Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, December 21, 2017

Why is a plan to cut taxes for working families, enact an Obama-style approach to corporate taxes and increase child-friendly spending the subject of such partisan passion? It's not policy. It's not math. It's Trump. Re-reading the details of the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act," I keep imagining life over on Earth II, where this bill being proposed by a President Romney or Kasich, to Democrats lead by Kirsten Gillibrand and Joe Manchin. Would there even be a debate? Or would it pass the Senate 74-23, with a majority of Democratic support, as the 1986 tax-reform bill did? The 1986 tax reform cut the top rate for those evil "millionaires and billionaires" Bernie Sanders loves to rail against down to a mere 28 percent -- nearly 10 points lower than the top rate in this bill.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

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

Some key points from the article:

the GOP's tax bill does quite a few things Democrats usually support. It nearly doubles the standard deduction (from $6,350 to $12,000 for single filers and from $12,700 to $24,000 for joint filers) -- which is what most low-income families use, rather than itemizing.

It also doubles the child tax credit to $2,000, and people who don't pay any net federal taxes to "credit" can still get up to $1,400 in cold-hard cash paid for by their fellow taxpayers, whether they (yes, Ann Coulter, I'm looking at you) like it or not.

This sounds awfully close to "income redistribution," something liberal Democrats have been pushing for years.....


This article doesn't even mention the SALT cap, which drastically raises federal taxes on the wealthy, albeit only in states with high income taxes and high property taxes. Nevertheless, liberals and progressives are always saying they want to raise taxes on the wealthy and the SALT cap does that. Inexplicably, progressives hate the SALT cap for some reason.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-21 11:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Yeah, they'll regret it just as they regretted opposing the Bush tax cuts.

How did those tax cuts work out Jeff? Have you already forgotten the "house of cards" that collapsed around 2007? Short memory.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-21 11:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The tax cuts had nothing to do with the 2008 economic crash.

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-21 11:34 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

How do you feel about the SALT cap? It hits the wealthy awfully hard.

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-21 11:35 AM | Reply


I can see the uphill climb that Democrats face if they run on the tax cut bill in 2018.

For starters, the Republicans can highlight the temporary nature of the middle-class cuts and say something along the lines of ~if you want to keep those cuts, vote Republican. Don't let the tax-raising Democrats take over Congress.~

Any comparison of the amount of cuts the middle-class received vs corporations and the wealthy will be cast aside as class warfare, which usually polls as unpopular.

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-12-21 11:35 AM | Reply

This column by a conservative Trumper is delusional. The average tax cut for working class people in this bill is miniscule. Meanwhile the rich are getting enormous tax cuts.

"As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

"This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households -- the average $50,000 to $75,000 -- earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000."

www.npr.org

How are you going to spend your $160 a year in tax breaks, JeffJ? I think I'll give mine to the party that isn't ripping working people off so the fat cats get fatter.

#6 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-21 11:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

NS All they have to do is bring up Reagan and how he had to raise taxes to pay for the ballooning deficits. You're slipping with your intellect Jeff.

#7 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-12-21 11:44 AM | Reply

I just got off the phone with a client whose taxes will go from $4,000 to $11,000 next year because of the new law. She is pissed. My gut feeling is that there will more of these people than not. $5 Trillion in tax cuts to businesses have to be paid for somehow.

#8 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-21 11:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

NS All they have to do is bring up Reagan and how he had to raise taxes to pay for the ballooning deficits caused by the massive tax cuts he first implemented.. You're slipping with your intellect Jeff.

#9 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-12-21 11:47 AM | Reply

The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

Does that factor in the SALT cap? I bet it doesn't.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-21 11:47 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

I just got off the phone with a client whose taxes will go from $4,000 to $11,000 next year because of the new law. She is pissed. My gut feeling is that there will more of these people than not. $5 Trillion in tax cuts to businesses have to be paid for somehow.

#8 | POSTED BY 726

What changes to the tax law caused that to happen?

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-21 11:48 AM | Reply


Tax Cuts Buoy Republicans, but They're Swimming Against an Undertow
www.nytimes.com

...Republican lawmakers, who spent much of this year forced to explain or defend Mr. Trump's erratic behavior, now have an opportunity to go on the offensive with an issue that unites their increasingly fractious party. And they hope that up-for-grabs voters will reward them should the economy keep growing while their tax bills are falling.

"Once the withholding tables change in January, voters will realize their paychecks are bigger as a result of tax reform," said Representative Steve Stivers of Ohio, who runs the House Republican campaign arm. But, alluding to past midterm defeats for the party in power at the White House, he acknowledged that "history is against us."

To reinforce the party's message, the primary House Republican "super PAC," the Congressional Leadership Fund, is planning a $10 million advertising and grass-roots campaign beginning next month in some of their most competitive districts to highlight the rate reductions, higher standard deduction and child tax credits in the bill. Corporations such as AT&T and Wells Fargo delivered Republicans an immediate gift by announcing they would give employees a bonus because of the tax cut.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said in an interview that Senate Republicans next year would batter the many Democrats who are on the ballot in states won by Mr. Trump, such places as North Dakota, West Virginia and Indiana, for opposing the bill....


The tax bill is likely to become more popular after passage. Here's how Republicans plan to sell it.
www.washingtonpost.com

...The 45committee, a pro-Trump conservative nonprofit group that is primarily funded by casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and the family of TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts, has spent about $15 million promoting a tax bill over the past few months. The group does not have a target number for how much it will spend in 2018 yet, but a holiday-themed thank-you ad is in the works....


#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-12-21 11:49 AM | Reply

How do you feel about the SALT cap? It hits the wealthy awfully hard.

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-21 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

They were losing a good portion of those deductions anyways with the itemized deduction cap under current law.

#13 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-21 11:49 AM | Reply

What changes to the tax law caused that to happen?

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-21 11:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

SALT deduction. $20,000 in property taxes and $10,000 of income taxes and loss of personal exemptions.

#14 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-21 11:51 AM | Reply

"How do you feel about the SALT cap? It hits the wealthy awfully hard."

Just an attempt to slap the states that pay their own bills instead of depending on the federal government like most red states. California, New York, and other blue donor states will find ways to get around this stupidity.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-21 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Every client I talk to and tell them they lose their personal exemptions and those of their kids are pissed. Nowhere in the propagandizing of this tax scam had anyone said that.

#16 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-21 11:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Also, the Republicans still left in those blue states are going to feel the push back from voters who lose money due to this. This could very likely harm property values for people who otherwise always vote Republican. They won't like that.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-21 11:53 AM | Reply

It nearly doubles the standard deduction (from $6,350 to $12,000 for single filers and from $12,700 to $24,000 for joint filers) -- which is what most low-income families use, rather than itemizing.

Therein is the first lie.

Standard deduction for 2018 was $13,000 and it ignores the loss of exemptions. Family of four would be $16,600 for a total of $29,600 replaced with $24,000.

Tell me how that works.

#18 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-21 11:57 AM | Reply

This was quoted at Hotair. He linked the WaPo piece that it was quoted from, but when I click the link it asks me to pay $1 to read the article. No thanks. So, I am going with what is available to me:

But here's the truth: 8 in 10 Americans will pay lower taxes next year, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center's analysis of the final bill. Only 5 percent of people will pay more next year. Mostly, those are folks who earn six figures and own expensive houses in places with high local taxes, such as New York and California ...

I interviewed a dozen GOP operatives yesterday about how they plan to deal with this issue in 2018. They said the numbers right now are so bad that they can only get better. They freely acknowledged the head winds, but they see an opening to sell the cuts and insist that perceptions are still not fully baked. They've conducted focus groups and commissioned polls to figure out the talking points that are most likely to move the needle, and they're planning multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns to drive those messages ...

Republicans have a lot of upside potential with their own base. The NBC-WSJ poll finds that only 53 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of Trump general election voters currently back the tax bill. Even worse, just 28 percent of rural Americans and 29 percent of whites without a college degree think it is a good idea right now. Trump's overall popularity may be at a record low in the survey, but these are constituencies he can persuade.


hotair.com

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-21 11:59 AM | Reply

Foreigners who own U.S. corporate stock get a bigger tax break under this bill than the entire working- and middle class in every state that voted for Donald Trump, *combined.*

#20 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2017-12-21 12:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

... they're planning multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns to drive those messages ...

So the rich people getting most of the tax cuts will send some of that money back to Republicans, which they will use to propagandize working class people into thinking this is a good deal for them. Same as it ever was. Lather rinse repeat.

If you're a working person who voted for Trump, he is robbing you to make his rich friends richer. Don't be a sucker.

#21 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-21 12:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Anyone who wishes they'd supported the tax cut can make me the same deal: You pay me $7000, and I'll give you $1.25 a day for 8 years.

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-21 12:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

@#21 ... So the rich people getting most of the tax cuts will send some of that money back to Republicans, which they will use to propagandize working class people into thinking this is a good deal for them ...

Sadly, yup.

#23 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-12-21 12:05 PM | Reply

Also, the Republicans still left in those blue states are going to feel the push back from voters who lose money due to this. This could very likely harm property values for people who otherwise always vote Republican. They won't like that.

#17 | POSTED BY DANNI

Some of those rich Republicans living in blue states may opt to move to red states over this.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-21 12:07 PM | Reply

Yeah, who wouldn't pull up stakes in New York City, Chicago or southern California and move to the Ozarks, Mississippi or Pennsyltucky? There's nothing more vibrant than living somewhere that people get excited because a Subway or Carl's Jr. is coming.

#26 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-21 12:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 1

#18 | POSTED BY 726

What exemptions are you referring to?

#27 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 12:26 PM | Reply

#18 - JPW

From my limited understanding the increase of the child tax credit from $1,000 to a $2,000 tax credit is the equivalent of a $4545(22% rate) exemption. So a married man with 2 children would have previously had $29,600 in exempted income, now the same man would receive the new $24,000 exemption plus the effective $9,090 from the tax credit making his exempted income $33,090. And if you add in the original $1000 tax credit his effectively exempted income is actually $42,180. Damn. I need some kids. ha!

#28 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 12:29 PM | Reply

Correction, 726 NOT JPW

#29 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 12:30 PM | Reply

Yeah, who wouldn't pull up stakes in New York City, Chicago or southern California and move to the Ozarks, Mississippi or Pennsyltucky? There's nothing more vibrant than living somewhere that people get excited because a Subway or Carl's Jr. is coming.

#26 | POSTED BY RCADE

There are plenty of nice places in Florida - Marco Island springs to mind.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-21 12:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Damn. I need some kids. ha!

#28 | POSTED BY GAVASTER

"The best thing about kids is making them." - Thorton Mellon

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-21 12:48 PM | Reply

I was pissed about the state income tax thing too...until I realized I have to make over $150k a year before it starts to affect my income.

#32 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 12:48 PM | Reply

#31 - JeffJ

Practice makes babies. Dangerous game to play.

#33 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 12:53 PM | Reply

#18 | POSTED BY 726

What exemptions are you referring to?

#27 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag

Personal exemptions. The line two lines down from standard/itemized deductions. Currently $4,150 for each dependent. Two spouses and two kids = 4 exemptions = $16,600 subtracted off AGI to arrive at taxable income.

four kids and it is $24,900.

Kate plus 8 = $37,350.

#34 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-21 01:31 PM | Reply

#6 - RCADE

You've lost the argument when you have to use the hypothetical scenario based on 10 years from now. In the meantime a family of 4 making $77,400 a year is going to save $5,100 per year. And yes that calculates for the removal of personal exemptions, the addition of the child tax credits, loss of mortgage interest deductions, and elimination of exemption for paid state and local taxes.

1. State & local taxes are capped at $10,000. Making $77,400 a year you're not going to reach that threshold, and you probably don't itemize anyway.
2. Loss of mortgage interest deductions. This only affects those financing over $750k property. If you're making $77,400 a year you're not buying a 3/4 million dollar house.
3. Loss of personal & spouse exemptions. The near doubling of the standard deduction more than covers the loss of personal exemptions.
4. Loss of child exemptions. The doubling of the child tax credit more than covers the loss of the child exemptions.

In plain English...for a family of four making $77,400 not itemizing, using standard deductions, with child tax credits...

Tax rate for 2017 - 15%
Tax rate for 2018 - 12%

Standard non-itemized tax deductions 2017 - $42,533.33
Standard non-itemized tax deductions 2018 - $57,333.33

2017 results in a tax bill of $5,230.00
2018 results in a tax bill of $2,408.00

Net result - 54% income tax reduction

#35 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 01:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#6 my tax liability will be reduced by about $4000 and I'm firmly middle class.

#36 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-12-21 01:32 PM | Reply

#35 Correction

I didn't readjust the $5,100 number. It's actually $2,822. Or $235/month.

#37 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 01:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

From my limited understanding the increase of the child tax credit from $1,000 to a $2,000 tax credit is the equivalent of a $4545(22% rate) exemption.

Fair enough. The child credit goes to $500 in the year the child turns 17, so that is $2,272, 1/2 what the exemption was.

#38 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-21 01:34 PM | Reply

1. State & local taxes are capped at $10,000. Making $77,400 a year you're not going to reach that threshold, and you probably don't itemize anyway.

It is State, local and property tax deductions limited to $10,000.

#39 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-21 01:36 PM | Reply

Gavster and 726 are debating the actual ramifications of this law and are using real numbers and even being rational?

You guys are no fun.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-21 01:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#40, Well if you feel that, EFFF YOU!

Better? :)

#41 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-21 01:37 PM | Reply

It is State, local and property tax deductions limited to $10,000.

#39 | POSTED BY 726

We might exceed the limit mostly due to our sky-high property taxes. If we were to move 2 miles West our property taxes would be 1/3 of what they are now.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-21 01:37 PM | Reply

#41

Much better. :-)

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-21 01:38 PM | Reply

#38 - 726

You can't claim children over 17 anyways. Losing a $2,272 exemption for a 17 year old after gaining $40,905 of exemptions for years 8-16 isn't a bad trade off. The only losers will be those who have kids turning 17 next year. Even 1 year at the new rates is better that current rates.

#44 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 01:41 PM | Reply

From the opinion piece:

But next November, if the economy is growing...
The economy has been growing for more than 80 months now.

Thanks President Obama.

Meanwhile, that same growing economy probably explains Senator-elect Roy Moore (R-Alabama). And Governor-elect Ed Gillespie (R-Virginia).

#45 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-21 01:47 PM | Reply

#39 - 726

New system married with 2 kids you pick up $15k in exempted income. Unless you were itemizing and were able to rack up $28k in itemized deductions, you're better off with this plan.
New system married with 0 kids you pick up $3k in exempted income. Unless you were itemizing and were able to rack up over $16k in itemized deductions, you're better off with this plan.

#46 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 01:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

10 Reasons the Tax Bill is a Loser for Trump's GOP in 2018

www.drudge.com

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-21 01:56 PM | Reply

You've lost the argument when you have to use the hypothetical scenario based on 10 years from now.

There's nothing hypothetical about it. The numbers in 10 years are a fact.

This bill is such a pile of crap that it was submitted at the last second with hand-written scribbles on it to modify sections and even whole pages.

Now we're being sold the idea that a bill the Republicans rushed through without a period of public examination is secretly great. DON'T BUY IT.

#48 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-21 01:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

There's nothing hypothetical about it. The numbers in 10 years are a fact.

When the Bush tax cuts were about to expire Democrats voted to keep them in place for every bracket except above $400k.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-21 02:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#48 - RCADE

Right. You're describing the effects of the bill 10 years from versus the reality for next year because it benefits your narrative. I'm not buying it. The Bush tax cuts were extended and eventually made law, just like I suspect this bill likely will be in 10 years.

BTW, I've outlined specifics on why this is good for a middle class family. Any criticism of the analysis? What do you not like about the bill?

#50 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 02:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#47 - Corky

Can't read the article. Care to abbreviate the issues and I'll dissect and comment?

#51 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 02:07 PM | Reply

Gavster and 726 are debating the actual ramifications of this law and are using real numbers and even being rational?

You guys are no fun.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ

I know huh?

Trump threw you crumbs and and you are sorting and pecking through them looking for that little kernel of corn like a bunch of chickens scratching in the mud and the stupid liberals are laughing at you. What the hell is wrong with them?

They just don't appreciate good crumbs I guess.

And I love how all you "experts" understand the new tax code now and exactly how wonderful it is going to be for the middle class as the ink isn't even dry yet and we haven't even seen the full effects yet.

As for me I am so excited that I will get an extra $5 every pay check. That will help me pay for the expected 10-20% increase in the cost for my health insurance this year.

#52 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-21 02:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#52

Not to mention that the GOP now owns the health care problem with the OCare repeal in this Bill. Dems will never wish they supported this or the crumbs given to the middle class while the corporations got an enormous permanent cut.... because it will Tinkle Down on the working folk, don't 'cha know.

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-21 02:23 PM | Reply

#52 - Donner

Yes, 54% reduction of income taxes for a middle class family of four? Who effin cares? Take my money anyway! Despite the fact that low income families depend on tax returns to make major purchases they typically can't afford. Oh, wait. Someone else got more? Well, except for actually paying middle class families for existing there's not much more tax revenue to cut! You can't get the same $20k tax savings a family making $400k does because you only pay $5k to begin with! Not disparaging middle America. I am one this year. But the class envy ---- has to go. Taxes are not the way to wage class warfare. The bills have been paid, money's already changed hands. We're just fighting over the crumbs. Want to change wages? You gotta start that --- before the employee gets paid, not after.

#54 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 02:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I'm not going to support any tax plan which leaves the middle class with so little and allows Donald Trump and numerous other Republican lawmakers to enrich themselves at almost unimaginable levels.

I guess some don't yet understand. Donald Trump is corrupt. He has no good ideas.

#55 | Posted by Zed at 2017-12-21 02:52 PM | Reply

But the class envy ---- has to go.

#54 | Posted by gavaster

Then the richest class has to stop being such crooks.

#56 | Posted by Zed at 2017-12-21 03:00 PM | Reply

You're describing the effects of the bill 10 years from versus the reality for next year because it benefits your narrative.

Ten years from now is reality too, unless Trump starts a global nuclear war.

You don't get to only talk about the immediate effects. Laws have long-term impacts, which is why the CBO measures them. The full picture of this tax law is that it's a massive heist by the rich for the rich and it becomes more of a theft with each year that passes. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell served their masters well.

#57 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-21 03:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

But the class envy ---- has to go.

Translation: The whole concept of tax and wage fairness needs to go. The GOtP and their rich donors are sick of hearing about it.

You can't get the same $20k tax savings a family making $400k does because you only pay $5k to begin with!

Ok. If the GOtP really was going to help them then they would have given them back their $5k and provided health care for all so we could compete with the rest of the industrialized world.

But, Oh Noes! That would mean that AT&T would only get a $200 billion windfall instead of $600 billion!

Merry Christmas dumbass.

#58 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-21 03:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Read my post. You fix wages before they are given away to employees, not after. Translation: giving companies tax breaks after they paid their employees won't change wages.

#59 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 03:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#56 -ZED

Keep insulting them. That will win them over!!

#60 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 03:15 PM | Reply

Keep insulting them.

#60 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 03:15 PM | Reply

I tell the truth and you think it's Hell.

Snowflake.

#62 | Posted by Zed at 2017-12-21 03:37 PM | Reply

They will be made permanent just like Bush's tax cuts were.

#61 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 03:17 PM | Reply | Flag

I pit my clairvoyance and against your own and divine that you're full of ____.

#63 | Posted by Zed at 2017-12-21 03:38 PM | Reply

I pit my clairvoyance and against your own and divine that you're full of ____.

If past performance is any indication of future results, my money is on Gavaster's prediction.

#64 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-21 03:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I pit my clairvoyance and against your own and divine that you're full of ____.

#63 | POSTED BY ZED

His clairvoyance is based upon recent history - what the Democrats did the last time lowered tax rates were about to sunset. What data are you using for your predictions?

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-21 03:48 PM | Reply

What data are you using for your predictions?

Considering the Democrats haven't lowered taxes since LBJ signed JFK's tax relief measure in 1964 yet have made both Reagan's and Bush's tax cuts permanent, I doubt Zed will find anything other than by reaching into his gut through the opening to his lower intestines.

#66 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-21 03:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

If past performance is any indication of future results, my money is on Gavaster's prediction.

#64 | Posted by Rightocenter

There is a reason that any time you read a mutual fund prospectus or other investment disclosures, you are probably going to come across the oft-repeated phrase, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

Gee, I wonder why they do that? Oh well, who cares! Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!

#67 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-21 04:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I actually just thought of a tax strategy that may improve worker's wages. Wages for labor under x times the poverty line are 150% deductible. This prioritiezes labor over other expenses. Boom. You're welcome.

#68 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 04:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#67 Donner

Cute. Pretending mutual funds and taxes have anything remotely close to a similar life cycle.

#69 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 04:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Gavaster,

How does a doubled child credit ($2K) cover the loss of child excemption (~$4M)?

#70 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-21 05:36 PM | Reply

4K. Farking phone.

#71 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-21 05:37 PM | Reply

JPW

Credit vs deduction.

#72 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 05:38 PM | Reply

Basically a $1,000 credit is the taxes of $8,333.33 at 12%.

#73 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 05:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#47 - Corky
Can't read the article

Open it in an Incognito window.

#74 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-21 05:40 PM | Reply

Considering the Democrats haven't lowered taxes since LBJ signed JFK's tax relief measure in 1964

When lies are all you have...

President Obama has also signed two major pieces of tax-cutting legislation into law. The first, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, included a variety of tax cuts that benefited nearly every single American household. ARRA contained the Making Work Pay tax credit that directly reduced a family's income tax bill by up to $800, which, overall, reduced tax revenue by about $116 billion. It included expansions of the child, earned income, American Opportunity, and first-time homebuyer tax credits. ARRA patched up the alternative minimum tax, providing $70 billion in tax cuts, and cut a wide array of business taxes, together totaling another $60 billion.

All told, the Recovery Act included $243 billion worth of tax cuts through 2012.

Nearly two years after signing his first big tax cut bill into law, President Obama completely outdid himself by signing the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, commonly known as the December 2010 tax deal. The biggest element of the December deal was the extension, for two additional years, of all the Bush tax cuts and alternative minimum tax relief, at a two-year combined cost of more than $400 billion.

In addition, the deal extended a variety of business tax cuts and incentives, which reduced revenues by some $150 billion, and it cut the estate tax -- a tax paid by only a very few super-wealthy, massive estates -- by $65 billion. The December tax bill also cut the payroll tax paid by employees by 2 percentage points, delivering more than $110 billion in tax cuts to working Americans.

Put it all together, and in one fell swoop, President Obama cut taxes by $654 billion in 2011 and 2012 alone. In other words, with this bill President Obama cut taxes by more, in raw dollar amounts, in just half of his term than George W. Bush did over his full first term.

www.americanprogress.org

#75 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-21 07:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Let's pretend for a moment that the premise of the link isn't crazy as a --------- rat.

Even if the tax bill was good, it would never make Democrats wish they supported it. That would be stupid politics.

No party ever ran for office on the slogan, "Vote for Us Even Though the Other Side Did Some Things That Turned Out Kind of OK in the Long Run."

#76 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-21 07:27 PM | Reply

#76 - Rcade

Don't be intentionally obtuse. "Wish'd they had." That's the only hint I'm giving you. If you want to say no party ever ran for office on the slogan, "I'm was with them before I was against them" then fin...wait. Never mind. Yeah, just no.

#77 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 07:32 PM | Reply

Keep polishing that turd of a tax bill and telling yourself it's a chocolate diamond.

#78 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-21 07:44 PM | Reply

#78 - RCADE

The second you find a flaw in the analysis I laid out let me know. Your current stance is "lower taxes on businesses will crash the economy". Duly noted. I wish there would have been concessions from the military and other wasteful programs (not MC, MC, & SS) spending to make this budget neutral. Although, if my math holds up a 1% per year boost in GDP from this bill over the next 10 years would eliminate the deficit it creates. Time will tell.

#79 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-21 08:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 5

"The Joint Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeeper in Congress, said the bill would boost growth the total size of the US GDP by 0.8 percentage points over the first 10 years the bill was passed. That breaks down to boost of around 0.08 percentage points of added to the GDP growth rate per year."

www.businessinsider.com

Well, you weren't far off... hahaha!

#80 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-21 08:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

" It nearly doubles the standard deduction (from $6,350 to $12,000 for single filers and from $12,700 to $24,000 for joint filers"

This is false, and the reporting has been awful.

They're not doubling the standard deduction. They're combining the standard deduction ($6500 in 2018) with the personal exemption ($4350 in 2018) and adding $1350.

That's an increase of about 12.7%. NOT doubling, not even close.

#81 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-21 09:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Although, if my math holds up a 1% per year boost in GDP from this bill over the next 10 years would eliminate the deficit it creates.

Your math is the same hokum that Republicans have peddled since the 1970s.

slate.com

"We shouldn't be having this debate again. We know that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Ronald Reagan's didn't in 1981, George W. Bush's didn't in 2001, and there's no reason to think Donald Trump's would in 2017. Not when our best estimates are that it would barely increase growth. Indeed, only one of the 38 top economists in the University of Chicago's ideologically diverse poll agreed that the Republican tax plan would make the economy 'substantially" bigger.'"

slate.com

Arrested Development narrator: TAX CUTS NEVER PAY FOR THEMSELVES.

#82 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-21 09:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Making $77,400 a year you're not going to reach that threshold"

You're confusing income with assets.

#83 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-21 09:41 PM | Reply

It will be interesting to see where this goes when people have more money in their paycheck and realize that the Dems and the press have been lying to them.

#84 | Posted by sawdust at 2017-12-21 10:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#84

Better pray that people notice their "windfalls" make a difference.

Better pray that people don't hate the billion dollar raise Trump's giving himself.

Better hope the greater part of the American people aren't snivelling and corrupt.

#85 | Posted by Zed at 2017-12-21 10:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"when people have more money in their paycheck and realize that the Dems and the press have been lying to them."

For the average person, $1.25 a day. And you'll owe about $7000. Someone's been lying to you, that's for sure.

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-21 10:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

It will be interesting to see where this goes when people have more money in their paycheck and realize that the Dems and the press have been lying to them.

"Look, everybody, I got an extra $8.35 in my check! That's totally worth letting greedbags like Donald Trump give themselves millions and making my great-grandkids service that debt!"

#87 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-21 10:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

- For the average person, $1.25 a day. And you'll owe about $7000.

"It's a BARGAIN! Buh-lieve me!" - you know who

I keep saying that these rwing proxy voters for the corporations are like Charlie Brown, and the Republicans are like Lucy; always teeing up the Tinkle Down football, for decades now, and then pulling it away so that they fall on their ass.

Werks every time.

#88 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-21 11:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#81 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I already explained that. People are raising caine about losing the personal exemption without calculating the increase of the standard deduction. I explained and calculated that out so it would be clear. Thank you for agreeing with my point, you'll pay no income taxes on more of your earnings.

#83 | POSTED BY DANFORTH
"You're confusing income with assets."

No I'm not. Read the rest of that sentence. I am discussing wages and SALT taxes.

#89 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-22 10:27 AM | Reply

"People are raising caine about losing the personal exemption without calculating the increase of the standard deduction."

And people are claiming the standard deduction is doubling, which is a) false, and b) misleading. Once combined, it's an increase of less than 12.7%.

"No I'm not. Read the rest of that sentence. "

You're pretending low income THAT YEAR precludes someone from owning an expensive house. You're confusing income--which can fluctuate greatly from year to year--with sustaining assets, like a house. Plenty of folks will have low wages, and high SALT expenses.

"Thank you for agreeing with my point, you'll pay no income taxes on more of your earnings."

I didn't agree at all. That all depends on how much you're affected by other moving parts. Are you paying alimony? Did you move? Do you have worker expenses? You're already f^^k^d.

#90 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-22 10:33 AM | Reply

#80 | POSTED BY CORKY

So cutting taxes will actually decrease the GDP over time. So the inverse must be true. Raising taxes will increase the GDP. Hold on Googling......hahahahahah! Yeah. Ok.

#82 | POSTED BY RCADE

Like I said, I wish it would have been budget neutral. Take it out of the military budget we don't need. But math isn't hokum. If the GDP increases by 1% every year over 10 years the tax cuts will pay for themselves. The hokum is in the "if", not the math. This is the last shot I'm willing to take to see if decreased taxes increase GDP, there are broad cuts to all tax brackets and substantial cuts to business. If we don't see economic stimulation over the next 3 years I'll agree with you. (If the laws aren't substantially changed before the next 10 years are up.)

#91 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-22 11:15 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"This is the last shot I'm willing to take to see if decreased taxes increase GDP, there are broad cuts to all tax brackets and substantial cuts to business."

Oh, so we all get to risk our future so you can have one final shot using economic policies that have failed over and over and over since well before 1929, every single time they have been tried because....it is utter crap and just rich folks stuffing borrowed money in their pockets. This isn't economic policy it is just plain theft.

#92 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-22 11:19 AM | Reply

#90 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

"You're pretending"

No, I'm using averages. You're discussing abnormalities. Most people's income doesn't fluctuate so much that they have a $750k house and only make $75k a year. On a low year sure. But somewhere along the line they were making well over 6 figures in order finance that house. I live in PDX, OR and taxes on a $750k house is only about $6k a year which doesn't even reach the $10k threshold for SALT. S0 even calculating for your rare exception it's nearly impossible for someone making $75k a year to have over $10k in state and local taxes including property tax.

"And people are claiming the standard deduction is doubling..."

Again, which is why I converted it to simple math so you can see the difference by including the loss of personal exemptions. You will pay taxes on less of your income.

#93 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-22 11:33 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#92 | POSTED BY DANNI

I'm sorry, when did you become a deficit hawk? You were willing to experiment with government taking over 20% of the American economy (ACA) and adding a couple trillion to the deficit. Turn about is fair play, right? A trillion for you, a trillion for me. Trillions for everybody! jk (BTW taxes can be raised in an instant but extracting the government from healthcare would not be as simple as a party line vote.) But seriously, I think the deficit does need to be addressed. But it's a 30 year plan type of thing. We didn't arrive $20T in debt overnight and it usually takes longer to get out of debt than it does to get into it. Yes I'm willing to give the Repubs this $1.5T indulgence. If SHTF in 3 years they'll be voted out, the Dems will be voted back in and they can raise taxes back up.

#94 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-22 11:42 AM | Reply

I didn't agree at all. That all depends on how much you're affected by other moving parts. Are you paying alimony? Did you move? Do you have worker expenses? You're already f^^k^d.

#90 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Alimony changes? Affects 0.175% of tax filers. Wooo!! The changes primarily only severely affect high earners. Gotta look at for those at the top eh Dan?

Moving expenses? Moving just got $2k more expensive...or since people tend to move long distance at a 5% per year rate, average cost is $100 a year per family. Cue the dancing bananas!!!

Worker expenses? Affects only those who itemize, which is mostly high-income earners. It's a progressive tax system. The more you make, the less tax break you need. I thought you were for this?

#95 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-22 12:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"The changes primarily only severely affect high earners."

Nonsense. You're talking out of your ---.

"since people tend to move long distance at a 5% per year rate, average cost is $100 a year per family."

More BS. But continue cherry-picking, by all means.

"Worker expenses? Affects only those who itemize"

Tell that to my concert violinist, who won't be able to depreciate his six-figure violin.

#96 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-22 12:37 PM | Reply

"Most people's income doesn't fluctuate so much that they have a $750k house and only make $75k a year. "

That's not what you're claiming. You're claiming that year's income more-or-less determines how much SALT taxes are paid.

I prepare over 300 returns a year, and see plenty of anomalies. How many do you prepare?

#97 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-22 12:39 PM | Reply

#96 Danforth

"Talking out your ---"

Slap some numbers together. Otherwise you're the one talking out your ---.

"More BS"

Go look up average moves for long distance, it's less than 5% per year. So unless you're a serial nomad you likely will never feel the 'pain' of relocating expense deductions. Talk about cherry-picking. You picked the ----------- miniscule deductions that apply to so few people they are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Meanwhile the other 95% of Americans are better off.

"Concert violinist"

How much does your concert violinist make that he can afford a $100k+ violin? Sorry, when you can afford $100k for a violin I'm not going to feel sorry for your loss of depreciation. Tell me, what percentage of Americans have $100k in expenses related to their job? 0.0005%? 0.00000005%? Heaven forbid we don't carve out a special caveat for $100k personal equipment.

#98 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-22 01:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#97 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

"You're claiming that year's..."

Let's use percentages. What percentage your clients making $75k in 2017 are having a low year? What percentage of your clients pay more than $10k a year in SALT?

#99 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-22 01:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#96 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

"I prepare over 300"

Great. You're seeing 300 out of 140,000,000 tax filers and want to apply your sample size to the general population. No thanks.

#100 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-22 01:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"You're seeing 300 out of 140,000,000 tax filers and want to apply your sample size to the general population. No thanks."

Okay, you don't understand math either. Got it. Meanwhile, I have clients from four-figure incomes to seven-figure incomes.

"Slap some numbers together."

Sorry, pal. Your claim, your responsibility.

"Go look up average moves for long distance, it's less than 5% per year."

When it's you, it's 100%. Meanwhile, by your own estimates, this affects roughly 7,000,000 people per year.

"Meanwhile the other 95% of Americans are better off."

Not once this bill comes to fruition. 53% will pay more. While 82% of the Trillions borrowed goes to the wealthiest 1%, your cherry-picking notwithstanding.

"What percentage your clients making $75k in 2017 are having a low year?"

Again, when it's you, it's 100%. Stop pretending there aren't huge losers in this bill, and YUUUUUGE winners.

#101 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-22 02:22 PM | Reply

"Sorry, when you can afford $100k for a violin I'm not going to feel sorry for your loss of depreciation"

Afford?

It's a requirement of the job, at that level.

And you're "not going to feel sorry"? This guy bought the instrument banking on the tax savings to help him pay for a work tool. A required work tool, I might add, that no one provides for that type of worker. The tax code is now pulling the rug from under his feet, all because he's a worker, and not an owner.

#102 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-22 02:25 PM | Reply

"Heaven forbid we don't carve out a special caveat for $100k personal equipment."

--. It's the type of "ordinary and necessary" expense I still get to deduct, as the business owner, but he can no longer deduct, as a wage-earning worker. It's not a carve-out, it's a principle: workers required to provide their own supplies should be able to deduct them as part of their business, just like owners can.

#103 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-22 02:29 PM | Reply

"I'm sorry, when did you become a deficit hawk? You were willing to experiment with government taking over 20% of the American economy (ACA) and adding a couple trillion to the deficit."

It was an effort to slow healthcare inflation and it worked until Rubio slipped in the end of cost corridors and Trump purposely undermined the stability of the insurance market.

"But seriously, I think the deficit does need to be addressed. But it's a 30 year plan type of thing."

Meaningless nonsense. It is something you do when you have a successful economy humming along with low unemployment and corporations sitting on plenty of cash....you know....when things are exactly as they are right now. You certainly can't pay down debt later when we are in a recession which generally follows times like these. We know that in a capitalist economy we have booms and then busts, use the boom years to pay down debt so that we can borrow during the busts. What Trump and the Republicans are doing is setting us up to either borrow trillions or dramatically slash Medicare, SS and Medicaid which the billionaires think is a great idea while the majority of our population (by far) does not at all.

#104 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-22 02:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You're seeing 300 out of 140,000,000 tax filers"

No, more like 475 out of 140MM. Tax returns, which often cover more than one filer.

#105 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-22 02:31 PM | Reply

"and want to apply your sample size to the general population."

Meanwhile, you're seeing one, and want to pretend it's universal.

#106 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-22 02:32 PM | Reply

#102-103 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Again. How much does he make a year? What's his annual gross income? Just ballpark me.

Most people don't spend $100k of their personal money as an employee to do their job as an employee of an employer. It's a rare bird and you're making like it's the norm. BTW, still can't find the part of the bill specifying the elimination of depreciation deduction. I did find where the combined bill kept the current law in relation to employee's non-reimbursed expenses though.

#107 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-22 02:43 PM | Reply

"Again. How much does he make a year? "

Moot point. The tax code doesn't determine deductibility by income levels for businesses.

The concept is simple: Should someone who must purchase an "ordinary and necessary" tool as a job requirement be allowed to write that off, yes or no?

"Most people don't spend $100k of their personal money as an employee to do their job as an employee of an employer. "

You'd be surprised how many do, over their careers, especially in the performing arts. But to your point, most people don't move, pay alimony, or suffer enormous casualty losses, yet the tax code addresses all three...or at least it used to address them. If your only defense is "That's too rare to care", it fails the fairness test.

#108 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-22 02:50 PM | Reply

#101 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I don't understand math? Ha! You the one who's business is in one market, in one state, seeing only a fragment of the 55ish percent of filers who even use an accountant and attempting to extrapolate that into 'norms'. Seems you're the one with math problems.

"7M per year" Yup, out of 330. And here I thought you didn't want to use the tax code to only benefit a small percentage of the population. Tsk tsk.

53% will pay more? When? After the tax cuts expire? 2028?

I did put numbers together. Care to take a peek? Or are you content discussing only the exceptions to the rules?

As I said before, I'm all for attempting to equalize the pay disparity between the upper-echelon and the lower class. Make wages above what would be 1.5X-2.25X the poverty level for an employee 125% deductible as an employer. And wages 2.25X-3.00X the poverty level, make them 150% deductible. You'll have a better chance of employers willingly bumping their employees up to middle class wages without pricing small business labor out of the market.

I'll stop pretending there aren't huge losers in this bill when you stop pretending $100k non-reimbursed employee expenses are somehow normal.

#102 - Again, how much does he make per year?

Dan, all I have done is expounded on the tax benefits of the reduction of the personal income taxes and the changes in standard deductions etc. I think most people are willing to take lose the moving deduction this year if over the next 10 years they save $20k in other taxes due to increased standard deductions, child tax credits, and lower rates.

#109 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-22 03:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#108 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I would argue someone who's spending that much on an "ordinary and necessary" tool is a contractor who should be incorporated as an LLC. Also, as I just stated, the combined bill kept the current law in relation to employee's non-reimbursed expenses...per my reading of the bill.

Again, my point isn't it's too rare to care. My point is it is a trade off. With the lower tax brackets, increased standard deductions (even with the loss of personal exemptions), child tax credits...over the next 10 years you keep more money by a significant amount for MOST low income families. Over about $100k-150k I am not so concerned with your loss of deductions or well being. At that income level your standard of living is driving your savings not taxes.

#110 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-22 03:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I would argue someone who's spending that much on an "ordinary and necessary" tool is a contractor who should be incorporated as an LLC."

You can argue it all you want. Current law requires anyone covered under a collective bargaining agreement to be treated as an employee. But you knew that, right?

"You the one who's business is in one market, in one state"

Nonsense. My clients are all across the country, and I regularly deal with 30+ different states each year.

"as I just stated, the combined bill kept the current law in relation to employee's non-reimbursed expenses...per my reading of the bill."

Read it again. Form 2106 will be gone; where will Employee Business Expenses go?

"my point isn't it's too rare to care. My point is it is a trade off. "

But the trade off is the business owner gets to keep the deduction, but the worker loses his. Why do you believe this is a fair trade-off? Why should a deduction for the owner NOT be a deduction for the worker?

#111 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-22 04:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"As I said before, I'm all for attempting to equalize the pay disparity between the upper-echelon and the lower class."

The last time we did this--the Dubya tax cuts-- 27% of the money flowed to the wealthiest 1%. This tax heist gives over 80% to the wealthiest 1%. How does that fit with your "attempt"?

#112 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-22 04:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#112 Dan

It's a progressive tax system. If you increase taxes the biggest tax increase goes to the top. Conversely when you decrease taxes the biggest decrease goes to the top. It's simple math. I like it because it lowers taxes on middle and lower class families, especially the poor. Donthe rich benefit? Yup. Almost everyone benefits. "Their taxes drop more than mine" Isn't a valid argument. When a guy making $200k pays idk $40k-50k in taxes you making $60k at contributing $4k of course his tax break is going to looking bigger. That's not a basis for denigrating the bill though.

#113 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-22 05:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

" Conversely when you decrease taxes the biggest decrease goes to the top. It's simple math."

Absolute nonsense.

If everyone got a 2.5% decrease that would be one thing. And it would be natural that folks at the top would get more in raw dollars.

But folks at the top get a 5.2% decrease, and folks at the bottom get a 0.6% decrease. That's a world of difference...by choice of the authors.

Calling it "simple math" makes you look stupid.

#114 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-23 01:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I like it because it lowers taxes on middle and lower class families, especially the poor."

Original 2018 Standard Deduction: $6500.
Original 2018 Personal Exemption: $4150.
Original 2018 Combo: $10,650

New 2018 Combo: $12,000

Difference: $1350 of taxable income = $135 savings

Wow. The poor person gets her taxes lowered $2.60 a week! Why, that's over ELEVEN WHOLE DOLLARS a month!!! No wonder Gavaster especially likes it.

#115 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-23 01:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"53% will pay more? When? After the tax cuts expire? 2028? "

2026, actually. And every year after that.

The last overhaul lasted 30 years. Why do you get to pretend time expires at the end of 2025? Oh, that's right...to minimize the fiscal hole you're digging.

#116 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-23 11:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Gavaster's pathetic attempts to defend the horrendous tax bill are nothing short of Orwellian.

And hilariously stupid.

#117 | Posted by Angrydad at 2017-12-23 12:14 PM | Reply

#114

Where are you pulling 0.6% and 5.3%? What's that based on? Sounds like you're talking out your --- again.

#115

Oh, that $135 savings you mentioned for the standard deduction for the low income? They don't even pay $1k a year anyways. It's a 15% reduction on taxes for that single person you're talking about making under $20k per year. Move that single person's income into the next tax bracket and with the new lower rates and higher standard deduction it's an 18-20% savings on their total income tax bill. $135 isn't a lot but when you're only paying $750 under the new bill your effective income tax rate is less than 4%. You don't even reach a 9% effective income tax rate up to almost $40k in income. But tell us all again how bad the low earner has it with this new bill because someone else's tax rates were cut too. These tax cuts are good for the low income families and your deflections to projections about 10 years in the future are pretty lame.

Tell me Dan, how much should you be allowed to make before you owe a cent in income taxes? Right now a family of four can make nearly $60k a year and not pay a penny. How much should it be?

#118 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-23 07:22 PM | Reply

#116 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

That's right. They do. Just like the bush tax cuts did. But wait, those are in effect still? Huh. Odd that.

#119 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-23 07:31 PM | Reply

"Where are you pulling 0.6% and 5.3%? What's that based on?"

Steve Rattner, formerly of the Treasury, reporting on MSNBC.

"It's a 15% reduction on taxes for that single person you're talking about making under $20k per year."

First, you said "poor", so I took poor. Second, the first bracket is still 10%. If you want to say her marginal bracket is 15%, then she gets almost FOUR WHOLE DOLLARS a week. And THAT'S what you're "especially" happy about?

"You don't even reach a 9% effective income tax rate up to almost $40k in income"

She isn't taxed and doesn't save back at her effective rate, she saves at her marginal rate. Her effective rate is moot when it comes to how much she'll realize.

"new lower rates and higher standard deduction it's an 18-20% savings'

If she's poor, she isn't affected by the lower rates, not until she reaches what used to be the 15% bracket.

#120 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-23 07:44 PM | Reply

"That's right. They do. Just like the bush tax cuts did. But wait, those are in effect still? Huh. Odd that."

Not odd at all. Lots of things have added to our national debt. Someone pointed to the last four tax cuts, which add up to our current national debt. Go figure.

#121 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-23 07:45 PM | Reply

"Right now a family of four can make nearly $60k a year and not pay a penny."

No, right now a family of four owes roughly $1750 in income taxes on 60K. Under the new law, it'll be ~$500, saving that family ~$1200 a year. Of course, it'll cost the family roughly $24000 (($2T / 333MM) x 4).

Plus debt servicing, of course.

#122 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-23 07:53 PM | Reply

#120 DAN

Yes, the first bracket is still 10%
Under old law if you made $19,975 with standard deductions you'd pay $932.50 in income tax - 4.66%
Under new law if you make $19,975 with standard deductions you'll pay $797.50 in income tax - 3.99%

That is a 14.47% reduction in the amount of income taxes paid.

For the next bracket up...
Under old law if you made $37,950 with standard deductions you'd pay $3,628.75 in income tax - 9.56%
Under new law if you make $37,950 with standard deductions you'll pay $2,923.40 in income tax - 7.70%

That is a 19.44% reduction in the amount of income taxes paid.

Yes, we're talking about a poor person. Eliminating all income taxes wouldn't even equate to a 50 cent an hour raise, at full time hours that's less than $20 a week. Reforming tax code isn't going to rocket a minimum wage earner out of poverty and you can't cut enough of their taxes for them to even notice.

#123 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-23 09:27 PM | Reply

#121 Dan

If only it was that simple.

#124 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-23 09:28 PM | Reply

#122 Dan

I was saying now as in after the tax bill has passed.

I said nearly $60k. It's $57,333.33 or nearly $60k.

Also, you can't split the national debt as a per individual metric when repayment terms are progressive.

Bottom line, wages drive federal revenue. If you want to eliminate the deficit and pay off the debt it's most likely going to happen through promoting higher wages for employees.

#125 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-23 09:35 PM | Reply

#125 - Dan

I need to rework the numbers actually so my $57,333 may not be dead on. I'll have to review the calcs after the holidays. Too lazy to re-create the tables on vacation.

#126 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-23 09:38 PM | Reply

$58,921.70

It was bothering me. $24k in standard deduction. 10% on the first $9530. 12% on the following $25,931.7 creating a tax liability of $4k eliminated by the child tax credit of $2k per child, or $4k for a family of four.

#127 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-23 09:46 PM | Reply

- my $57,333 may not be dead on.

You mean like your 1 percent a year growth that turned out to be .08.

#128 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-23 09:49 PM | Reply

"If only it was that simple."

What part of "$30 billion = $30 billion" don't you get?

It IS that simple: we chose tax cuts over paying what we spend. The equation is the equation.

#129 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-23 10:10 PM | Reply

"I said nearly $60k. It's $57,333.33 or nearly $60k."

So you admit you're cherry-picking.

Regardless, my statement the family saves ~$1200 stands. As does my $24K per family of four borrowing. Plus debt service, of course.

And you still haven't addressed the core issue: the individual cuts expire, and 53% will be paying more in the final 20 years of this tax bill, assuming it lasts as long as the prior overhaul. Meanwhile, over 80% will go to the top 1%. You can dither than one person gets fifty bucks, or 1500 bucks, but the deal is terrible: we're literally going to borrow an additional $2 Trillion, to give 80% of it to the wealthiest 1%.

Why are you for this bill? My fear is because it has an (R) after its name, and no other reason. You certainly can't believe it's a good deal for you.

#130 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-23 10:22 PM | Reply

"Under old law if you made $19,975 with standard deductions you'd pay $932.50 in income tax - 4.66%
Under new law if you make $19,975 with standard deductions you'll pay $797.50 in income tax - 3.99%

That is a 14.47% reduction in the amount of income taxes paid."

That's $11 a month.

Also, the percentages reported by Rattner are changes in after-tax income.

19975 - 797 = 19178
19975 - 932 = 19043

19178 - 19043 = 135

135/19043 = .7089%

She gets less than a 0.71% increase in after-tax income.

#131 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-23 10:53 PM | Reply

"I need to rework the numbers actually"

Yes, yes you do.

#132 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-23 10:54 PM | Reply

How are you going to spend your $160 a year in tax breaks, JeffJ? I think I'll give mine to the party that isn't ripping working people off so the fat cats get fatter.

#6 | Posted by rcade

So you wont be giving it to the Democrats then?

#133 | Posted by boaz at 2017-12-24 01:11 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort