New Tax Legislation
-
-
Personally for me, not rich by any means. It will reduce my current tax burden by about 40%. How that helps the country is beyond me, but how that helps me is pretty obvious: doubles the standard deduction, the child credit is doubled, my tax bracket goes down 3%.
-
@dylans I’m not trying to argue. Just trying to get a since of your opinion.
What ramifications would have to occur for you to oppose this bill?
-
Wife and I represent low end of middle class U.S. citizenry. We are definitely opposed. In the past 3 years my generation has stepped into voting booths wearing blinders, ethnically angry and eager to tilt the stability of the greatest nation ever to serve as a dreamsite for the world. “Make America Great Again!” Bull hockey!
-
Corporations do not hire workers based on tax policy. They hire based on demand and business opportunity. If anything, lowering the low and middle class tax burden would help companies because more disposable income means more purchasing power for consumers.
The fact that the individual tax provisions expire, while the corporate provisions are permanent, combined with the fact that the deficit will increase, meaning its probably impossible for those cuts for the middle class to be extended once they expire without changing the corporate structure (an unlikely thing considering many members of the GOP have signed pledges refusing to raise taxes for any reason). And yet, the big pay fors of this bill are far enough into the future that the current policymakers won’t have to face the blowback when things go bad.
-
Not picking a fight. However there is a lot of evidence that trickle down economics does work.
Those obvious conclusions is you don’t become rich or stay rich sitting on your money. You just don’t.
Now I’m not saying I"m aboard with this current tax plan Trump and the Reps are laying out. Like to see some more love for the middle class.
However facts are facts Old great Bill Clinton inherited an economy (Reagan) that was on fire, when he left not such much.
-
Yea because the economy was so great under Obama? I say bull hockey. Since the make America great again President? Um check your 401K account? Making thousands? I know I am.
-
@DoubleDD Making thousands? UR doing it wrong.
-
@DoubleDD have you heard of brownbroke ks? Lol
-
I’m sorry I must be mistaken. So explain to me why when Regan cut taxes the economy grew? Yet when Bill the rapist raised taxes the economy stopped growing. I’m at a loss of words. Please explain. So I don’t make a fool out of myself in the future. Please explain why taxing the rich into the most in the world helps us?
-
You making millions? Good for you. You’re a smarter man than I.
-
@DoubleDD read that letter from the hutch news.
-
@Crimsonorblue22 Can you post it for me. I’m not sure what your talking about?
-
@DoubleDD up^^^^
-
I’m looking don’t see it. Maybe my internet provider is less than stellar?
-
-
@Crimsonorblue22 Anyways love your posts and your points of view. Keep posting. We may disagree on some things? Doesn’t mean I don’t respect what you have to say. Night Crimsonblue
-
@DoubleDD I don’t know how your 401K was doing at the end of the 8 year Bush administration, but mine made quite decent gains during the Obama years. Trump inherited an upswing which Obama labored to jumpstart. And Obama did it without the promise to promote a tax bonanza for corporations and the rich boys.
-
@DoubleDD You must have missed the last balanced budget under Bill the (not-self-confessed-unlike-the-Donald) alleged predator.
-
Here’s the truth about the economy - tax policy is a small part of the overall economy.
Businesses at all levels operate on a supply and demand model. You could have a 0% tax rate, and companies won’t expand if demand does not increase. They will not create more jobs. They will not expand their facilities. They will not buy more supplies. If demand is stagnant, the business will stand pat, regardless of tax rates.
If demand increases, businesses will expand. You could have a 50%+ tax rate, but if the market is growing, the business will expand to keep up with the demand. They will not simply “punt” on capturing that customer demand. That’s the honest truth.
Corporate profits are at an all time high right now, but wage growth has stagnated. Basically, while corporations have raked in record profits, they have not raised wages. There was a study that says that millenials are, for the first time since WWII, the first generation that faces the dilemma that they will not earn more than their parents.
Remember, millenials grew up seeing their parents laid off as various bubbles (dot com, real estate, energy, etc.) burst, leaving their parents without jobs, or laid off, then re-hired at a fraction of the salary. This generation is now entering the work world with very few worker protections, as many states have stripped down health and safety regulations in an effort to be “pro-business”, and lower starting salaries relative to inflation than previous generations have seen.
Many of these new workers are entering the work force as contractors, meaning they don’t have benefits, and they don’t have a clear path of advancement. This model allows businesses to hire workers without having to worry about promoting internally because the contract workers are not a part of the company, and thus are outside the regular chain of promotion.
Let’s be honest for a second - the stock market tells us how good US companies are doing. It does not tell us how well the overall economy is doing because it does not tell us how well workers are doing, how much income is being realized, and whether that income is flowing only to the top of the pyramid, or if it is flowing to the lower level and entry level workers.
-
@justanotherfan Very, very, very well said.
-
This legislation gives 83% of benefits to top 1% of citizens, wish the distribution was more towards the middle. Another potential issue is with tax breaks expiring for individuals in 8 years while benefits for corporations are permanent, companies will be raking in more profits.
How will we pay for the deficit, will the government go after Medicare and social security benefits?
-
@AsadZ Don’t believe either side, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Saying only the rich own companies is beyond stupid.
-
@Barney It would be a great idea to have an income tax on businesses much like individuals I believe. Seems very fair.
-
This tax plan will, by 2026, raise taxes on most all individuals earning less than $50,000. This is because while the rates go down, many deductions are eliminated. For example, the personal exemption is eliminated. This means that, although the child tax credit goes UP (from $1000 to $2000), the $4150 that you could claim in personal exemptions is gone, so a married couple with two kids would end up paying more because gaining the higher tax credit doesn’t offset losing the exemption.
There are lots of little things like that in the bill. For every item that seems like a benefit for lower or middle income people, there’s an offsetting item that hurts them just as much, meaning for most average people, their taxes won’t go down, and as you go down the income ladder, the harm is greater because the deductions and exemptions that were eliminated are larger.
For example, that personal exemption is equal to nearly 10% for a household bringing in $45,000 a year. For a married couple here in Kansas with a couple kids, where that’s the median income, losing out on that 16 grand in exemptions is much bigger than the bigger child credits and the 3% deduction in tax rate.
And remember, all of those rates for individuals revert back to the current levels in 2026. With how this bill affects the deficit, it is doubtful that Republicans will have the appetite to extend those (or make them permanent) at that point. Which means that even if you do get a small benefit right now, in 10 years you will give all of that back when the tax levels go back to what they are now, but you still don’t have the deductions and exemptions that were eliminated in this bill.
There is very little chance that average Americans benefit from this bill after 2026, even if some of us do benefit now. My wife ran some preliminary numbers last week for us, I ran some more on Monday, and it looks like we will benefit in the short term. But this is still a bad bill overall. Chances are my parents, who are nearing retirement age, will get hit pretty hard by this bill. My wife’s mother will as well with just a single income. My wife and I saving maybe a couple hundred dollars a year isn’t worth seeing both of our parents lose out on hundreds as their taxes increase, or see their healthcare go up since the ACA mandate is repealed here.
That’s not worth $200 a year to me. You’re basically betting that whatever small benefits you gain this year will get extended in a decade, or that it won’t be your problem by then. That’s a losing bet if you ask me.
Edit: Just re-ran the numbers for my family against the final bill. My wife and I will see our taxes go down between 4% and 5%, then go up 0.2% when the current rates expire.
My parents will initially see their taxes go down by about 3%, but once they retire, their tax savings will shrink to 2%, then disappear after 2026, when their taxes will also go back up by 0.2%
My wife’s mom will see her taxes go down very slightly (between 1% and 2%), then go back up in 2026.
I can’t really account for how the ACA mandate repeal will affect my family or our aging parents, but my guess is that it will not be a benefit.
-
@justanotherfan This does nothing to help income inequality either.
The last two times we instituted a trickle-down theory, we had the two largest gains in income inequality. Which would be one of the main reasons for stagnant wages.
-
I am worried that we will start seeing an increase in interest rates that will have a counter negative effect on the economy and larger companies will not borrow money curbing overall spending while distributing profits to their top management.
The more I read and I think about this bill the more concerned I become on its negative impact on taxpayers with the exception of rich and privileged.
-
Yet did he have a balanced budget? Was it because of what he did? Or was it because of what Reagan did. Let’s not forget when Reagan entered the office. The Russians were doing what ever they wanted because the detente apporach of Carter and the lib machine. Interest rates were through the roof. An American couldn’t even dream of owning a home. Just to get gas for your car demanded you wait in line. (Remember). Inflation was threw the roof. (Right). And what was Carter and the Dem machine doing at that time? Taxing the hell out of everyone. Including the rich.
Oh by the way I loved old Bill Clinton. To bad he had a sex addiction. Read to many books from varying points of veiw to know better. Hell he tried to rape a Kennedy? As for Trump all I heard is a couple of accusations. You were a judge? When was the last time you convicted somebody on accusations? Yet with Old Bill the proof is in the pudding. He was guilty.
You never did because you were a good person a good judge. You know I’m right? Locker room talk doesn’t mean guilty as charged.
You keep posting. You have good stuff and I appreciate what you have to say.
Let’s go Jayhawks
-
@DoubleDD I don’t think Reagan gets the credit for budget surpluses 7 years after leaving office. I have heard people argue with good reason that the Republican Congress should get credit, but never have I seen anyone suggest it was Ronnie. His debt increases in his early years were mammoth.
Google gives us this "Fact Check: Who was president the last time the budget was balanced?
— The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.
— Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.
— There also were budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget."
The fact is, it was a bipartisan effort that gave us several years of surplus. A lesson for both sides that is woefully ignored today.
-
I totally agree. It was 100%, ok maybe not that extreme. Yet the Dems in that party at that time seen what needed to to be done and not only got on board but did what was right at that time. No qualms.
I get a little hard on Bill because in some ways he started this global economy thing with nafta, and such. Yes I know not is his Idea yet he pushed it through. Also he spent a lot of America’s tax surplus on building a information cable to India. Also he inherited not just a good economy, but the explosions of the Internet. (Dot com). Helped him a lot on balancing the budget.
I know I’m shaming myself but I did like that man. He and Reagan were two of the best presidents in my life. Too bad he was a sex addict.
-
Just for the record Carter wasn’t a bad dude. He just had two things aganinst him. One he was way before is time on clean energy. He was trying to implent solar panels and such when oil was dirt cheap.
The second I just don’t think he had the stones for foreign policy. He pretty much let Russia do what they did. Everybody points to Hilter and Germany as mass murders. Yet Russian and their gulags far exceeded anything Hilter every thought about doing. Something not you but Dems and libs don’t want to acknowledge. As detente was the flavor of libs and Dems at that time in history.
