by "notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
Published 12/01/2017 at 13:28
by "notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
Published 12/01/2017 at 13:28
No Tags
STARS: 4
I like you, oppo. You are a civil cross-section of different voters and parties and ideologies, and generally absently of the Alex Jones-ian conspiracy prattling that occupies one side of the spectrum and the quote-tweet outrage!!11!1@ of the other.
The numbers say that - while not the majority - a not-insignificant number of people are actively rooting for the tax bill sitting in congress. I honestly can’t grasp who that would be, since I’m getting royally fucked by the lack of itemizing (especially SALT). A lot of other New Yorkers are too. A lot of my triggered snowflake cuck liberal friends are upset, for a variety of reasons - even if they stand to come out at least marginally ahead
So help me here, as a sincere no-judgment question. Are you rooting for tax reform? Are you glad Mitch has mustered the votes? Why? Are you worried about the deficit? Do you question who is getting the savings? Is this “something is better than nothing?” Help me understand.
[edit: this is intended to be an avenue for people to express an opinion that might be different than yours without fear of being harassed off the thread. please do not do that.]
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
12/01/2017 at 13:37, STARS: 14
It reminds me of a conversation I had regarding North Korean Politics recently.
“The old methods didn’t work, at least trump is trying something new.”
“yeah but taking a dump on the floor and putting a North Korean flag in it is a new method too, doesn’t mean its a good one.”
This is 100% I-need-to-get-something-accomplishedism. And it BARELY worked with the party in full control. Even the Republican party calls this one a lose lose situation. Damned if they don’t (you guys are getting nothing done!) and damned if they do (this isn’t a good plan).
"facw" (facw)
12/01/2017 at 13:37, STARS: 16
We could definitely use tax reform, but not this tax reform. It’s a terrible bill. I could support a more revenue neutral tax simplification, but this bill is quite slanted in who it benefits.
"Snailkite" (deathbob)
12/01/2017 at 13:39, STARS: 9
Tax reform is fine. Lowering the corporate income tax is fine. Doing so as part of massive transfer of wealth to the wealthy is not, and to borrow to do so is appalling.
"Decay buys too many beaters" (decay)
12/01/2017 at 13:40, STARS: 1
No.
Oregon has a 9% income tax.
"Spanfeller is a twat" (theaspiringengineer)
12/01/2017 at 13:40, STARS: 13
Living in one of the countries with the least tax burden of the OCED, yet, one with the most stagnated economies I can assure you that giving rich people more money doesn’t work ass advertised by Reagan.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
12/01/2017 at 13:41, STARS: 0
What is the argument for deducting state and local taxes from the federal taxable income, other than just the tax bill being lower?
"ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)" (adabofoppo)
12/01/2017 at 13:41, STARS: 7
This is a heard of hateful cretins desperate to do something to appease those who fund their campaigns.
Aren’t campaign donations already tax-deductible? So basically these super-wealthy motherfuckers want to get paid twice; once for the initial donation, then again many times over at the expense of literally everything and everyone else.
Eat the Rich.
"vondon302" (vondon302)
12/01/2017 at 13:42, STARS: 3
Facw hit my take spot on.
They got to do something or Bannons gonna nuke the party. Party politics at its worst.
"Spanfeller is a twat" (theaspiringengineer)
12/01/2017 at 13:43, STARS: 1
Simpler? just make the government do your 1040 forms like in the rest of the world.
if anything a country like the US (and mine too!) should have more tax brackets with more complexities so that inequality doesn’t continue its rise so quickly!
Perhaps “Excise investments” would be a good addition.
Where investments in bigger companies (or fossil fuels and such) are taxed heavier than local business.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 13:44, STARS: 1
Totally agree but I won’t go into the whole “if they all know it’s awful then just scrap it till January” thing. Like, February is still 9 months before the election. All the “you can’t get anything done” shit would fade away if they passed meaningful reform 3 months from now instead of some garbage today.
I would take it as you are not rooting for this bill. Would you stand to benefit with its passage?
"Berang" (berang)
12/01/2017 at 13:44, STARS: 2
There are a vocal minority who’re shouting for anything,
anything,
that would be a win for donald, so I have to assume, that outside of the professional lobbyists, that must be most of those who support it.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 13:45, STARS: 3
35% to 20% is an enormous cut. When have people gotten a cut like that? Makes u think.
"His Stigness" (HisStigness)
12/01/2017 at 13:45, STARS: 6
I definitely support tax reform, not tax CUTS for the wealthiest individuals and corporations in the country.
Yes, in the short term many people would “benefit” by getting a few hundred dollars back, or just laying less in taxes. But the majority of the rich will get far more benefit from it, and why should they? Social programs only work when those than can afford to pay for it can. Republicans decry socialism, yet Europe is not this crumbling mess. They have people who are happy, live longer, and full of very rich people.
These tax cuts would severely fuck over anyone that can’t make it rain. Don’t believe me? Look at the Bush tax cuts. And if you think taxes are the death of the economy, how did Clinton leave the economy growing and the debt shrinking when he left office? He did it through smart economic policies that balanced out reasonable taxes for those that can afford it and tax breaks for those who can benefit from it.
"TahoeSTi" (tahoesti)
12/01/2017 at 13:45, STARS: 1
I live in a state with no Income taxes, run my own business, and my mortgage is my biggest deduction....So yeah it works for me.
I really don’t support what our government spends most it’s money on, so I’m happy to give them less. There’s a lot of bloat , and a lot of money spent killing people. Maybe a little less money in our government’s hands isn’t such a bad thing. It’s up to us to fight for the programs we want to keep.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 13:48, STARS: 0
Trade you for NYC where it’s 11% SAL income tax plus property tax
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
12/01/2017 at 13:48, STARS: 2
It’s likely a wash at best for me but I’m the type to take a personal tax hit if I felt it was the right thing to do for the whole.
"Decay buys too many beaters" (decay)
12/01/2017 at 13:51, STARS: 0
No way.
We make up for it by not having a sales tax. Moved away from new york to escape those greedy fuckers :p
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 13:51, STARS: 0
I might be misunderstanding but is the question “why shouldn’t you be taxed on income you never actually got?”
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
12/01/2017 at 13:53, STARS: 1
No; that question is loaded.
I just don’t understand why the effective federal tax rate should be lower just because the state income tax rate is higher. If there is a good reason, I would be interested in knowing it.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 13:53, STARS: 0
So is the assumption to make “the only people who want this package of reform are Breitbart / Infowars consumers?” That can’t be true. Breitbart is big but it’s not a noticeable dent in the general population like the head-count for tax reform supporters is.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
12/01/2017 at 13:55, STARS: 4
“Why pay this tax rate to live in a new country when you can pay a lower tax rate to live in a used country?” -Tavarish
"facw" (facw)
12/01/2017 at 13:58, STARS: 0
By simpler I didn’t mean less progressive. There are absolutely deductions and credits that could be eliminated with offsetting rate cuts. However, the way this plan does that is not remotely balanced.
And yes I would love for the government to just send me a bill instead of having to jump through the hoops of filing.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 13:58, STARS: 0
OK, I can get that... As follow-up, wars and defense are typically funded with debt... Do you think that “starving the beast” will change the decisions in the military-industrial complex?
"fintail" (fintail)
12/01/2017 at 13:59, STARS: 5
Most of my life has been lived with trickle down BS simmering in the background or at the forefront. It has produced little beyond the socio-economic chasm sure to bring peace and harmony in the future. The estate tax that the so-called right is so against is also amusing - I see one of the key dangers to progress being dynastic wealth. Aiding it won’t help.
But that the same time, I have a little snark for the idea of repealing the housing-related deductions, I wonder which FIRE sector lobbyist forgot to pay the bribe (as it is really just aid to the omnivorous housing sector disguised as help for the common worker).
There’s definitely a need for reform, but this isn’t real reform, it is just a present to a few.
"Berang" (berang)
12/01/2017 at 13:59, STARS: 1
Well where are you getting the headcount from?
Another problem, is that a lot of people hear “tax reform”and “tax breaks” and assume this will benefit them and be good, and don’t bother to look into it any deeper. Everybody knows taxes are messed up, and everybody would like a break, so what’s there to worry about, right? Bonus, that if the libs are mad, it MUST be good.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 14:00, STARS: 1
Oh we have 9% sales tax too.
I’ve been ready to leave for a while, but lately the state has been actively pursuing policies that solely impact the city for the worse and I’m getting pretty fucking tired of that given how much I pay them.
"facw" (facw)
12/01/2017 at 14:00, STARS: 0
It is a huge cut. And while the rate for businesses is high internationally, because of deductions and the like, our effective business tax rate is quite competitive. Now they are keeping those loopholes, and getting a drastically lower base rate.
"Spanfeller is a twat" (theaspiringengineer)
12/01/2017 at 14:01, STARS: 0
Oh, yeah.... then do that...
I think the American economy has much to win if they removed such odd hoops like HR block fees.
"Rust and Dust - Oppositelock Forever" (rustanddust)
12/01/2017 at 14:01, STARS: 5
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
-Rep. Chris Collins [R] - NY
I want no part of this bill. I’d prefer a bill with regular order, where reps from both sides of the aisle negotiate, and compose a bill for the greater good of everyone (you know, the whole basis for Parliamentary bodies). This “Robin Hood’s antithesis” bill, also referred to as “DonorCare”, will hurt every American. Even those that see benefits now, will feel pain once the deficit catches up a few years down the road.
"TahoeSTi" (tahoesti)
12/01/2017 at 14:06, STARS: 0
We should limit the government debt too. Starving the beast seems like the only option at this point. We must reduce its weight and make it manageable.
This tax bill also is really good for companies who might want to repatriate their foreign profits to USA , most large US companies have large sums of cash in other countries, because of our current tax laws they are forced to reinvest that money in the counties it’s they made it in instead of bringing it back to US and building here.
The state income tax deduction is also a good thing, now states with income tax will have really compete with states that don’t have it. The deduction minimized that competition. If the loss of that deduction hurts then I suggest going to your state. Smaller more local governments are always easier to control and understand, I believe this is a move towards smaller local governments.
"PatBateman" (PatBateman)
12/01/2017 at 14:09, STARS: 1
I’m for the corporate tax changes, as it would help spur proper economic growthin the US (3+% annualized growth is proper). Political discourse aside, more money for businesses means more money spent on expansion, job growth, and investment growth.
Not a fan of the personal tax reform part, though.
"Rico" (ricorich)
12/01/2017 at 14:11, STARS: 1
How much longer does that fuck head Cuomo have in office? I hope his father slaps the shit out of him when he (eventually) gets to the other side.
"Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now)" (bman76-4)
12/01/2017 at 14:13, STARS: 4
Cutting taxes is silly and only hurts the majority of the population. I live in Kansas, we went all in on trickle down economics under Brownback and ended up with some of the worst economics and job market in the country.
It got to the point where the republican majority literally defected from the republican Governor and overrode his veto so our schools could be funded.
"adamftw" (adamftw)
12/01/2017 at 14:15, STARS: 0
My property taxes are just over the top of the Senate(?)‘s $10k cap. My mortgage is under the $500k cap. The amount I owe will be going up regardless.
The bill is all over the place. The Don is gonna be set when he owes like 8 mil less in taxes when it’s all said and done, though. My only hope is that (if it passes) our gov’t in NY collapses, all the politicians die, and we reset with lower taxes BUT my wife and I keep our pensions... That scenario is completely unlikely. We’re young and our pension are the one of two things keeping us on Long Island, so we’ll see what happens.
"SPAMBot - Horse Doctor" (spambot2002)
12/01/2017 at 14:22, STARS: 3
TLDR: I’m not thrilled about the ~$1.5 TN cost of this plan all the while striping social and public services.
I grew up in less than ideal circumstances and saw first hand how public programs benefit people so I tend lean left. Taking away the option to deduct things like student loan interest favor of a larger standard deduction bothers me as well. I make too much to deduct this anyways but it makes it harder to pull yourself out of the poverty class and into the upper middle. This is just one example of many obstacles citizens living in poverty face when attempting to move up a social class. Perpetual poverty is an all too real thing. IMO, this is something we need to fix. The solution will not trickle down. On the other had, I will also support a tax plan that pulls us out of the red even if we lose a few social safety nets. If we ever have a surplus again, this could go to fund these previously striped programs or new, more effective programs. But, don’t go more into debt to benefit individuals who do not need the help.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 14:23, STARS: 0
I’m not saying who should be first in line, just that taxing a tax payment is pretty fucking crummy. If you think in the interest of fairness the federal tax should come first and act as a state/local deduction I could get behind that. But that advocates for a larger and more centralized federal government, which I think most people are opposed to. But honestly, I’d have no issue with that.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
12/01/2017 at 14:24, STARS: 0
It’s taxing income, not a tax payment. You owe the state what you owe the state, and you owe the feds what you owe the feds. It just seems odd to me that where you live so greatly affects your federal tax liability.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 14:27, STARS: 0
Why should it be up to the federal government to tell states how much to spend? Isn’t that anti-federalist? Seems contradictory to the ordinary republican position. Try to leave aside your personal beliefs (as background I’m generally a proponent of enhanced local government since citizens have the loudest voices when heard in the smallest rooms) - I’m asking if you think that should really be washington’s call to make
"Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection" (itsalwayssteve)
12/01/2017 at 14:34, STARS: 4
I’m a college student in my late 30s. I’ve got student loan debt. I’m looking at graduate school in the near future. I’ve never made more than $40k annually. Pretty much every fiscal policy that the current administration supports terrifies me. I came from a severely economically depressed area and I’m doing what I can to claw myself out of the lower-middle-class.
I also support progressive taxation with proper deductions for expenses. It’s not “punishing success,” because the people at the top don’t spend any extra money they get. They hoard it.
I never expected to get rich teaching children. But with this tax bill, I may not be able to find a job at all, despite the fact that male teachers are in demand for elementary and middle school - especially in math and science.
Literally every time that tax cuts for the top went through, a recession quickly followed. Then there was a tax hike for the middle and working class.
It’s a vicious cycle to keep the masses financially oppressed.
Like Frank Turner wrote in his song:
You’ve got a generation raised on the welfare state,
Enjoyed all its benefits and did just great,
But as soon as they were settled as the richest of the rich,
They kicked away the ladder, told the rest of us that life’s a bitch.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
And that’s what the Boomers are doing to GenX and the millenials.
"ZHP Sparky, the 5th" (e30s2k)
12/01/2017 at 14:38, STARS: 2
Definitely not cool with this tax plan. Like you, we will get absolutely hammered by the SALT changes. But that’s not the (entire) reason I’m not cool with this plan. I’d be OK paying more taxes if it actually meant that the government has a fiscally responsible plan to help communities in positive ways. However this is the absolute opposite – I’m paying more taxes AND the party that claims to be fiscally responsible is completely fine adding trillions to the deficit. And what do we get out of it? Tax cuts for corporations, and rich folks getting to skip inheritance taxes tied up in a beautiful story of trickle down bullshit. And they’re already talking about cutting medicare in the future to make up for these revenue shortfalls.
All those Trump supporters who believed him when he promised
he would never cut medicare and Medicaid (ha, and that we would all have
beautiful better healthcare too!) – conveniently forgetting all that, are we? Also
the constant conflicts in stories about how great the economy and the stock
market is doing, yet at the same time – appararently these companies really
need lower taxes to be able to hire more workers, it just doesn’t add up at all.
Huge corporations (I work for one) are very excited about tax cuts – but not
that they intend on spending any of it towards higher pay for employees or
increased spending…they’re just more excited about “creating more value for
shareholders”.
This plan is just the worst of all worlds. We’re probably be OK in the grand scheme of things but just not happy about where our tax dollars are going and what is being done with them one bit in this case.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 14:39, STARS: 1
Ideologically I think phasing out the MID is probably more fair than eliminating all the other deductions - especially SALT. If you want to encourage home ownership I think we’d be better environmental stewards to encourage people to buy existing housing rather than build new. I have ideological problems with the glut of new housing (I know that’s responding to consumer preference but 7-liter V8's did that too and now we have I4's that are cheaper with better mileage less raw material and more HP at least in part because of regulation) - but that preference/belief system not a political issue, at least not a partisan one.
Anyways, that’s the one that benefits me the most, and makes the least sense compared to SALT, deductions for teaching/work expenses, not being taxed on academic benefits, and so on, and so on. If companies can exclude their costs to conduct their business to get a net income, people should be able to do the same thing with the investments they needed to make in themselves to get, you know, their net income (like INCOME tax not REVENUE tax)
"Sweet Trav" (thespunbearing)
12/01/2017 at 14:40, STARS: 4
What kills me is that the GOP this is supposed to be “the party of financial responsibility” but this does nothing but increase the deficit. There is nothing financially responsible out this tax
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 14:42, STARS: 2
It’s hard to say if business will repatriate. And even if they did, what they would do at that point. The issue with this cut is there’s nothing to invest in. Companies aren’t just handing out raises and the labor market is pretty heavily skewed toward employees in NYC. There’s a general lack of qualified people already, pumping more money to the companies doesn’t change that there’s insufficient supply of people to take these made-up jobs.
That said, when the economy is down the timing would conceivably make more sense.
"Future next gen S2000 owner" (future-next-gen-s2000-owner)
12/01/2017 at 14:43, STARS: 1
I’m quite simple. If the tax bill and subsequent budgets reduce the deficit, not the rate of deficit growth, then I will accept it. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case. I think it will likely grow the deficit. So I hope it dies.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 14:47, STARS: 0
Then put the feds in line ahead of the state. That would solve this. Everyone has the same federal liability on the same income, then your state liability varies on the effective rate at the state level.
You’re talking about taxing revenue, not income. You can’t do anything with a tax payment you have an obligation to make. It’s not discretionary. I don’t how you can include a non-discretionary tax payment as “income.” That’s my beef.
"Shane MacGowan's Teeth" (shaneteeth)
12/01/2017 at 14:48, STARS: 0
FWIW Frank Turner is kind of a dick in person.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
12/01/2017 at 14:49, STARS: 0
Because you make the money, then pay it to the government. It’s not a sales tax. Even if you have your taxes withheld, it is still your money first.
"Party-vi" (party-vi)
12/01/2017 at 14:49, STARS: 3
Why the fuck is the Republican Party proposing a tax plan that is going to cost $1,500,000,000,000 and add $1,000,000,000,000 to the deficit ? Fiscal responsibility my dick.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 14:49, STARS: 0
no argument here
"fintail" (fintail)
12/01/2017 at 14:50, STARS: 0
I am not against phasing it out too - I see it as more of a renter penalty (and subsidy to FIRE) than owner benefit. I am not sure if home ownership is a legit means to economic progress, seeing as nations that kick Murkan butt in similar measures aren’t as addicted to it. The US is, as far as I know, the only place with such deductions. It is nonsense. And yeah, there could be a lot done with housing standards in general, get away from the big and embarrassingly cheaply built mantra that has taken over for a long time - but as you say, the market demands it.
I am also leery of business cuts encouraging “repatriation” - if the tax avoidance heavens where these places dodge responsibility charge 2%, why would they come back to pay more, rather than just keep up the status quo?
I predict this “reform” will primarily widen the chasm even more, and produce more debt.
"ZHP Sparky, the 5th" (e30s2k)
12/01/2017 at 14:51, STARS: 1
Fair enough – but also entirely flies in the face of long-time conservative support for “states’ rights” and hatred for “double taxation” of corporate income.
If conservatives seriously believe that states are best at
making decisions for themselves and running their communities as they see fit,
then by definition that means that states also need to take control of how they
fund such activity. So now coming along and punishing states that have been more proactive in doing
so goes completely against their supposed belief system.
Additionally (being an econ/finance guy, you hear this A
LOT) conservatives have a long-standing hatred for corporations having to pay
any income taxes – because salaries are taxed, purchases are taxed, capital
gains are taxed when paid back to investors – basically “all” their activity is
taxed, so why should the corporation’s income itself be taxed as well? It’s a
flimsy argument which in that case should apply to individuals as well? But if
you believe that taxing the same income more than once is unfair – that is
exactly what this plan is doing.
Just like so called cries for balanced budgets and fiscal conservatism that only matters when the other party is doing something that increases deficits – all this just sounds like a lot of hypocrisy that they know they can get away with because it mostly only hurts blue states. Very curious to see the backlash come tax season from all the middle class republicans in CA, NY etc. (because the rich are seeing enough benefits in other areas that the SALT piece is just peanuts for them and doesn’t matter).
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 14:53, STARS: 1
Yeah, bailing on the student loan interest deduction is really upsetting. Especially to give that money to non-human business entities. Sucks man. You’re totally right about the obstacles people from your background have to face. Kudos to your efforts on making it out. I’ve seen firsthand how absurdly hard that is.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 14:54, STARS: 2
please sign my petition to secede from upstate. we’ll let westchester come too but THATS IT.
also please tell your local representatives to make a second road in long island the LIE fucknig sucks
"ZHP Sparky, the 5th" (e30s2k)
12/01/2017 at 14:54, STARS: 0
Wait, I thought conservatives were all about small federal government and giving states the power to run their communities as they see fit? But now, the state government should be smaller too? I just see a whole lot of hypocrisy borne out of simply knowing that this won’t hurt too many “red” states but mainly focuses the impact on “blue” states. If states are best at running their own affairs, then they by definition need to be able to fund those operations – through taxation. Now coming back and saying well, your state shouldn’t tax you as much just flies in the face of one of republicans’ largest talking points.
"Tekamul" (tekamulburner)
12/01/2017 at 14:56, STARS: 0
So you’re good with an extra trillion in federal debt, plus a jump in local debt as people are forced off health insurance and hospitals go back to having to foot the bill for all these emergency visits that are unfunded?
And the $25B cut in Medicare?
And $13B from the Dept of Agro CCCF?
So fuck young people, old people, and farmers, you got yours, right?
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 14:57, STARS: 0
Oh man I haven’t heard all the details about all the stuff that went on in Kansas but I read enough to know it was BAD. REALLY bad. That’s insane!! Has this whole rollercoaster changes the way you and your neighbors think about this kind of stuff? Would it change how you vote/voted? Certainly sounds that way but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 14:58, STARS: 0
Barring him quitting mid-late 2018 to run for 2020 I’ll be gone before I see the day. I’m not dealing with another 4+ years of this fucking shit.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 15:01, STARS: 0
Don’t remember exactly the source but I think it was like ABC reporting a Quinnipiac poll. The TRIGGERED MUCH LIB LOL shit pisses me off to no end but it’s just as irritating that the left lives in a fantasy world where they don’t do it too.
"Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection" (itsalwayssteve)
12/01/2017 at 15:06, STARS: 0
I met him in 2010. He was working his own merch booth. Seemed to be reasonably decent.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 15:07, STARS: 0
Sincere question. Neutral economists say that we are close to being as employed as we’re gonna get... some unemployment and vacant jobs are not signs of an unhealthy economy. So, since corporations have an obligation to maximize their profits for their shareholders, what is available for them to invest in that would do that? If there’s no workers, to me, the fastest way for these companies to make a bigger profit is basically do nothing. Mind you, if the economy was struggling I wouldn’t be likely to give this answer.
Having a strong growth target is good but what makes you feel secure in saying a lower tax would move us closer to that?
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 15:09, STARS: 0
[wiping away single tear]
a real republican, at long last
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 15:11, STARS: 0
saying “you took possession of a non-discretionary payment meant you were free to spend it however you want” is some pretty specious reasoning imo
"TahoeSTi" (tahoesti)
12/01/2017 at 15:11, STARS: 0
All i was saying that if the state tax deduction is a problem you should address it at the state level. Maybe states should lower taxes too.
"Future next gen S2000 owner" (future-next-gen-s2000-owner)
12/01/2017 at 15:15, STARS: 3
We get a bad rap, for a variety of reasons, but I think if you actually believe in the principles of the GOP, you will find there are few real republicans in the GOP.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 15:18, STARS: 0
I think the assumption was the MID was a way to encourage people to buy homes, which was a way to ensure distributed wealth compared to building housing that would only support renting. You compare the chasm in the standard of living for rich/poor in the late 1800's/early 1900's to the same gap today and I think it worked. Arguably, it’s run it’s course, and its useful life is over.
I don’t think repatriation will happen unless they’re planning buybacks because I don’t think there’s all that much for them to invest in with an almost-fully occupied job market. That might be a net benefit in the long-term to cushion the blow from the stock bubble, but doesn’t seem likely to change anything too soon.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 15:21, STARS: 1
ding ding ding
i grew up republican and some of that still dwells inside me, but i’m largely an “eat the rich” type at this point. if it’s possible to be both a republican and a socialist that’s probably close.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 15:22, STARS: 1
i don’t know, but i’m 100% sure none of them do either
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
12/01/2017 at 15:26, STARS: 1
Low unemployment doesn’t mean there’s no available workers, or that all the people who are employed are ideally employed. The biggest sectors of employment growth have been in low-wage retail and food service industries. There’s plenty of people working in these jobs who are theoretically qualified for other more highly-skilled jobs. There are also plenty of people who don’t count towards the unemployment rate because they’re on some kind of disability payment and/or have completely stopped looking for work, who could still end up back in the workforce, even if they’re just backfilling the shitty retail & food service jobs vacated by people moving up to better jobs.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
12/01/2017 at 15:32, STARS: 3
The problem is the people writing this tax bill are all too happy to gut government spending on programs that help disadvantaged people in our country, while at the same time increasing government spending on shit that blows up people in other countries.
"TahoeSTi" (tahoesti)
12/01/2017 at 15:41, STARS: 0
How about we address those expense by fixing health care costs. and by stopping all subsidies for farming. Health care costs can be fixed with tort reform and maybe some regulation. Why did my friends knee replacement cost over $250,000 to their insurance? The problem is the cost, the government paying for it masks the problem.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 15:43, STARS: 0
That’s true. I do know around here there is disproportionate difficulty with finding people qualified for moderately or highly skilled work though. That’s the other half in this assumption but I missed that.
"Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now)" (bman76-4)
12/01/2017 at 15:46, STARS: 1
I mean, I vote democrat but it’s been funny watching republican candidates run anti-Brownback ads here during the last election. The problem is that there’s still cognitive dissonance here with people wanting their schools funded but complaining about having a tax increase. The biggest issue overall was we weren’t taxing LLCs at all, so everyone and their cousins created an LLC to skirt income taxes. Bill Self (KU basketball coach) had one, was getting paid through it, and was paying virtually no taxes on his $200k+ university salary.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 15:51, STARS: 1
bill self makes A LOT more than 200k
more like bill selfish. sell billfish. fill belshsh.
"Quadradeuce" (quadradeuce)
12/01/2017 at 15:52, STARS: 0
So what is the effective tax rate for corporations?
"adamftw" (adamftw)
12/01/2017 at 16:00, STARS: 0
I moved way out east so I’m barely in traffic on the LIE anymore. I like to stay east of 62 and I’m ok with life that way.
"Kat Callahan" (kyosuke)
12/01/2017 at 16:03, STARS: 4
I’m a socialist. I believe in more taxes, not fewer taxes. What tax reform means to me is closing loopholes and treating passive sources of income the same as or even as more taxable than active sources of income. I want my capital gains, and yes I have them, taxed the same or more than my salary. And I want that applied to people who make a lot more than me and live off of capital gains and dividends.
I believe that the government sucks at doing all sorts of things, but those are often the very things the private sector refuses to do or refuses to do well because it isn’t profitable. You often hear fiscal conservatives claim that the private sector can do it better. It can but it won’t. Which is why I believe education, healthcare, infrastructure, utilities, safety, and defense should be a matter for government even if the government has notable inefficiencies.
I also believe velocity of money is more important than supply of money in stimulating economic growth and seeing wage increases. Trickle down economics is a lie. When you give money to the top, it doesn’t get spent. It gets hoarded. It doesn’t matter how much money supply there is in an economy if it isn’t moving. Give it to the bottom, and that money goes right out the door, immediately improving the velocity of money and creating demand across the economy. Even giving money to the government to spend is better than giving that money to corporations or wealthy individuals to just sit on, because at least we know the government spends, which increases the velocity of money to some degree. The problem is that the government is so mired in corporate agreements that even when the government pays these corporations, a lot of the money could still be hoarded. Which again goes back to spending the money within the public sector itself: hire more school teaachers, more firefighters, build more highways with Department of Transportation personnel, raise the salaries of those in the military, pay more to the doctors, nurses, and staff of the VA, etc. They’ll spend that money, thus increasing the velocity of money.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
12/01/2017 at 16:07, STARS: 0
Another data point: I’ve been getting incessant Pandora ads for Walmart looking to hire distribution center freight handlers starting at $18/hr. The distribution center is 90 miles from me. Pandora knows this. Walmart set at least that wide of a radius for people to hear the ad.
$18/hr isn’t great but loads of people would kill to make that much money.
"facw" (facw)
12/01/2017 at 16:10, STARS: 0
For large corporations, it’s closer to 15% (obviously varies quite a bit depending on circumstances).
You can look at this for example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/04/24/trumps-corporate-tax-slash-ignores-how-litte-companies-already-pay/#58f9c3fe58aa
"Kat Callahan" (kyosuke)
12/01/2017 at 16:10, STARS: 2
But Pat, they don’t. I wish they did, but they don’t. Time and time again we see these tax cuts for the corporations and they absolutely don’t do any of those things. SMBs do, because they are middle class, and that is who this is going to hurt. When you have giant corporations sitting on record profits, and I mean that, just sitting on them, they don’t need a tax cut.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
12/01/2017 at 16:13, STARS: 2
There’s nothing that says a giant corporate tax rate reduction will spur economic growth. Corporations, by design, take money given to them and keep as much of it as possible.
"fintail" (fintail)
12/01/2017 at 16:23, STARS: 1
I think it worked for awhile, but definitely ran the source. That chasm is widening again, from what I recall, to pre-depression levels (in terms of wealth anyway). I see less gap and more socio-economic mobility in places which lack it, and also don’t put home ownership on a pillar to be worshipped. It seems to tie back to dynastic wealth in my eyes, and that rarely ends well.
I suspect repatriation is known to be a con, but is being used to appease the “no regulation” types who think effective tax rates = statutory tax rates. There’s only so much investment to be had, and not much incentive when they can still dodge taxes in the havens.
"SPAMBot - Horse Doctor" (spambot2002)
12/01/2017 at 16:26, STARS: 1
Hopefully, this will at least open some dialog for tax reform. We do need it but like many others have said, we need a bipartisan agreement. I can’t believe we, as a country, cannot remember how to compromise.
"PatBateman" (PatBateman)
12/01/2017 at 16:39, STARS: 0
Much of what Atlas said is what I’d say. Underemployment has always been a problem, as are people who have stopped looking for work (those people are not included in the normal unemployment numbers).
More money for companies means nothing if it sits in a bank account, so they’ll use it for R&D, expansion, building expenses, etc. The more that money churns, the more the economy can grow. This means more jobs, less underemployment, and usually better pay.
We’ll see if it works, but the numbers that I’ve seen point in a positive direction.
"Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now)" (bman76-4)
12/01/2017 at 16:44, STARS: 0
College coaches get paid both by the University and by boosters. But yeah, he makes $3 million a year.
"PatBateman" (PatBateman)
12/01/2017 at 16:53, STARS: 0
Extra money needs to be spent, especially when the company already has a healthy treasury management balance. Small and medium-sized businesses will be helped by this as well, as they’ll have more money to use.
What we HAVE seen a lot of, however, are companies keeping foreign earnings in other countries. A possible repatriation of those earnings along with an incentive to keep them based in the US could also spur more money economic activity.
Reducing the incentives for tax havens could be a huge positive.
"TahoeSTi" (tahoesti)
12/01/2017 at 16:58, STARS: 0
Those spending programs are the problem when the government covers some or all the costs it masks the real issue. The real issue is prices are out of line for major things like health care and college. Government money has only made it worst, it’s increased Demand and done nothing for supply. Spending more to increase demand will only drive up costs more. we must fix the root issues not mask them with taxpayers money.
"Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now)" (bman76-4)
12/01/2017 at 17:00, STARS: 1
I found the article I remembered, he’s paid $230k for being a coach, and $2.75 million for “professional services”
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
12/01/2017 at 17:01, STARS: 2
Are you seriously trying to say that government programs that help poor people somehow drive up the cost of healthcare and college?
"PatBateman" (PatBateman)
12/01/2017 at 17:02, STARS: 0
Corporations take extra funds and use them to increase their future profits. If I give you $100,000 per year extra, would you just stash it in a savings account, or would you spend some of it? Invest it? Would you try to turn that money into an opportunity to make more than $100k extra per year?
Companies grow because that’s what they are designed to do. Hoarding profits are frowned upon amongst investors, especially when they can do something with it. Apple is a great example of this, as they have had huge cash reserves, but haven’t been doing much with it. This has pissed off more than a few people.
"His Stigness" (HisStigness)
12/01/2017 at 17:06, STARS: 3
They’ve never been the party of fiscal responsibility, they’re just far better salesman than the Democratic Party can ever hope to be, that’s why millions of people gobble up their bullshit and why they elected a cheeto.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
12/01/2017 at 17:07, STARS: 1
What an individual consumer does with an unexpected windfall of money is not the same as what a corporation does with it.
Corporations, when presented with unexpected windfalls of money, do not immediately go spend that money.
Sure, companies with more money in reserves will spend some of it, but there is far from a 1:1 relationship between money being gifted to corporations by the government and that money reaching the rest of the economy.
Companies are all about increasing profits for themselves and (if they are publicly held) driving up the value of their stock for their shareholders. Yes it takes spending more money to make more money, but every for-profit company tries to make as much new money as possible while spending as much money they already have as possible.
People who are able to buy and hold Apple (or any other company’s) stock for a long enough period of time to see a return on their investment do not represent the majority of people out there in the economy.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 17:10, STARS: 0
my girlfriend’s family is off 68 but we are in queens. i will no longer drive back to queens on sundays, because the lie is garbage. i told her it would be faster to drive to orient and take the ferry to CT then drive back from there instead of sit in traffic from 68 to queens.
"TahoeSTi" (tahoesti)
12/01/2017 at 17:19, STARS: 0
Yes, College costs went up when the government started giving out student loans and increased the demand for college. Have you ever taken an economics course? Medicare is the same way. It’s not driving up the cost to those people because the government is covering the extra thus masking the problem of high prices.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 17:23, STARS: 0
I get what you’re saying but you act like these corporations aren’t flush with cash right now. Apple is sitting on a war chest of a quarter TRILLION dollars. Amazon has some $25bn. Walmart has $10bn. This is several times more than each of these companies pays in federal taxes each year. Why would charging them less incentivize them to spend the savings when their entire MO is stockpiling cash? (And yes, I realize considerable portions of that are overseas, but even if 60% of Amazon’s cash is abroad that’s still $10-15bn they have here they’re not doing anything with).
This is totally different than smaller businesses who do not have cash on hand, could use the break, and would be more likely to invest it. But the corporations have made it clear they have all this money and no use for it. I’m not sure there’s a churn here knowing that coming into this exercise.
"Kat Callahan" (kyosuke)
12/01/2017 at 17:43, STARS: 1
I’ll believe it when I have seen it. I haven’t seen at any time in the last 40 years or so. We keep saying what the models say they will do, but they don’t. Every time we have tried this before it has been a failure. Why do we think it’s going to be any more likely this time around?
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
12/01/2017 at 17:46, STARS: 0
So, first, let me clear up the miscommunication here. I said:
The problem is the people writing this tax bill are all too happy to gut government spending on programs that help disadvantaged people in our country, while at the same time increasing government spending on shit that blows up people in other countries.
As in, trying to pass stuff like the piece of shit healthcare bill earlier this year, and the general desire to reduce entitlement spending, while increasing military spending.
College costs has nothing to do with it, but since you bring up that example, while some specific student loan programs can contribute to higher tuition, that’s far from the only contributing factor that creates higher tuition, and to boil it down to that is a gross oversimplification. Another huge factor in increased tuition is that state and local governments keep cutting funding to public universities and those schools have to make up the shortfall somewhere.
Similarly, healthcare costs are driven up by so many other factors than the existence of programs like Medicaid. It is far too complex of a system to say that because more people are on Medicaid that’s the only cause of high healthcare costs. There is pressure on providers from increased costs of supplies, medications, etc. plus lower reimbursements from insurers, and insurers are trying to make as much money as possible by dictating to providers what they will and won’t cover, all of which goes on behind the scenes from the average consumer and has absolutely nothing to do with Medicaid.
But ok, go ahead and be proud of yourself for having taken an Econ class.
"notsomethingstructural" (notsomethingstructural)
12/01/2017 at 18:25, STARS: 0
I said to someone else, I would probably most closely align as a left-of-center federalist-socialist. So here’s my detailed vision for what government should be, since this kind of went down that road.
I think that which governs best governs locally - people have the loudest voices when heard in the smallest rooms, which gives them the best avenue to improve their surroundings and form a community with like-minded and like-situated individuals. The role of federal government should be to set the minimum standards for those communities more than administer what makes them tick. ACA was handled fairly well in that regard - the federal government set what constitutes a valid health plan and the states were responsible for administering the ways that people could receive coverage. I’m in a blue state by choice (I realize not everyone necessarily has that luxury) which has better and more coverage options available and pay the tax for that accordingly. The system worked.
I say I’m a socialist because I’m generally of the mind that we will only close the inequality gap through regulation. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with 40% of Americans paying federal tax (or whatever that number is) because they should be paying state and local tax anyways and affecting governance through those avenues. I agree and think capital gains should be taxed as income above like... $60k/yr? except for the sale of a principal residence. I do not think that low thresholds on capital gains should be taxed severely, since I think we should be encouraging the middle class family to sensibly invest in more than just a pre-tax 401k. Your mileage may vary, but to me this reduces the liability to the taxpayer post-retirement.
The two seemingly conflicted ideologies would get reconciled through vouchers and block grants to states to make this stuff work. It’s definitely a redistribution from wealthier blue states to poorer red states but also from the top to the bottom. So, mississippi might get a block grant to cover 60% of health care costs for the bottom 15% of people and new york might get a block grant to cover 35% of health care costs for the bottom 8% of people... with taxpayers in the state covering the balance... but ultimately the federal-to-state grants are only funded by the 40% of people who would pay federal taxes. Something like that. I think the problem with the democrat vision of a large government is it removes the agency for states to tailor to their constituents and economic circumstances, and i think the problem with the conventional republican vision of a small government is it removes the floor for those at the bottom. Ergo, federal government sets standards, states implement them.
I think this system works for the infrastructure and other areas you mentioned as well. I agree that privatization is not the way to handle this stuff, because we should be focused on how to make government as efficient as the private sector, not accepting they can do it cheaper until they decide they want to turn a profit. When it comes to this stuff, the ROI that private companies are looking for is higher than the cost to issue bonds to pay for the same work. If private capital wants a 12% ROI instead of issuing 3.25% bonds then the public picked up the 8.75% overhead cost with no assurance it will stay that low indefinitely. It’s a money pit, even if private sector would save 15-20% on the cost of a project. So the feds issue the bond and distribute it to the states - possibly with some strings attached. Not unlike roads, at present.
Anyways, my issues with the current tax plan are it is 1) it is philosophically opposite my vision; removing the SALT deduction strips agency from states to set policies by duly elected officials who more accurately represent their constituents by virtue of a smaller bloc of voters (since paying for those policies is now taxed federally before it gets to the state), 2) it converts personal income tax to personal revenue tax by removing the ability to make deductions that (aside from the MID) are either non-discretionary or related to expenses required to make that income in the first place, giving a huge accounting advantage to corporations and businesses, and 3) it’s a fucking gift to corporations on top of that.
(Ironically, eliminating the SALT deduction is a form of blue-to-red socialism, I just hate the way it’s implemented for the aforementioned reasons). (Also ironically, I have benefited tremendously from the MID, but I’m opposed to more new housing. There’s still a value to the MID for first-time buyers... So maybe remove the MID from housing under 10 years old??? Dunno. Encourage people to buy houses, but, like, old houses.)
I agree on the velocity of money and there were people who said this would best be spent as a $1.5tn infrastructure investment and it’s hard to argue with that. It would definitely improve the velocity over what we have now but would still benefit the corporations who could compete for that work. Seems like a win-win. No idea how we would ever pay for that after this. We don’t have another $1.5tn to spend.
Whew! That was a mouthful.
"PatBateman" (PatBateman)
12/01/2017 at 18:51, STARS: 0
I never said it was a 1:1 money in/money out scenario. But more $ = more opportunity to spend $.
"TahoeSTi" (tahoesti)
12/01/2017 at 19:02, STARS: 0
When the government adds money to the system costs go up. Not cost to any one group but overall costs. Consumer Cost + Government Costs + Losses from industry.
"PatBateman" (PatBateman)
12/01/2017 at 19:05, STARS: 0
We haven’t lowered the statutory Corporate Tax Rate since the 1980’s. Tax revenue has fallen because companies choose to keep their revenue in countries that have lower tax rates, so the effective rate has been reduced. A perfect example of this was Gawker Media Group, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, and Kinja, incorporated in Eastern Europe. Eliminate the need for overseas tax havens, and there could be more revenue collected.
That part about GMG was simply mentioned because we’re conversing on what used to be their platform, not because you worked for them. I promise, no malice.