All I see are negatives .
Reply With Quote
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
All I see are negatives .
... and you expected... ?
Don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows
Link?Originally Posted by oyarde
https://waysandmeansforms.house.gov/.../bill_text.pdf
The lazy injun in the OP directly referenced the AP Summary of that. You are suggesting I actually read the bill?
I cannot remember but think I read it on the front page of Yahoo News this morning . I had to go into town and pay my Nov property taxes . I am old and cannot remember if they are due the 5th or 10th and the 5th is a Sunday and I do not want to get stuck with the 10 percent late fee. Some of the highlights were added 1.5 trillion to debt over ten years , reduced limits of property tax deductions , increase child credit , eliminate state income tax deduction ......... Looked pretty much like a standard Dem tax plan . Associated Press writer Alan Fram , I think.
Last edited by oyarde; 11-02-2017 at 11:16 AM.
I think it would be better to shelve it and wait and see Rands Senate bill .
I was not expecting anything particularly good and this was worse than expected .... and you expected... ?
If passed, it would add an estimated $1.5 trillion to the debt in ten years (they wanted more). Now the hard part- trying to get it passed through Congress. Everybody will probably find something they don't like about it. Cuts too big. Not big enough.
Individual tax brackets reduced from seven to four. If you earn under $90,000 a year, you are still in the 25% (lowest) bracket. If you earn up to $200k, you would also be now in the lowest bracket. ($215k puts you in the top 5% of incomes as of 2015). This means that 94% will be in the lowest tax bracket.
Property tax deductions retained -if your house is worth under $500k, down from $1 million. Limited to $10,000 a year. State and local tax deduction removed.
Top corporate tax rate reduce from 35% to 20%. One analysis said that to make that revenue neutral (not add to the deficit), it would have to cut out every single tax deduction businesses currently use. It doesn't.
Alternative Minimum Tax eliminated.
401k deductions kept.
It doubles the Standard Deduction but eliminates the Personal Exemption. Single filers may save some money, but families will probably end up paying more.
Estate tax limits doubled and will be eliminated by 2024 (currently estates under $6 million are not taxed).
Charitable contributions deduction eliminated. No medical deductions.
It is being sold as a tax cut for middle class families, but they won't see much if anything from this bill.
Will reducing corporate taxes lead to higher wages? Don't count on it. What happened after the Reagan Tax Cuts in the 1980's when the top marginal corporate rate was cut from 45% to 35%?
(information from various news services so no single link)
http://portside.org/2017-10-30/cutti...american-wages
Prior to 1990, worker wages rose by more than 1 percent for every 1 percent increase in corporate profits. From 1990–2016, the pass-through to workers was only 0.6 percent, and looking most recently, from 2008–2016, only 0.3 percent. The profits of U.S. multinationals are still American profits, but, increasingly, the benefit of those profits do not accrue to U.S. workers.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-02-2017 at 08:10 PM.
Funny, we are upper middle class and would definitely see an improvement with this.It is being sold as a tax cut for middle class families, but they won't see much if anything from this bill.
It wasn't eliminated. In addition, the annual deductibility cap on cash contributions to public charities is raised from 50% of adjusted gross income to 60%.
For those who suffer from insomnia, here's the full text of the bill: http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politi...ans/index.html
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
Biggest tax cut in history? (as percent of GDP) That title still belongs to Reagan. But when Reagan noticed the deficit soaring because of it, he also signed more tax increases.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama...175123554.html
Obama signed a bigger tax cut in 2013. What? Wait- Obama tax cut? OK- what really happened there was that the Bush tax cuts were due to expire and he signed a bill which made them permanent so really he just stopped what would have been a huge tax increase.
The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 essentially backed Obama into a corner, because they were temporary, with many due to expire at the end of 2012. Temporary tax cuts are a gimmick that lowers the nominal amount of revenue lost, since in theory, they expire at some point in the future and lost revenue is restored. But by letting such tax cuts expire, a future president would be foisting a giant tax increase on voters who have adjusted their budgets to comport with current reality, not a theoretical future. Everybody in Washington knows there’s really no such thing as a temporary tax cut, because no future president will let them lapse, at least not on the middle class. The only thing that’s temporary is the fake budget math that understates how much tax cuts add to the national debt.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-02-2017 at 02:31 PM.
I would not that I can see .
I make it a general rule to never get behind a tax plan that would increase the debt and not cut my taxes .
I always figured that child credit thing to be responsible for people getting refunds of amounts larger than what they pd . Hell , give it all back to them if you like but not more than was paid ......
All smoke & mirrors.
Don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows
yeah not a lot, but maybe enough to pay for a little domestic family vacation.
I expect Rands plan to be better .
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/35...s-gop-tax-plan
Rand's idea: https://taxfoundation.org/economic-e...x-reform-plan/Rand Paul criticizes GOP tax plan
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Monday criticized the tax-reform framework released last week by Trump administration officials and congressional GOP leaders after a think tank issued a report finding that many middle-class taxpayers could see their taxes go up.
"This is a GOP tax plan? Possibly 30% of middle class gets a tax hike? I hope the final details are better than this," Paul said in a tweet that included a link to the study from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC).
Our analysis finds that Senator Paul’s plan would grow the economy by 12.9 percent in the long run, create 4.3 million jobs, and cost $1.8 trillion over ten years on a static basis and raise $737 billion when accounting for economic growth.
Structure of the Tax Reform Plan
Sen. Paul would make a number of changes to the tax code for individuals. He would replace the current seven tax bracket structure with a flat rate of 14.5 percent and apply that tax rate to all income – wages and salaries, capital gains, dividends, interest, and rents.
The plan would include a $15,000 standard deduction (per filer) and a $5,000 per person personal exemption. This means that a family of four would pay no income tax on their first $50,000 of income ($55,000 for a family of five, etc.).
Retirement accounts remain as they currently are and in our modeling we assumed that the exclusion for employer-provided health care remains.
The plan retains home mortgage and charitable deductions, the earned income tax credits, and the child tax credit and eliminates all other tax credits and deductions.
The plan would eliminate the payroll tax, the estate tax, and all customs duties and tariffs.
On the business side, the plan would eliminate the corporate tax, create a territorial type system, and introduce a 14.5 percent business transfer tax. This tax would be levied on a business’s factors of production and tax all capital income (profits, rents, royalties) and all labor payments (wages and salaries). All capital expenses (machines, equipment, buildings, etc.) are fully expensed in the first year, which would do away with current depreciation schedules. This tax would also apply to wages paid by governments and nonprofits.With median income of over $50,000 and half of all income tax filers owing no net income taxes, not many earning under $50k owe income taxes today.On a static basis, Senator Paul tax reform plan would lose nearly $2 trillion over a ten-year period, with an average annual cost of about $200 billion. If we account for the growth of the economy, over time this would lead to smaller tax costs. We estimate that the plan would end up raising an additional $737 billion over the budget window.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-02-2017 at 03:58 PM.
So , Plus 700 Billion instead of Minus 1.5 Trillion ?
Lets see , say you earned 30,675 under Pauls plan and no payroll tax , would owe 1761.38 at the end of the yr as the 14 1/2 percent over 20k ? Seems like a tax break to me .
Depends on who does the estimating and what they assume. Highest I saw forecast a $15 trillion short-fall over ten years, another $3 trillion short.
https://taxfoundation.org/no-senator...ederal-budget/
In the past, economic growth has failed to offset the losses of tax cuts over time.In one article that looked at the plan, something jumped out at me. The article cited the Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) saying that Senator Paul’s tax plan would reduce federal revenue by $15 trillion over the next decade or about $1.2 trillion in the first year. That is a much larger tax cut than the $3 trillion ($300 billion annually) we estimated that the plan would lose over that period. How are they arriving at such a number while looking at the same exact plan?
$15 trillion would mean $1.5 trillion short a year on average- which is just under half the taxes currently collected. His plan includes what is basically a 15% VAT tax (14.5%)- that would reduce consumption and lower growth if you have to pay almost 15% more on everything you buy.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-02-2017 at 05:17 PM.
Zippy's on a roll with the charts tonight.
Biggest tax cut in history? (as percent of GDP) That title still belongs to Reagan. But when Reagan noticed the deficit soaring because of it, he also signed more tax increases.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama...175123554.html
Obama signed a bigger tax cut in 2013. What? Wait- Obama tax cut? OK- what really happened there was that the Bush tax cuts were due to expire and he signed a bill which made them permanent so really he just stopped what would have been a huge tax increase.
Yeah , I cannot say I get excited about the 14 1/2 percent tax at all , but I like the idea of no payroll tax . I think it would help America in the future to write a check for taxes .
I just need to see the chart on how much a pound of bacon will cost .
So , Pauls bill would get like 3 votes in the senate and the GOP house bill will get all the Dem votes and the Pubs that vote for it will get primaried . Am I missing anything ?
Just like with Obama and Republicans in Congress, I would expect the Dems to vote against almost anything Trump and the Republicans want. That will mean that if three Senate Republicans disagree, it will not pass.
3 cheers for the new Qualified Business Income deduction. A first review through turbotax, shows this deduction alone adding about 4k in take home tax savings for myself.
Sounds like Good news . I have three businesses and Mrs O has two . Of course I have not started on mine yet , maybe in march . I am not going to get anything back because I did not pay anything which really , for me , is right where I want to be . If I have 20.00 in muh pocket it is all mine . Mrs O will be excited but really my guess is all she is getting back is what she paid ( over 67 ) .
Do something Danke
fwiw, the relevant section:
Arguably, the highest-profile update under the TCJA is the corporate tax rate as it’s been cut from 35 percent to 21 percent. However, many small businesses are structured as flow-through entities — sole proprietorships, partnerships and S corporations — and these enterprises are not subject to the corporate income tax. Instead, profits go directly to the owners and are taxed under the individual income tax. So what kind of perks are small businesses getting with these tax plan changes? Well, a 20 percent deduction on qualified business income has been added under the new tax law.
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us