Biggest Reform EVER passed thread

[dartsndeacs]

“Save $60 a month so the CEO can save $10,000.”

It’s a wonder that approval is so low.

For anyone interested in actual analysis, instead of all the bullshit headlines, here goes:

Roughly speaking, for most people, this is about a 2.5-3% income boost. Makes sense as the senate plan in alot of places is about 3% less than the current tax structure.

So someone who makes $50k saves about $1k. Someone who makes $75k saves $2k. $100k saves $2.5k, $125k saves $3.2k, etc. That's all for single filers, its roughly double for married filers. So it's certainly a decent chunk of change to what most people would consider middle class folks. It's not $60/month.

The averages that get published are much less, solely for one reason. A very specific subset of people get screwed, and that's high income earners in states with high income taxes. CA, Oregon, NY, DC, NJ are all around 9%, or higher. Obviously this is a political win for the Pubs since none of those states vote Republican, but discounting that, if a state chooses to spend more on public services than another state, should the federal government subsidize that partially by giving a state tax deduction? Logically I'd have to say no.

The idea that all rich people are doing better under this plan is silly. There are a million board lawyers and accountants here that are partners in law firms and they're all getting screwed. People who are lawyers in California and making millions of dollars are year pay hundreds of thousands of california taxes per year and no longer can deduct those so are paying a huge chunk back to the federal government.

In exchange, the guy who starts a new restaurants, or a lawnscaping business, or something that actually produces jobs gets a pretty sizable benefit. I can assure you lawyers and accounts provide very little tangible benefit and for the most part are regulatory waste. Not giving them a tax break seems reasonable, even if its not in my particular interest.

Homeowners with houses worth over $500k also get screwed some, but any house over that amount is nothing more than a luxury anyways, and the preferential tax treatment for such was likely misguided anyways.

In summary, the merits of this bill do warrant more discussion than simply partisan headline bickering, that's why its disappointing to see that's all you're getting out there.

 

[tiltdeac]

Almost none of what you just posted is accurate.

 

[ChrisL68]

Board lawyers and accountants who were making close to a million are probably paying AMT.

 

[dartsndeacs]

Almost none of what you just posted is accurate.

#analysis

 

[WakeandBake]

He’s no jhmd but his 3 day troll of this thread certainly has spunk

 

[dartsndeacs]

He’s no jhmd but his 3 day troll of this thread certainly has spunk

Wouldn't be possible without your PSF-laden commentary greasing the wheels

 

[WakeandBake]

I don’t know what your little internet acronyms stand for but I guess you insulted me. I hurt

 

[WakeandBake]

Wait I know, I’m public school filth. I thought I was a rich elitist a couple of pages ago.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

For anyone interested in actual analysis, instead of all the bullshit headlines, here goes:

Roughly speaking, for most people, this is about a 2.5-3% income boost. Makes sense as the senate plan in alot of places is about 3% less than the current tax structure.

So someone who makes $50k saves about $1k. Someone who makes $75k saves $2k. $100k saves $2.5k, $125k saves $3.2k, etc. That's all for single filers, its roughly double for married filers. So it's certainly a decent chunk of change to what most people would consider middle class folks. It's not $60/month.

The averages that get published are much less, solely for one reason. A very specific subset of people get screwed, and that's high income earners in states with high income taxes. CA, Oregon, NY, DC, NJ are all around 9%, or higher. Obviously this is a political win for the Pubs since none of those states vote Republican, but discounting that, if a state chooses to spend more on public services than another state, should the federal government subsidize that partially by giving a state tax deduction? Logically I'd have to say no.

The idea that all rich people are doing better under this plan is silly. There are a million board lawyers and accountants here that are partners in law firms and they're all getting screwed. People who are lawyers in California and making millions of dollars are year pay hundreds of thousands of california taxes per year and no longer can deduct those so are paying a huge chunk back to the federal government.

In exchange, the guy who starts a new restaurants, or a lawnscaping business, or something that actually produces jobs gets a pretty sizable benefit. I can assure you lawyers and accounts provide very little tangible benefit and for the most part are regulatory waste. Not giving them a tax break seems reasonable, even if its not in my particular interest.

Homeowners with houses worth over $500k also get screwed some, but any house over that amount is nothing more than a luxury anyways, and the preferential tax treatment for such was likely misguided anyways.

In summary, the merits of this bill do warrant more discussion than simply partisan headline bickering, that's why its disappointing to see that's all you're getting out there.

I don’t know where you get your numbers, but they aren’t close to what are presented by the Tax Policy Center.

 

[dartsndeacs]

I don’t know where you get your numbers, but they aren’t close to what are presented by the Tax Policy Center.

I'm simply using excel and the brackets published. It takes no more than 10 minutes to do yourself, if you wish to actually learn about the subject rather than rely on other peoples' numbers. Yes, outliers like people with 7 kids will skew your numbers. My numbers are correct, however.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

I'm simply using excel and the brackets published. It takes no more than 10 minutes to do yourself, if you wish to actually learn about the subject rather than rely on other peoples' numbers. Yes, outliers like people with 7 kids will skew your numbers. My numbers are correct, however.

I’ll stick to listening to the experts, instead of a sum() function, but thanks.

 

[dartsndeacs]

I’ll stick to listening to the experts, instead of a sum() function, but thanks.

Didn't realize multiplication was that complicated, but go ahead. But yes, a few outliers can really screw up those numbers. Doesn't change that a majority of people benefit much more greatly than the average.

 

[dartsndeacs]

I don’t know where you get your numbers, but they aren’t close to what are presented by the Tax Policy Center.

Ok, lets put this in logic most of you can understand more simply. For the fourth quintile, when 16% of that group have a tax increase, and the average for the whole group is a $2,000 cut, what do you think the average tax cut is for the 84% of the group that doesn't have the tax increase?

 

[dartsndeacs]

You are neither this dumb if you're serious nor this clever if you're trolling. Though the amount of responses you've racked up is impressive. Bored at work?

sick and home from work. What about that statement is wrong? Usually I'm always right about everything, but in these super long posting sessions sometimes I get one in ten wrong. that one wasn't one of them, though.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

Ok, lets put this in logic most of you can understand more simply. For the fourth quintile, when 16% of that group have a tax increase, and the average for the whole group is a $2,000 cut, what do you think the average tax cut is for the 84% of the group that doesn't have the tax increase?

Why do you insist on focusing on those who make >$150k? Is it because anyone making less than that is getting scraps?

 

[dartsndeacs]

Why do you insist on focusing on those who make >$150k? Is it because anyone making less than that is getting scraps?

Well that group is the $87k-$150k group, what most of us consider to be middle class. Any other charts you have you want me to help you understand?

 

[DistrictDeacon]

Well that group is the $87k-$150k group, what most of us consider to be middle class. Any other charts you have you want me to help you understand?

Got me there. Was looking at the top quantile.

But before you brag too much about your chart reading skills, the $2000 is the average of those who receive a tax cut, not the whole group.

 

[tiltdeac]

Ok, lets put this in logic most of you can understand more simply. For the fourth quintile, when 16% of that group have a tax increase, and the average for the whole group is a $2,000 cut, what do you think the average tax cut is for the 84% of the group that doesn't have the tax increase?

LOL. Read the chart again.

 

[dartsndeacs]

Got me there. Was looking at the top quantile.

But before you brag too much about your chart reading skills, the $2000 is the average of those who receive a tax cut, not the whole group.

Ok, so when you said "I don't see where you're getting your numbers" they look almost like the same numbers to me. Your chart says 1.7% savings for the whole group, and I said 2.5% for renters. Obv there are some homeowners who earn between $87-$150k.

 

[ConnorEl]

Pretty sure there has been a lot more than "headlines" put here. But just to please, I'll post some below--if you click on them you can read more than the headline.

Maybe if someone holds an opinion that contrasts with multiple (and a majority of) economists...just maybe...it should be reconsidered.

The Tax Cut Consensus: Will President Trump's tax cuts really grow the economy? Unlikely, experts say.

Tall Tax Tales: The GOP tax plan will benefit the ultra-rich at the expense of middle-class and working Americans.

Most Economists Agree: Trump Tax Plan Will Widen Budget Deficit

Economists Have No Use for Republican Tax Cuts

Independent economists on why they aren't buying Trump's tax plan promise

THE SENATE TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT (11/9/17): STATIC AND DYNAMIC EFFECTS ON THE BUDGET AND THE ECONOMY--Penn Wharton analysis.

Quote:
---------
Key Points

On Thursday November 9th, 2017 the Senate Committee on Finance majority released its version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that changes both individual and business taxes.

Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) finds that the bill lowers tax revenues by $1.4 to $1.7 trillion over 10 years, including accounting for growth effects. Debt rises by $1.9 to $2.0 trillion over the same period. Looking beyond the 10-year budget window, by 2040, revenue falls between $4.3 trillion and $5.2 trillion while debt increases by $7.0 to $7.6 trillion.

PWBM projects that GDP will be between 0.3% to 0.8% larger in 2027 relative to its value in that year with no policy change, and between -0.2% and 0.5% larger in 2040. Over the long-run, additional debt reduces the positive impact on GDP.
---------

Republican tax plan slams workers and job creators in favor of the rich and inherited wealth

Some IGM (expert economist) surveys:

Will US GDP will be substantially higher or lower after a decade if proposed reforms are enacted?

Will tax revenue fall? Will the tax cuts pay for themselves with growth?



Etc. ad nauseam.