(09-28-2017 10:51 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't see why folks are arguing over this.

It isn't as if this reform is some sweeping change.

Increasing the standard deduction is a big help for lower to middle class folks and doesn't mean much of anything to anybody making more than $250k per year. It means an awful lot to folks make $50k per year.

From what I understand of the tax reform, it will have a net benefit of making the tax code more progressive for individual filers, while corporations and the poorest get breaks. ETA, this is very much a democratic tax plan except for the corporate tax reduction. This is NOT your Reagan tax cut plan.

As I said before, Trump is a democratic populist from the 70s and 80s.

(09-28-2017 10:55 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:51 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't see why folks are arguing over this.

It isn't as if this reform is some sweeping change.

Increasing the standard deduction is a big help for lower to middle class folks and doesn't mean much of anything to anybody making more than $250k per year. It means an awful lot to folks make $50k per year.

From what I understand of the tax reform, it will have a net benefit of making the tax code more progressive for individual filers, while corporations and the poorest get breaks. ETA, this is very much a democratic tax plan except for the corporate tax reduction. This is NOT your Reagan tax cut plan.

As I said before, Trump is a democratic populist from the 70s and 80s.

I'm not sure I agree with that.

The meat of the change is in the standard deduction and it's equally as substantive for both married and single filers.

The change in brackets is an aside and virtually meaningless.

The cutting out of certain deductions also does very little in the grand scheme.

This isn't so much reform as a tax warm-over.

The impact on corporations etc. is minor, and rightfully so, because simple isn't good for corporations.

(09-28-2017 10:51 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't see why folks are arguing over this.

It isn't as if this reform is some sweeping change.

Increasing the standard deduction is a big help for lower to middle class folks and doesn't mean much of anything to anybody making more than $250k per year. It means an awful lot to folks make $50k per year.

I get that; however, I would think increasing the standard deduction would lead to lots of people losing the mortgage interest deduction, so in the end, it would somewhat of a wash. I'm assuming the larger standard deduction would be more than the interest deduction which is safe to assume for lots of people given low mortgage rates, etc.

(09-28-2017 11:18 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:51 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't see why folks are arguing over this.

It isn't as if this reform is some sweeping change.

Increasing the standard deduction is a big help for lower to middle class folks and doesn't mean much of anything to anybody making more than $250k per year. It means an awful lot to folks make $50k per year.

I get that; however, I would think increasing the standard deduction would lead to lots of people losing the mortgage interest deduction, so in the end, it would somewhat of a wash. I'm assuming the larger standard deduction would be more than the interest deduction which is safe to assume for lots of people given low mortgage rates, etc.

The interest deduction remains in place.

This is a nip and tuck type plan.

(09-28-2017 11:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:55 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:51 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't see why folks are arguing over this.

It isn't as if this reform is some sweeping change.

Increasing the standard deduction is a big help for lower to middle class folks and doesn't mean much of anything to anybody making more than $250k per year. It means an awful lot to folks make $50k per year.

From what I understand of the tax reform, it will have a net benefit of making the tax code more progressive for individual filers, while corporations and the poorest get breaks. ETA, this is very much a democratic tax plan except for the corporate tax reduction. This is NOT your Reagan tax cut plan.

As I said before, Trump is a democratic populist from the 70s and 80s.

I'm not sure I agree with that.

The meat of the change is in the standard deduction and it's equally as substantive for both married and single filers.

The change in brackets is an aside and virtually meaningless.

The cutting out of certain deductions also does very little in the grand scheme.

This isn't so much reform as a tax warm-over.

The impact on corporations etc. is minor, and rightfully so, because simple isn't good for corporations.

We don't know the gory details, but from what I've seen historically regarding increasing standard deductions while closing off itemized deductions tend to push the benefits down the ladder - especially to the middle class. That's why I think for individual filers it will be more progressive.

(09-28-2017 11:22 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 11:18 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:51 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't see why folks are arguing over this.

It isn't as if this reform is some sweeping change.

Increasing the standard deduction is a big help for lower to middle class folks and doesn't mean much of anything to anybody making more than $250k per year. It means an awful lot to folks make $50k per year.

I get that; however, I would think increasing the standard deduction would lead to lots of people losing the mortgage interest deduction, so in the end, it would somewhat of a wash. I'm assuming the larger standard deduction would be more than the interest deduction which is safe to assume for lots of people given low mortgage rates, etc.

The interest deduction remains in place.

This is a nip and tuck type plan.

I know it stays in place; however, that wasn't what I was getting at. I was saying that people would choose the new higher standard deduction over itemizing and using the mortgage deduction. So, in the end, it's a wash.

(09-28-2017 11:22 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 11:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:55 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:51 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't see why folks are arguing over this.

It isn't as if this reform is some sweeping change.

Increasing the standard deduction is a big help for lower to middle class folks and doesn't mean much of anything to anybody making more than $250k per year. It means an awful lot to folks make $50k per year.

From what I understand of the tax reform, it will have a net benefit of making the tax code more progressive for individual filers, while corporations and the poorest get breaks. ETA, this is very much a democratic tax plan except for the corporate tax reduction. This is NOT your Reagan tax cut plan.

As I said before, Trump is a democratic populist from the 70s and 80s.

I'm not sure I agree with that.

The meat of the change is in the standard deduction and it's equally as substantive for both married and single filers.

The change in brackets is an aside and virtually meaningless.

The cutting out of certain deductions also does very little in the grand scheme.

This isn't so much reform as a tax warm-over.

The impact on corporations etc. is minor, and rightfully so, because simple isn't good for corporations.

We don't know the gory details, but from what I've seen historically regarding increasing standard deductions while closing off itemized deductions tend to push the benefits down the ladder - especially to the middle class. That's why I think for individual filers it will be more progressive.

The increase in the standard deduction amounts is without a doubt good for the little guy.

You can run the math on what it means for a person making $50k per year.

But, it isn't as if we are shifting burden from one group to another. It's just a tax break for the small guys.

(09-28-2017 10:34 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:01 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 09:49 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  How are we going to pay for it.

You mistakenly think a tax cut is a cost. It's a SAVINGS.

Savings to those who get a tax cut sure, but tax cuts mean less money coming into the federal government. That needs offset by spending cuts or the deficit and debt explode.

That's what paying for it means and you know this because it's the Republicans line for several years now.

C'mon guys. Stop it.

C'mon dems, how about some of those promised spending cuts? I know it's hard to get elected when don't promise to give away more and more taxpayer money.

Bottom line answer is just too damned simple. SPEND LESS

What are you talking about? Dems haven't controlled congress (read the purse strings) in several years. You can't promise to do something you have no control over.

(09-28-2017 11:39 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:34 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:01 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 09:49 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  How are we going to pay for it.

You mistakenly think a tax cut is a cost. It's a SAVINGS.

Savings to those who get a tax cut sure, but tax cuts mean less money coming into the federal government. That needs offset by spending cuts or the deficit and debt explode.

That's what paying for it means and you know this because it's the Republicans line for several years now.

C'mon guys. Stop it.

C'mon dems, how about some of those promised spending cuts? I know it's hard to get elected when don't promise to give away more and more taxpayer money.

Bottom line answer is just too damned simple. SPEND LESS

What are you talking about? Dems haven't controlled congress (read the purse strings) in several years. You can't promise to do something you have no control over.

Clever. It's almost like spending today wasn't put in motion a decade ago. Yes, that includes several decades, not just the last decade. However, IMO, neither side wants to tackle spending, as that is a whole lot harder than simply raising revenue.

(09-28-2017 10:36 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:28 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 08:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 03:47 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Each time we reduce the corporate tax rate more revenue flows into the federal government. Explain that.

I can't explain it because I don't believe it's ever happened. I suppose you have a link to back this up?

You know what, I did have that confused with the capital gains tax rate, so my apologies.

However a lower corporate tax rate would absolutely create more jobs and companies will begin to expand.

Not necessarily. Corporations (and most businesses) only hire employees when they have a product to sell and demand for it. Corporate tax cuts in no way guarantee that because the corporation still has an obligation to their shareholders to make as much money as possible. They are under no obligation to just charitably increase salaries or hire more workers just to hire them.

You miss the part of the equation where lowering corporate tax rates would entice companies to move to the US and thereby increasing tax revenues.

Sounds great, but is there any evidence (or studies that say) this will happen? I'm guessing the main reason they leave initially (or start elsewhere) is due to lower wages, not necessarily taxes. And if you are all expecting the corporations to increase wages as a result (or add more employees, the same thing) won't the mitigate most if not all of any tax savings?

(09-28-2017 10:40 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:28 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 08:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 03:47 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 03:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If only there were a guarantee reducing corporate taxes would improve the economy. See Kansas.

Each time we reduce the corporate tax rate more revenue flows into the federal government. Explain that.

I can't explain it because I don't believe it's ever happened. I suppose you have a link to back this up?

You know what, I did have that confused with the capital gains tax rate, so my apologies.

However a lower corporate tax rate would absolutely create more jobs and companies will begin to expand.

And without the punitive penalties they'd assume - as it stands now - for repatriating the trillions off-shored won't they be able to bring those monies back home where they belong. Without the punitive marginal tax rates maybe they will bring their operations home? Won't a decrease in the cost of doing business spur production here and enable an increase in jobs and hiring?

No. You don't produce more just because you can. You need customers to buy the additional product. If they money doesn't make it to the employees, that won't happen.

(09-28-2017 10:44 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 09:50 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 09:49 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  How are we going to pay for it.

^Assumes money belongs to the government.

No. He's asking the question Republicans have been asking in recent years when the Dems proposed something. Everything had to be paid for. Remember?

Try harder.

The Dems proposed spending initiatives, which are outflows. We're talking about a tax cut, which MIGHT lower an inflow. A lower tax rate CAN result in greater economic activity which would increase revenue for everyone.

Yes it can. Problem is that I don't believe there is any evidence it ever really has.

(09-28-2017 11:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:36 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:28 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 08:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I can't explain it because I don't believe it's ever happened. I suppose you have a link to back this up?

You know what, I did have that confused with the capital gains tax rate, so my apologies.

However a lower corporate tax rate would absolutely create more jobs and companies will begin to expand.

Not necessarily. Corporations (and most businesses) only hire employees when they have a product to sell and demand for it. Corporate tax cuts in no way guarantee that because the corporation still has an obligation to their shareholders to make as much money as possible. They are under no obligation to just charitably increase salaries or hire more workers just to hire them.

You miss the part of the equation where lowering corporate tax rates would entice companies to move to the US and thereby increasing tax revenues.

Sounds great, but is there any evidence (or studies that say) this will happen? I'm guessing the main reason they leave initially (or start elsewhere) is due to lower wages, not necessarily taxes. And if you are all expecting the corporations to increase wages as a result (or add more employees, the same thing) won't the mitigate most if not all of any tax savings?

Wages play a big role; however, in the end, it ALWAYS comes back to taxes. As far as increased employment that should in turn result in increased production/revenues, which will be taxed less. Anyway, there's a reason why there are trillions in dollars sitting offshore, it always comes back to taxes.

(09-28-2017 11:39 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:34 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:01 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 09:49 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  How are we going to pay for it.

You mistakenly think a tax cut is a cost. It's a SAVINGS.

Savings to those who get a tax cut sure, but tax cuts mean less money coming into the federal government. That needs offset by spending cuts or the deficit and debt explode.

That's what paying for it means and you know this because it's the Republicans line for several years now.

C'mon guys. Stop it.

C'mon dems, how about some of those promised spending cuts? I know it's hard to get elected when don't promise to give away more and more taxpayer money.

Bottom line answer is just too damned simple. SPEND LESS

What are you talking about? Dems haven't controlled congress (read the purse strings) in several years. You can't promise to do something you have no control over.

You aren't that dense. What always happens on a tax and spend bill? Spending happens first, with promise of future cuts that never come.

As for your "dems not being in control" how many budgets did they pass early i Obama's term?

(09-28-2017 11:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:36 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:28 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 08:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I can't explain it because I don't believe it's ever happened. I suppose you have a link to back this up?

You know what, I did have that confused with the capital gains tax rate, so my apologies.

However a lower corporate tax rate would absolutely create more jobs and companies will begin to expand.

Not necessarily. Corporations (and most businesses) only hire employees when they have a product to sell and demand for it. Corporate tax cuts in no way guarantee that because the corporation still has an obligation to their shareholders to make as much money as possible. They are under no obligation to just charitably increase salaries or hire more workers just to hire them.

You miss the part of the equation where lowering corporate tax rates would entice companies to move to the US and thereby increasing tax revenues.

Sounds great, but is there any evidence (or studies that say) this will happen? I'm guessing the main reason they leave initially (or start elsewhere) is due to lower wages, not necessarily taxes. And if you are all expecting the corporations to increase wages as a result (or add more employees, the same thing) won't the mitigate most if not all of any tax savings?

Read US is third highest in the world.... Puerto Rico is #2. It's a major competitive disadvantage for the US

(09-28-2017 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:40 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:28 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 08:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 03:47 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Each time we reduce the corporate tax rate more revenue flows into the federal government. Explain that.

I can't explain it because I don't believe it's ever happened. I suppose you have a link to back this up?

You know what, I did have that confused with the capital gains tax rate, so my apologies.

However a lower corporate tax rate would absolutely create more jobs and companies will begin to expand.

And without the punitive penalties they'd assume - as it stands now - for repatriating the trillions off-shored won't they be able to bring those monies back home where they belong. Without the punitive marginal tax rates maybe they will bring their operations home? Won't a decrease in the cost of doing business spur production here and enable an increase in jobs and hiring?

No. You don't produce more just because you can. You need customers to buy the additional product. If they money doesn't make it to the employees, that won't happen.

Correct. However, thats not necessarily what would happen. For the US economy, if "off shore" production is moved "on shore"---then the US economy benefits---even if sales stay flat (or even falls in some cases). What you are ideally looking for is a slow migration of jobs back inside of the US borders.

(09-27-2017 06:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I like this part: http://nypost.com/2017/09/27/trump-tax-p...ax-states/

"would remove state and local income and property taxes as deductions on federal returns."

This deduction always seemed to me that it was a handout to people in big coastal cities.

Its a silent subsidy for high tax states/cities.

(09-28-2017 01:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 06:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I like this part: http://nypost.com/2017/09/27/trump-tax-p...ax-states/

"would remove state and local income and property taxes as deductions on federal returns."

This deduction always seemed to me that it was a handout to people in big coastal cities.

Its a silent subsidy for high tax states/cities.

That part hurts regular people in the heartland as well.

The fact that is part of the deal is part of the reason this tax plan is a poorly thought out warm-over.

(09-28-2017 01:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:40 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 10:28 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 08:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I can't explain it because I don't believe it's ever happened. I suppose you have a link to back this up?

You know what, I did have that confused with the capital gains tax rate, so my apologies.

However a lower corporate tax rate would absolutely create more jobs and companies will begin to expand.

And without the punitive penalties they'd assume - as it stands now - for repatriating the trillions off-shored won't they be able to bring those monies back home where they belong. Without the punitive marginal tax rates maybe they will bring their operations home? Won't a decrease in the cost of doing business spur production here and enable an increase in jobs and hiring?

No. You don't produce more just because you can. You need customers to buy the additional product. If they money doesn't make it to the employees, that won't happen.

Correct. However, thats not necessarily what would happen. For the US economy, if "off shore" production is moved "on shore"---then the US economy benefits---even if sales stay flat (or even falls in some cases). What you are ideally looking for is a slow migration of jobs back inside of the US borders.

I am loving watching journalists lose their **** over this. They have less than a clue about what they are saying or what they are reporting on.

Journalists may be the dumbest profession on Earth.