REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Tax Cuts

POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Monday, February 18, 2019 16:41
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8915
PAGE 4 of 4

Thursday, February 1, 2018 8:10 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Identification Friend or Foe.
You've surely heard it in movies. System that keeps planes from getting shot down, particularly when transitioning between nations. Also now a system to prevent friendly fire. IIRC it's also used in video games.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 1, 2018 8:10 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 1, 2018 8:10 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 1, 2018 8:10 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Double post

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 1, 2018 8:11 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Double posty.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 3, 2018 9:21 PM

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 4, 2018 7:54 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


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. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 4, 2018 11:27 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.

bumpity.
And reminder to extract some WID links.

http://wid.world/data/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 5, 2018 12:22 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


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. :)



Actually, I'm surprised they didn't go for a two-fer here and claim this as evidence that they were closing the fictional Gender Wage Gap.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 5, 2018 9:11 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN



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.

bumpity.
And reminder to extract some WID links.

http://wid.world/data/

That linky went dead, they must have been too embarrassed at their blatent lies.

And that WID site is cumbersome at best to utilize, plus their data seems to change from one visit to another.

Cannot find ANY of those previously notated figures there now. Not the figures I posted above, nor the figures from the lying story which was linked.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 7, 2018 11:32 PM

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?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 8, 2018 12:20 PM

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 8, 2018 2:13 PM

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.

Unless earning 150-240K, which would be more like 3.5% raise, or near 6% increase in take home pay.
Or if earning 240-350K, then closer to 4% raise, or near 7% increase in take home pay. And 4% of 300K is more than $1,000.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 8, 2018 2:37 PM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


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?



OR... Maybe this had something to do with those "raises"?

https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/chipotle-prices-increase-nationw
ide-2018


CHIPOTLE HAS OFFICIALLY RAISED PRICES AT ALL ITS LOCATIONS

"Chipotle has had a rough couple years. Between the customers getting sick and the reviews calling its much-hyped attempt at queso a "crime against cheese," you'd think the burrito giant would be courting public approval like the protagonist of a late-'90s teen comedy. You'd be wrong though. Instead, Chipotle has just finished raising prices at all its locations.

The burrito empire has gradually rolled out the new price bump over the last year. Menu prices at 55% of the chain's over 2,200 locations were raised by 5% to 7% between April and November of 2017. Now, the final 45% of restaurants implemented the price hikes as of this week, mostly at locations in the Pacific, Northeast, Southeast, and Mid-Atlantic areas.

As a report by Business Insider explains, the change amounts to a $0.34 increase on a chicken burrito bowl, which should give you some perspective before you go writing to your congressperson or something. In the same report, Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold said, “Even with the increase, Chipotle pricing remains very competitive within the category.” It's mostly the principle, though.

This comes not long after Founder and CEO Steve Ells, who'd been heading the company for close to 25 years, announced plans to step down as CEO.

If Chipotle wants to lure people back into its restaurants, this might not be the best look. But, hey, maybe some more free burrito or free chips and guac deals will help."

Like so many things attributed to Trump, it's mostly pure bullshit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 16, 2018 2:26 AM

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?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 16, 2018 2:58 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


I haven't heard anything at all about these bonus checks you're talking about. You'll have to provide some links.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 16, 2018 3:49 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


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. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 16, 2018 4:14 AM

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"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 18, 2018 2:21 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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"

Did you make any progress?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 18, 2018 6:30 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Nah. The company I work for isn't doing it, and I don't personally know anybody who is benefiting from this supposed thing. I think it's just fake news.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 18, 2018 8:02 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


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?



Why don't you ask your employer?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 20, 2018 6:55 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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"



http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/economy/tax-law-raises-bonuses/in
dex.html


http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/economy/tax-law-raises-bonuses/in
dex.html


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/1000-employee-bonus-check-credits-tr
ump-tax-cut-and-jobs-act/article/2645981


AT&T
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/att-to-give-employees-1000-bonuses-
after-trump-signs-tax-bill


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gop-tax-bill-t-boeing-214700499.html

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/boom-40-companies-give-trump-tax-ref
orm-bonuses-up-to-2000/article/2644910


http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/01/05/tax-reform-credited-for-company
-bonuses
/

http://dailysignal.com/2018/01/16/164-companies-credit-tax-reform-for-
bonuses-and-pay-raises
/

https://www.atr.org/list

Indiana specifically:
https://www.atr.org/indiana

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/01/11/list-companies-paid-bo
nuses-boosted-pay-since-tax-bill-passed/1023848001
/

Home Depot up to $1,000:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/25/home-depot-to-award-hourly-employees-1
000-bonus-due-to-tax-reform.html


Another $1,000:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/17/software-company-ce
o-credits-trump-tax-cut-jobs-act-1000-bonus-checks
/

Fiat Chrysler
http://fortune.com/2018/01/12/fiat-chrysler-bonus-tax-reform/

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/12/22/heres-a-list-or-
companies-giving-worker-bonuses-aftee-tax-reform-n2426226


Tyson Foods
https://www.agweb.com/article/tyson-foods-tax-reform-bonus-checks-apne
ws
/


I saw some of those mentioned were Walmart, PepsiCo, MetLife, Boeing.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 20, 2018 8:46 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


I don't know about the other companies, but I know that Walmart announced these bonuses the very same day that it closed 63 stores in the country without giving anybody a single day notice they were doing it.

Why they would have given bonuses that same day can be left open for debate, but I think it was a PR move to deflect from putting a few thousand Americans out on their asses without any advance warning.

Regardless of the actual reason here, I think it pretty gauche to attribute that bonus to the tax reform. Surely eliminating the cost of operating 63 facilities and paying all of those workers saved them many times more money than any tax reform did this year, in both the short term and the long term.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 2, 2018 6:48 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 2, 2018 7:15 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 2, 2018 9:29 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


U O! The forum haz boundry break out agen (or still?).

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 2, 2018 10:27 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


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. Something will have to give.

And we already know what will give, if Republicans get their way: programs that benefit working Americans. In fact, the usual suspects like Paul Ryan were talking about the need for “entitlement reform” — meaning cuts in Medicare and Medicaid — to reduce deficits even as they were passing a huge tax cut that will make those deficits much worse.

Hence my analogy about the guy who “gives” you a hamburger, then bills it to your credit card. Ryan celebrated the tax cut with a tweet about a teacher saving $1.50 a week on her taxes; that’s like saying you should feel grateful for a “gift” that’s actually being charged to your own credit card. How’s that $75-a-year saving going to look when the teacher finds out that, partly because of that tax cut, her mother’s Medicare plan has been converted into an inadequate voucher system and Medicaid won’t pay for her father’s nursing home care?

Meanwhile, about your companion’s steak dinner: 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.

First of all, even if the process were to work as advertised, it would take a long time — probably decades. Even the most optimistic analyses suggest that there would be little effect on wages for the first few years, which means that for now what looks like a tax break for the wealthy is, in fact, a tax break for the wealthy.

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.

So the message to middle-class taxpayers is, if you think you were helped by the tax cut, think again. Donald Trump and his allies pretended to give you a gift, but they gave themselves and their wealthy patrons much bigger gifts — and they’re going to stick you with the bill. You’ve been scammed.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 2, 2018 2:40 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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

Such a scam, sez the rabid Libtards.
Corporate Stock Buybacks (increasing or inflating the value of the stocks, which are part of the Executive Compesation Package, and therefore inflating income of Executives who are voting for the Buybacks), and bonuses for workers. That is just horrible.
Compared to Obamanomics era nonstop Buybacks without a single round of Mass bonuses, which made gains of the wealthy far outdistance income of the workers during Bobo's Regime. That is what Libtards clearly prefer.
If they didn't like Buybacks so much, why did they spend 8 years perpetuating them?

And yes, second did copy over today's posts from the Thread For Democrats Only.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 2, 2018 6:23 PM

THGRRI

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 4, 2018 12:04 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


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.



Calling the US Government an insurance company isn't selling this to me. It's not that I'm arguing with the sentiment... actually, I applaud Krugman for calling a spade a spade. That is EXACTLY what the government has become over time.

This is a HUGE problem.

Insurance costs are rising at a rate that people can't keep up with anymore. The answer is not more taxes on the people. We need a major overhaul of the entire healthcare system, and the insurance industry as-is needs to be completely gutted.



Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 31, 2018 5:45 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Would anybody like to post, in general terms, how Trump's Tax Reform has changed your paycheck?

Like, comparing your take-home pay now contrasted to last December or November?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2018 2:38 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


This post was from 29 December:

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.

That linky seems to have been missing info, or the info changed.

I am looking at an IRS W-4 Form Worksheet for 2018 withholding.

Personal Allowances.
A. Enter 1 for yourself.
B. Enter 1 for Married Filing Jointly.
C. Enter 1 for Head of Household.
D. Enter 1 for several Marital Status including single.
E. Child Tax Credits. If income under $69,801 enter 4 for each child.
If income from $69.801 to $175,550 enter 2 for each child.
If income from $175,550 to $200,000 enter 1 for each child.
F. Credit for other dependents.
If income under 69,801 enter 1 for each dependent.
If income from 69,801 to $175,550 enter 1 for every 2 dependents.


This changes quite a bit. I was under the impression that child credits were phased out.
But this looks like they were either doubled or quadrupled instead, for low income earners.

I should try to recalculate the numbers from that post, using this better info.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 18, 2019 4:41 PM

THG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
The Most Inane TV Shows
Wed, July 17, 2019 20:04 - 4 posts
The 4-Squad Ultra-Racist Anti-American Unpatriotic Bimbos.
Wed, July 17, 2019 20:00 - 2 posts
Mueller Investagation Is Over
Wed, July 17, 2019 19:57 - 884 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Wed, July 17, 2019 19:47 - 2331 posts
Countdown Clock to Trumps impeachment " STARTS"
Wed, July 17, 2019 19:39 - 2786 posts
Dow @ 20K. Time to jump off!
Wed, July 17, 2019 19:35 - 915 posts
House Impeachment Effort Goes Down In Flames
Wed, July 17, 2019 19:30 - 1 posts
JO 753 for Prezident!
Wed, July 17, 2019 17:11 - 446 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Wed, July 17, 2019 16:42 - 2552 posts
Jeffrey Epstein, Billionaire Accused of Molesting, Is Charged with Human Trafficking of Minors
Wed, July 17, 2019 16:18 - 72 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Wed, July 17, 2019 15:20 - 158 posts
my platform as presidential candidate - what's yours?
Wed, July 17, 2019 14:14 - 214 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL