Does anyone care about the tax bill?

[mark kennedy]

The most important even in the Trump administration is going forward and almost no discussion. I fear for the future of our country. With this bill in the Senate you have to know it will go through major changes, just one question, do you want this?

It's a politically vindictive tax bill and an obvious tax hike for anyone making less the 70,000 dollars. Wake up and smell the coup. The single biggest transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest in US history. Does anyone care?

 

[The~Cerberus~Infinite]

I identify as broke, so that doesn't apply to me.

 

[mark kennedy]

I identify as broke, so that doesn't apply to me.

That makes you vulnerable, when your not broke and start making money this is coming for you. That is the point.

 

[The~Cerberus~Infinite]

Cryptocurrency. A swiss bank in your pocket, at least according to Obama.

 

[mark kennedy]

Cryptocurrency. A swiss bank in your pocket, at least according to Obama.

The tax bill dude, what do you think of the tax bill?

 

[The~Cerberus~Infinite]

The tax bill dude, what do you think of the tax bill?

Probably going to die in the Senate. Either way, I'm not allowing big banks or big bureaucracy determine my financial future. Cryptos will be what we transition to once the petrodollar goes belly up.

 

[mark kennedy]

Probably going to die in the Senate. Either way, I'm not allowing big banks or big bureaucracy determine my financial future. Cryptos will be what we transition to once the petrodollar goes belly up.

I'm still waiting, what do you think of the tax bill. Your opinion matters partly because you are the only one who is expressing an opinion on a tax bill that is threatening to go after you and give the rich a major tax cut.

 

[The~Cerberus~Infinite]

It's a giant giveaway to the elites. If it passes the Senate with dem support but without Rand Paul, it's really bad. But understand, the Seante has to pass their own version, and then they have to unify the house and senate version, so there is still plenty time and room for change.

But Trump working with Rand a few weeks ago on the EOs on obamacare gives me hope that, at worst, we'll just be stuck with the status quo till 2019 after we, hopefully, flush out the dems in a landslide from the senate.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm still waiting, what do you think of the tax bill. Your opinion matters partly because you are the only one who is expressing an opinion on a tax bill that is threatening to go after you and give the rich a major tax cut.

You're not going to get a straight answer... Die hard Trump supporters have a habit of simply just pretending to not care or not be impacted by any of his poor decisions.

There was that guy here on CF a couple months back who, when confronted about the actual impacts of the GOP healthcare change, simply said "I use alternative natural therapies and don't plan on going to regular hospitals and doctors"

 

[The~Cerberus~Infinite]

You're not going to get a straight answer... Die hard Trump supporters have a habit of simply just pretending to not care or not be impacted by any of his poor decisions.

There was that guy here on CF a couple months back who, when confronted about the actual impacts of the GOP healthcare change, simply said "I use alternative natural therapies and don't plan on going to regular hospitals and doctors"

How did I not answer?

And homeotherapy guy is right. Doctors just kill ya.

 

[Albion]

If Lawrence is against it, there's a good reason to be in favor of it. That's about as trustworthy a guideline as there is in politics these days.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Basically, anyone who makes less than $70k will NOT be better off with the House proposal. Plain and Simple.

The nonsensical "guys in a bar" example was a horrendously non-detailed meme that completely left out the fact that when you have massive federal tax cuts, state income tax has to increase to cover the difference since less federal revenue means less given to the state, means that the state needs to increase it's own state-level revenue to make up the difference.

So basically, the rich get a massive break in their taxes...the middle-class and down pick up that tab in increased state taxes. Now, the rich pay elevated state tax rates when that happens too, however, the amount is a drop in the bucket compared to the break they're getting at the federal level.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How did I not answer?

And homeotherapy guy is right. Doctors just kill ya.

He had to pry 3 times, and even then, the answer you gave was "it may not be so bad because there will still be changes by the Senate", but that was essentially just used as a segue into you trotting out your mission statement about how you want to get rid of all "the dems".

What's wrong with just coming out and saying "Trump and the GOP don't care one bit about the middle class like they claim to" without trying to spin it back around on "the dems"?

 

[HannahT]

The most important even in the Trump administration is going forward and almost no discussion. I fear for the future of our country. With this bill in the Senate you have to know it will go through major changes, just one question, do you want this?

(Shrugs) All the normal talking points from the different parties have been spoken. Heck, they were chanting them before anything got on paper. Unless people have been living under a rock, and NOT paying attention? They have had discussion. Now was it meaningful? No. Politicians don't know how to do that anymore. Theatrics is more common. Honestly? That shows me they don't want meaningful discussion.

Now on the citizen's level? If we can drop the, 'since this side proposed it? It has to be evil' stuff? We might be able to have one that politicians don't seem to be capable of.

What part of the tax bill that the house passed can you live with, and what part is awful? Be specific, and link to the wording.

 

[wing2000]

The assumed increased revenues figures to cover the tax cut are based on a fantasy. Any tax cut should have a corresponding (and immediate) cut to other government programs to cover the loss of revenue. Don't count your chickens until the eggs hatch.....

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The assumed increased revenues figures to cover the tax cut are based on a fantasy. Any tax cut should have a corresponding (and immediate) cut to other government programs to cover the loss of revenue. Don't count your chickens until the eggs hatch.....

Like I touched on in my post, the offset usually ends up being covered by state tax increases.

The federal government lowering taxes doesn't magically make states need less money for roads, schools, etc...

Just using my own state of Ohio as an example, after the Bush tax cuts (for which, the difference in my paycheck was trivial...I maybe took home an extra $15 per pay), the State income tax rate went up by 0.8%. After the Bush tax went away and the rate went back up on top earners at the federal level, state tax went back down by roughly the same amount (0.8%)

...the same existed when "Reaganomics" took hold, the state of Ohio pretty much had to increase state taxes by 40% on all income over $24k/year ($60k in today's dollars). So, in a nutshell, when these massive cuts for the rich happen at the federal level, it's people who are far from rich who pick up the tab at the state level when states have to compensate for it.

 

[mark kennedy]

(Shrugs) All the normal talking points from the different parties have been spoken. Heck, they were chanting them before anything got on paper. Unless people have been living under a rock, and NOT paying attention? They have had discussion. Now was it meaningful? No. Politicians don't know how to do that anymore. Theatrics is more common. Honestly? That shows me they don't want meaningful discussion.

Now on the citizen's level? If we can drop the, 'since this side proposed it? It has to be evil' stuff? We might be able to have one that politicians don't seem to be capable of.

What part of the tax bill that the house passed can you live with, and what part is awful? Be specific, and link to the wording.

Are you kidding me, we know what is in the tax bill:

• A bottom individual tax rate of 12%. The plan specifies three tax brackets, with the lowest rate being 12%. That would represent a slight bump in the bottom bracket, which is now 10%. People currently in the 15% marginal tax bracket would most likely be included here.
• A middle tax bracket of 25%. The incomes in this bracket aren't specified.
• The top individual tax rate of 35%. The current top rate is 39.6%.
• The possibility of a fourth, higher bracket. Because of Trump's insistence that taxes for the wealthiest Americans not decrease, the plan proposes the possibility of a fourth tax bracket at a rate higher than 35% if the tax-writing committees wish. "An additional top rate may apply to the highest-income taxpayers to ensure that the reformed tax code is at least as progressive as the existing tax code and does not shift the tax burden from high-income to lower- and middle-income taxpayers," the plan reads.
• A larger standard deduction. To avoid raising taxes on those currently in the 10% tax bracket, the standard deduction for all taxes would increase to $12,000 for individuals (up from $6,350) and $24,000 for married couples (up from $12,700). These are slightly less than the doubled deductions expected — and as Business Insider's Josh Barro noted, the idea that this would save people money may be misleading since it eliminates other personal deductions and a secondary standard deduction.
• Eliminates most itemized deductions. The only deduction preserved explicitly in the plan is for charitable gifts and home-mortgage interest.
• Repeals the alternative minimum tax (AMT): The tax, which forces people who qualify due to an outsized number of deductions, will be eliminated. Incidentally, Trump's own tax bill has been shown to be millins of dollars more due to the AMT.
• Increases the size of the child tax credit. A pet project of Ivanka Trump, the proposal is to make the first $1,000 of the child tax credit refundable and increase the income level at which the credit would phase out.
• Vague promises on retirement savings and other deductions. Sections of the plan refer to retirement savings and other "provisions," but details are sparse.
• Elimination of the state and local tax deduction. The so-called SALT deduction allows people to deduct what they pay in state and local taxes from their federal tax bill. Most of the people who take this deduction are wealthier Americans in Democratic states — about one-third of the beneficiaries are in New York, New Jersey, and California.
• Elimination of the estate tax. Called the "death tax" in the plan, this applies only to inherited assets totaling $5.49 million or more in 2017. Very few households pay the estate tax, but it has long been a target for Republicans. (HERE: All the details of Trump's massive tax plan. Businessinsider.com)

The question is, plain and simple, do you support it.

 

[Maren]

I commented in a thread a couple of weeks ago. I guess my issue is that it seems "out of my hands." I wrote my Senators, who will vote for it anyway. One senator even sent back an email explaining, largely in a bunch of double talk, why the tax bill is good. At least part of my issue is that it is great for all the "rich," including big business, while not helping small business.

 

[mark kennedy]

I commented in a thread a couple of weeks ago. I guess my issue is that it seems "out of my hands." I wrote my Senators, who will vote for it anyway. One senator even sent back an email explaining, largely in a bunch of double talk, why the tax bill is good. At least part of my issue is that it is great for all the "rich," including big business, while not helping small business.

Exactly the problem we should all have with it.

 

[HannahT]

Are you kidding me, we know what is in the tax bill:

I didn't ask you if you KNEW what was in the tax bill.

I asked what it was specifically you did and did not like.