Tax Reform

CM189191

let's talk tax reform

exciting, I know

pjhawks

CM189191 said:

let's talk tax reform

exciting, I know

corporations and the rich get the benefits, while most of us here at going to get fucked.  end.

JimmyV

It's like most everything else these days. If done right, with a logical and well-thought out plan for longtime benefit to the people and growth of the economy, I'm all for it. But I have no faith whatsoever that anyone involved in the current process is prepared to do that. There will be cuts for the top, it won't trickle down, and the rest of us will be expected to bend over and take it.

Gern Blansten

tRump said yesterday that the new rates would be bad news for him....that is absolute fucking bullshit

I don't disagree with getting rid of the AMT for anyone making less than $500K.  But for him to say he's going to get rid of the AMT, reduce the top rate to 35%, reduce pass through income from LLCs and SCorps to 25% and then say "it's going to be bad news for me" is the biggest fucking lie he has ever told.

hedonist

I just wish it were simple.  No deductions for mortgages, children, donations, etc. - and no loopholes.

Pay X percentage of whatever you earn.  Done and done.

(I can dream, right?)

Gern Blansten

hedonist said:

I just wish it were simple.  No deductions for mortgages, children, donations, etc. - and no loopholes.

Pay X percentage of whatever you earn.  Done and done.

(I can dream, right?)

Yeah but our capitalist system requires deductions.  If the economy needs a boost we make mortgage interest deductible to encourage home purchases, to encourage hiring veterans we create a tax credit, etc.

It's the nature of the beast.

Honestly...the IRS has the ability to let you file a relatively simple return directly on their website.  Lobbyists (H&R Block, Intuit, etc) throw money at politicians to keep that from happening.

hedonist

Gern Blansten said:

show previous quotes

hedonist said:

I just wish it were simple.  No deductions for mortgages, children, donations, etc. - and no loopholes.

Pay X percentage of whatever you earn.  Done and done.

(I can dream, right?)

Yeah but our capitalist system requires deductions.  If the economy needs a boost we make mortgage interest deductible to encourage home purchases, to encourage hiring veterans we create a tax credit, etc.

It's the nature of the beast.

Honestly...the IRS has the ability to let you file a relatively simple return directly on their website.  Lobbyists (H&R Block, Intuit, etc) throw money at politicians to keep that from happening.

And a beast it is!

I completely get what you're saying - its reasoning - but damn, it has become so complicated and rife with ripple-effects.

CM189191

hedonist said:

I just wish it were simple.  No deductions for mortgages, children, donations, etc. - and no loopholes.

Pay X percentage of whatever you earn.  Done and done.

(I can dream, right?)

I understand deductions for mortgages.  Buying a house makes you invested in your home, community and neighborhood.  

Same for donations, although I suspect that deduction is abused by people who can afford to donate more than I am able.

Never understood the deduction for having children.  Why should there be financial incentive for procreating?  

Houses of worship should be taxed.

A flat tax would be terrible regressive, causing much worse income disparity than we have now. 

A negative income tax would be my preferred vehicle.

CM189191

Gern Blansten said:

show previous quotes

hedonist said:

I just wish it were simple.  No deductions for mortgages, children, donations, etc. - and no loopholes.

Pay X percentage of whatever you earn.  Done and done.

(I can dream, right?)

Yeah but our capitalist system requires deductions.  If the economy needs a boost we make mortgage interest deductible to encourage home purchases, to encourage hiring veterans we create a tax credit, etc.

It's the nature of the beast.

Honestly...the IRS has the ability to let you file a relatively simple return directly on their website.  Lobbyists (H&R Block, Intuit, etc) throw money at politicians to keep that from happening.

In other countries, people just get an 'invoice'.  They can recalculate and contest if they was.  Kind of like property taxes.  Companies like H&R Block, etc., aggressively lobby to keep our gov't to keep the tax code unnecessarily complicated.  

Halifax2TheMax

Tax cuts don't spur growth as most people who get them use it to pay for necessities and the wealthy at a certian point, just bank it. I mean, how many second or third homes, or cars does one need?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/28/i-helped-create-the-gop-tax-myth-trump-is-wrong-tax-cuts-dont-equal-growth/?undefined=&utm_term=.035e23d961cf&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

And good luck with this:

Rushing through a half-baked tax plan, in the same manner Republicans tried (and failed) to do with health-care reform, should be rejected out of hand. As Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has repeatedly and correctly said, successful legislating requires a return to the “regular order.” That means a detailed proposal with proper revenue estimates and distribution tables from the Joint Committee on Taxation, hearings and analysis by the nation’s best tax experts, markups and amendments in the tax-writing committees, and an open process in the House of Representatives and Senate.

In other words, do your freaking job. Stop coming out with halfbacked political slogans and being the party of no, we do nothing.

Gern Blansten

The other piece of this is that the economy is going along pretty well and unemployment is low.  How can they push this as necessary to spur the economy?  It's ridiculous.

Go Beavers

Gern Blansten said:

The other piece of this is that the economy is going along pretty well and unemployment is low.  How can they push this as necessary to spur the economy?  It's ridiculous.

They want to reference how awesome the economy is doing, then talk about needing economic growth and more jobs. Just another day in bizzaro world. They need to get people trained up to fill the jobs sitting vacant because there aren't enough qualified people to do the job. And why are they calling it reform? That means changing things. This is tax cuts, not reform. 

Croos1226

"It's not good for me, believe me." That's what President Donald Trump said Wednesday in Indiana about the new Republican tax plan, and you shouldn't believe him. It's a huge tax giveaway to the wealthy and corporations, and few people will benefit more than Donald Trump.

Since Trump refuses to release his tax returns, in defiance of 40 years of precedent, we can't know exactly how much he'll gain from the proposed GOP tax plan. But we know enough to highlight the biggest examples of self-dealing by the president.

The richest gift he hopes to give himself comes from cutting what he pays in taxes by more than one-third on income from the 500 separate business entities that together make up the Trump Organization. These partnerships and other so-called "pass-through" entities don't pay corporate taxes, but instead pass through any profits and losses to the owners (principally or exclusively Trump). Trump pays any tax due at individual rates on his personal return. He would reduce the top tax rate on this kind of income from 39.6 percent to just 25 percent.

This is the so-called "small business" tax cut Trump is trumpeting. But that's a sham. It's really just a tax handout to hedge fund managers, Wall Street lawyers, real estate magnates like Trump and other high-earners. Because 96 percent of real small business owners already pay taxes at 25 percent or less, they get no benefit from the rate cut. To emphasize, only 4 percent of business owners will see any benefit from this so-called "small business" tax cut. The big winners are high-rollers like Trump who now pay the top rate. Far from a "small business" tax cut, this "pass-through" tax cut has been rightly dubbed "The Trump Loophole."

All that Main Street businesses will get from this handout to millionaires are the crippling reductions in public services – such as street repairs and small business loans – that would come from losing between $390-$660 billion in federal tax revenue over 10 years.

Another change Trump is trying to slip into the tax code greatly to his benefit is elimination of the alternative minimum tax – a safeguard against the wealthy using excessive deductions, credits and other subtractions to whittle their tax bill down to little or nothing.

The one tax return of Trump's that's been leaked to the public shows the alternative minimum tax doing its job. If the tax had not been in place, Trump would have paid federal taxes on his $150 million in income at a measly 4 percent rate – less than most low-income workers pay. Thanks to the tax, that rate was raised to a more reasonable 25 percent.

Axing the alternative minimum tax will undoubtedly save Trump hundreds of millions of dollars over the years – but it will cost the American people nearly $450 billion in lost revenue over the next decade. That's money that could be used to shore up Medicare and Medicaid, and improve our schools, among many other vital public investments.

A third huge gift to Trump and his family is repeal of the estate tax. The estate tax only affects the richest 1 in 500 families, since it only kicks in when an estate is valued at $5.5 million or more ($11 million for a couple). It's one of the few antidotes to our nation's dangerously widening wealth gap.

If Trump is anywhere near as rich as he claims to be, his family members would see their inheritances balloon by billions of dollars if he succeeds in eliminating the estate tax. Meanwhile, the rest of America would lose $240 billion over 10 years, making it tougher to pay for health care, education, retirement security and all the other services needed by those of us who don't inherit a fortune.

Trump and his fellow Republicans have quite a sales job in front of them if they plan to convince the American public that a giant tax handout to the rich and corporations is supposed to help working families. But in trying to make the sale, Trump will be in a position he's quite familiar with: working for his own enrichment.

Copyright 2017 U.S. News & World Report

cincybearcat

CM189191 said:

show previous quotes

hedonist said:

I just wish it were simple.  No deductions for mortgages, children, donations, etc. - and no loopholes.

Pay X percentage of whatever you earn.  Done and done.

(I can dream, right?)

I understand deductions for mortgages.  Buying a house makes you invested in your home, community and neighborhood.  

Same for donations, although I suspect that deduction is abused by people who can afford to donate more than I am able.

Never understood the deduction for having children.  Why should there be financial incentive for procreating?  

Houses of worship should be taxed.

A flat tax would be terrible regressive, causing much worse income disparity than we have now. 

A negative income tax would be my preferred vehicle.

Child credit --> because you are creating new tax payers

Halifax2TheMax

Go Beavers said:

show previous quotes

Gern Blansten said:

The other piece of this is that the economy is going along pretty well and unemployment is low.  How can they push this as necessary to spur the economy?  It's ridiculous.

They want to reference how awesome the economy is doing, then talk about needing economic growth and more jobs. Just another day in bizzaro world. They need to get people trained up to fill the jobs sitting vacant because there aren't enough qualified people to do the job. And why are they calling it reform? That means changing things. This is tax cuts, not reform. 

6 million unfilled jobs because America doesn't have the educated work force to fill them.

Halifax2TheMax

The "Middle Class Miracle?" Hmmmm, sure.

Tax Reform
President Trump announced his Administration’s tax overhaul initiative at the Indiana State Fairgrounds yesterday afternoon. Four Indiana lawmakers accompanied the President on the trip - Republican Representatives Susan Brooks and Jackie Walorski, Republican Senator Todd Young and Democratic Senator Joe Donnelly. "Tax reform has not historically been a partisan issue – and it does not have to be a partisan issue today...” the President said. “There is no reason that Democrats and Republicans in Congress should not come together to deliver this giant win for the American people and begin the Middle Class Miracle once again."
Watch the Video 

The Unified Tax Reform Framework
The America First tax relief plan will strengthen the middle class, grow the economy, and unleash America’s economic comeback. The plan consists of four main points: tax cuts for working Americans, a simpler tax code, lower business tax rates, and bringing wealth back to the United States. Here are a few of the measures included in President Trump’s tax relief plan:

·         Double the standard deduction.

·         Consolidate the seven existing tax brackets for taxable income to only three brackets: 12 percent, 25 percent, and 35 percent.

·         Streamline the tax filing process to a single sheet of paper for most Americans.

·         Reduce the corporate tax rate to 20 percent.

·         Tax offshore profits at a one-time low tax rate, thereby ending the tax incentive to keep those profits offshore.

Read more

Go Beavers

Halifax2TheMax said:

show previous quotes

Go Beavers said:

Gern Blansten said:

The other piece of this is that the economy is going along pretty well and unemployment is low.  How can they push this as necessary to spur the economy?  It's ridiculous.

They want to reference how awesome the economy is doing, then talk about needing economic growth and more jobs. Just another day in bizzaro world. They need to get people trained up to fill the jobs sitting vacant because there aren't enough qualified people to do the job. And why are they calling it reform? That means changing things. This is tax cuts, not reform. 

6 million unfilled jobs because America doesn't have the educated work force to fill them.

And if only  we had a presidential candidate that offered up a potential solution to this lack of training and education problem...... 

Go Beavers

Liars habitually qualify their statements with "believe me". 

HesCalledDyer

Go Beavers said:

Liars habitually qualify their statements with "believe me". 

Every time Trump talks.

tbergs

CM189191 said:

show previous quotes

hedonist said:

I just wish it were simple.  No deductions for mortgages, children, donations, etc. - and no loopholes.

Pay X percentage of whatever you earn.  Done and done.

(I can dream, right?)

I understand deductions for mortgages.  Buying a house makes you invested in your home, community and neighborhood.  

Same for donations, although I suspect that deduction is abused by people who can afford to donate more than I am able.

Never understood the deduction for having children.  Why should there be financial incentive for procreating?  

Houses of worship should be taxed.

A flat tax would be terrible regressive, causing much worse income disparity than we have now. 

A negative income tax would be my preferred vehicle.

I'm guessing you don't have children. The child credit makes complete sense because you're no longer just using your income for yourself. You are supporting more on the same income. You state that buying a home makes you invested in your neighborhood and community, which can also be applied to having children. In both instances that isn't exactly always true, but for the most part you are giving people a break for taking on those extra burdens that cost more money, make you spend more money and increase your involvement in local communities and businesses; investing in the future per say. Even with the deductions, I'm usually lucky to break even at tax time. Who the hell are the people deciding to have kids based on the pidly 1000 deduction? That's some really stupid logic.

Federal Tax Credits

Federal tax credits may help families offset the cost of child care. Some families may pay less in taxes and some families may receive a refund for child care paid during the most recent tax year

On this page:

• Federal Child Tax Credit
• Federal Child and Depedendent Tax Credit (DCTC)
• The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
• For more information

Federal Child Tax Credit

Program description:

The Child Tax Credit allows families to reduce their federal taxes by claiming a tax credit for up to $1,000 for each qualifying child. A qualifying child is:

• Under 17 years old
• Your son, daughter, adopted child, descendant of a child, stepchild, or eligible foster child and
• A U.S. citizen or resident.

To claim the credit:

File a federal income tax return form 1040 or 1040A (not EZ), or file a form 2441 with your form 1040.
Download tax forms and preparation worksheets
Read Ten Facts about Claiming the Child Tax Credit

Additional details:

The credit is limited if your adjusted gross income is above a certain amount. Depending on your tax filing status, a phase out may begin at:

• Married filing joint = $110,000
• Married filing separate = $55,000
• All other taxpayers = $75,000

CM189191

Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

Still doesn't make sense to me. 

oftenreading

CM189191 said:

Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

Still doesn't make sense to me. 

Maybe it's true where you live or maybe not, but where I live someone with significant medical issues who incurs extra costs for their health care, like for medical equipment, expensive prescription drugs, special diet, etc, can get a tax deduction once costs have exceeded a certain threshold. Would you say then that I am being punished for being healthy? I wouldn't, because I haven't incurred those costs in the first place. 

Halifax2TheMax

CM189191 said:

Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

Still doesn't make sense to me. 

This might help

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib370-earned-income-tax-credit-and-the-child-tax-credit-history-purpose-goals-and-effectiveness/

benjs

CM189191 said:

Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

Still doesn't make sense to me. 

Couldn't you argue this about any imbalance in opportunity or overhead, on the topics of taxes?

If you take five people who make $30,000 annually, you probably have five unique scenarios which affect opportunity, access to opportunity, and overhead: how many people are each supporting financially (and which of those five people are one of multiple financial supporters), what assets does each person possess, how many people are seeking an education, which of those people have a disability inhibiting their ability to find work (or higher paying work) or limiting their time available to work.

I thought that at least to some degree, these scenarios are contributing towards a 'blended' tax rate, which, when they each receive the same tax rate, is immediately treating some favourably and others less favourably based on their specific lives.

I wouldn't refer to this as 'punishment' or 'reward', I would call this a necessary evil unless the government wants to go more granular, which is precisely what they're doing when they define tax rates as well as deductions for specific circumstances. 

rgambs

People who don't have kids just love to make petty, bitter little arguments like this...like, ok, we get it.  You choose not to have kids, quit trying to justify and tear others down, you're getting to be worse than vegans lol

CM189191

Halifax2TheMax said:

show previous quotes

CM189191 said:

Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

Still doesn't make sense to me. 

This might help

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib370-earned-income-tax-credit-and-the-child-tax-credit-history-purpose-goals-and-effectiveness/

"The credit was adopted because Congress believed that the personal exemptions for dependents ($2,550 in 1996) did not “reduce tax liability by enough to reflect a family’s reduced ability to pay taxes as family size increases” (Joint Committee on Taxation 1997, 6). "

Kids are expensive and make it difficult to pay taxes.  So if you have kids, you should get to pay less taxes simply because they're expensive?

Sorry, still doesn't make sense to me.  

Halifax2TheMax

CM189191 said:

show previous quotes

Halifax2TheMax said:

CM189191 said:

Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

Still doesn't make sense to me. 

This might help

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib370-earned-income-tax-credit-and-the-child-tax-credit-history-purpose-goals-and-effectiveness/

"The credit was adopted because Congress believed that the personal exemptions for dependents ($2,550 in 1996) did not “reduce tax liability by enough to reflect a family’s reduced ability to pay taxes as family size increases” (Joint Committee on Taxation 1997, 6). "

Kids are expensive and make it difficult to pay taxes.  So if you have kids, you should get to pay less taxes simply because they're expensive?

Sorry, still doesn't make sense to me.  

Okay, that's fine. I was just offering up the history. Do more research? Reagan explained it I thought but oh well.

tbergs

rgambs said:

People who don't have kids just love to make petty, bitter little arguments like this...like, ok, we get it.  You choose not to have kids, quit trying to justify and tear others down, you're getting to be worse than vegans lol

Nothing wrong with vegans. Just trying to help save the environment, our world and reduce meat and dairy consumption.

josevolution

show us your tax returns then we can talk , you can't believe a word this habitual liar says !

oftenreading

tbergs said:

show previous quotes

rgambs said:

People who don't have kids just love to make petty, bitter little arguments like this...like, ok, we get it.  You choose not to have kids, quit trying to justify and tear others down, you're getting to be worse than vegans lol

Nothing wrong with vegans. Just trying to help save the environment, our world and reduce meat and dairy consumption.

I don't think it was the "vegan" aspect that was being alluded to......  

Gern Blansten

CM189191 said:

Stated differently: why is a tax payer punished for not having children?

Still doesn't make sense to me. 

you aren't punished...you don't have the costs associated with raising a dependent