Tax reform

[heso 2,748]

6 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

They will vote for him again. Every single one.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

And they’ll say that they’re glad to pay a little more for the conservative scotus. 

There will always be a reason the conned are happy to play along. 

[heso 2,748]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

 

 

Now show all those idiots that didn’t get a raise and are paying more taxes what has changed for their CEO’s finances. 

[Brisketexan 104,626]

Just now, heso said:

And they’ll say that they’re glad to pay a little more for the conservative scotus. 

There will always be a reason the conned are happy to play along. 

And that's the most important thing to understand -- the Trump voters aren't traditional voters.  They are marks who have been conned.  They are a giant bloc of April and Billy, who will never admit they were conned, because "tomorrow is the big day."

I'm not sure how Louie Anderson fits into this, though.

[zork 629]

https://www.taxact.com/tools/tax-bracket-calculator

 

Must be a lot of SALT losers because married filing jointly from 30k to 350k and at each point along 30 to 40k between you pay less in taxes according to this calculator linked above. 

The people deducting itemized probably are paying more due to the taking away from the itemizing eligible items or limits on them.

 

Edited February 5, 2019 by zork

[Brisketexan 104,626]

Just now, zork said:

https://www.taxact.com/tools/tax-bracket-calculator

 

Must be a lot of SALT losers because married filing jointly from 30k to 350k and at each point along 30 to 40k between you pay less in taxes according to in this calculator linked above. 

The people deducting itemized probably are paying more due to the taking away from the itemizing eligible items or limits on them.

 

From what I understand, that's a big part of it.  Folks in high SALT states took it in the shorts, in particular.

[Incredulity 11,555]

8 minutes ago, zork said:

https://www.taxact.com/tools/tax-bracket-calculator

 

Must be a lot of SALT losers because married filing jointly from 30k to 350k and at each point along 30 to 40k between you pay less in taxes according to this calculator linked above. 

The people deducting itemized probably are paying more due to the taking away from the itemizing eligible items or limits on them.

 

Well, I would guess that @distorian12345 is from Taxachusett and Yankee Hound is from New York.

[zork 629]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

From what I understand, that's a big part of it.  Folks in high SALT states took it in the shorts, in particular.

How is that a con?  Most of the high SALT states are Blue which of course doesn't mean there aren't Trump supporters, or now non-Trump supporters, in those states who you could find to bitch or bellyache. 

 

https://nypost.com/2019/02/04/cuomo-announces-income-tax-revenues-have-dropped-by-2-3b/

Quote

...

The federal law approved by President Trump and the then-GOP controlled Congress limited SALT deductions to $10,000.

The loss of revenue from New York’s wealthiest puts New York in a bind because the state relies on a progressive income tax system that taxes the rich at a higher rate.

One percent of the state’s top income earners provide 46 percent of the state’s personal income tax revenues, officials said.

Cuomo said Albany can’t go to the well and tax the wealthy again because that would only worsen the situation, citing “anecdotal” evidence that high-income New Yorkers are already fleeing the state to lower-tax jurisdictions.

He offered no figures to back up the claim.

...

 

Edited February 5, 2019 by zork
added ... to quote

[ChickenSandwich 9,798]

1 hour ago, zork said:

https://www.taxact.com/tools/tax-bracket-calculator

 

Must be a lot of SALT losers because married filing jointly from 30k to 350k and at each point along 30 to 40k between you pay less in taxes according to this calculator linked above. 

The people deducting itemized probably are paying more due to the taking away from the itemizing eligible items or limits on them.

 

yes, and their ire should be directed at their state governments for out of control taxes.  Those who can will speak with their feet, do so.  See New York who now might have a problem with their extremely high taxes.  Fed up residents are simply moving away.

 

“They are investors, they have accountants, they are making informed decisions,” Cuomo said. “This is going to be the tipping point and people will now be making a geographical change.”

Cuomo, a Democrat, ridiculed members of his political party who are calling for higher state taxes on the rich, saying the top 1 percent of earners already account for about 46 percent of state income-tax revenue.

“Tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich -- and then the rich leave. And then what do you do?” he asked. “It would be the absolute worst thing to do right now. At the same time, you don’t have the ability to reduce taxes on the rich because that would just expand the shortfall.”

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cuomo-blames-trump-tax-plan-185801569.html

 

always running out of other people's money

[David Dennison 18,659]

44 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

yes, and their ire should be directed at their state governments for out of control taxes.  Those who can will speak with their feet, do so.  See New York who now might have a problem with their extremely high taxes.  Fed up residents are simply moving away.

“They are investors, they have accountants, they are making informed decisions,” Cuomo said. “This is going to be the tipping point and people will now be making a geographical change.”

Cuomo, a Democrat, ridiculed members of his political party who are calling for higher state taxes on the rich, saying the top 1 percent of earners already account for about 46 percent of state income-tax revenue.

“Tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich -- and then the rich leave. And then what do you do?” he asked. “It would be the absolute worst thing to do right now. At the same time, you don’t have the ability to reduce taxes on the rich because that would just expand the shortfall.”

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cuomo-blames-trump-tax-plan-185801569.html

 

always running out of other people's money

Too bad they can't just run up trillion dollar deficit like ol' Donald.

[elfenix 34,171]

1 hour ago, ChickenSandwich said:

yes, and their ire should be directed at their state governments for out of control taxes.  Those who can will speak with their feet, do so.  See New York who now might have a problem with their extremely high taxes.  Fed up residents are simply moving away.

 

“They are investors, they have accountants, they are making informed decisions,” Cuomo said. “This is going to be the tipping point and people will now be making a geographical change.”

Cuomo, a Democrat, ridiculed members of his political party who are calling for higher state taxes on the rich, saying the top 1 percent of earners already account for about 46 percent of state income-tax revenue.

“Tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich -- and then the rich leave. And then what do you do?” he asked. “It would be the absolute worst thing to do right now. At the same time, you don’t have the ability to reduce taxes on the rich because that would just expand the shortfall.”

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cuomo-blames-trump-tax-plan-185801569.html

 

always running out of other people's money

you need the state to police the inequality that the market makes possible (and to make markets to begin with) but you don't want to pay for the policing that makes it possible to keep all the property you've accumulated.  quite the dilemma to be in.

Edited February 5, 2019 by elfenix

[zork 629]

 

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Too bad they can't just run up trillion dollar deficit like ol' Donald.

My biggest disappointment to date is the lack of spending control demanded by Trump everywhere in the Federal government control under his watch. 

Ryan was, of course, an idiot rubber-stamp for the extended budgetary ladders up and up and up for all departments virtually everywhere in the Federal government.  Go check the CBO budgets, it is already pre-ordained that x percent higher for each budget in each department for as far as they project those things. 

They could have sent a message on that front but clearly didn't.  That two year window is now closed.  

[Captainant 27,464]

57 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

always running out of other people's money

...ignoring that the tax cut is paying for roughly 30% of what it cost to implement per the CBO after one year of action. The federal government is spending your grandchildren's futures today and has nothing to show for it except more wealthy rich guys. 

[ChickenSandwich 9,798]

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

...ignoring that the tax cut is paying for roughly 30% of what it cost to implement per the CBO after one year of action. The federal government is spending your grandchildren's futures today and has nothing to show for it except more wealthy rich guys. 

And NY state recovering the 2 billion instead of the federal government changes what exactly?  The same amount of money is taken either way, it’s just who is spending it. 

[elfenix 34,171]

22 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

And NY state recovering the 2 billion instead of the federal government changes what exactly?  The same amount of money is taken either way, it’s just who is spending it. 

from the immediate perspective of the individual, nothing.  from an aggregate macroeconomic perspective, a whole lot. 

[Captainant 27,464]

24 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

And NY state recovering the 2 billion instead of the federal government changes what exactly?  The same amount of money is taken either way, it’s just who is spending it. 

Well, 1 trillion is literally three orders of magnitude more than 2 billion (that's what the zeros mean), so that's probably going to have some negative repercussions when it comes to actually paying for anything going towards. Bridges? Roads? Dams? Schools? Nah well never need an infrastructure week, right?

[elfenix 34,171]

and nevermind that new york is biggest donor state in the country.  they're really getting fucked so that mississippi, alabama, and kentucky can keep complaining about libs while sucking down federal largesse. 

[Foosters 17,733]

2 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

yes, and their ire should be directed at their state governments for out of control taxes.  Those who can will speak with their feet, do so.  See New York who now might have a problem with their extremely high taxes.  Fed up residents are simply moving away.

 

“They are investors, they have accountants, they are making informed decisions,” Cuomo said. “This is going to be the tipping point and people will now be making a geographical change.”

Cuomo, a Democrat, ridiculed members of his political party who are calling for higher state taxes on the rich, saying the top 1 percent of earners already account for about 46 percent of state income-tax revenue.

“Tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich -- and then the rich leave. And then what do you do?” he asked. “It would be the absolute worst thing to do right now. At the same time, you don’t have the ability to reduce taxes on the rich because that would just expand the shortfall.”

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cuomo-blames-trump-tax-plan-185801569.html

 

always running out of other people's money

Any ire directed at Texas for their "out of control" property taxes?

[elfenix 34,171]

Just now, Foosters said:

Any ire directed at Texas for their "out of control" property taxes?

soak the poor because they don't have options!

[Okie State 3,788]

https://www.taxact.com/tools/tax-bracket-calculator

 

Must be a lot of SALT losers because married filing jointly from 30k to 350k and at each point along 30 to 40k between you pay less in taxes according to this calculator linked above. 

The people deducting itemized probably are paying more due to the taking away from the itemizing eligible items or limits on them.

 

This is the correct answer. We turned out just fine, but have two kids and don't typically itemize.

[Brew 3,047]

Read what the tweets are saying, they are complaining about their refunds/tax due. They likely have a lower overall tax bill but received more during the year. I haven’t seen one person who has paid more tax on the same income yet, but I have had quite a few complain about their refunds going down. Of course they took home an extra $100 a week, but that’s different. 

You can’t make a determination about your tax situation from the bottom line of your tax return.

As far as the higher SALT states, incomes are typically higher as well which when combined with the reduced tax rates may work out to a wash on total taxes paid. If they have kids and can now pick up the $2k credit, it’s probably easily going positive. The people that were really screwed by the change are those employees with high unreimbursed expenses. Those are the ones that will no doubt see an increase in tax.

[Stringer 1,437]

49 minutes ago, Brew said:

Read what the tweets are saying, they are complaining about their refunds/tax due. They likely have a lower overall tax bill but received more during the year. I haven’t seen one person who has paid more tax on the same income yet, but I have had quite a few complain about their refunds going down. Of course they took home an extra $100 a week, but that’s different. 

You can’t make a determination about your tax situation from the bottom line of your tax return.

These are Trump voters.  It’s cute that you think they understand this.  

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

7 hours ago, Foosters said:

Any ire directed at Texas for their "out of control" property taxes?

He is dumb as shit. Trump presided over a historic stock market collapse in December and January. No shit that it affects NY tax revenue for those two months. It affects federal tax revenue too.

Maybe if the rich were actually leaving NY, there wouldn't be 20 or 30 new blights on the skyline filled with 20 million dollar apartments.  Instead, nobody is leaving. 500k people have moved to NYC since 2010. Have to put them somewhere. Can't just put shoddy cookie cutter houses on open swamp 50 miles outside of town like y'all do. 50 miles outside of town in NYC is mountains, ocean, or already populated. No greenfield in Long Island or NJ.  Nevermind that nobody moves to NYC to live on Long Island anyway. 

I think states rights fuckheads should man up and give states like NY a 1:1 return on their tax money. Texas is even just barely above break even now so they can pretend they were put upon. People in Alabama and Mississippi can go fuck themselves. Because they say they want states rights, they should try out living within their means for once in their existence. 

[CO Horn 154]

I like Brew, am a CPA. I have about 250-300 individual returns. Last year we did a tax projection for their 2018 tax liability, assuming 2018 income would be the same as 2017 income. I had probably 3-5 clients that would have a higher liability under the new tax law. These were all individuals that high misc itemized deductions, that are no longer allowed (brokerage fees and unreimbursed employee expenses)

If people owe tax, it’s likely a function of the new withholding tables that withheld less in taxes, or additional sources of income. None of my clients were impacted by the SALT limitation.  

Personally, with being able to claim the child tax credit, and QBI deduction, my overall tax liability will be about 10-15 less than in 2017. 

[Okie State 3,788]

These are Trump voters.  It’s cute that you think they understand this.  

Simpletons

[Brew 3,047]

8 hours ago, Stringer said:

These are Trump voters.  It’s cute that you think they understand this.  

They don’t understand it which was the exact point of what I typed. People that didn’t vote for Trump don’t understand it either (read the thread). It has nothing to do with who you voted for and everything to do with people having zero idea how the income tax system works. That isn’t how this should be set up and rather than be simpler, it’s more complicated than it has ever been.

[936horn 910]

I just can't believe how quickly some of y'all got all the documents you need to file already.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Many of them you can get online. 

[936horn 910]

Absolutely, and I generally do for whatever ones I can, but there's usually a couple I have to wait on.

[Biff Tannen 45,496]

EV tax credit, FTW!

[Aqua Buddha 14,521]

I find it hard to believe most of these Trumpkins got effective tax increases.  As mentioned before, they probably didn't change their withholdings and are getting a smaller refund than in years past so they think they got a tax increase.  They don't understand how taxes and refunds work but neither do 75% of the country.

The only way I could think they're getting an effective increase is they're in a high tax state and made disproportionally low salary compared to their property taxes.  They wouldn't have gotten the benefits of the rate cut but got capped at $10K on SALT deductions.  Who knows?  Even still, most of these types now get a standard deduction of $24K and that eliminated most of their exemptions anyway.

 

[Bat Guano 359]

Withholding probably went down a bit for most of them; it did for me. But it wasn't alot, and as predicted the increase in take-home doesn't seem to have been enough for most people to notice. So that's cut down a little more by a smaller refund, and the bottom line is people just aren't that much better off; in other words, tax cut was a bust for most people.

[Brew 3,047]

5 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

Withholding probably went down a bit for most of them; it did for me. But it wasn't alot, and as predicted the increase in take-home doesn't seem to have been enough for most people to notice. So that's cut down a little more by a smaller refund, and the bottom line is people just aren't that much better off; in other words, tax cut was a bust for most people.

What’s your definition of a bust? I had a lady today that has $70k taxable and paid $2k less (roughly 20%)  in tax with no kids or deductions. She didn’t view it as a bust. I don’t agree with the cuts, but this constant view of it not making a difference for people is 100% incorrect. There are circumstances where it didn’t and circumstances where you will pay more, but the vast majority will pay less.

[Bat Guano 359]

7 minutes ago, Brew said:

What’s your definition of a bust? I had a lady today that has $70k taxable and paid $2k less (roughly 20%)  in tax with no kids or deductions. She didn’t view it as a bust. I don’t agree with the cuts, but this constant view of it not making a difference for people is 100% incorrect. There are circumstances where it didn’t and circumstances where you will pay more, but the vast majority will pay less.

Does it make a substantial positive impact on peoples' lives? Sure, as I said most people will pay less; but how much less? I'd say if it doesn't make enough difference for them to notice that they got a cut, then no, it's not a substantial impact. Maybe your special lady is not most people; it's one case. And the middle-class part of the tax reform will get smaller over the next few years and eventually disappear. All that equals a bust.

A bust can also be defined politically: if Trump was counting on people to appreciate their tax cuts and vote for him based on them, then it was definitely a bust, based on the anecdotal evidence in this thread.

[Brew 3,047]

3 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

Does it make a substantial positive impact on peoples' lives? Sure, as I said most people will pay less; but how much less? I'd say if it doesn't make enough difference for them to notice that they got a cut, then no, it's not a substantial impact. Maybe your special lady is not most people; it's one case. And the middle-class part of the tax reform will get smaller over the next few years and eventually disappear. All that equals a bust.

A bust can also be defined politically: if Trump was counting on people to appreciate their tax cuts and vote for him based on them, then it was definitely a bust, based on the anecdotal evidence in this thread.

I do this every day. I’ll probably have 3000 returns go through my office and 25k through my firm with filings in all states other than Alaska and Hawaii. I’m telling you unequivocally that most people are paying less tax on the same dollar outside of the specific cases I’ve mentioned and CoHorn has mentioned. I’ve got people paying a little less all the way up to 6 figures less, so the relative amount they are paying less is all over the board but still less. The IRS completely screwed up the withholding tables this year which is why most people are seeing something completely different than what they expected, but if you line it up side by side and explain it they can see the numbers.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Well, I’m hoping our accountant has all this new stuff figured out because my husband turned all our stuff over to him today but before he did, he ran the numbers himself just to get an idea of what we might be looking at.

If his rough estimate is right - and I’m hoping he fucked it up because he doesn’t understand all the new changes - we’re going to owe $13,000.

We usually get back around $2,000 depending on the year.

I really, really hope he’s wrong because quite honestly after just stroking our son’s spring semester tuition check last month, we don’t have a spare $13,000 laying around.

And that kind of tax bill was certainly something we didn’t plan for as we’ve never had to pay that much.

I almost had a breakdown at work when he called and told me. I feel like throwing up.

[Okie State 3,788]

I'd bet he fucked up.

[Francisco 2.0 32,341]

Most of us here know the reasons why refunds are down, or (surprise!) some owe taxes and they never had to before.  For the rest of ya'll, here's some education:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/6/18214039/irs-tax-refund-withholding-trump

 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

7 hours ago, Brew said:

I do this every day. I’ll probably have 3000 returns go through my office and 25k through my firm with filings in all states other than Alaska and Hawaii. I’m telling you unequivocally that most people are paying less tax on the same dollar outside of the specific cases I’ve mentioned and CoHorn has mentioned. I’ve got people paying a little less all the way up to 6 figures less, so the relative amount they are paying less is all over the board but still less. The IRS completely screwed up the withholding tables this year which is why most people are seeing something completely different than what they expected, but if you line it up side by side and explain it they can see the numbers.

Of course they are. Most people will save a couple hundred bucks or so. Maybe enough to buy a new fridge. The top 000.1 percent and corporations will save billions and the deficit will explode. But I guess you aren’t handling those returns now, are you. 

[Brew 3,047]

8 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Of course they are. Most people will save a couple hundred bucks or so. Maybe enough to buy a new fridge. The top 000.1 percent and corporations will save billions and the deficit will explode. But I guess you aren’t handling those returns now, are you. 

Most will save more than a couple hundred bucks. I’m not sure how much more clear that can be made to you. I don’t have any billionaires, but I’ve got more than a handful well into the 9 figures that are saving mid to high 6 figures in tax. Most had planned around the past law so they aren’t saving millions or billions. I also have plenty of corporations that are now paying tax rather than distributing the income as a tax savings tool at 21% versus 37.5% and keeping the money in the Corp, especially medical practice PC’s. 

So what’s your point? I’m on record all through this thread with my opinion it’s a bad deal and the numbers will be way worse than projections. I’m also on record as saying there are a number of specific changes that were needed and make sense that no one has talked about because they don’t understand it. I’m also on record as saying they have made a lot of sections of the code gray now which is bad for everyone because taxpayers and practitioners are going aggressive under the assumption that the IRS agents will have no clue either. I’m even on record saying that they should go to a tiered structure, eliminate most of the deductions, tier it towards the higher income, and make it simple although it would eliminate 1/3 of my practice and the need for 100+ people.

So, if you have something you want to discuss related to it, let’s hear it. However, this constant hyperbole about it not making a difference to individual taxpayers is 100% flat wrong. Keep throwing it against the wall, it’s not going to stick. As a percentage of tax they pay, the change has been equivalent. The numbers are way different, but so is the starting point. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 minute ago, Brew said:

Most will save more than a couple hundred bucks. I’m not sure how much more clear that can be made to you. I don’t have any billionaires, but I’ve got more than a handful well into the 9 figures that are saving mid to high 6 figures in tax. Most had planned around the past law so they aren’t saving millions or billions. I also have plenty of corporations that are now paying tax rather than distributing the income as a tax savings tool at 21% versus 37.5% and keeping the money in the Corp, especially medical practice PC’s. 

So what’s your point? I’m on record all through this thread with my opinion it’s a bad deal and the numbers will be way worse than projections. I’m also on record as saying there are a number of specific changes that were needed and make sense that no one has talked about because they don’t understand it. I’m also on record as saying they have made a lot of sections of the code gray now which is bad for everyone because taxpayers and practitioners are going aggressive under the assumption that the IRS agents will have no clue either. I’m even on record saying that they should go to a tiered structure, eliminate most of the deductions, tier it towards the higher income, and make it simple although it would eliminate 1/3 of my practice and the need for 100+ people.

So, if you have something you want to discuss related to it, let’s hear it. However, this constant hyperbole about it not making a difference to individual taxpayers is 100% flat wrong. Keep throwing it against the wall, it’s not going to stick. As a percentage of tax they pay, the change has been equivalent. The numbers are way different, but so is the starting point. 

What’s my point? You are doing a fine job of proving it for me. The thing was and is as a scam and its fucking future generations by exploding the deficit by saving the very rich some money that’s not paid for. It’s also an incoherent mess which makes you personally a bunch of money. 

By all means, tell us more.

[Brew 3,047]

There are only about two areas that are incoherent messes to the masses, QBI and the new return layout. A lot of the other changes simplified areas and eliminated places where people gamed the system. The change in rate structure is what causes most of the long-term deficit problems. We can argue the corporate rate changes are a problem, but the corporate rate structure was a cluster when compared internationally. They moved the needle too far with what they did and then doubled down with the pass through deduction on top of it. Again, the pass through deduction makes sense to equalize business income, but why then eliminate certain industries? The overall plan for simplification makes sense, but they got stupid with rates and didn’t go far enough with other changes.

It’s saving most people money that’s not paid for, not just the very rich. However, we’ve been around this circle already.

[elfenix 34,171]

"we're going to borrow a bunch of money on your behalf and then claim we're saving you money!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you'll just pay for the savings later when we cut social security!

 

 

 

 

 

 

also your savings expire while rich people's don't"

Edited February 7, 2019 by elfenix

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,344]

Quote

Major U.S. banks shaved about $21 billion from their tax bills last year -- almost double the IRS’s annual budget -- as the industry benefited more than many others from the Republican tax overhaul.

By year-end, most of the nation’s largest lenders met or exceeded their initial predictions for tax savings. On average, the banks saw their effective tax rates fall below 19 percent from the roughly 28 percent they paid in 2016. And while the breaks set off a gusher of payouts to shareholders, firms cut thousands of jobs and saw their lending growth slow.
 

While banks vowed to use a portion of their savings to reward employees, help needy communities and support small businesses, the magnitude of their break and how the money was divvied is likely to fuel debate over whether the law was an effective way to stoke the economy. The 23 firms boosted dividends and stock buybacks 23 percent, and they eliminated almost 4,300 jobs. A few have signaled plans to cut thousands more.

 

 

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-06/banks-reaping-21-billion-tax-windfall-cut-staff-ease-off-loans

Edited February 7, 2019 by Horn Under a Bad Sign

[Anastasis 23,394]

11 hours ago, 936horn said:

I just can't believe how quickly some of y'all got all the documents you need to file already.

No shit. I have paper from one of my schwab trading accounts, but the more active one they are telling me Feb 15th. We are still collecting end of year statements related to dependent care and other shit.  I enter all that shit into Turbo Tax as it comes online and then make a final confirmatory pass. Survey says I'll be writing a check this year, so I will file at the deadline. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

8 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-06/banks-reaping-21-billion-tax-windfall-cut-staff-ease-off-loans

Yeah but the middle class saved a few hundred bucks and the upper middle class saved a few thousand. Who cares if 6 or 7 banks managed to save 20 billion?  That article talks about how much more they’re investing in the community right? 

So it’s all good. 

[Js1 85,110]

58 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Yeah but the middle class saved a few hundred bucks and the upper middle class saved a few thousand. Who cares if 6 or 7 banks managed to save 20 billion?  That article talks about how much more they’re investing in the community right? 

So it’s all good. 

No, just that they super triple pinky swear promise to do those things.  Just like all those corporations who spent it on stock buybacks instead of raises.

[zork 629]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

Yeah but the middle class saved a few hundred bucks and the upper middle class saved a few thousand. Who cares if 6 or 7 banks managed to save 20 billion?  That article talks about how much more they’re investing in the community right? 

So it’s all good. 

~$2k on $70k income is significant.(per Brew's example above)

[Fudge Nuggets 19,151]

26 minutes ago, zork said:

~$2k on $70k income is significant.(per Brew's example above)

~3% is significant?  $167 / month?

I remember back when I was around that salary level and got a yearly raise about that amount... I was pissed.

[zork 629]

3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

~3% is significant?  $167 / month?

I remember back when I was around that salary level and got a yearly raise about that amount... I was pissed.

I would say a $2k lump sum that you were not expecting, tax refund let us say, would be significant to a person with a $70k gross salary.

edit:

3 or 4 car payments, 1-1.5 months rent, cable or cell phone or maybe both for a year, etc, etc.  Significant doesn't mean lottery or life changing to me.

Edited February 7, 2019 by zork

[Fudge Nuggets 19,151]

2 minutes ago, zork said:

I would say a $2k lump sum that you were not expecting, tax refund let us say, would be significant to a person with a $70k gross salary.

Oh for sure.  Back in those days even a $500 refund was considered cool.

Hell I'm way above $70K now and a $2K refund would be appreciated.