tax bill

[madhatter]

As is typical in politics, this tax cut was driven by political and personal motivations rather than looking at real economics.

The theory of supply-side economics is that high tax rates are regressive and cause business/people to stop producing once taxed at a certain level. However, the progression isn't linear. At a certain point, taxes are no longer regressive and do not really discourage growth. See Laffer Curve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A 35% corporate rate is not regressive, and the empirical data suggests that this tax reduction will not pay for itself with further growth. What is most likely to happen is a huge tax reduction for big corporations and wealthy individuals with little corresponding benefit for the average joe, followed by growing deficits.

In short, it's a really stupid idea.

Yep, typical of the GOP when it comes to taxes - they blew it. As usual, the give to they rich at the expense of the middle class. At least they don't do too much harm to the poor - only because the poor don't make enough to pay much in taxes.

The 35% corporate tax rate is a canard, it was never the effective tax rate paid by any corporation worth their accounting salt. And if 35% is so onerous, why did corporate profits and the stock market set record highs during the Obama years?

Companies hire more workers when the demand for their products/services increases - it has little to do with corporate tax rates (well, I suppose at some point the tax rate could be so regressive that it actually doesn't pay to sell more products). I could pay zero tax, but if nobody buys my widgets, I'm not gonna hire more employees to make them.

So what's the best way to increase demand via taxes? Significant tax cuts for the middle class. The middle class buys stuff, lots of stuff. If they have more money, they'll buy more, driving demand for products they buy up. If the wealthy have more money, they buy more stock, driving the demand for stock up which is good for people who have most of their wealth in the stock market, i.e. the wealthy.

Trickle down has never worked and if it did, there's a good reason they call it "trickle".

Doubling the standard deduction sounds good until you find out they eliminated the personal exemption and cap deductions for SALT ($10K for both individuals and couples). So if you're married and own property in a relatively high tax state, no tax break for you. Probably only a very few Kzoners fall into this category.

Yes, the "average" middle class family will see a tax cut around 1.5% - for awhile. That 1.5% gradually disappears in about seven years until 70% end up with a tax increase 10 years out when the cuts sunset. Even the lower quintiles will pay more in tax. But the wealthy? 76% of the wealthy get to keep their tax cut (double the middle class percentage) 10 years out. bullsh!t personal tax rates expire for everyone at the same time...they also can be extended, revoked or altered at virtually any time via a new bill...The corporate rate doesn't sunset at all.they also can be changed or revoked via a new bill///

So sure, 80% of Americans will receive a tax cut - no caveat necessaryat first. But the sad reality is in the details - 53% will ultimately end up paying more in taxes.

This is what we get when we elect privileged narcissists to make a tax plan - tax cuts for big corporations and wealthy families paid with Chinese dollars. more gruberism...Working stiffs again more BS as if every person will be "stuck" with this debt that they will never ever even remotely give a crap about in real life...it's also only projected ( mostly by naysayers)get stuck with a $1.5T bill ($150B/yr, hardly a rounding error) still a pittance, it's like 3% of the annual budget...in dollars it's less than ATT will pay out in bonuses to employees as a result of this bill...in exchange for a $75 temporary increase in the monthly paycheck.

they'll all do better than they did with the 2500 dollar savings from obamacare...

families making under 110k with 2 kids or fewer will see a net increase...

[madhatter]

well there ya have it all the D's need to do to save america is win back the house senate and oval office then raise taxes...

until then 80% of us will see a tax break...

[Kpdemello]

Which views would those be? your whole idea that the wealthy benefit from the fruits of the rest of us...which is EXACTLY what tin pot lizzie said...She might have one or two good ideas. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.liz would do well to achieve broke clock status...

Okay.. that's not quite what I said. I said that the wealthy benefit more from the system than the middle class. Which I think is true. Warren would probably agree with that, and if so, she's right.

It's not my fault if a crackpot agrees with my good idea.

[Mister Moose]

Which views would those be? your whole idea that the wealthy benefit from the fruits of the rest of us...which is EXACTLY what tin pot lizzie said...She might have one or two good ideas. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.liz would do well to achieve broke clock status...

Okay.. that's not quite what I said. I said that the wealthy benefit more from the system than the middle class. Which I think is true. Warren would probably agree with that, and if so, she's right.

It's not my fault if a crackpot agrees with my good idea.

The wealthy benefit more because they have more resources in play. If I grow my corn on one acre, I don't benefit as much as if I grow 10,000 acres and hedge with corn futures, own my own corn trucks, and invest some of my earnings in other companies. The farmer that spends all he makes and does not elect to work more hours does not save any dollars. He does not put money into the stock market. He does not participate in the larger system.

Imagine a system where the hard worker benefits less than the get-by worker. Scary thought.

[boston_e]

I'm withholding judgement until I see how this plays out for me.

First instinct is that changes to the SALT will hurt those of us who live in high tax states sounds like that's a problem for your state to resolve,
or you can always move..with higher home prices, but perhaps the lower tax brackets will offset that difference.

Also being self employed (one person business), I'll be interested to see if / how my accountant changes the way i structure my taxes etc under the new law and how it may all help or hurt me.

If nothing else, I'm sure the accountants will love the added billable hours they will get for making all needed changes! very few in the middle class have or need an accountant...

its a 10k cap, if your state and local taxes are more than that you are the "rich" your party has been desperate to raise taxes on...wish granted...

Meh.. I would think that anyone self employed would be wise to have an accountant helping with their entity / taxes... even those whose business yields a “middle class” lifestyle.

Realistically nobody is moving, but it doesn’t take much of a House here in the northeast for property, excise and state and local taxes to exceed that 10k limit, but as mentioned, maybe the lower tax rates will offset that.

[Mister Moose]

How does the wealthy benefit more?

Financially.
It's a two sided equation. You buy the services because it benefits you, otherwise you wouldn't buy it. I say you benefit as well. You're just unhappy at the concentration of some of the flow of dollars in the economy.

Boeing builds the airplane. You use the infrastructure when you use the airplane to fly to Denver. Boeing does not use the infrastructure. You do.

Yes. And so does American Airlines. They make a lot more money using it than I do. They make so much money that they can afford to buy more planes from Boeing. So Boeing benefits, too, and also makes a lot more money than I do. I'm missing the point here. We all know American Airlines has more cash in the bank than you do. On most days, not all. Airlines are not notorious for making money over decades.

You work 8 hours a day and grow enough corn to feed your family. I work 12 hours a day, and use the excess corn to sell it. I then buy more land and grow even more corn. I take that extra money buy a bigger tractor. I grow so much corn I can afford a fishing boat. Now you want to tax me more because I bought a fishing boat. Why do you get to work less and stick me with a higher tax bill? And why can't I pass my after tax dollars on to my kid? Or pass on my farm that is bigger than yours, because I worked harder than you?

I never said any of this. I'm not sure where you got it from.
Sure you did. You brought up trust fund babies and yachts.

The only thing I've said here is that the tax bill is stupid, the highest tax bracket should not be cut, and the wealthy benefit more from the system than the middle class do.

Lest you get the wrong impression, I haven't been advocating that the top rate get increased or decreased. Longer term, I do think that your proposed 40% top rate is too high. We should be able to do better than that.

[Kpdemello]

The wealthy benefit more because they have more resources in play. If I grow my corn on one acre, I don't benefit as much as if I grow 10,000 acres and hedge with corn futures, own my own corn trucks, and invest some of my earnings in other companies. The farmer that spends all he makes and does not elect to work more hours does not save any dollars. He does not put money into the stock market. He does not participate in the larger system.

True! And by virtue of having a larger operation, that 10,000 acre farmer puts more trucks on the road to deliver his product, requires more deliveries of fertilizer and supplies that also uses more transportation infrastructure. The 10,000 acre farmer hedges with futures which means he needs a futures market regulated by government agencies. He hires more workers and needs roads, police, fire, etc. to ensure that his workers are safe, able to get to his fields, etc. He also needs to purchase tractors and goods and services for his farm which means he needs money, and he benefits from a Federal Reserve that regulates the monetary supply. He sells his goods to a market of consumers affected by booms and busts and he's happy that the Federal Reserve and other agencies regulate banking and economic cycles so that his customers can afford to buy his corn. He is also happy that he has a safe and secure country thanks to a very expensive military that defends his fields and his customer's lands from attack from people overseas. He also benefits greatly from a public education system that lets hist customers be educated enough to get good jobs and afford his product.

I could probably go on but by now you either get the point or you don't. The 10,000 acre farmer benefits greatly from all the things the government provides and he benefits much more so than the 1 acre farmer. Sure, he benefits more because he has a larger operation, maybe because he put more resources into play, including his hard work. But that doesn't mean he doesn't also benefit more from the things the government provides than the 1 acre farmer. He clearly does.

[boston_e]

Business tax rates needed to come down, along with other factors that kept multinationals from bringing overseas earnings and cash back to the US. Expensing capital investment should spur capital investment although I'm not sure 100% in year one is necessary. If these changes are at least partially offset by reducing other loopholes, that's all good.

Capping mortgage interest isn't a bad idea. Capping SALT deductibility isn't a bad idea, although I question the $10K limit. how many poor/middle class/ sub100k households are going to be affected by that?Doubling the personal exemption to $24K for couples will offset that problem for many middle class couples but not those who live in major metropolitan areas. Then again, if the individual tax rate comes down for those same people, it may not be as painful as some project.

I am not a fan of increasing deficits by the projected $1.5 trillion over 10 yearsthat's 1.5 billion per year, the equivalent rounding error and by no means guaranteed...there could always be spending cuts to offset that ( not that there ever will be).... and anyone who has argued for balanced budgets and voted for this bill shows themselves as the crass hypocrites we know politicians to be. (No surprise there.)

also @ 13 million people ( mostly lower income) will no longer be forced to buy insurance they don't want or face a penalty....they still can buy it if they WANT to...

Personally I’ve never minded the individual mandate.....

Does it not irk you when people choose to not take personal responsibility and buy health insurance, but then go get “free” care in the ED (which the rest of us of course end up paying for)?

[Kpdemello]

How does the wealthy benefit more?

Financially.
It's a two sided equation. You buy the services because it benefits you, otherwise you wouldn't buy it. I say you benefit as well. You're just unhappy at the concentration of some of the flow of dollars in the economy.

Ah, maybe that's the disconnect. I never said I was unhappy. I just said the wealthy benefit more. And reducing it to a single transaction is changing the entire concept. I was not talking about an individual transaction, I was saying that wealthy individuals, on the whole, benefit more from the system than middle class people do, on the whole.

Yes. And so does American Airlines. They make a lot more money using it than I do. They make so much money that they can afford to buy more planes from Boeing. So Boeing benefits, too, and also makes a lot more money than I do. I'm missing the point here. We all know American Airlines has more cash in the bank than you do. On most days, not all. Airlines are not notorious for making money over decades.

The point is that American Airlines both uses more of the government's FAA infrastructure than I do and makes more money doing it than I do. Therefore, financially, they both use more resources of government and benefit more from using those resources than I do. Which was my earlier point - that wealthy corporations and individuals benefit more financially from the system than middle class people do.

You work 8 hours a day and grow enough corn to feed your family. I work 12 hours a day, and use the excess corn to sell it. I then buy more land and grow even more corn. I take that extra money buy a bigger tractor. I grow so much corn I can afford a fishing boat. Now you want to tax me more because I bought a fishing boat. Why do you get to work less and stick me with a higher tax bill? And why can't I pass my after tax dollars on to my kid? Or pass on my farm that is bigger than yours, because I worked harder than you?

I never said any of this. I'm not sure where you got it from.
Sure you did. You brought up trust fund babies and yachts.

Either I have a massive reading comprehension problem or I just don't understand how bringing up yacts and trust fund babies in unrelated discussions has anything to do with your above example. I'm very much in favor of hard working business people making money. I never said anything about wanting to tax anyone more for buying a fishing boat. I never said anything about getting to work less and sticking someone with a higher tax bill. And I definitely didn't mention anything about estate taxes, though you probably wouldn't like my views on that.

[madhatter]

The wealthy benefit more because they have more resources in play. If I grow my corn on one acre, I don't benefit as much as if I grow 10,000 acres and hedge with corn futures, own my own corn trucks, and invest some of my earnings in other companies. The farmer that spends all he makes and does not elect to work more hours does not save any dollars. He does not put money into the stock market. He does not participate in the larger system.

True! And by virtue of having a larger operation, that 10,000 acre farmer puts more trucks on the road to deliver his product, requires more deliveries of fertilizer and supplies that also uses more transportation infrastructure. The 10,000 acre farmer hedges with futures which means he needs a futures market regulated by government agencies. He hires more workers and needs roads, police, fire, etc. to ensure that his workers are safe, able to get to his fields, etc. He also needs to purchase tractors and goods and services for his farm which means he needs money, and he benefits from a Federal Reserve that regulates the monetary supply. He sells his goods to a market of consumers affected by booms and busts and he's happy that the Federal Reserve and other agencies regulate banking and economic cycles so that his customers can afford to buy his corn. He is also happy that he has a safe and secure country thanks to a very expensive military that defends his fields and his customer's lands from attack from people overseas. He also benefits greatly from a public education system that lets hist customers be educated enough to get good jobs and afford his product. THIS is the liz warren you didn't build that argument...

I could probably go on but by now you either get the point or you don't. The 10,000 acre farmer benefits greatly from all the things the government provides and he benefits much more so than the 1 acre farmer. Sure, he benefits more because he has a larger operation, maybe because he put more resources into play, including his hard work. But that doesn't mean he doesn't also benefit more from the things the government provides than the 1 acre farmer. He clearly does.

he pays MUCH more too both as a percent and in real dollars...( see bold huge red above...) it's the 10000 acre farmer that built the infrastructure not the 1 acre farmer...who also gets to use it as much as he wants/needs despite paying little to nothign for it...you don't for one minute imagine that the sum of your taxes paid even comes close to covering the services rendered in lieu do you? you are a net recipient particularly if you have any kids......whereas the bill gates and mitt romneys of the world don't even remotely see a positive ROI on taxes invested...they are net payors...yet somehow you want them to pay even more...all while acting as if they benefit from you...

[Kpdemello]

he pays MUCH more too both as a percent and in real dollars...( see bold huge red above...) it's the 10000 acre farmer that built the infrastructure not the 1 acre farmer...who also gets to use it as much as he wants/needs despite paying little to nothign for it...you don't for one minute imagine that the sum of your taxes paid even comes close to covering the services rendered in lieu do you? you are a net recipient particularly if you have any kids......

I agree that the 10,000 acre farmer paid more for the infrastructure but he did not pay for all of it. The 1 acre farmer contributed as well. Also, while the 1 acre farmer can use as much as he needs, if he does so successfully, he will also start paying more. Sounds like a well functioning system.

whereas the bill gates and mitt romneys of the world don't even remotely see a positive ROI on taxes invested...they are net payors...yet somehow you want them to pay even more...all while acting as if they benefit from you...

This is where we have a major disconnect. I'm not that familiar with Romney's background, but I am a bit with Gates. Gates started poor, and absolutely would not have had the opportunity to make the money he made without the system in place in the USA. From the legal system, free market, and stock market available to help him obtain investments and grow, Gates benefited from the system tremendously. I imagine if you gave Gates the choice of starting his company in a place like Zimbabwe and paying lower taxes, or starting where he did and while having to pay higher taxes, he would gladly pay the higher taxes every time.

[madhatter]

How does the wealthy benefit more?

Financially.
It's a two sided equation. You buy the services because it benefits you, otherwise you wouldn't buy it. I say you benefit as well. You're just unhappy at the concentration of some of the flow of dollars in the economy.

Ah, maybe that's the disconnect. I never said I was unhappy. I just said the wealthy benefit more. And reducing it to a single transaction is changing the entire concept. I was not talking about an individual transaction, I was saying that wealthy individuals, on the whole, benefit more from the system than middle class people do, on the whole.

Yes. And so does American Airlines. They make a lot more money using it than I do. They make so much money that they can afford to buy more planes from Boeing. So Boeing benefits, too, and also makes a lot more money than I do. I'm missing the point here. We all know American Airlines has more cash in the bank than you do. On most days, not all. Airlines are not notorious for making money over decades.

The point is that American Airlines both uses more of the government's FAA infrastructure than I do and makes more money doing it than I do. Therefore, financially, they both use more resources of government and benefit more from using those resources than I do. Which was my earlier point - that wealthy corporations and individuals benefit more financially from the system than middle class people do.

You work 8 hours a day and grow enough corn to feed your family. I work 12 hours a day, and use the excess corn to sell it. I then buy more land and grow even more corn. I take that extra money buy a bigger tractor. I grow so much corn I can afford a fishing boat. Now you want to tax me more because I bought a fishing boat. Why do you get to work less and stick me with a higher tax bill? And why can't I pass my after tax dollars on to my kid? Or pass on my farm that is bigger than yours, because I worked harder than you?

I never said any of this. I'm not sure where you got it from.
Sure you did. You brought up trust fund babies and yachts.

Either I have a massive reading comprehension problem or I just don't understand how bringing up yacts and trust fund babies in unrelated discussions has anything to do with your above example. I'm very much in favor of hard working business people making money. I never said anything about wanting to tax anyone more for buying a fishing boat. I never said anything about getting to work less and sticking someone with a higher tax bill. And I definitely didn't mention anything about estate taxes, though you probably wouldn't like my views on that.

are you actually liz warren? or the ghost of karl marx? or their love child? your entire argument is you didn't build that, and from each to each...

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

[Coydog]

fantasy, the poor benefit more from a system largely paid for by the wealthy...

And this is one of the consistent mantras repeated by almost all Gump supporters - it's the poor and illegals who steal from the hard working wealthy and middle class by means of government. Gump is righting that wrong by cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy while at the same time building the wall (and how's that going?). Carried interest, capital gains, off shore tax shelters and all the other infinite scams legally branded into the tax code by means of lobbyists for the wealthy are completely immaterial if just one poor person is perceived to have received an unqualified benefit.

Gump supporters proclaim not to envy the rich, because the rich tell them they too could be rich one day. Just work a little harder or invent the paperclip or, as is all the rage right now, get yourself a rich daddy.

But they do despise the poor because the poor steal from them by means of things like welfare fraud. Not to mention all the jobs stolen by illegals picking fruit at sub-minimum wages.

So when the wealthy crashed the economy it was only natural to blame it on the poor. The innocent banker types who made those loans to low income folks were taken advantage of. They had no idea the loans would default once they tripled the interest rates. And why would the innocent banker types possibly expect home prices to fall after those homes in default returned to market - real estate always increases. So combining all that debt into paper that other wealthy types would buy seemed like a grand idea.

It was so grand they started selling side bets that the whole thing was sustainable. And for a time it was - it made them boat loads of money (taxed at capital gains rates), right up until it all came crashing down. Housing prices tanked, everyone realized all the paper they were holding was worthless and the side bets couldn't be paid out. Of course it was up to the working stiffs to bail 'em out.

But that's not the wealthy stealing from the middle class - that's the very best form of capitalism: privatize the profit and socialize the risk.

[Kpdemello]

are you actually liz warren? or the ghost of karl marx? or their love child? your entire argument is you didn't build that, and from each to each...

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Great. Tell me where she is wrong? Maybe she doesn't acknowledge that the wealthy pay more with the "the rest of us paid" business, but she isn't wrong in noting that a successful business person cannot be successful without a well functioning government to provide the system in place for success.

You don't have to disagree with an idea just because the person espousing it is despicable. BTW, Warren didn't come up with this idea, she got it from other (probably smarter) people.

[madhatter]

fantasy, the poor benefit more from a system largely paid for by the wealthy...

And this is one of the consistent mantras repeated by almost all Gump supporters - it's the poor and illegals who steal from the hard working wealthy and middle class by means of government. Gump is righting that wrong by cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy while at the same time building the wall (and how's that going?). Carried interest, capital gains, off shore tax shelters and all the other infinite scams legally branded into the tax code by means of lobbyists for the wealthy are completely immaterial if just one poor person is perceived to have received an unqualified benefit.

Gump supporters proclaim not to envy the rich, because the rich tell them they too could be rich one day. Just work a little harder or invent the paperclip or, as is all the rage right now, get yourself a rich daddy.

But they do despise the poor because the poor steal from them by means of things like welfare fraud. Not to mention all the jobs stolen by illegals picking fruit at sub-minimum wages.despise? maybe in the context of countering identity politics..., but the poor certainly are not a "value -added"... they are a liability...

So when the wealthy crashed the economy more gruberisms...the wealthy crashed the economy give us a fvking break,,,it was only natural to blame it on the poor.no we blame the a-hole democrats and their crappy ideology... The innocent banker types who made those loans to low income folks were taken advantage of. They had no idea the loans would default once they tripled the interest rates. And why would the innocent banker types possibly expect home prices to fall after those homes in default returned to market - real estate always increases. So combining all that debt into paper that other wealthy types would buy seemed like a grand idea.ask barney fwank what happened...as billy boy clinton about community reinvestment act...

It was so grand they started selling side bets that the whole thing was sustainable. And for a time it was - it made them boat loads of money (taxed at capital gains rates), right up until it all came crashing down. Housing prices tanked, everyone realized all the paper they were holding was worthless and the side bets couldn't be paid out. Of course it was up to the working stiffs to bail 'em out. didn;t all yo left wing zealots PRAISE hopey dope for saving the economy via that bailout?

But that's not the wealthy stealing from the middle class - that's the very best form of capitalism: privatize the profit and socialize the risk.or just get the fed gov the fvck out of the whole equation...

more ridiculous gruberism...no one is BLAMING the poor for riding the bus, using public services etc but to pretend that they don't benefit from them with virtually zero input is ludicrous...and dishonest...

the wealthy can easily do without the poor, the poor however cannot survive w/o the fruits of the wealthy...