Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Paul Ryan: Secretary Getting $1.50 More A Week Shows Effect Of GOP Tax Cuts
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) really wants you to know how great the Republican tax cuts are.

Worried that the partisan Nunes memo released Friday will undermine the FBI’s ability to do its job? Ryan is happy to remind you, ”The tax cuts are working.”

On Saturday, Ryan outdid himself again with a tweet bragging about the extra $1.50 a week that a Pennsylvania secretary is making thanks to the GOP legislation.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-ryan-tax-cut-weekly-pay-bump
_us_5a76151de4b06ee97af318e8?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009


T

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
For one in two Americans, those in the bottom half of the income pile, income actually shrank on Reagan’s watch. In 1980, the year he was elected, they earned $16,371 a year on average, in today’s dollars, according to the World Wealth and Income Database. By 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, they had to make do with $16,268.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/business/eco
nomy/tax-cuts-incomes.html

T

---

Well Shazaam! That must be why he was reelected in a landslide, which Democraps have never seen with their party.
Perhaps you could provide a reliable, credible news source, instead of hanging your hat on The Libtard's Gospel.

---

I am unable to navigate that wid database.
Can you tell me the numbers they use for 1981, 1982, 1983 - the end of the devastating Carter Economy?
Six, could you help getting those numbers?

---

I tried to poke around that WID site, never found any page, report, data grid which showed the numbers that the NYT Libtard (I know, redundant) spouted. Perhaps he just made them up, holding to the high journalistic standards of the Times. Or maybe somebody could find a report from that site with those numbers present, and post a link for that specific page.

Otherwise, I did get a report from that site, for pre-tax income, bottom 50% of earners, in 2016 constant $.
It shows 1980 as $11,502. And 1988 as $12,504.
That right there suggests that not only did the Times just make stuff up, they also lied in the most dishonest and biased way, stating the opposite of what the data shows.
That looks like approximately 9% increase in annual income from 1980 to 1988, an 8 year span, or about 1% per year.

But more pertinently, the data which was avoided shows a fuller picture.
In 1981 it was $11,518.
In 1982 it was $10,888.
1983: $10,839.
1984: $11,453.
1985: $11,693.
1986: $11,762.
1987: $12,094.

First, Reagan had to stop and reverse the runaway downward spiral of the disastrous Carter Economy. That bottomed in 1983, with a loss of about $700 since 1980, or about 6% in 3 years - which is 2% average loss per year.
Then Reagan grew it, an increase of about $1,700 or about 15% in a span of 5 years, or about 3% each year.

Yet again, Libtard Delusions bow to the reality of real numbers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Paul Ryan: Secretary Getting $1.50 More A Week Shows Effect Of GOP Tax Cuts
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) really wants you to know how great the Republican tax cuts are.

Worried that the partisan Nunes memo released Friday will undermine the FBI’s ability to do its job? Ryan is happy to remind you, ”The tax cuts are working.”

On Saturday, Ryan outdid himself again with a tweet bragging about the extra $1.50 a week that a Pennsylvania secretary is making thanks to the GOP legislation.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-ryan-tax-cut-weekly-pay-bump
_us_5a76151de4b06ee97af318e8?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009


T

---

Yep. Just as much bullshit as anybody saying the economy or job outlook improved for anyone for 8 years under Obama.

Same lies, different "side".

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
For one in two Americans, those in the bottom half of the income pile, income actually shrank on Reagan’s watch. In 1980, the year he was elected, they earned $16,371 a year on average, in today’s dollars, according to the World Wealth and Income Database. By 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, they had to make do with $16,268.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/business/eco
nomy/tax-cuts-incomes.html

T

---

Well Shazaam! That must be why he was reelected in a landslide, which Democraps have never seen with their party.
Perhaps you could provide a reliable, credible news source, instead of hanging your hat on The Libtard's Gospel.

---

I am unable to navigate that wid database.
Can you tell me the numbers they use for 1981, 1982, 1983 - the end of the devastating Carter Economy?
Six, could you help getting those numbers?

---

I tried to poke around that WID site, never found any page, report, data grid which showed the numbers that the NYT Libtard (I know, redundant) spouted. Perhaps he just made them up, holding to the high journalistic standards of the Times. Or maybe somebody could find a report from that site with those numbers present, and post a link for that specific page.

Otherwise, I did get a report from that site, for pre-tax income, bottom 50% of earners, in 2016 constant $.
It shows 1980 as $11,502. And 1988 as $12,504.
That right there suggests that not only did the Times just make stuff up, they also lied in the most dishonest and biased way, stating the opposite of what the data shows.
That looks like approximately 9% increase in annual income from 1980 to 1988, an 8 year span, or about 1% per year.

But more pertinently, the data which was avoided shows a fuller picture.
In 1981 it was $11,518.
In 1982 it was $10,888.
1983: $10,839.
1984: $11,453.
1985: $11,693.
1986: $11,762.
1987: $12,094.

First, Reagan had to stop and reverse the runaway downward spiral of the disastrous Carter Economy. That bottomed in 1983, with a loss of about $700 since 1980, or about 6% in 3 years - which is 2% average loss per year.
Then Reagan grew it, an increase of about $1,700 or about 15% in a span of 5 years, or about 3% each year.

Yet again, Libtard Delusions bow to the reality of real numbers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Anecdotal accounts are not necessarily true or reliable because they are based on personal accounts, rather than facts or research. While some here can post much anecdotal evidence, there is little hard facts that most, and not only a few will Truly benefit. Chipotle may have done this to garner support with customers. They lost of lot of them due to several food poisonings.

There are almost 28 million small businesses in the US and over 22 million are self employed with no additional payroll or employees (these are called nonemployers.

What did they get?

T

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Anecdotal accounts are not necessarily true or reliable because they are based on personal accounts, rather than facts or research. While some here can post much anecdotal evidence, there is little hard facts that most, and not only a few will Truly benefit. Chipotle may have done this to garner support with customers. They lost of lot of them due to several food poisonings.

There are almost 28 million small businesses in the US and over 22 million are self employed with no additional payroll or employees (these are called nonemployers.

What did they get?

T

---

They got a 2.7% - 3% raise, depending upon dependents and Marital Status. Which is a 4% - 5% increase in "take home" pay.

Try to keep up when the adults are talking, m'kay Pumpkin?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
News said Chipolte gave their employees a $1,000 bonus check because of the Tax Reform improvements.
So these are bartenders, cooks, and waitresses, right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The more I think of that the less I even understand what you're getting at. If an employee was getting a "pay raise" from a tax break, why would the company they work for give them more? I'm not getting your connection here.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The more I think of that the less I even understand what you're getting at. If an employee was getting a "pay raise" from a tax break, why would the company they work for give them more? I'm not getting your connection here.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

you sound like you are repeating my question. I'm not getting the exact connection either.

Use DuckDuckGo to search "Tax Reform bonus checks" - many hits, some say 40 companies have, other hits say 170 companies have.
Maybe also search "Tax Reform windfall"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
News said Chipolte gave their employees a $1,000 bonus check because of the Tax Reform improvements.
So these are bartenders, cooks, and waitresses, right?

---

I keep hearing about these Tax Reform Bonus Checks. From $1,000 to $4,000 as examples.
Anybody know how these are working? Are the companies just issuing company wide bonuses, just because they are happy with Tax Reform?
Are the companies merely issuing one check for the January difference in the Employee's Tax withholding? The new Tax withholding tables for 2018 did not come out by the end of January, so the excessive withholding was still at the 2017 rate.
Or did companies issue the whole year's worth of reduced withholding in one shot, and then will continue with the 2017 withholding rate for the remainder of 2018?
Does anybody know exactly what this is about? Are all of these reported companies doing the same thing, or variations?

I'm wondering if a $1,000 bonus check is for an employee getting a Tax Reform pay raise of $12,000 for the year, or $8,000/yr? Or only $1,000 increase per year? Or is it unrelated to annual wages?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The more I think of that the less I even understand what you're getting at. If an employee was getting a "pay raise" from a tax break, why would the company they work for give them more? I'm not getting your connection here.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

you sound like you are repeating my question. I'm not getting the exact connection either.

Use DuckDuckGo to search "Tax Reform bonus checks" - many hits, some say 40 companies have, other hits say 170 companies have.
Maybe also search "Tax Reform windfall"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/opinion/taxpayers-scammed-republica
ns.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=Trending&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Paul Krugman op ed on the bogus tx cut.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
U O! The forum haz boundry break out agen (or still?).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
U O! The forum haz boundry break out agen (or still?).

---

Yet even before the tax cut, federal tax receipts were looking weak for an economy with low unemployment and a rising stock market — for example, far lower as a percentage of G.D.P. than the tax take during the Clinton boom of the 1990s, and even a bit lower than they were at the end of the Bush-era expansion. The tax cut will push them lower still.

Most of the tax cut actually consisted of huge tax breaks for corporations, which is in effect a big tax cut for stockholders. And while many Americans own a bit of stock via their retirement accounts, even if you include these indirect holdings, more than 80 percent of stocks are owned by the wealthiest 10 percent of the population. So on the face of it, the wealthy are giving themselves a big gift, and sending the bill to the middle class.

Now, the tax cut’s defenders insist that it won’t really work that way, that the benefits of lower corporate taxes will trickle down to workers instead. How’s that supposed to happen?

Well, the theory is that lower corporate taxes will draw in lots of money from overseas, which corporations will invest in new plants and equipment, which will drive up the demand for labor, which will raise wages. And to be fair, there’s probably something to this theory — something, but not very much.

Second, the story relies on a long chain of events with multiple weak links. For example, corporations with monopoly power won’t see lower taxes as a reason to invest more; they’ll just take the money. Meanwhile, there’s growing evidence that big employers are using their power to suppress wages; cutting their taxes won’t change that fact. So even in the long run we shouldn’t expect a lot of trickle-down.

But wait — weren’t there a lot of stories about companies using the tax cut to give their workers bonuses? Yes, there were — but only because the news media let themselves get played. Most of those bonuses would have happened anyway: In an economy with low unemployment, there are always some companies deciding to pay a bit more to attract workers. But companies had every incentive to pretend that the tax cut was responsible, if only to curry favor with the Trump administration.

And in any case the bonus hype was out of all proportion to the reality. So far, we’ve seen about $6 billion in bonuses versus more than $170 billion in stock buybacks, that is, handing money to wealthy stockholders. And money spent on buybacks is money that isn’t being invested in plants and equipment, the supposed point of the tax cut.

www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/opinion/taxpayers-scammed-republicans.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/opinion/taxpayers-scammed-republica
ns.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=Trending&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Paul Krugman op ed on the bogus tx cut.

---

Taxpayers, You’ve Been Scammed
Paul Krugman, March 1, 2018
www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/opinion/taxpayers-scammed-republicans.html

So you go out for dinner with a wealthy acquaintance. “I’ll take care of everything,” he says, and orders you a hamburger. Then he orders himself an expensive steak and a bottle of wine, which he doesn’t share. And when the waiter comes with the check, he points at you and says, “Charge it to his credit card.”

Now you understand the essence of the Trump tax cut, signed into law a little over two months ago.

The key thing you need to know is that right now the U.S. government has no business cutting taxes. We need more revenue, not less. Why? The federal government, as an old line says, is a giant insurance company with an army. Most of its costs come from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — and all three programs are becoming more expensive as ever more baby boomers reach retirement age. This means that unless we cut back sharply on benefits that middle-class Americans count on, we will need to raise more revenue than in the past.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Wow... is that true JSF?

That's not something I read before. I certainly don't see how that benefits the working class at all.)

---

I heard the news report that 2 States had their Governors sign urgent quick laws to allow their residents to pay their property tax early, so it could be before Dec 31. I think NY and NJ.
I never heard of Governments that did not allow taxes to be paid early. How stupid is that? Free money for the coffers early, less I terest to pay, etc.

OTOH, can you imagine the chaos in Property Tax Offices this week?

In terms of overall benefits of Tax Reform, the simpler the better. Which means less or fewer different kinds of deductions, which would be the case here.
In terms of specific application, consider examples of 2 different taxpayers. 1 is similar to you, or even barely had a benefit of itemizing. 2 is carrying a Million Dollar home. The standard deduction and personal exemptions were raised, one of them doubled - that is for everybody, regardless of Income bracket. By trading an increased Universal deduction and exemptions with elimination of property tax deductible, which party gets the greater benefit? How about a family with one house but more kids? Or somebody not owning property? Those benefitting the greatest from property tax deductible were likely higher income, with more property values. The hard working shlub did not benefit as much, if at all.

---

That certainly sounds reasonable... but unfortunately I don't see anything aobout either one of them doubling. That would mean either an increase of the personal exemption from $4050 to $8100 or an increase of the standard deduction from $6350 to $12,700.

The current combined total is $4050 + $6350, or $10,400.

The article I'm reading says that both will be combined into a single larger standard deduction of $12,000. So... not really a double at all since it eliminates the personal exemption. Just an increase of $1,600 for a single filer. A larger increase than normal years, so good for me since I use it, but not really all that great.

http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-brackets-2018-trump-tax-plan-chart-
2017-12

Chances are that most low income earners wouldn't come close to being able to itemize at $12k if they were before. If nothing changes for me, almost my entire paycheck next year will be under that $12k cap. Whatever isn't I'll likely put into an IRA to avoid any taxes.

---

Thanks for that linky, I had only been going by what people said.
Property taxes likely did not affect, or help the poorest.
Let's assume that linky is accurate, and run some numbers.

Single, with income 21,520. In 2018 Tax would be $952. In 2017 Tax was $1203. With 1 non-spouse dependent $707. But that wage is $10/hr for 40 hour weeks the whole year, no other income.

Income 50,700. 2018 -> $4,456. 2017 -> $5,814. +1 dependent -> $5,039. +2 dependent -> $4,432.

Income 94,500. 2018 -> $14,092. 2017 -> $16,764. +1 -> $15,752. +2 -> $14,739.

Income 169,500. 2018 -> $32,092. 2017 -> $37,536. +1 -> $36,562.: +2 -> $35,588. +3 -> $34,614. +4 -> $33,640. +5 -> $32,666.

In 2018 there are no extra deductions for each dependent, other than spouse.
Looks like taxpayers with 1 or 0 kids are getting a Tax cut. Mostly due to the reduced Tax Rate in each bracket, plus the expansion of brackets.
I might cry for you if you make $100 too much and have to pay $10 in Tax.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
What does the Fed say?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:
How Democrats are targeting billionaires

---

Quote:

---

those Democrats hang out with those Republcians at weird parties in the woods..all those other fantastic names like Bilderberg Group, Skull and Bones, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission. The Bohemia thing An article in a local community newspaper, The Santa Rosa Sun, reported on the Cult of Canaan and the legend of Moloch in place at Bohemian Grove. Both Bush and Kerry part of the same ivy league blackmail club of Skull and Bones Brotherhood of Death. That Bohemia global club, the elite and marxist royalty of Europe it features Henry Kissinger,former House Speaker Newt Gingrich a as well as homosexual hollywood actors and other luminaries.
https://historycollection.com/powerful-men-go-misbehave-secrets-bohemi
an-grove-unveiled-photos/

https://medium.com/mondo-americana/weirding-the-bohemian-grove-922a77e
9d23e

https://consortiumnews.com/2012/07/13/bohemian-grove-reagans-treason/

https://www.sgtreport.com/2019/07/list-of-attendees-at-secretive-bohem
ian-grove/

---