bmoneydeac
Butts - Jessica Biel's in particular
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2011
- Messages
- 19,159
- Reaction score
- 3,009
Reducing S Corp/LLC/Other passthrough tax rate to 25% is clearly a huge tax cut for the wealthy.
Biggest Reform EVER passed thread
- Thread starter dartsndeacs
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
Yeah, I guess I'm discounting that since it doesn't help professional service firms, which is my area. Does it affect real estate investments income? I imagine it helps if I started a restaurants or something.
bmoneydeac
Butts - Jessica Biel's in particular
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2011
- Messages
- 19,159
- Reaction score
- 3,009
I’m not a tax guy but I’ve worked with a lot of rich real estate guys and all of their income comes in as passthrough and as far as I can tell they aren’t exempt.
Interesting that I’ve also worked with some hard working small business owners who don’t make a ton and I’d imagine their effective rate is probably closer to 15-20 and my understanding is all that income will be taxed at 25% I guess after deductions? Rather than their first 77m being taxed at 15%.
ChrisL what am I missing here?
Interesting that I’ve also worked with some hard working small business owners who don’t make a ton and I’d imagine their effective rate is probably closer to 15-20 and my understanding is all that income will be taxed at 25% I guess after deductions? Rather than their first 77m being taxed at 15%.
ChrisL what am I missing here?
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,861
- Reaction score
- 22,821
"Calling it “a nice political play,” Hatch told Brown “I’ve been here working my whole stinking career for people who don’t have a chance, and I really resent anybody saying that I’m just doing this for the rich.”"
Hilarious. Does he actually think what he's been doing is for people who don't have a chance?
ConnorEl
Well-known member
Derided by critics, trickle-down economics gets another try
Quote
————
...Over the years, the concept — also known as supply-side economics — has frequently drawn ridicule.
“Voodoo economics” was the derisive term George H.W. Bush applied to it in his failed 1980 bid for the Republican presidential nomination against Ronald Reagan, a supply-side enthusiast.
The liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith in 1982 likened the trickle-down idea to horse manure: “If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.”
Will Rogers may deserve credit for coining the term in ridiculing President Herbert Hoover’s efforts to combat the Great Depression.
“The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy,” Rogers wrote in his syndicated column in 1932. In fact, Rogers argued, money tends to trickle up — from the hands of the poor into the hands of the rich.
In the view of Carl Davis, research director at the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the track record for supply-side economics “is not particularly inspiring.”
In 1981, in the midst of a deep recession, President Reagan pushed through an aggressive tax cut. The economy did rebound strongly over the next few years. But economists have long given credit mainly to the Federal Reserve, which aggressively slashed interest rates. And the tax cuts increased federal deficits, eventually forcing Reagan and Congress to reverse course and raise taxes.
Bruce Bartlett, a former aide to tax-cut advocate Rep. Jack Kemp, says the 1981 tax cut made sense: The top individual tax rate was 70 percent — far above the current 39.6 percent — and the economy, unlike the relatively healthy one today, had endured a long era of stagnation.
But Bartlett, an official in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, has lost faith in tax cuts. In 1986, he notes, the United States slashed the corporate tax rate from 46 percent to 34 percent. Yet wages fell. Likewise, President George W. Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 produced one of the weakest economic expansions in American history: The Bush tax cuts were still in place when the economy sank into the Great Recession of 2007-2009.
Owen Zidar, an economist at the University of Chicago’s outlook for Booth School of Business, says his own research suggests that tax cuts are more effective when they target lower-income taxpayers, who are likelier to spend a windfall.
In addition, Bartlett and other critics say, now is an especially inauspicious time for sharp tax cuts. The economy is enjoying the third-longest economic expansion on record and doesn’t need much help. Unemployment, at 4.1 percent, is extremely low, and many employers are already struggling to fill job openings. In a healthy economy, sharp tax cuts can also raise the risk of high inflation.
What’s more, corporations are recording healthy profits, enjoying low borrowing rates and sitting on a record $2.3 trillion in cash. If they want to make investments, most already can.
————
Quote
————
...Over the years, the concept — also known as supply-side economics — has frequently drawn ridicule.
“Voodoo economics” was the derisive term George H.W. Bush applied to it in his failed 1980 bid for the Republican presidential nomination against Ronald Reagan, a supply-side enthusiast.
The liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith in 1982 likened the trickle-down idea to horse manure: “If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.”
Will Rogers may deserve credit for coining the term in ridiculing President Herbert Hoover’s efforts to combat the Great Depression.
“The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy,” Rogers wrote in his syndicated column in 1932. In fact, Rogers argued, money tends to trickle up — from the hands of the poor into the hands of the rich.
In the view of Carl Davis, research director at the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the track record for supply-side economics “is not particularly inspiring.”
In 1981, in the midst of a deep recession, President Reagan pushed through an aggressive tax cut. The economy did rebound strongly over the next few years. But economists have long given credit mainly to the Federal Reserve, which aggressively slashed interest rates. And the tax cuts increased federal deficits, eventually forcing Reagan and Congress to reverse course and raise taxes.
Bruce Bartlett, a former aide to tax-cut advocate Rep. Jack Kemp, says the 1981 tax cut made sense: The top individual tax rate was 70 percent — far above the current 39.6 percent — and the economy, unlike the relatively healthy one today, had endured a long era of stagnation.
But Bartlett, an official in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, has lost faith in tax cuts. In 1986, he notes, the United States slashed the corporate tax rate from 46 percent to 34 percent. Yet wages fell. Likewise, President George W. Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 produced one of the weakest economic expansions in American history: The Bush tax cuts were still in place when the economy sank into the Great Recession of 2007-2009.
Owen Zidar, an economist at the University of Chicago’s outlook for Booth School of Business, says his own research suggests that tax cuts are more effective when they target lower-income taxpayers, who are likelier to spend a windfall.
In addition, Bartlett and other critics say, now is an especially inauspicious time for sharp tax cuts. The economy is enjoying the third-longest economic expansion on record and doesn’t need much help. Unemployment, at 4.1 percent, is extremely low, and many employers are already struggling to fill job openings. In a healthy economy, sharp tax cuts can also raise the risk of high inflation.
What’s more, corporations are recording healthy profits, enjoying low borrowing rates and sitting on a record $2.3 trillion in cash. If they want to make investments, most already can.
————
ConnorEl
Well-known member
Everybody Hates the Trump Tax Plan
Well, almost everyone.
Quote
————
Looking at the reactions to Republican tax plans, I found myself remembering what people used to say about former Senator Phil Gramm, whose presidential ambitions never went anywhere but who did help cause the 2008 financial crisis: “Even his friends don’t like him.”
So it is with G.O.P. tax “reform,” especially the Senate version, which would raise taxes on most individuals, especially in the middle and working classes, and add around 13 million Americans to the ranks of the uninsured, all to pay for big cuts in corporate taxes. The general public strongly disapproves — by a 2-1 majority, according to Quinnipiac, although the majority would be even bigger if people really understood what’s going on. But surely at least C.E.O.s like the plan, right?
Actually, not so much. A few days ago Gary Cohn, Donald Trump’s chief economic adviser, met with a group of top executives. They were asked to raise their hands if lower taxes would lead them to raise capital expenditures; only a handful did. “Why aren’t the other hands up?” asked Cohn, plaintively.
The answer is that C.E.O.s, living in the real world of business, not the imaginary world of right-wing ideologues, know that tax rates aren’t that important a factor in investment decisions. So they realize that even a huge tax cut wouldn’t lead to much more spending.
And with that realization, the rationale for this tax plan, such as it is, falls apart, leaving nothing but a scheme to make the rich — especially those who rake in investment income rather than working for a living — richer at everyone else’s expense...
...But don’t worry too much about this stuff. Most serious economic analyses agree with those C.E.O.s who disappointed Gary Cohn: Corporate tax cuts wouldn’t actually do much to raise investment. They would, however, explode the budget deficit.
So in an attempt to limit that deficit blowout, Senate Republicans are proposing significant tax increases on working families. In fact, according to Congress’s own Joint Committee on Taxation, taxes would rise on average for every group with incomes under $75,000 a year, and would surely rise for many families even in higher-income groups. The only significant winners would be those making more than $1 million a year. Populism!
Oh, and this doesn’t even take account of the health care sabotage that’s an integral part of the Senate plan. By repealing the mandate — the requirement that people purchase insurance — the plan would, as I said, cause 13 million to lose coverage; that loss of coverage, and the associated government subsidies, is why mandate repeal saves money that can be given to corporations.
But the move would also drive up premiums for those who keep their insurance, because the dropouts would tend to be those with lower health costs. So that’s an additional, hidden indirect tax on the middle class.
Nor does it take account of what would inevitably come next: tax-cut-induced deficits would, by law, trigger cuts in Medicare, and this would just be the start of a G.O.P. assault on programs like disability insurance that provide a crucial safety net for millions of working-class Americans.
All of which raises the question, why are Republicans even trying to do this? It’s bad policy and bad politics, and the politics will get worse as voters learn more about the facts. Well, last week one G.O.P. congressman, Chris Collins of New York, gave the game away: “My donors are basically saying get it done or don’t ever call me again.”
So we’re talking about government of the people, not by the people, but by wealthy donors, for wealthy donors. Everyone else hates this plan — and they should.
————
Well, almost everyone.
Quote
————
Looking at the reactions to Republican tax plans, I found myself remembering what people used to say about former Senator Phil Gramm, whose presidential ambitions never went anywhere but who did help cause the 2008 financial crisis: “Even his friends don’t like him.”
So it is with G.O.P. tax “reform,” especially the Senate version, which would raise taxes on most individuals, especially in the middle and working classes, and add around 13 million Americans to the ranks of the uninsured, all to pay for big cuts in corporate taxes. The general public strongly disapproves — by a 2-1 majority, according to Quinnipiac, although the majority would be even bigger if people really understood what’s going on. But surely at least C.E.O.s like the plan, right?
Actually, not so much. A few days ago Gary Cohn, Donald Trump’s chief economic adviser, met with a group of top executives. They were asked to raise their hands if lower taxes would lead them to raise capital expenditures; only a handful did. “Why aren’t the other hands up?” asked Cohn, plaintively.
The answer is that C.E.O.s, living in the real world of business, not the imaginary world of right-wing ideologues, know that tax rates aren’t that important a factor in investment decisions. So they realize that even a huge tax cut wouldn’t lead to much more spending.
And with that realization, the rationale for this tax plan, such as it is, falls apart, leaving nothing but a scheme to make the rich — especially those who rake in investment income rather than working for a living — richer at everyone else’s expense...
...But don’t worry too much about this stuff. Most serious economic analyses agree with those C.E.O.s who disappointed Gary Cohn: Corporate tax cuts wouldn’t actually do much to raise investment. They would, however, explode the budget deficit.
So in an attempt to limit that deficit blowout, Senate Republicans are proposing significant tax increases on working families. In fact, according to Congress’s own Joint Committee on Taxation, taxes would rise on average for every group with incomes under $75,000 a year, and would surely rise for many families even in higher-income groups. The only significant winners would be those making more than $1 million a year. Populism!
Oh, and this doesn’t even take account of the health care sabotage that’s an integral part of the Senate plan. By repealing the mandate — the requirement that people purchase insurance — the plan would, as I said, cause 13 million to lose coverage; that loss of coverage, and the associated government subsidies, is why mandate repeal saves money that can be given to corporations.
But the move would also drive up premiums for those who keep their insurance, because the dropouts would tend to be those with lower health costs. So that’s an additional, hidden indirect tax on the middle class.
Nor does it take account of what would inevitably come next: tax-cut-induced deficits would, by law, trigger cuts in Medicare, and this would just be the start of a G.O.P. assault on programs like disability insurance that provide a crucial safety net for millions of working-class Americans.
All of which raises the question, why are Republicans even trying to do this? It’s bad policy and bad politics, and the politics will get worse as voters learn more about the facts. Well, last week one G.O.P. congressman, Chris Collins of New York, gave the game away: “My donors are basically saying get it done or don’t ever call me again.”
So we’re talking about government of the people, not by the people, but by wealthy donors, for wealthy donors. Everyone else hates this plan — and they should.
————
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
There's zero chance this is true. You can't lower the bracket for every income group and have this be true.
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
A married person with no kids making $75k is $1,800 better off. With 2 kids they're $2,500 better off. For a single person they're $2k better off. Shameful reporting. For most people in those income brackets thats the equivalent to 2 years of raises.
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,861
- Reaction score
- 22,821
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
ConnorEl
Well-known member
My taxes are going up under the proposal.
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
rich homeowners with kids on the coasts have their taxes go up. They probably should.
ConnorEl
Well-known member
The mandate goes both ways.
If the fucking Pubs are going to lessen the deficit caused by tax cuts by further eroding health insurance/care, if they are counting this into their tax cut plan deficit calculations, then the consequential increase in spending on the part of hapless folks needing insurance/care can be considered in with the effects of the legislation.
If the fucking Pubs are going to lessen the deficit caused by tax cuts by further eroding health insurance/care, if they are counting this into their tax cut plan deficit calculations, then the consequential increase in spending on the part of hapless folks needing insurance/care can be considered in with the effects of the legislation.
ConnorEl
Well-known member
Rich? Well, I guess it's all relative. I ain't "wealthy"--if I was really wealthy I'd be reapin' me lots of benefit from this ill-conceived proposal.
Anyhow, I'm happy to pay taxes, glad I can. Just pointing out that this plan does not lower taxes for everybody.
Krugman is pretty smart. You may disagree with the methodology of his source, but I don't think he's lying or making stuff up.
Anyhow, I'm happy to pay taxes, glad I can. Just pointing out that this plan does not lower taxes for everybody.
Krugman is pretty smart. You may disagree with the methodology of his source, but I don't think he's lying or making stuff up.
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
I actually didn't realize that was a Krugman article. Krugman has been approaching hack territory for awhile now, but that one was especially bad. His quote of "report shows every income group under $75,000 would have their taxes go up." The report doesn't even show that.
As for whether everyone's taxes go up, yes some homeowners get screwed. But eventually when you buy your next house 5-10 years from now, it will be a couple hundred grand cheaper.
WakeandBake
Well-known member
So will the one you sell, Einstein.
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
Currently the barrier to entry is becoming too high. that's the problem. I'm a poor so I don't have a house yet. In the most liberal of cities, the only people who can buy a house now are the people who already gained equity from buying a prior house that appreciated. That doesn't help the income inequality gap. Thought you cared about the poors, guess that was #fakenews.
WakeandBake
Well-known member
I do care about them as well as middle class homeowners and that’s why this whole cockamamie roundabout tax bill is ridiculous and these gimmicks are stupid, troll-boy
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
what makes it cockamamie and roundabout?