(11-02-2017 10:13 AM)gdunn Wrote: I think they should remove the taxes for 401k. My understanding is this, I put it in tax free, but when i withdraw I get taxed. They should remove that tax.
that's why the roth.....
one is funded by either net OR gross income (pretax/after taxes deducted....you know what I mean)...... the choices are there.....
the gamble is which one gets ****** first......
your post just became a huge problem that is no different than continuing to subsidize those that make money off money with zero value in return....
#pictureonpapyrus
jmtc on that one.....
(This post was last modified: 11-02-2017 10:47 PM by stinkfist.)
(11-02-2017 11:02 AM)bullet Wrote: One stupid thing they didn't get rid of was 39.6% tax bracket. That rate was a 10% "surcharge" on the 36% bracket. Why keep stupid stuff? Make it a nice round 40%.
(11-02-2017 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...
You do remember that deficit don't you...and the pledges from the GOP that everything must be paid for?
If this is a huge cut in taxes, what are the equal reductions in spending?
so now you're concerned after an 80% increase during the 8 years pre-Trump.....
attaboy......you're right on schedule.....
after reading yours, I just know this thread will get better.....
(11-02-2017 12:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: One thing that tax cuts do unequivocally do--at least tax cuts for the highest earners--is increase economic inequality."
If this is true please explain how it is that many countries with lower tax rates for the highest incomes--some substantially lower--end up with substantially less income and wealth inequality. There is an explanation. What is it?
hmmmmmmmmmmm.......scratches head for a nano.....................hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
stab in the dark......is the answer, #INCENTIVE????
(11-02-2017 01:05 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: I just ran some preliminary numbers. Looks like we'll save about $4500 to $5000 per year. Pass it now!
Awesome!
Congrats!
That’s actually some real money, there.
What are you basing it off of? What happens to a family with 3 kids jointly making about 140k before deductions? I can't find schit. Then again, doubtful whatever passes will be different from this anyway.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
(This post was last modified: 11-03-2017 05:57 AM by EverRespect.)
(11-02-2017 02:15 PM)CliftonAve Wrote: Uncle Milt Shut down the idea of rich people "hoarding" the money years ago.
He’s only like one of the best ever.
Clears that right on up.
But he's leaving out one key point. They don't invest said money into machines unless they have a product to sell....and people with money to buy that product. If the tax cuts don't materialize in great enough amount to the vast majority of the public then there is no money to purchase additional product, so the corporations don't make that additional product, so they don't buy additional machines to make said product, and then they don't hire more people.
What remains to be seen is what this thing is going to look like after it gets scored by the CBO and after Congress gets their meat hooks into it. If the cuts to those in the 12% and 25% brackets are not enough, it will not create the buying power to translate into the need for more equipment and workers.
My guess is that when it is made known how much the deficit and national debt will skyrocket that this will get gutted to pieces.
Additionally, I heard some rumblings that the bill attempts to make some key parts of this permanent...which I don't believe would qualify it for reconciliation...meaning it would need more than 51 votes to pass. Anyone heard something similar along those lines?
So, your answer/preference is to continue to send more of your money to DC?
You think they do a better job deciding how to spend your money than you do?
(11-02-2017 10:13 AM)gdunn Wrote: I think they should remove the taxes for 401k. My understanding is this, I put it in tax free, but when i withdraw I get taxed. They should remove that tax.
that's why the roth.....
one is funded by either net OR gross income (pretax/after taxes deducted....you know what I mean)...... the choices are there.....
the gamble is which one gets ****** first......
your post just became a huge problem that is no different than continuing to subsidize those that make money off money with zero value in return....
#pictureonpapyrus
jmtc on that one.....
I wish I'd knew about the Roth 10 years ago. You pay the taxes on it and after 5 years it's yours no penalties.
(11-02-2017 11:02 AM)bullet Wrote: One stupid thing they didn't get rid of was 39.6% tax bracket. That rate was a 10% "surcharge" on the 36% bracket. Why keep stupid stuff? Make it a nice round 40%.
(11-02-2017 02:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: But he's leaving out one key point. They don't invest said money into machines unless they have a product to sell....and people with money to buy that product.
But people already have the money to buy.
Americans consume more and save less of every dollar earned than citizens of any other developed country.
We are the target net importer nation in the world.
We are the largest debtor nation in the world.
Those things say that a lack of consumption is not our problem now. If anything, we have too much consumption, not surprising when you consider that economic policy for nearly 90 years has focused almost solely on stimulating consumption. What we need is investment in productive assets, along with the good-paying jobs that accompany such investment.
(11-02-2017 08:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Here's how I would do it:
1) 15% payroll tax (7.5% employee, 7.5% employer), with no wage/salary cap,
2) 15% flat tax on all business and investment income (corporations. partnerships, LLCs, proprietorships, dividends, interest income, capital gains),
3) 15% consumption tax, and
4) No individual income tax.
I would add 5% (2.5% employer, 2.5% employee) to go to a retirement account (super 401k) to augment social security.
That produces enough to balance the budget, do French Bismarck universal private health care, and provide a guaranteed minimum income floor for everyone based on Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz/Linder prebate/prefund. And the payroll tax plus a couple of minor tweaks solves social security's long-term problem.
Now you would have a more comprehensive safety net at the bottom and a more tax-efficient package to offer investors at the top. The economy should boom with that. And statistically, you'd see much less income and wealth inequality.
(11-02-2017 02:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: But he's leaving out one key point. They don't invest said money into machines unless they have a product to sell....and people with money to buy that product.
But people already have the money to buy.
Yes...and corporations already have money to invest too! And if they don't, they can get it rather cheaply right now.
(This post was last modified: 11-03-2017 08:42 AM by Redwingtom.)
(11-03-2017 07:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: Plan looks fine to me...but...Id like to see spending cuts in conjunction with it.
That's the problem for me as well. But you and I both know that the only way to get enough cuts will be to cut things like defense and that ain't likely going to happen.
Not to mention that you'd be a fool to buy the current line from Republicans to trust them to pass the spending cuts after they get their tax cut. We've seen that movie before...and it doesn't end with a rainbow.
(11-02-2017 02:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: But he's leaving out one key point. They don't invest said money into machines unless they have a product to sell....and people with money to buy that product.
But people already have the money to buy.
Yes...and corporations already have money to invest too! And if they don't, they can get it rather cheaply right now.
Yes, and they are going to invest it where they get the best ROI. Which ain't here, and won't be until our tax and regulatory environment becomes friendlier.
(11-02-2017 02:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: But he's leaving out one key point. They don't invest said money into machines unless they have a product to sell....and people with money to buy that product.
But people already have the money to buy.
Yes...and corporations already have money to invest too! And if they don't, they can get it rather cheaply right now.
Yes, and they are going to invest it where they get the best ROI. Which ain't here, and won't be until our tax and regulatory environment becomes friendlier.
We shall see...but again, with labor costs amounting to around 60% of corporate expenses and climbing, I don't think you're going to get the influx you think you're going to get.
(This post was last modified: 11-03-2017 09:06 AM by Redwingtom.)
(11-02-2017 02:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: But he's leaving out one key point. They don't invest said money into machines unless they have a product to sell....and people with money to buy that product.
But people already have the money to buy.
Yes...and corporations already have money to invest too! And if they don't, they can get it rather cheaply right now.
Yes, and they are going to invest it where they get the best ROI. Which ain't here, and won't be until our tax and regulatory environment becomes friendlier.
We shall see...but again, with labor costs amounting to around 60% of corporate expenses and climbing, I don't think you're going to get the influx you think you're going to get.
Source of 60% and climbing?
And you are misinterpreting how businesses assess labor costs.
In a sense, all costs are labor costs. We don't pay the cow to get beef or milk, we pay the farmers and ranchers and food processors. But most of those costs are pretty well fixed by the circumstances in which they are incurred. And cheaper labor is usually cheaper for a reason--it can't produce as much.
(This post was last modified: 11-03-2017 09:16 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
(11-03-2017 08:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: That's the problem for me as well. But you and I both know that the only way to get enough cuts will be to cut things like defense and that ain't likely going to happen.
Hey look at that, liberal talking points! I'm shocked!
That's right kids out of the whole federal budget we have to hit an area which is less than 1/5th of our spending.
(11-03-2017 07:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: But people already have the money to buy.
Yes...and corporations already have money to invest too! And if they don't, they can get it rather cheaply right now.
Yes, and they are going to invest it where they get the best ROI. Which ain't here, and won't be until our tax and regulatory environment becomes friendlier.
We shall see...but again, with labor costs amounting to around 60% of corporate expenses and climbing, I don't think you're going to get the influx you think you're going to get.
![[Image: image.axd?picture=Budget5_thumb3.gif]](http://www.halfbakedlunatic.com/image.axd?picture=Budget5_thumb3.gif)