Tax Reform

mrussel1

Unemployment is 4.1%.  Someone explain to me why we need these tax cuts in order to improve the job market?  In VA, we have 25K plus jobs that can't be filled because there aren't qualified candidates.  I have four unfilled positions in my compliance team alone, because the candidates I get are not very good.  

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

Unemployment is 4.1%.  Someone explain to me why we need these tax cuts in order to improve the job market?  In VA, we have 25K plus jobs that can't be filled because there aren't qualified candidates.  I have four unfilled positions in my compliance team alone, because the candidates I get are not very good.  

It’s going to put the coal miners back to work.

Go Beavers

mrussel1 said:

Unemployment is 4.1%.  Someone explain to me why we need these tax cuts in order to improve the job market?  In VA, we have 25K plus jobs that can't be filled because there aren't qualified candidates.  I have four unfilled positions in my compliance team alone, because the candidates I get are not very good.  

You’re going to have even more positions that you can’t fill. Added bonus: China owns even more of our ass. 

mrussel1

Go Beavers said:

mrussel1 said:

Unemployment is 4.1%.  Someone explain to me why we need these tax cuts in order to improve the job market?  In VA, we have 25K plus jobs that can't be filled because there aren't qualified candidates.  I have four unfilled positions in my compliance team alone, because the candidates I get are not very good.  

You’re going to have even more positions that you can’t fill. Added bonus: China owns even more of our ass. 

I doubt if that's even the case... We just finished a half million EBIT project yesterday.  It will generally go to our equity owner.  That's how it works.  The $ goes up.  Cutting the rate from 35-20% simply goes to the ownership.  Yes, perhaps a few jobs are created.  Maybe there are low skilled jobs that will be created.  But there's already a dearth of candidates for high skilled jobs.  

I am a patriot

Interesting proposals. No Obamacare stuff though. That surprises me a bit, but we've still got the Senate proposal next week.

I am a patriot

Not sure I can make a poll in the middle of a thread, but how many of y'all itemize deductions? 

mookeywrench

I itemize before and will itemize after Trump's tax plan.

I also ran a tax projection and I will be saving $90 annually through Trump's plan.

But once/if i lose the grandfathered mortgage interest deduction I will be worse off. And that's coming from a first time home buyer in the Seattle area with a home below the median fair market value. Moreover I would now have to wait until 2021 to sell my first home tax free instead of 2018 as the exclusion changes to living in a principal residence from 2 out of 5 years to 5 out of 8 years.  The only way to continue the savings in the long-run through Trump's plan is to get married.

He's throwing short-term rewards at Taxpayers in hopes they stay blind to the long term effects.  

josevolution

Am I correct on thinking that this tax plan is similar to the one implemented in Kansas ? 

Gern Blansten

mookeywrench said:

I itemize before and will itemize after Trump's tax plan.

I also ran a tax projection and I will be saving $90 annually through Trump's plan.

But once/if i lose the grandfathered mortgage interest deduction I will be worse off. And that's coming from a first time home buyer in the Seattle area with a home below the median fair market value. Moreover I would now have to wait until 2021 to sell my first home tax free instead of 2018 as the exclusion changes to living in a principal residence from 2 out of 5 years to 5 out of 8 years.  The only way to continue the savings in the long-run through Trump's plan is to get married.

He's throwing short-term rewards at Taxpayers in hopes they stay blind to the long term effects.  

I'm not sure that there are short term rewards except for the wealthy.

This bill is absolute bullshit.  It sounds like it might have trouble getting through the house in current form.  That's pretty bad.

Gern Blansten

josevolution said:

Am I correct on thinking that this tax plan is similar to the one implemented in Kansas ? 

yes....the talking heads keep talking about how we shouldn't worry about the deficit it creates because the payoff will be several years down the road.

Absolute bullshit.  

If we had high unemployment and high inflation this plan might do some good.  Right now it is doing nothing but benefiting the wealthy.

And we still haven't seen tRump's tax returns.

josevolution

Gern Blansten said:

josevolution said:

Am I correct on thinking that this tax plan is similar to the one implemented in Kansas ? 

yes....the talking heads keep talking about how we shouldn't worry about the deficit it creates because the payoff will be several years down the road.

Absolute bullshit.  

If we had high unemployment and high inflation this plan might do some good.  Right now it is doing nothing but benefiting the wealthy.

And we still haven't seen tRump's tax returns.

No doubt yeah people should take a look at how it worked out for Kansas it decimated the state ...

bootlegger10

So irresponsible to be increasing the deficit.  This economy is probably as good as it is gonna get for a long while so we need to be paying down some debt or at least not adding to it.

Gern Blansten

bootlegger10 said:

So irresponsible to be increasing the deficit.  This economy is probably as good as it is gonna get for a long while so we need to be paying down some debt or at least not adding to it.

It's surreal to see the GOP try to explain away the deficit spending related to this bill.  The ACA was deficit neutral and you would think it created the entire fucking deficit the way they criticize it.

mrussel1

I itemize deductions today but won't be able to do so if this is passed.  The loss of SALT and personal exemptions means that the standardized will now exceed my allowable itemized.  I think I mentioned my taxable income goes up by $30k. Yeah!!!  

I am a patriot

Senate proposes lower top indiviual bracket, more brackets, more itemized deductions, higher passthrough rates. Oh, and it wouldn't kick in until 2019. 

There should be a snowball's chance of getting this done by Christmas.

mrussel1

I am a patriot said:

Senate proposes lower top indiviual bracket, more brackets, more itemized deductions, higher passthrough rates. Oh, and it wouldn't kick in until 2019. 

There should be a snowball's chance of getting this done by Christmas.

For me, the bill is actually worse.  It eliminates all property taxes as deductible.  So now I'd lose SALT + property... awesome.  
I can see how it's better for some, with the add back for student loan and medical, but at the end of the day, I hope the whole thing dies.  

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

I am a patriot said:

Senate proposes lower top indiviual bracket, more brackets, more itemized deductions, higher passthrough rates. Oh, and it wouldn't kick in until 2019. 

There should be a snowball's chance of getting this done by Christmas.

For me, the bill is actually worse.  It eliminates all property taxes as deductible.  So now I'd lose SALT + property... awesome.  
I can see how it's better for some, with the add back for student loan and medical, but at the end of the day, I hope the whole thing dies.  

We don’t need it. It’s crazy. Another money grab by the Uber wealthy. Like they didn’t get enough in the Bush years.

Halifax2TheMax

Will they listen?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/12/more-than-400-millionaires-tell-congress-dont-cut-our-taxes/
 

CM189191

Senate Plans to End Obamacare Mandate in Revised Tax Proposal

...assholes, all the way down...

Gern Blansten

CM189191 said:

Senate Plans to End Obamacare Mandate in Revised Tax Proposal

...assholes, all the way down...

It's odd...the Senators that opposed the healthcare crap are now being forced to vote for the mandate repeal?  Not likely...

Kat

A new "no" vote.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-tax-plan-ron-johnson-will-vote-against-2017-11

Gern Blansten

Kat said:

A new "no" vote.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-tax-plan-ron-johnson-will-vote-against-2017-11

That's huge...good for him

Halifax2TheMax

Yup, lets make higher education less affordable and less able to assist those who create new companies, innovate and are the future of the economy so the 1% can have yet another tax cut and afford to lobby against the future. Those clowns writing legislation don't have a clue, in case you hadn't noticed already.

To the members of the community: The tax legislation now pending in Congress contains several provisions that could have damaging impact on members of our community and the university as a whole. Because the situation is complex and fluid, I write to offer our current assessment of which provisions concern us the most and why, and to let you know that we're actively following developments in DC and striving to achieve a better outcome. If you share our concern, you can express your views to Congressional leaders. What provisions in the pending tax bills concern us most? Congress is considering several provisions that could place new and potentially very serious financial burdens on students (especially graduate students), remove important incentives for employees seeking further education, and diminish the funds the university relies on for research, education and financial aid. At a time when officials across the political spectrum stress the value of increasing access to higher education and of building US economic strength through innovation, these measures seem counterproductive. For example:

·         Impact on students The House version of the bill would repeal several current tax provisions that help students afford university education, including eliminating the deduction for interest on student loans. It would also treat tuition reductions for graduate students as taxable income. If this change became law, it could have severe consequences for our nearly 7,000 graduate students, perhaps increasing an individual’s income tax by as much as $10,000 a year. In arguing against this provision, we take great inspiration from our graduate student leaders, who are conducting intensive phone-banking to make sure Congress understands that, for a graduate student receiving the average stipend of $37,000, a new tax burden on that scale could be devastating. The university would have to provide further aid to compensate, which would lead to a sharp cut in the size of the student body. This week, our students are working to communicate our position in print, on radio and through social media, making clear what’s at stake for them personally and professionally, and arguing that to discourage advanced education is to squander the kind of talent that could bring the nation new knowledge, innovation and economic growth.

·         Impact on faculty and staff The House version of the bill would eliminate some current tax provisions that help our employees defray the cost of further education. For example, it would treat tuition waivers for employees and their families as taxable income. Again, a tax that would make higher education more expensive for families is hard to understand. We are also concerned about other provisions that would put a drag on innovation.

·         Impact on the university Both the House and the Senate versions of the bill would impose a tax on the net investment income generated by the university’s endowment. Our endowment income is a primary source of funds for the work central to our mission: supporting research (including by covering the unreimbursed indirect costs of federal grants) and advancing education, especially by providing the financial aid that keeps a university education affordable to students of modest means, and by pioneering digital pathways to make higher education accessible to all. Taxing endowment earnings will directly reduce our ability to fund our core purpose.

How is the university taking action? Several offices – including our Washington office, the Office of the Vice President for Finance, the Office of the General Counsel and the Chancellor’s office, which is working with the graduate student community – have been collaborating to assess the implications of the bill and to express our concerns strategically in DC. In addition, we are working closely with the Association of American Universities and other university groups, which have been publicly outspoken and very active in building Congressional opposition to these damaging tax proposals. What happens next? This week, the House will vote on its version of the bill, and the Senate will consider its version in the Senate Finance Committee. A final bill will not be ready for a vote for at least several more weeks. In the meantime, we are intently focused on persuading Congress to remove provisions that would derail our students’ education, damage our ability to prepare these exceptionally talented young people, thwart their scientific and technical contributions, and discourage the research and innovation the nation depends on. Sincerely, Does anyone on here believe that Trump could read this, comprehend it and explain it, whether he agreed with it or not?

oftenreading

Halifax2TheMax said:

Yup, lets make higher education less affordable and less able to assist those who create new companies, innovate and are the future of the economy so the 1% can have yet another tax cut and afford to lobby against the future. Those clowns writing legislation don't have a clue, in case you hadn't noticed already.

To the members of the community: The tax legislation now pending in Congress contains several provisions that could have damaging impact on members of our community and the university as a whole. Because the situation is complex and fluid, I write to offer our current assessment of which provisions concern us the most and why, and to let you know that we're actively following developments in DC and striving to achieve a better outcome. If you share our concern, you can express your views to Congressional leaders. What provisions in the pending tax bills concern us most? Congress is considering several provisions that could place new and potentially very serious financial burdens on students (especially graduate students), remove important incentives for employees seeking further education, and diminish the funds the university relies on for research, education and financial aid. At a time when officials across the political spectrum stress the value of increasing access to higher education and of building US economic strength through innovation, these measures seem counterproductive. For example:

·         Impact on students The House version of the bill would repeal several current tax provisions that help students afford university education, including eliminating the deduction for interest on student loans. It would also treat tuition reductions for graduate students as taxable income. If this change became law, it could have severe consequences for our nearly 7,000 graduate students, perhaps increasing an individual’s income tax by as much as $10,000 a year. In arguing against this provision, we take great inspiration from our graduate student leaders, who are conducting intensive phone-banking to make sure Congress understands that, for a graduate student receiving the average stipend of $37,000, a new tax burden on that scale could be devastating. The university would have to provide further aid to compensate, which would lead to a sharp cut in the size of the student body. This week, our students are working to communicate our position in print, on radio and through social media, making clear what’s at stake for them personally and professionally, and arguing that to discourage advanced education is to squander the kind of talent that could bring the nation new knowledge, innovation and economic growth.

·         Impact on faculty and staff The House version of the bill would eliminate some current tax provisions that help our employees defray the cost of further education. For example, it would treat tuition waivers for employees and their families as taxable income. Again, a tax that would make higher education more expensive for families is hard to understand. We are also concerned about other provisions that would put a drag on innovation.

·         Impact on the university Both the House and the Senate versions of the bill would impose a tax on the net investment income generated by the university’s endowment. Our endowment income is a primary source of funds for the work central to our mission: supporting research (including by covering the unreimbursed indirect costs of federal grants) and advancing education, especially by providing the financial aid that keeps a university education affordable to students of modest means, and by pioneering digital pathways to make higher education accessible to all. Taxing endowment earnings will directly reduce our ability to fund our core purpose.

How is the university taking action? Several offices – including our Washington office, the Office of the Vice President for Finance, the Office of the General Counsel and the Chancellor’s office, which is working with the graduate student community – have been collaborating to assess the implications of the bill and to express our concerns strategically in DC. In addition, we are working closely with the Association of American Universities and other university groups, which have been publicly outspoken and very active in building Congressional opposition to these damaging tax proposals. What happens next? This week, the House will vote on its version of the bill, and the Senate will consider its version in the Senate Finance Committee. A final bill will not be ready for a vote for at least several more weeks. In the meantime, we are intently focused on persuading Congress to remove provisions that would derail our students’ education, damage our ability to prepare these exceptionally talented young people, thwart their scientific and technical contributions, and discourage the research and innovation the nation depends on. Sincerely, Does anyone on here believe that Trump could read this, comprehend it and explain it, whether he agreed with it or not?

It's clear the the GOP in its current incarnation is anti-education, particularly anti-science. That's not surprising, as more educated voters tend to vote democrat, and a more educated citizenry can better understand the fake news that Trump et al are strewing around. 

Halifax2TheMax

oftenreading said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Yup, lets make higher education less affordable and less able to assist those who create new companies, innovate and are the future of the economy so the 1% can have yet another tax cut and afford to lobby against the future. Those clowns writing legislation don't have a clue, in case you hadn't noticed already.

To the members of the community: The tax legislation now pending in Congress contains several provisions that could have damaging impact on members of our community and the university as a whole. Because the situation is complex and fluid, I write to offer our current assessment of which provisions concern us the most and why, and to let you know that we're actively following developments in DC and striving to achieve a better outcome. If you share our concern, you can express your views to Congressional leaders. What provisions in the pending tax bills concern us most? Congress is considering several provisions that could place new and potentially very serious financial burdens on students (especially graduate students), remove important incentives for employees seeking further education, and diminish the funds the university relies on for research, education and financial aid. At a time when officials across the political spectrum stress the value of increasing access to higher education and of building US economic strength through innovation, these measures seem counterproductive. For example:

·         Impact on students The House version of the bill would repeal several current tax provisions that help students afford university education, including eliminating the deduction for interest on student loans. It would also treat tuition reductions for graduate students as taxable income. If this change became law, it could have severe consequences for our nearly 7,000 graduate students, perhaps increasing an individual’s income tax by as much as $10,000 a year. In arguing against this provision, we take great inspiration from our graduate student leaders, who are conducting intensive phone-banking to make sure Congress understands that, for a graduate student receiving the average stipend of $37,000, a new tax burden on that scale could be devastating. The university would have to provide further aid to compensate, which would lead to a sharp cut in the size of the student body. This week, our students are working to communicate our position in print, on radio and through social media, making clear what’s at stake for them personally and professionally, and arguing that to discourage advanced education is to squander the kind of talent that could bring the nation new knowledge, innovation and economic growth.

·         Impact on faculty and staff The House version of the bill would eliminate some current tax provisions that help our employees defray the cost of further education. For example, it would treat tuition waivers for employees and their families as taxable income. Again, a tax that would make higher education more expensive for families is hard to understand. We are also concerned about other provisions that would put a drag on innovation.

·         Impact on the university Both the House and the Senate versions of the bill would impose a tax on the net investment income generated by the university’s endowment. Our endowment income is a primary source of funds for the work central to our mission: supporting research (including by covering the unreimbursed indirect costs of federal grants) and advancing education, especially by providing the financial aid that keeps a university education affordable to students of modest means, and by pioneering digital pathways to make higher education accessible to all. Taxing endowment earnings will directly reduce our ability to fund our core purpose.

How is the university taking action? Several offices – including our Washington office, the Office of the Vice President for Finance, the Office of the General Counsel and the Chancellor’s office, which is working with the graduate student community – have been collaborating to assess the implications of the bill and to express our concerns strategically in DC. In addition, we are working closely with the Association of American Universities and other university groups, which have been publicly outspoken and very active in building Congressional opposition to these damaging tax proposals. What happens next? This week, the House will vote on its version of the bill, and the Senate will consider its version in the Senate Finance Committee. A final bill will not be ready for a vote for at least several more weeks. In the meantime, we are intently focused on persuading Congress to remove provisions that would derail our students’ education, damage our ability to prepare these exceptionally talented young people, thwart their scientific and technical contributions, and discourage the research and innovation the nation depends on. Sincerely, Does anyone on here believe that Trump could read this, comprehend it and explain it, whether he agreed with it or not?

It's clear the the GOP in its current incarnation is anti-education, particularly anti-science. That's not surprising, as more educated voters tend to vote democrat, and a more educated citizenry can better understand the fake news that Trump et al are strewing around. 

The dumbing down of the American populace continues.

CM189191

Halifax2TheMax said:

oftenreading said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Yup, lets make higher education less affordable and less able to assist those who create new companies, innovate and are the future of the economy so the 1% can have yet another tax cut and afford to lobby against the future. Those clowns writing legislation don't have a clue, in case you hadn't noticed already.

To the members of the community: The tax legislation now pending in Congress contains several provisions that could have damaging impact on members of our community and the university as a whole. Because the situation is complex and fluid, I write to offer our current assessment of which provisions concern us the most and why, and to let you know that we're actively following developments in DC and striving to achieve a better outcome. If you share our concern, you can express your views to Congressional leaders. What provisions in the pending tax bills concern us most? Congress is considering several provisions that could place new and potentially very serious financial burdens on students (especially graduate students), remove important incentives for employees seeking further education, and diminish the funds the university relies on for research, education and financial aid. At a time when officials across the political spectrum stress the value of increasing access to higher education and of building US economic strength through innovation, these measures seem counterproductive. For example:

·         Impact on students The House version of the bill would repeal several current tax provisions that help students afford university education, including eliminating the deduction for interest on student loans. It would also treat tuition reductions for graduate students as taxable income. If this change became law, it could have severe consequences for our nearly 7,000 graduate students, perhaps increasing an individual’s income tax by as much as $10,000 a year. In arguing against this provision, we take great inspiration from our graduate student leaders, who are conducting intensive phone-banking to make sure Congress understands that, for a graduate student receiving the average stipend of $37,000, a new tax burden on that scale could be devastating. The university would have to provide further aid to compensate, which would lead to a sharp cut in the size of the student body. This week, our students are working to communicate our position in print, on radio and through social media, making clear what’s at stake for them personally and professionally, and arguing that to discourage advanced education is to squander the kind of talent that could bring the nation new knowledge, innovation and economic growth.

·         Impact on faculty and staff The House version of the bill would eliminate some current tax provisions that help our employees defray the cost of further education. For example, it would treat tuition waivers for employees and their families as taxable income. Again, a tax that would make higher education more expensive for families is hard to understand. We are also concerned about other provisions that would put a drag on innovation.

·         Impact on the university Both the House and the Senate versions of the bill would impose a tax on the net investment income generated by the university’s endowment. Our endowment income is a primary source of funds for the work central to our mission: supporting research (including by covering the unreimbursed indirect costs of federal grants) and advancing education, especially by providing the financial aid that keeps a university education affordable to students of modest means, and by pioneering digital pathways to make higher education accessible to all. Taxing endowment earnings will directly reduce our ability to fund our core purpose.

How is the university taking action? Several offices – including our Washington office, the Office of the Vice President for Finance, the Office of the General Counsel and the Chancellor’s office, which is working with the graduate student community – have been collaborating to assess the implications of the bill and to express our concerns strategically in DC. In addition, we are working closely with the Association of American Universities and other university groups, which have been publicly outspoken and very active in building Congressional opposition to these damaging tax proposals. What happens next? This week, the House will vote on its version of the bill, and the Senate will consider its version in the Senate Finance Committee. A final bill will not be ready for a vote for at least several more weeks. In the meantime, we are intently focused on persuading Congress to remove provisions that would derail our students’ education, damage our ability to prepare these exceptionally talented young people, thwart their scientific and technical contributions, and discourage the research and innovation the nation depends on. Sincerely, Does anyone on here believe that Trump could read this, comprehend it and explain it, whether he agreed with it or not?

It's clear the the GOP in its current incarnation is anti-education, particularly anti-science. That's not surprising, as more educated voters tend to vote democrat, and a more educated citizenry can better understand the fake news that Trump et al are strewing around. 

The dumbing down of the American populace continues.

half the population is of below average intelligence

never underestimate the stupidity of the average american

josevolution

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/11/15/gary-cohn-looks-for-assurances-from-ceos-on-tax-plan-gets-crickets.html

Yeah all those CEO's are really eager to trickle down all of their tax relief cash lol 

Halifax2TheMax

josevolution said:

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/11/15/gary-cohn-looks-for-assurances-from-ceos-on-tax-plan-gets-crickets.html

Yeah all those CEO's are really eager to trickle down all of their tax relief cash lol 

“Because yea, it’s going to save jobs and keep them here in the good ‘ol US of A,” says the guy who used to work for Carrier before his plant moved to Mexico.

josevolution

Halifax2TheMax said:

josevolution said:

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/11/15/gary-cohn-looks-for-assurances-from-ceos-on-tax-plan-gets-crickets.html

Yeah all those CEO's are really eager to trickle down all of their tax relief cash lol 

“Because yea, it’s going to save jobs and keep them here in the good ‘ol US of A,” says the guy who used to work for Carrier before his plant moved to Mexico.

What a crock of shite you can tell he could care less about anyone other than millionaires & billionaires fucking thief ...

stuckinline

House Republicans Pass Tax Bill

No one seemed to care that the bill isn’t particularly popular.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/house-passes-tax-reform_us_5a0dd657e4b0c0b2f2f8afe9?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009