Tax reform

[Bozo_Casanova 26,459]

8 minutes ago, Coors yellow belly said:

Imagine watching this and not thinking the President should be in jail

Here's the Fox News headline right now:

 

NEVER BEEN TO PRAGUE

 

Cohen refutes key Russia collusion claim of Steele dossier, says he did not visit Czech capital

Edited February 27, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

But he’s a liar tho...?

[Coors yellow belly 105]

35 minutes ago, Coors yellow belly said:

Imagine watching this and not thinking the President should be in jail

Sorry wrong thread. Neg me

[Anastasis 23,469]

Back to the House Oversight thread snails...

 

imgur

[JimmyJames 12,271]

20 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Well I think that’s a fine story, and you tell it so well.

You got any thoughts on this other than your troll bullshit?

[JimmyJames 12,271]

5 hours ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Grain of Salt/Anecdotal story from a swing state regarding Tax Reform:

So like much of you, I'm very interested in seeing how the important swing states feel about the tax debacle and lies and how those states will be moved or unmoved, to act in 2020.

I am in Michigan, at a huge, multinational global talking to some back office people. I go to take a poop in the bathroom which is a long walk away from the conference rooms and out closer to the cubicles. In walks two guys-- not manufacturing floor guys, but not VP or C-suites either. Just average, middle of the road Michigan employees:

First guy: "I did my taxes and I was in for a surprise, with all that stuff going on you heard about in the news and things changing and such. But really, it's my fault."

Other guy: "It's a poor strategy to save. Don't take this the wrong way, but people have to be more responsible about it."

First guy: "Yea, I agree, I owe $5,000 this year! That was not a nice surprise, but it is what it is!"

 

If this has any bearing into how a certain demographic of a certain portion of swing states think (taking Trump's lies and blaming themselves), then this might be more interesting in 2020 than I'm giving it credit for.

Is this supposed to be an intentionally fake story and I’m missing the joke? 

[tucker 238]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Is this supposed to be an intentionally fake story and I’m missing the joke? 

I’m in a hipster coffee shop and the liberals are whispering about.....

[Bozo_Casanova 26,459]

I was at a meeting of the G20 recently and everyone there was talking about why John Podesta refused to give the DNC server to the FBI and the CIA. Disgraceful!

[Anastasis 23,469]

Another N of 1 anecdote. So as a result of corporate tax reform (purportedly), bonus frameworks were extended to all of my reports who didn't previously participate in an incentive package prior to last year. It's been a nice week breaking the news of their payouts. I don't see the same magnitude of bump they experienced this year since I was already on a package, but I am stoked for my reports. Also, the minimum wage for the org was increased and even minimum wage employees got an incentive package. N of 1. But I'm happy my folks are getting good news this week.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Anastasis

[Incredulity 11,671]

17 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Another N of 1 anecdote. So as a result of corporate tax reform (purportedly), bonus frameworks were extended to all of my reports who didn't previously participate in an incentive package prior to last year. It's been a nice week breaking the news of their payouts. I don't see the same magnitude of bump they experienced this year since I was already on a package, but I am stoked for my reports. Also, the minimum wage for the org was increased and even minimum wage employees got an incentive package. N of 1. But I'm happy my folks are getting good news this week.

Arggrgghjgfhjj!!!!!

 

crumbs!!!)?)6$&;;(

[Coors yellow belly 105]

Yea, still crumbs

[Anastasis 23,469]

1 hour ago, Coors yellow belly said:

Yea, still crumbs

 

[Brew 3,049]

 

On 2/26/2019 at 10:05 PM, JimmyJames said:

So I decided to actually try to look at this objectively and figured that maybe we can all agree that median income for a household would be somewhere in the middle class? Maybe that’s too much to ask but I thought it might work.

Anyway, median household income is approximately 61k. If you figure a family making that amount with 2 kids using the standard deduction instead of itemized deduction, then the median household would save approximately $1,700 a year in income taxes as a result of the recent republican tax scam. I’m sure some high SALT states get fucked much more than that but those states vote dem, so you know, fuck em. 

So if accurate, that means half the country saves somewhere between $0 and $1,700 a year in taxes. Presumably then the upper 50 percent saves somewhere betweeen $1,700 and several million here or there depending on income level. 

I guess I’d be for it if it didn’t explode the deficit by about 2 trillion or so. Just like Mrs. Lincoln would have enjoyed the play except, well you know. 

Party of fiscal responsibility. 

It’s a little over $1800 saved and that family basically pays a grand total of $59 in income tax this year assuming they had no dependent care credit for after school care and made no retirement contributions to get the retirement credit. It is nice to see that you’ve actually looked at numbers instead of spending pages arguing what you think the numbers are instead of what the numbers actually are.

[Brew 3,049]

The child tax credit coming back into play for six figure earners has been one of the more substantial changes that has affected regular filers. It has helped offset some of the hits related to itemized changes, but everyone gets it whether they have itemizing issues or not. That’s another last minute slip in that is pretty stupid. 

[Brew 3,049]

Shit, one more update. If it makes everyone feel better, farmers are getting stuck this year pretty good. Farmers have played the EIC game for years trading equipment in to keep their income low and getting a nice kickback on their returns. With the ending of the like kind exchange on equipment, those tradeins are creating gains which are screwing up their self employment calculations and eliminating the EIC for them. Most haven’t really had an issue with it because they knew they were gaming the system though.

[Anastasis 23,469]

Can we also address the student loan phase out. What a crock of shit. Get loans to get a good education that lands you a good job, phase out your interest deduction.  I guess you are suppose to spend your student loans on low value degrees?

[Brew 3,049]

They gave you an extra $5k in income on the phase out this year, quit complaining.

[Anastasis 23,469]

There should not be any phase out. 

[Brew 3,049]

Should there be a $2500 cap on total interest or a phase out on education credits as well? None of it makes any sense, they just pull arbitrary numbers out and place limits and then decide like they did this year to just blow the top off the child tax credit phase out.

What they should do is stop using the tax system as a social engineering and welfare program and just charge tax rates that you pay. If you’re well off you pay a higher rate, but you don’t get the nice deduction for being stupid and overspending on a house while the guy that lives in a reasonable neighborhood and gets paid the same pays more tax.

[Anastasis 23,469]

7 minutes ago, Brew said:

What they should do is stop using the tax system as a social engineering and welfare program

Preach. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

20 hours ago, Brew said:

 

It’s a little over $1800 saved and that family basically pays a grand total of $59 in income tax this year assuming they had no dependent care credit for after school care and made no retirement contributions to get the retirement credit. It is nice to see that you’ve actually looked at numbers instead of spending pages arguing what you think the numbers are instead of what the numbers actually are.

Well I said the numbers for the middle class were in the hundreds, you seemed to argue they were in the thousands. Since the median is $1800, which I’m assuming we can agree sits in the very smack dab middle of the “middle class”,  I guess that means we were arguably both right and wrong, depending on your definition. 

Regardless, that still has nothing to do with my main point on this. While the middle class has saved hundreds, or a few thousands, the rich have saved millions and the corporations have saved billions.

Of courses that’s all great and all, I mean who doesn’t want to save some money? Except that leaves future American generations with deficits of many many TRILLIONS. Which kind of makes our semantic debate regarding hundreds or thousands for some joe shmow even like me or you seem pretty fucking stupid and irrelevant. 

Don’t ya think? 

[CO Horn 156]

17 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

LOL Giants lose out on Bryce Harper due to the state's high taxes.  

 

Athletes pay taxes in every location that they play games, so while th CA taxes are an issue, he would have paid some CA tax regardless. I’m sure NY taxes, including NYC, are more than CA and it doesn’t to seem to be an issue for the Yankees. 

[Brew 3,049]

4 hours ago, CO Horn said:

Athletes pay taxes in every location that they play games, so while th CA taxes are an issue, he would have paid some CA tax regardless. I’m sure NY taxes, including NYC, are more than CA and it doesn’t to seem to be an issue for the Yankees. 

The difference is that he would be playing 81 home games there plus more divisional games against the Dodgers and Padres and AL games against the Angels and A’s. That’s a pretty big difference over a 12 year contract.

[tx 3 putt 76,956]

doesn't PA have a tax for 'pro atheltes' ?

[David Dennison 18,860]

4 hours ago, tjhooker said:

Because the Yankees grossly overpay from some athletes to make up for it and because some people just want to play for the Yankees due to brand. 

Furthermore, the lower taxes he will be paying in PA will yield him much more $ on his endorsement deals. 

Bryce and agent literally said they turned down the Giants offer due to high taxes in California and you're doubting they were telling the truth?  What?  Taxes do affect business decisions. 

Yeah, I'm not buying the taxes are too high in CA bit.

[David Dennison 18,860]

Just now, tjhooker said:

Of course you dont, if you admit higher taxes affect business it starts to blow holes in the ship. 

Of course higher taxes affect business. Just like higher wages affect households.

But higher taxes did not affect this particular business decision.

[wildcat09 29,354]

"If your state had lower taxes it would increase the chances that one of the professional sports teams located in your state could sign athletes!" is not exactly a great argument for lower taxation.

[CO Horn 156]

4 hours ago, tjhooker said:

Because the Yankees grossly overpay from some athletes to make up for it and because some people just want to play for the Yankees due to brand. 

Furthermore, the lower taxes he will be paying in PA will yield him much more $ on his endorsement deals. 

Bryce and agent literally said they turned down the Giants offer due to high taxes in California and you're doubting they were telling the truth?  What?  Taxes do affect business decisions. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/seanpackard/2019/02/28/harper-signs-with-philly-against-his-tax-advisors-advice/#183675005896

Hmm....

[Francisco 2.0 32,392]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tax-deduction-turmp-323-billion_n_5c7a2da1e4b0e1f77651b412

 

Quote

There’s more bad news for taxpayers. A government report has revealed that 11 million taxpayers are losing out on $323 billion worth of deductions due to a punishing change in President Donald Trump’s tax law.

The hard news comes after early filers were stunned by shrinking — to vanishing — tax refunds.

 

Quote

The deduction wallop detailed in the government report centers on capped deductions for state and local taxes — including real estate taxes. Formerly, all  local taxes could be deducted from federal taxes; now it’s capped at $10,000, which particularly hurts homeowners in major metropolitan areas — especially in the Northeast and California — where housing tends to be more expensive. 

The cap was imposed to help pay for huge tax cuts to corporations, whose tax rates were slashed from 35 percent to 21 percent.

 

Quote

The figures were revealed in an audit conducted by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration that examined Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s efforts to block local governments’ attempts to stop the federal government from taking an extra bite out of community residents.

 

 

[zork 629]

5 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tax-deduction-turmp-323-billion_n_5c7a2da1e4b0e1f77651b412

 

 

 

 

 

Previous year SALT deductions over $10K predominately affected what income levels would you think?

Edited March 3, 2019 by zork

[Brew 3,049]

I’m SALT limited, but I’m still paying significantly less income tax this year, significantly less. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive which makes the article somewhat pointless.

[sidis 9,828]

man, if only teams from california (warriors, dodgers, rams) and taxachussets (patriots, red sox) could catch a damn break on the state tax burden front...then maybe they would occasionally be successful like bryce harper.

[sidis 9,828]

most nba titles: boston, los angeles, chicago.  well known tax-free havens.

most nfl titles: boston, pittsburgh, dallas, and san francisco.  yeah.

most mlb titles: new york, st. louis, oakland, boston, san francisco, los angeles.

but bryce!

[Incredulity 11,671]

5 minutes ago, sidis said:

most nba titles: boston, los angeles, chicago.  well known tax-free havens.

most nfl titles: boston, pittsburgh, dallas, and san francisco.  yeah.

most mlb titles: new york, st. louis, oakland, boston, san francisco, los angeles.

but bryce!

Something happened recently that materially changes the tax burden for high wage income individuals in high tax states to reduce their federal tax burden.  Yeah, I am sure I read that somewhere.

[sidis 9,828]

Just now, Incredulity said:

Something happened recently that materially changes the tax burden for high wage income individuals in high tax states to reduce their federal tax burden.  Yeah, I am sure I read that somewhere. 

all too aware. 

however, trying to say having a high state tax burden relative to other states undermines the prospect of that state's long-term success for its professional sports team because one dude signed with a pennsylvania team instead of a california team is...silly.

but maybe you're on to something.  perhaps the change in tax law will finally lead to the texans winning the super bowl.  celebrate!

[wildcat09 29,354]

3 minutes ago, sidis said:

all too aware. 

however, trying to say having a high state tax burden relative to other states undermines the prospect of that state's long-term success for its professional sports team because one dude signed with a pennsylvania team instead of a california team is...silly.

but maybe you're on to something.  perhaps the change in tax law will finally lead to the texans winning the super bowl.  celebrate!

Even if it did, if the cost of an educated populace is that my sports teams are shitty I make that trade every fucking day. Is anyone clamoring to move to Alabama because Saban built a football dynasty there? No, because Alabama is a shithole. 

[sidis 9,828]

mmm, perhaps that is a reasonable counterpoint.  the fact that under the table payments made to players don't carry a tax burden explains why alabama, georgia, and clemson have had such success recently.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

On 3/2/2019 at 8:59 AM, tjhooker said:

LOL Giants lose out on Bryce Harper due to the state's high taxes.  

 

Even in a world without taxes, the Phillies offered a larger guaranteed compensation package.  Of course, he took it.  Taxes didn't play a role at all in his decision.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

46 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Something happened recently that materially changes the tax burden for high wage income individuals in high tax states to reduce their federal tax burden.  Yeah, I am sure I read that somewhere.

Larger markets equal bigger endorsement contracts.  Lebron went to the Lakers in his twilight for a reason.  KD went to Golden State for a reason.  And unlike MLB, the NBA's soft cap means that high revenue teams can't simply outbid low revenue teams like what happens in MLB.  NBA players often choose higher tax jurisdictions because it increases their fame.

Also, only your home games are taxed in your home state.  Athletes have to pay taxes everywhere they "work," just like the rest of us.

[Francisco 2.0 32,392]

3 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Larger markets equal bigger endorsement contracts.  Lebron went to the Lakers in his twilight for a reason.  KD went to Golden State for a reason.  And unlike MLB, the NBA's soft cap means that high revenue teams can't simply outbid low revenue teams like what happens in MLB.  NBA players often choose higher tax jurisdictions because it increases their fame.

Also, only your home games are taxed in your home state.  Athletes have to pay taxes everywhere they "work," just like the rest of us.

While your first sentence is true, the rules don't apply to LeBron.  He's one of the rare ones who's market he plays in has no bearing on his endorsement potential.

 

Also, on the second part.  Using Carmelo Anthony as an example:

 

https://www.slamonline.com/nba/state-taxes-nba-free-agency/

 

Quote

For example, Carmelo Anthony is a New York City resident. He will disburse a combined New York state and New York City tax rate of 12.69 percent on his earnings playing professional basketball for the Knicks. With his current contract worth $124 million, that’s over $15.7 million in NY/NYC taxes he will pay over the life of his contract assuming he continues to live in New York City.

When the team travels to Boston to play the Celtics, he would be subject to a Massachusetts income tax rate of 5.15 percent for every “duty day” he’s playing in the city of Boston. When filing his resident New York tax return for that year, he would receive a tax credit for the amount he paid to Massachusetts to avoid “double taxation” and reduce his New York tax liability.

Quote

Continuing with the Carmelo Anthony illustration, he is taxed for every “duty day” he played in the city of Boston at the Massachusetts income tax rate of 5.15 percent. The majority of states and cities assess “The Jock Tax” by calculating “duty days,” which is the number of work days spent in that particular state. Work days include not only the day that the game is actually played, but also the practice days when games are not played. That total is then divided by the number of work days in a season and usually includes pre-season games as well.

 

 

 

[Incredulity 11,671]

16 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

While your first sentence is true, the rules don't apply to LeBron.  He's one of the rare ones who's market he plays in has no bearing on his endorsement potential.

 

Also, on the second part.  Using Carmelo Anthony as an example:

 

https://www.slamonline.com/nba/state-taxes-nba-free-agency/

 

 

 

 

The way I understand it in the Carmelo example is he pays NYC 12.69% for EVERY dollar.  He gets a credit for 5.15% for his games in Boston sent to MA.

A player in Houston would pay 0% state income tax on all income, but pays NYC 12.69% for "duty days" in NYC for a game against the Knicks.

[Francisco 2.0 32,392]

https://www.axios.com/federal-deficit-77-year-16fd4460-7ac0-4050-a42d-7d2b442533b0.html

 

Quote

The Treasury Department said the U.S. deficit grew 77% in the first 4 months of the 2019 fiscal year (beginning Oct. 1), driven by sweeping tax cuts passed at the end of 2017 and increased federal spending, reports the Washington Post.

The big picture: The department said the deficit for the 4 months amounted to $310 billion — up from $176 billion recorded in the same period during the last fiscal year. Meanwhile, tax revenue from October 2018 through January 2019 dropped $19 billion, per the Post. Corporate tax payments fell approximately 25%, and there was a 9% increase in federal spending.

 

 

 

[elfenix 34,240]

#winning

[Biff Tannen 45,683]

6 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

https://www.axios.com/federal-deficit-77-year-16fd4460-7ac0-4050-a42d-7d2b442533b0.html

 

 

 

 

I'm not an economic scholar, but that doesn't sound like things are going in the right direction.  I'm sure the adults will handle things though.  Not to worry.

[Francisco 2.0 32,392]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

I'm not an economic scholar, but that doesn't sound like things are going in the right direction.  I'm sure the adults will handle things though.  Not to worry.

All I've ever heard is that we don't have a tax problem; we have a spending problem.

But in the meantime, so much has been cut from corporate taxation that it's dwarfing the spending issue:

Quote

Corporate tax payments fell approximately 25%, and there was a 9% increase in federal spending.

I'm sure the hard core Gary Johnson voters will come along and explain how this is all gonna work out.  I was told that these corporations would put these newly found savings towards raises and employment and new plants and added shifts and just....wow.  So much winning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[elfenix 34,240]

35 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

All I've ever heard is that we don't have a tax problem; we have a spending problem.

that phrase is like punching yourself in the balls over and over again and claiming that not having a cup is the problem. 

[Okie State 3,821]

Unless I'm interpreting this incorrectly, which is very possible, I'd say we definitely do have a spending problem.

"The department said the deficit for the 4 months amounted to $310 billion — up from $176 billion recorded in the same period during the last fiscal year. Meanwhile, tax revenue from October 2018 through January 2019 dropped $19 billion, per the Post."

So period over period, revenue decreased by $19B, but the deficit increased by $134B. That seems bad.

[Biff Tannen 45,683]

I'm sure it will trickle down or something.

[Francisco 2.0 32,392]

Unless I'm interpreting this incorrectly, which is very possible, I'd say we definitely do have a spending problem.

"The department said the deficit for the 4 months amounted to $310 billion — up from $176 billion recorded in the same period during the last fiscal year. Meanwhile, tax revenue from October 2018 through January 2019 dropped $19 billion, per the Post."

So period over period, revenue decreased by $19B, but the deficit increased by $134B. That seems bad.

So....corporate taxes aren’t listed by actual dollars, but by percentage.

You really think that corporate taxes being down by 25% in conjunction with personal taxes being lower only results in 19 billion less in collected taxes over a full financial
quarter?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Okie State 3,821]

Well how the hell should I know? It's what the article said. For all I know the figures, percentages, or all of the above are incorrect. Not sure how you can assume one is and the other isn't though.