyone who supports supply side doesn't get to call anyone else "challenged".

Anyone who doesn't have a clue on how the Laffer Curve works doesn't get to challenge anything.

LOL the Bush tax cuts worked? By what metric?

By the only metric that counts for the Left...Saint Obama made them permanent (except for raising the highest rate back to 39% for the .1%)

#31 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-05 11:39 PM | Reply

"Anyone who doesn't have a clue on how the Laffer Curve works doesn't get to challenge anything."

I know how it works.

I also saw Laffer himself talk Kansas into slashing taxes. It will take years, if not decades, for the state to dig out.

Aren't states supposed to be the laboratories? Why are we as a nation repeating the same experiment that poisoned Kansas?

And didn't we try trickle-down tax cuts, twice, under Dubya? Remind me...how did that work out? Did wages rise? Did growth explode?

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-05 11:54 PM | Reply

"Saint Obama made them permanent (except for raising the highest rate back to 39% for the .1%)"

Close, but there were other tax cuts allowed to sunset as well:
www.cbpp.org

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-06 12:03 AM | Reply

Anyone who doesn't have a clue on how the Laffer Curve works doesn't get to challenge anything.

It's not that complex an idea. So it's not exactly something to be smug about.

Also, the fact that the right sees it as a linear relationship instead of a curve suggests they don't understand it either.

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 12:44 AM | Reply

By the only metric that counts for the Left...Saint Obama made them permanent (except for raising the highest rate back to 39% for the .1%)

Nice cop out.

Next time just admit you were talking out your ass.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 12:45 AM | Reply

If this calculator is right, it's time to go ahead and order an RV-4 quick build kit & a new, shiny O-340 for it.

#36 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-12-06 08:22 AM | Reply

"Yes, but they are already talking about reconciling that out."

No guarantee at all. There are also pockets they'll be leaving in. For example, take a new graduate, who is paying $1200 a year in Student Loan interest, or had $1200 in moving expenses to take a better job. Not a scenario beyond the pale, I'm sure you'd agree.

Well, he's already a loser in the new tax bill.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-06 08:42 AM | Reply

Last night I got in a FB discussion with someone who was excited about the "tax cut". He gave me his particulars, and I calculated it out:

He'll get 50 cents a month.

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-06 08:44 AM | Reply

"Nice cop out"

Alabama Values!

#39 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-12-06 10:19 AM | Reply

#35

That's funny, our accountant basically agreed with me in #33.

Edumacate yourself son, Obama made 82% of those cuts permanent, with the largest cut not being retained was the drop in tax rates and capital gains taxes for AGIs over $450K. The other two, the "return" of the PEP and Pease exemptions were not actually cuts but exemptions that were eliminated by the cuts stayed eliminated and the estate tax was allowed to raise by 5%, but the exemption of $5M/$10M was made permanent.

By making those cuts permanent, President Obama made permanent $3.2T in lost revenue from 2013-2022 (over double what the current bill is projected to do) but I didn't hear you gnashing your collective teeth over the ARA.

The Bush tax cuts are here to stay

#40 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-06 10:57 AM | Reply

It was just 5 years ago when Obama was pushing to reduce the effective corporate tax rate down to 25% to make American business competitive in the global market.

#41 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-12-06 12:09 PM | Reply

"It was just 5 years ago when Obama was pushing to reduce the effective corporate tax rate down to 25%..." - #41 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-12-06 12:09 PM

25%?

Obama proposes lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent

[snip] The plan would lower the nation's corporate tax rate to 28 percent. At the same time, Obama wants to boost overall revenue from corporate taxation by banning numerous deductions and loopholes that save companies tens of billions of dollars a year on their tax bills.

The correct facts and context would help your "argument."

#42 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-06 12:16 PM | Reply

#40 you just doubled down on your non answer. Reread number 30 if you need a refresher.

#43 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 12:20 PM | Reply

The corporate rate for manufacturers would have been 25%, the very top corporate tax rate only a few corporations would allegedly have paid was 28%. It was "revenue neutral" per the Obama WH, it's on the archived fact sheet.

#44 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-12-06 12:24 PM | Reply

I don't see 20% nor 25% nor even 28% bringing jobs back from China. Hourly wages in China have climbed almost 70% since 2011, but it's still less than half the cost of US labor, not including taxes. When it gets too expensive, the labor sourcing will just move on to the next "developing" country.

#45 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-12-06 12:27 PM | Reply

"LOL the Bush tax cuts worked? By what metric?

By the only metric that counts for the Left.."

*Yawn*

Make a point or blow away, windbag.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 01:21 PM | Reply

"I don't see 20% nor 25% nor even 28% bringing jobs back from China."

Consider how dumb they must be to believe it, then.

I mean... even a Libertarian can figure it out!

It's an article of faith for them.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 01:23 PM | Reply

Consider how dumb they must be to believe it, then.
I mean... even a Libertarian can figure it out!

#47 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-12-06 01:23 PM | FLAG:

Obama couldn't, and Trump stepped on the gas pedal.

If you can't laugh at this, then you have no sense of humor.

#48 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-12-06 01:44 PM | Reply

There's always a sweet ray of sunshine too. I'm going to build a new plane. 174 kts @ FL080, yes please.

#49 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-12-06 01:48 PM | Reply

"I'm going to build a new plane. 174 kts @ FL080, yes please." - #49 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-12-06 01:48 PM

Way too cool, sitzkrieg.

Especially impressive is the part where it can cross half of North America in a day.

#50 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-06 01:53 PM | Reply

NY to LA in 4 stops. You could theoretically do it in a day, but it wouldn't be fun.

#51 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-12-06 02:43 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort