First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Watch out this new GOP tax bill is going to reduce write-offs to the rich. #endofthemiddleclass
957 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F
Offline
Posted 12/20/17 , edited 12/20/17

MysticGon wrote:

Did they manage to keep the individual mandate repeal?


Individual mandate is gone.

http://fortune.com/2017/12/20/tax-bill-individual-mandate-obamacare/
29641 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 12/20/17 , edited 12/20/17

danagram wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

Did they manage to keep the individual mandate repeal?


Individual mandate is gone.

http://fortune.com/2017/12/20/tax-bill-individual-mandate-obamacare/


That's good. That "buy this thing, or else" never sat right with me. Makes sense if you own property or want to drive a car but not for simply living.
16442 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 12/20/17 , edited 12/20/17


For a more complete picture:



The top 5% of earners see a significantly higher benefit than the bottom 95% of earners (and even the benefit here is top heavy), and in ten years, everyone but the 1% will see basically no change in their income (although the bottom 40% will see a slight decrease in after-tax income).

yaaaay...?
519 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Morioh, Japan
Offline
Posted 12/20/17 , edited 12/20/17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knBptiGmeJA

Bernie Sanders Protesting the Bill
runec 
41930 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/20/17 , edited 12/20/17

Rujikin wrote:
We have to pass the healthcare bill to see whats in it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvSkeJbQy74

Don't give us that bullshit again. You can't compare this and ACA. Especially not with an intentionally edited 4 second sound byte.


Imagine an economy where people could follow their aspirations, where they could be entrepreneurial, where they could take risks professionally because personally their families [sic] health care needs are being met. Where they could be self-employed or start a business, not be job-locked in a job because they have health care there, and if they went out on their own it would be unaffordable to them, but especially true, if someone has a child with a pre-existing condition. So when we pass our bill, never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition.

We have to do this in partnership, and I wanted to bring [you] up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level. It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure. It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers. That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities. Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals.

You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.




MysticGon wrote:
That's good. That "buy this thing, or else" never sat right with me. Makes sense if you own property or want to drive a car but not for simply living.


Regardless of what you think of it the CBO estimates your premiums will now rise an additional 10% or so a year from now till 2027. While 13 million fewer will be able to get insurance. The resulting cost burden of which you will pay for anyway. It may not sit right with you but it was cheaper, more effective and better for America's health than the alternative.

When you consider that nixing it and federal subsidies gave the the GOP more money to pay for cuts on the top 1% and their private jets you seriously have to ask yourself which is the best of the options presented.


24648 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
777 / The White House
Offline
Posted 12/20/17 , edited 12/21/17
Holy shit Trump just got companies to raise their own hourly rate to $15/hour.





16442 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 12/20/17 , edited 12/20/17
Just for context, AT&T is set to save over $22Billion in taxes over the next decade (based on how much they paid in 2016. This could be much higher, especially if their merger goes through). If they give 200,000 workers a $1k bonus, they will be paying out $0.2Billion to workers, or less than 1% of their total savings over the decade. At this point, I'm pretty comfortable calling this a "symbolic gesture" (or more cynically, a bribe of "good PR").

Wells Fargo is also an interesting case, because they have been steadily raising their lowest pay rates for a while. They raised their lowest pay rate from $12 to $13.50 last January, which is a $1.50 pay increase for the lowest totem of workers. Now, they are saving Billions of dollars and paying it forward by giving the lowest totem of workers a $1.50 pay increase. Hm...

I think I'll wait to see the long-term overall effects on wages instead of jumping out of my seat because businesses are trying to give this surprisingly unpopular plan a PR boost. And don't think that doesn't mean I don't expect to see an increase in wages. To some extent, I do. However, those at the top will be sure to take the biggest piece of the pie, and as soon as things start slowing down (in all likelihood, we are going to have to pay for these tax cuts with a tax increase in the future), you can bet that the difference will be financed on your dime.
24483 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 12/20/17 , edited 12/21/17
11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M
Offline
Posted 12/20/17 , edited 12/21/17

ishe5555 wrote:

As far as the bill itself goes, I don't think it goes far enough in reducing the deductions and credits that can be taken. It would probably be best to just eliminate the itemized deductions (and greatly trim credits), not just for individuals, but entirely. That, in conjunction with removing the capital gains rate and having capital gains be included as income taxes, would greatly reduce the loopholes that have people complaining that the "rich don't pay their fair share". Although, the issue still arises that people only look at Federal Income tax and think that is all one needs to pay in taxes, when it could be less than 50 percent of their overall tax burden. Removing itemized deductions won't happen, though. Because you have plenty of people in government who love the tax deduction and credit system, it allows them to exert governmental control over behavior and it allows them to give specialized deductions and/or credits to their rich buddies.


I've been wanting that for YEAAAAARS.

Though, I want to point out, what you describe is NOT a flat tax, which is equally important. Flat taxes still hurts the poor the most.
24648 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
777 / The White House
Offline
Posted 12/20/17 , edited 12/21/17

sundin13 wrote:

Just for context, AT&T is set to save over $22Billion in taxes over the next decade (based on how much they paid in 2016. This could be much higher, especially if their merger goes through). If they give 200,000 workers a $1k bonus, they will be paying out $0.2Billion to workers, or less than 1% of their total savings over the decade. At this point, I'm pretty comfortable calling this a "symbolic gesture" (or more cynically, a bribe of "good PR").

Wells Fargo is also an interesting case, because they have been steadily raising their lowest pay rates for a while. They raised their lowest pay rate from $12 to $13.50 last January, which is a $1.50 pay increase for the lowest totem of workers. Now, they are saving Billions of dollars and paying it forward by giving the lowest totem of workers a $1.50 pay increase. Hm...

I think I'll wait to see the long-term overall effects on wages instead of jumping out of my seat because businesses are trying to give this surprisingly unpopular plan a PR boost. And don't think that doesn't mean I don't expect to see an increase in wages. To some extent, I do. However, those at the top will be sure to take the biggest piece of the pie, and as soon as things start slowing down (in all likelihood, we are going to have to pay for these tax cuts with a tax increase in the future), you can bet that the difference will be financed on your dime.


Assuming your numbers are correct you mean $2.2 billion a year so 9% of their savings. I'm sure their employees are celebrating and not complaining "why didn't I get 3k instead of 1k".

However this comes at a time when 5G is beginning to be built. Through its model, iGR has forecast that a total of $56 billion will be spent in the U.S. from 2017 – 2025 on the build of 5G. This figure does not include any operational costs.



WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE! JUTS LIEK WE DIED WITH CLIMATE AND THE INTERNETS>.
11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M
Offline
Posted 12/20/17 , edited 12/21/17

Rujikin wrote:

Holy shit Trump just got companies to raise their own hourly rate to $15/hour.







Except also companies have been forecasting that wages would need to be raised somewhat to deal with employee complaints and general unrest this year. Has nothing at all to do with the tax cut. Many articles also say that when asked, many corporations said they would simply turn around and pay their shareholders more and try to buy back more stocks.
24648 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
777 / The White House
Offline
Posted 12/20/17 , edited 12/21/17

serifsansserif wrote:


ishe5555 wrote:

As far as the bill itself goes, I don't think it goes far enough in reducing the deductions and credits that can be taken. It would probably be best to just eliminate the itemized deductions (and greatly trim credits), not just for individuals, but entirely. That, in conjunction with removing the capital gains rate and having capital gains be included as income taxes, would greatly reduce the loopholes that have people complaining that the "rich don't pay their fair share". Although, the issue still arises that people only look at Federal Income tax and think that is all one needs to pay in taxes, when it could be less than 50 percent of their overall tax burden. Removing itemized deductions won't happen, though. Because you have plenty of people in government who love the tax deduction and credit system, it allows them to exert governmental control over behavior and it allows them to give specialized deductions and/or credits to their rich buddies.


I've been wanting that for YEAAAAARS.

Though, I want to point out, what you describe is NOT a flat tax, which is equally important. Flat taxes still hurts the poor the most.


Which part of what he said?
11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M
Offline
Posted 12/20/17 , edited 12/21/17

Rujikin wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:


ishe5555 wrote:

As far as the bill itself goes, I don't think it goes far enough in reducing the deductions and credits that can be taken. It would probably be best to just eliminate the itemized deductions (and greatly trim credits), not just for individuals, but entirely. That, in conjunction with removing the capital gains rate and having capital gains be included as income taxes, would greatly reduce the loopholes that have people complaining that the "rich don't pay their fair share". Although, the issue still arises that people only look at Federal Income tax and think that is all one needs to pay in taxes, when it could be less than 50 percent of their overall tax burden. Removing itemized deductions won't happen, though. Because you have plenty of people in government who love the tax deduction and credit system, it allows them to exert governmental control over behavior and it allows them to give specialized deductions and/or credits to their rich buddies.


I've been wanting that for YEAAAAARS.

Though, I want to point out, what you describe is NOT a flat tax, which is equally important. Flat taxes still hurts the poor the most.


Which part of what he said?


Wha?

Who was the phone?
16442 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 12/20/17 , edited 12/21/17

Rujikin wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

Just for context, AT&T is set to save over $22Billion in taxes over the next decade (based on how much they paid in 2016. This could be much higher, especially if their merger goes through). If they give 200,000 workers a $1k bonus, they will be paying out $0.2Billion to workers, or less than 1% of their total savings over the decade. At this point, I'm pretty comfortable calling this a "symbolic gesture" (or more cynically, a bribe of "good PR").

Wells Fargo is also an interesting case, because they have been steadily raising their lowest pay rates for a while. They raised their lowest pay rate from $12 to $13.50 last January, which is a $1.50 pay increase for the lowest totem of workers. Now, they are saving Billions of dollars and paying it forward by giving the lowest totem of workers a $1.50 pay increase. Hm...

I think I'll wait to see the long-term overall effects on wages instead of jumping out of my seat because businesses are trying to give this surprisingly unpopular plan a PR boost. And don't think that doesn't mean I don't expect to see an increase in wages. To some extent, I do. However, those at the top will be sure to take the biggest piece of the pie, and as soon as things start slowing down (in all likelihood, we are going to have to pay for these tax cuts with a tax increase in the future), you can bet that the difference will be financed on your dime.


Assuming your numbers are correct you mean $2.2 billion a year so 9% of their savings. I'm sure their employees are celebrating and not complaining "why didn't I get 3k instead of 1k".


The reason I did a 10 year instead of 1 year projection is that this is a bonus, not a pay raise, meaning it is something which is paid out once. As such, short-term projections inflate its value. Are the employees celebrating? Maybe. I'm sure many of them are quite happy. However, it doesn't really speak to the true impact of the tax cuts on wages. Especially because, as I said, this move is likely being used to gain favor with the current administration to help push through their current merger ("bribe of good PR" if you will), you have to wonder how much of it is really the economic impact of these cuts instead of the political impact of this PR.

You also have to factor in the negative effects of this tax cut, such as increased federal debt (and the things that comes with it), decreased federal investment (decreased infrastructure spending, decreased investment on schools, research, etc), and future tax increases which will likely be required to make up the money that we are losing.

I've said a few times, short-term this plan will likely look good, but its initial positive effects basically dissolve to nothing as time goes on due to its impact on federal revenue. It is largely a matter of efficiency, and this bill is highly inefficient. It's like if you spend $100 to get $20 worth of goods, does it really make sense to brag about all of your great new acquisitions when you are so clearly in the red? It is easy to abstract the positive and the negative effects, especially when they are separated by time, but that is a dangerous road to walk.
24648 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
777 / The White House
Offline
Posted 12/20/17 , edited 12/21/17



serifsansserif wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:


ishe5555 wrote:

As far as the bill itself goes, I don't think it goes far enough in reducing the deductions and credits that can be taken. It would probably be best to just eliminate the itemized deductions (and greatly trim credits), not just for individuals, but entirely. That, in conjunction with removing the capital gains rate and having capital gains be included as income taxes, would greatly reduce the loopholes that have people complaining that the "rich don't pay their fair share". Although, the issue still arises that people only look at Federal Income tax and think that is all one needs to pay in taxes, when it could be less than 50 percent of their overall tax burden. Removing itemized deductions won't happen, though. Because you have plenty of people in government who love the tax deduction and credit system, it allows them to exert governmental control over behavior and it allows them to give specialized deductions and/or credits to their rich buddies.


I've been wanting that for YEAAAAARS.

Though, I want to point out, what you describe is NOT a flat tax, which is equally important. Flat taxes still hurts the poor the most.


Which part of what he said?


Wha?

Who was the phone?





sundin13 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

Just for context, AT&T is set to save over $22Billion in taxes over the next decade (based on how much they paid in 2016. This could be much higher, especially if their merger goes through). If they give 200,000 workers a $1k bonus, they will be paying out $0.2Billion to workers, or less than 1% of their total savings over the decade. At this point, I'm pretty comfortable calling this a "symbolic gesture" (or more cynically, a bribe of "good PR").

Wells Fargo is also an interesting case, because they have been steadily raising their lowest pay rates for a while. They raised their lowest pay rate from $12 to $13.50 last January, which is a $1.50 pay increase for the lowest totem of workers. Now, they are saving Billions of dollars and paying it forward by giving the lowest totem of workers a $1.50 pay increase. Hm...

I think I'll wait to see the long-term overall effects on wages instead of jumping out of my seat because businesses are trying to give this surprisingly unpopular plan a PR boost. And don't think that doesn't mean I don't expect to see an increase in wages. To some extent, I do. However, those at the top will be sure to take the biggest piece of the pie, and as soon as things start slowing down (in all likelihood, we are going to have to pay for these tax cuts with a tax increase in the future), you can bet that the difference will be financed on your dime.


Assuming your numbers are correct you mean $2.2 billion a year so 9% of their savings. I'm sure their employees are celebrating and not complaining "why didn't I get 3k instead of 1k".


The reason I did a 10 year instead of 1 year projection is that this is a bonus, not a pay raise, meaning it is something which is paid out once. As such, short-term projections inflate its value. Are the employees celebrating? Maybe. I'm sure many of them are quite happy. However, it doesn't really speak to the true impact of the tax cuts on wages. Especially because, as I said, this move is likely being used to gain favor with the current administration to help push through their current merger ("bribe of good PR" if you will), you have to wonder how much of it is really the economic impact of these cuts instead of the political impact of this PR.

You also have to factor in the negative effects of this tax cut, such as increased federal debt (and the things that comes with it), decreased federal investment (decreased infrastructure spending, decreased investment on schools, research, etc), and future tax increases which will likely be required to make up the money that we are losing.

I've said a few times, short-term this plan will likely look good, but its initial positive effects basically dissolve to nothing as time goes on due to its impact on federal revenue. It is largely a matter of efficiency, and this bill is highly inefficient. It's like if you spend $100 to get $20 worth of goods, does it really make sense to brag about all of your great new acquisitions when you are so clearly in the red? It is easy to abstract the positive and the negative effects, especially when they are separated by time, but that is a dangerous road to walk.


A bonus is a one time thing taken out of that years net income not distributed over multiple years. There are many companies that give yearly bonuses depending on how well the company performs or if the company does very well they give out a bonus. I've been adding a lot of value to my company and keep getting good bonuses :3

Trump also wants to reduce government spending not increase it. Last I read he reduced about 50 billion worth of government expenses. We should keep reducing this to both pay less taxes and have a balanced budget.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.