Tax reform

[Bozo_Casanova 26,284]

~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.

Like I said at the time, this is even less tangible than that. It’s $167/mo, but that’s roughly $39/week, basically enough to spend without really noticing the difference. Assuming that withholding changed, people making will have already digested the “cut”, which has already disappeared into inflation and the rising cost of healthcare and so forth. Then, when their refund isn’t bigger than last year, it will feel more like a tax increase.

[Biff Tannen 45,497]

5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Like I said at the time, this is even less tangible than that. It’s $167/mo, but that’s roughly $39/week, basically enough to spend without really noticing the difference. Assuming that withholding changed, people making will have already digested the “cut”, which has already disappeared into inflation and the rising cost of healthcare and so forth. Then, when their refund isn’t bigger than last year, it will feel more like a tax increase.

Yep

[Js1 85,110]

13 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Like I said at the time, this is even less tangible than that. It’s $167/mo, but that’s roughly $39/week, basically enough to spend without really noticing the difference. Assuming that withholding changed, people making will have already digested the “cut”, which has already disappeared into inflation and the rising cost of healthcare and so forth. Then, when their refund isn’t bigger than last year, it will feel more like a tax increase.

Retirement planned confirmed.  That's like 5 scratchers a week, bitch! A $20, a $10, a $5 and two $2.

Laughing all the way to the BANK.

[Anastasis 23,394]

70k, single no kids results in a 17% reduction in taxes.

70k, single, 2 kids results in a 56% reduction in taxes.

70k, married, no kids results in a 19% reduction in taxes.

70k, married, 2 kids results in a 63% reduction in taxes.

 

"Feels like a tax increase".

[wildcat09 29,257]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

70k, single no kids results in a 17% reduction in taxes.

70k, single, 2 kids results in a 56% reduction in taxes.

70k, married, no kids results in a 19% reduction in taxes.

70k, married, 2 kids results in a 63% reduction in taxes.

 

"Feels like a tax increase".

Where are you getting those percentages?

[Anastasis 23,394]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Where are you getting those percentages?

From my calculator and this: https://taxfoundation.org/2018-tax-reform-calculator/

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3,868]

16 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

From my calculator and this: https://taxfoundation.org/2018-tax-reform-calculator/

Which omits all SALT deduction losses. My SALT deduction losses leave us with a tax cut of $120 for the year.

Edited February 7, 2019 by ShaggyBevo RIP

[David Dennison 18,659]

25 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

70k, single no kids results in a 17% reduction in taxes.

70k, single, 2 kids results in a 56% reduction in taxes.

70k, married, no kids results in a 19% reduction in taxes.

70k, married, 2 kids results in a 63% reduction in taxes.

 

"Feels like a tax increase".

It does feel like a tax increase if you barely notice an increase in each paycheck and because your withholding was too low you don't get a refund, get a smaller refund, or actually owe money in April.

[Js1 85,110]

God damnit, just because you heterosexuals breed, you get a way bigger reduction in taxes?

You fuckfaces should be paying more.  Way more.  Infinitely more. 

That's my 2020 platform.

[Incredulity 11,555]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

God damnit, just because you heterosexuals breed, you get a way bigger reduction in taxes?

You fuckfaces should be paying more.  Way more.  Infinitely more. 

That's my 2020 platform.

Wait, I thought gay parenting was the way of the future?  Get on board the adoption train.  Parenting is pure bliss.

[CO Horn 154]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It does feel like a tax increase if you barely notice an increase in each paycheck and because your withholding was too low you don't get a refund, get a smaller refund, or actually owe money in April.

Again, most of the pain that individuals will feel is related to the IRS fucking up the withholding tables.  However, most of the blame lies with Treasury because they instructed the IRS to modify the tables.  

In my experience, more than 95% of my clients will benefit from the tax law changes.  If people owe taxes, it is likely related to not having enough withheld in taxes or having a change in income which increased there liability.  In terms of income, I'm probably in the top 2%, and if my income were the same, my taxes are going to decrease by about $15K, largely due to being able to claim a $6K child tax credit, not being subject to AMT, and the QBI deduction. 

Also, I'm 100% against the new tax law.

[Incredulity 11,555]

2 minutes ago, Skinny Tie said:

Thanks for the 20 bucks every 2 weeks. 

You can always donate that money to any of your favorite wet dream leftist charities.

[David Dennison 18,659]

3 minutes ago, CO Horn said:

Again, most of the pain that individuals will feel is related to the IRS fucking up the withholding tables.  However, most of the blame lies with Treasury because they instructed the IRS to modify the tables.  

In my experience, more than 95% of my clients will benefit from the tax law changes.  If people owe taxes, it is likely related to not having enough withheld in taxes or having a change in income which increased there liability.  In terms of income, I'm probably in the top 2%, and if my income were the same, my taxes are going to decrease by about $15K, largely due to being able to claim a $6K child tax credit, not being subject to AMT, and the QBI deduction. 

Also, I'm 100% against the new tax law.

It doesn't matter who fucked it up, if people owe money or get a smaller refund, it's going to feel like a tax increase. 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,284]

32 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

70k, single no kids results in a 17% reduction in taxes.

70k, single, 2 kids results in a 56% reduction in taxes.

70k, married, no kids results in a 19% reduction in taxes.

70k, married, 2 kids results in a 63% reduction in taxes.

 

"Feels like a tax increase".

All of which amounts to a change in take home pay of between 1.7 (single no kids) and 3.6%, or about $1200 - $2500 bucks a year,  or $23-$48 per week.

 

And by the way - we're way better off this way than we would have been with lump sum refunds, which would have been far more costly than lowering withholdings because of the paradox of thrift, but because of the paradox of thift, the change in take home pay is less tangible and when combined with a refund that is likely to be smaller creates a misperception of effect.

But sure, go tell all those people raising two kids in Austin on just a little less than the median family income how tangible their $39/week is, particularly when the result was a smaller refund.

[tantric superman 4,667]

31 minutes ago, Js1 said:

God damnit, just because you heterosexuals breed, you get a way bigger reduction in taxes?

You fuckfaces should be paying more.  Way more.  Infinitely more. 

That's my 2020 platform.

Agreed.  Should be a big penalty, especially if you have more than two kids.  We need to penalize breeders.  Should be a plank of the Green New Deal.

 

[CO Horn 154]

7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

All of which amounts to a change in take home pay of between 1.7 (single no kids) and 3.6%, or about $1200 - $2500 bucks a year,  or $23-$48 per week.

 

And by the way - we're way better off this way than we would have been with lump sum refunds, which would have been far more costly than lowering withholdings because of the paradox of thrift, but because of the paradox of thift, the change in take home pay is less tangible and when combined with a refund that is likely to be smaller creates a misperception of effect.

But sure, go tell all those people raising two kids in Austin on just a little less than the median family income how tangible their $39/week is, particularly when the result was a smaller refund.

I'm lean pretty far-left leaning. but a single taxpayer earning $70K is probably paying $9K in taxes.  The tax cut reduces that to say $7,300 in your example.  It your saying that for it to be beneficial the tax cut would need to be 10% of gross, that would be a $7K reduction in tax for a tax liability of $2k. If we assume that all they get is the standard deduction, that would be $58K of taxable income, so a 3.5% tax bracket for single taxpayers on taxable income up to $58K seems rather low.

 

[Brew 3,047]

This debate is stupid at this point. Most are paying less tax. Most aren’t going to understand that because of timing. However, that doesn’t mean they aren’t paying less tax. A 20% reduction in tax to a middle class person is a different amount than a 20% reduction to a millionaire, but it’s still 20%. They pay different amounts so “their feeling” is going to be relative. That person that is making ends meet will realize benefit from the $40 a week, they just may not equate it with the tax law changes. If they got $40 a week more, then likely their refund stays exactly the same. If their refund got reduced, then they likely got way more than $40 a week during a year.

The tax law changes are a sham from which most people benefited in a relative manner, but there are pieces of it that made sense. 

[Js1 85,110]

55 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Agreed.  Should be a big penalty, especially if you have more than two kids.  We need to penalize breeders.  Should be a plank of the Green New Deal.

 

#TaxTheBreedersMore

@NameAlreadyInUse and @SubliminalHorn will be part of this new platform.

[Brew 3,047]

Also, the anti-Trump people should be celebrating this development as his constituents are pissed. They are also stupid, so it’s relative and they may forget.

[elfenix 34,171]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

70k, single no kids results in a 17% reduction in taxes.

70k, single, 2 kids results in a 56% reduction in taxes.

70k, married, no kids results in a 19% reduction in taxes.

70k, married, 2 kids results in a 63% reduction in taxes.

 

"Feels like a tax increase".

 

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

God damnit, just because you heterosexuals breed, you get a way bigger reduction in taxes?

You fuckfaces should be paying more.  Way more.  Infinitely more. 

That's my 2020 platform.

$70k with 2 kids goes from $4611 to $1994.   that's a 57% reduction in income tax.  of course, that's not a 57% reduction in taxes, unless you're a moron.  there's still $10,710 in fica for someone with $70k in paychecks.  so $15,321 --> $12,704, which is 17%.  then we add back in the extra cost of goods from tariffs.  then, since most of us live in sales tax states, add in the extra sales tax because cost of goods went up. and we're completely ignoring increased interest rates for long term goods because of bigger deficits driving up interest rates.

yeah, big tax cut there.

oh, and someone single with no kids is paying $8705 in federal income taxes this year.  yay tax fairness.

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by elfenix

[Brew 3,047]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

 

$70k with 2 kids goes from $4611 to $1994.   that's a 57% reduction in income tax.  of course, that's not a 57% reduction in taxes, unless you're a moron.  there's still $10,710 in fica for someone with $70k in paychecks.  so $15,321 --> $12,704, which is 17%.  then we add back in the extra cost of goods from tariffs.  then, since most of us live in sales tax states, add in the extra sales tax because cost of goods went up. 

yeah, big tax cut there.

 

Last time I checked the individual only paid half the payroll tax.

[elfenix 34,171]

2 minutes ago, Brew said:

Last time I checked the individual only paid half the payroll tax.

accounting burden.  not economic burden, which is the one that actually matters. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,284]

11 minutes ago, Brew said:

This debate is stupid at this point. Most are paying less tax. Most aren’t going to understand that because of timing. However, that doesn’t mean they aren’t paying less tax.

Spoiler

Perceptions matter

 

[Brew 3,047]

The economic burden to the individual matters which doesn’t include the company half of the payroll taxes. If you want to deal with the impact on the family, then it’s only half.

[elfenix 34,171]

Just now, Brew said:

The economic burden to the individual matters which doesn’t include the company half of the payroll taxes. If you want to deal with the impact on the family, then it’s only half.

what you're saying is the company isn't passing along the tax. 

 

ok.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,284]

6 minutes ago, Brew said:

The economic burden to the individual matters which doesn’t include the company half of the payroll taxes. If you want to deal with the impact on the family, then it’s only half.

Uh, employees are selling their labor to the employer for money. You realize this, right? The full value of payroll tax is paid by the worker, half in cash and half in productivity. 

[Huckleberry 32,703]

Yeah, that should be pretty obvious. John Q. Worker's labor is worth $X to ACME Products. If they can hire him for cost $Y that is less than $X then they do it.

 

Without payroll and other taxes, John gets all of $Y. The taxes cost the worker money, not the employer.

 

 

[elfenix 34,171]

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

What is the logic in taxing “breeders” more, again?

breeders aren't taxed more.  breeders are taxed less. 

[Anastasis 23,394]

29 minutes ago, elfenix said:

that's a 57% reduction in income tax.  of course, that's not a 57% reduction in taxes, unless you're a moron. 

The hypothetical that was offered up thread and I ran with was specific to the impact on federal income taxes. Which is clear and doesn't need to be restated, unless you're a moron. 

[tantric superman 4,667]

14 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

What is the logic in taxing “breeders” more, again? 

My logic is to discourage breeding.

Bad for the planet.

[Anastasis 23,394]

 

5 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

What is the logic in taxing “breeders” more, again?

The opposite.  But the logic is social manipulation. After revenue generation, the secondary purpose of the tax code is as an implement of social engineering. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,284]

2 hours ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

Which omits all SALT deduction losses. My SALT deduction losses leave us with a tax cut of $120 for the year.

you should buy these pants

https://www.etsy.com/listing/613133416/blaster-pant-classic-quality-b

Edited February 7, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[Anastasis 23,394]

Just now, tantric superman said:

My logic is to discourage breeding.

Bad for the planet.

Vasectomies should be tax deductible, if not result in a tax credit. 

[Anastasis 23,394]

2 hours ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

Which omits all SALT deduction losses. My SALT deduction losses leave us with a tax cut of $120 for the year.

The calculator I linked takes into account the SALT cap.  You can model out the impact of various levels of SALT. 

[elfenix 34,171]

14 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I don’t understand this response.

let's say you want to help out people with kids and their child care expenses.  you could say, pass a law to give them $1,000 earmarked for child care expenses every year.  or, you could give people a $1,000 credit on taxes.  problem with the first is that it's an appropriation, and so it has to be passed each and every year.  taxes don't have that same issue, since the tax law doesn't have to be re-issued every year.

on the other side of that is tax fairness and neutrality.  basically, neutrality means warping people's behaviors as little as possible.  fairness has a horizontal component and a vertical component.  horizontal means that, if people should pay the same amount of taxes if they have the same amount of the thing being taxed.  vertical means that if you have more of what's being taxed, you should be paying more.  (iirc there's a 3rd component but i don't remember what it is off the top of my head and i don't have a tax text book laying around). 

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by elfenix

[tantric superman 4,667]

23 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I could be wrong, but hasn’t it been shown we are not overpopulated and in fact might need to breed more?

No, it hasn't, and that's an obviously idiotic argument.

I have no doubt that many nationalists or racial pride types may think we need more of their particular types of humans, but I'm talking about the total, all in number. 

We were no worse for wear and tear when we were at the three billion we were at in 1960, and now we are at 7.7 billion.  We'd reach a sustainable number faster by use of war or famine, but I'd prefer we just encourage people to be better stewards of the earth.  I think making the planet more sustainable benefits the USA and think we could use tax policy to encourage that.

Edited February 7, 2019 by tantric superman

[Brew 3,047]

44 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Uh, employees are selling their labor to the employer for money. You realize this, right? The full value of payroll tax is paid by the worker, half in cash and half in productivity. 

The calculation that was made in his post was for the tax reduction percentage to the employee which would only include their half. We can keep going around this circle, but you’re being disingenuous to the original calculation to include both sides.

[Anastasis 23,394]

17 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I don’t understand this response.

I am not sure what is difficult to understand.  

 

If you want to promote home ownership, you create a deduction on mortgage interest.

If you want to promote secondary education, you create a credit for expenses and a deduction on loan interest.

If you want to promote clean energy, you create credits and deduction on related expenses.

If you want to promote charitable giving, you create a deduction on charitable giving. 

Etc. etc. etc. 

 

Tax policy is the single biggest social engineering tool at the government disposal that doesn't involve pointing a gun at someone*.

 

 

*the government collects taxes at threat of violence. 

 

[Nivek 16,860]

...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. 

Well, when did the unborn ever hire people?

[Brew 3,047]

47 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yeah, that should be pretty obvious. John Q. Worker's labor is worth $X to ACME Products. If they can hire him for cost $Y that is less than $X then they do it.

 

Without payroll and other taxes, John gets all of $Y. The taxes cost the worker money, not the employer.

 

 

So you’re saying as an employer, if I didn’t pay the company half of the payroll tax I would just pay the employee more? Do you also believe the corporate tax savings passed through to the employee?

[The People’s Elbow 707]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

#TaxTheBreedersMore

@NameAlreadyInUse and @SubliminalHorn will be part of this new platform.

More accurately, it sounds like you’re incentivizing safe sex.  

[Foosters 17,733]

You're discussing the overpopulation debate from a depleting resources angle. I think the others were discussing it from a destroying the earth angle. Different discussions.

[elfenix 34,171]

20 minutes ago, Brew said:

The calculation that was made in his post was for the tax reduction percentage to the employee which would only include their half. We can keep going around this circle, but you’re being disingenuous to the original calculation to include both sides.

uh, no, i included the full fica tax when calculating the tax reduction % both times.  is it overstating it by putting the entire fica tax solely on the employee?  probably.  but congress somehow found the one market anywhere where the economic burden matched the accounting burden is even more fantastical.  to find the exact burdens we'd need to know the relative elasticities of demand for labor and supply of labor.  most economists think that the supply of labor is much less elastic than demand.  and that's probably particularly so for people who are price takers for labor.  therefore, the tax mostly falls on labor.  even the heritage foundation admits that before hedging around a bit and then deciding it's still mostly on labor.

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by elfenix

[tantric superman 4,667]

4 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

What are thoughts on the counter argument that overpopulation is a myth:

I think they are silly given that there are various issues that depopulation can address. 

[tantric superman 4,667]

4 minutes ago, Foosters said:

You're discussing the overpopulation debate from a depleting resources angle. I think the others were discussing it from a destroying the earth angle. Different discussions.

Yep.

[Nivek 16,860]

God damnit, just because you heterosexuals breed, you get a way bigger reduction in taxes?
You fuckfaces should be paying more.  Way more.  Infinitely more. 
That's my 2020 platform.

`we are. And I agree. But we are.....

[elfenix 34,171]

So you’re saying as an employer, if I didn’t pay the company half of the payroll tax I would just pay the employee more? Do you also believe the corporate tax savings passed through to the employee?

And if one of your competitors doesn't pocket it the employee will jump ship

[Biff Tannen 45,497]

2 hours ago, tantric superman said:

My logic is to discourage breeding.

Bad for the planet.

And just downright annoying, honestly.

[F250 28,691]

3 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Agreed.  Should be a big penalty, especially if you have more than two kids.  We need to penalize breeders.  Should be a plank of the Green New Deal.

 

Why do you hate Mexicans?

[tantric superman 4,667]

5 minutes ago, F250 said:

Why do you hate Mexicans?

I hate all types of bad hombres.  Especially those beedy eyed little Guatemaltecas and Bolivians.