Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

KoD · Dec 24, 2017

I'm sure we'll see reports of a few large companies giving bonuses or raises, but for the most part the majority of corporations will end up saving most of the increased profits and pay dividends to stockholders, people who generally make enough to afford housing, food, insurance, children and have enough to invest. While that's good for the middle & upper class, it doesn't fix key issues in the long run. Neglecting the lower class will impact everyone when their health expenses go unpayed and crime rate per population never declines.
In a best case scenario, the largest employers in the country will start offering benefits to their workers and hire on more full time, less part time. That could help curb the healthcare issue and encourage those making very little to invest just a little bit, so they can somewhat support themselves financially in the future so our tax dollars don't go to avoidable issues. It's easy to focus on now, but what will our country look like in 40 years? Hopefully we find ways to support the poor and lower class so they aren't an even bigger burden in the future. I'm not sold on tax cuts being the solution to that problem, I certainly don't trust corporations any more than I trust the government to fix these problems.

gangstonc · Dec 25, 2017

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article135001474.html

http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news...h-seen-close-together/gI074W3JLqvEYrQ0hm9zlN/

Nothingburger.

David in SW Blount · Dec 26, 2017

It will be very interesting to watch how tax reform gets played in 2018 during the midterm elections. Most middle class people will see their take home pay go up, but on a percentage basis the upper middle class and upper class will do better. So while a family making $75K may be very happy to see that extra $75 or $100 per month in their pockets each month, the Democrats would be smart to criticize the much more generous wallet impacts for those with higher incomes. It will also be interesting to see whether Congress goes after "entitlements" to help pay for the reduced tax revenues. It's hard to believe Republicans would be dumb enough to make cuts to Medicare and Social Security when your core voting base skews older and younger voters who don't care much about those programs overwhelmingly favor the Democratic party and probably won't shift allegiance because of a little extra take home pay.

I always thought trickle down made sense on paper, but I agree that greed gets in the way. Too bad corporate tax cuts can't be tied to reinvestment in worker salaries, benefits, research and development, "giving back," etc.

Kory · Dec 26, 2017

What is wrong with wealthy people being able to keep more of their OWN money along with those in the lower and middle classes?

Kory · Dec 26, 2017

The Washington Compost published a lovely hit piece regarding Jesus on one of the most holy days for Christians. The gist is that he didn't exist (anyone who believes Jesus, as a person, didn't exist is just willfully ignorant; there are endless HISTORICAL accounts of him).

I wonder if they run the same piece about Muhammad on Ramadan? I'd bet a paycheck they wouldn't.

David in SW Blount · Dec 26, 2017

Kory said:
What is wrong with wealthy people being able to keep more of their OWN money along with those in the lower and middle classes?

Nothing, if the gubment can absorb the lower revenues without harming things that are legitimately needed and/or help people who need it. But why should higher income people get a higher percentage tax cut than people in more normal middle class ranges?

Kory · Dec 26, 2017

David in SW Blount said:
Nothing, if the gubment can absorb the lower revenues without harming things that are legitimately needed and/or help people who need it. But why should higher income people get a higher percentage tax cut than people in more normal middle class ranges?

Any tax cut or simplification will have some favoritism toward the rich. They pay the most and have been taking on a growing overall portion of the American tax bill.

https://taxfoundation.org/new-irs-data-wealthy-paid-55-percent-income-taxes-2014/

This bill benefits many outside of the upper class by doubling the standard deduction. Keeping a couple thousand in taxes is huge for cash strapped lower/middle class families. But, we see the same segment of the partisan political realm turn up their nose to a tax plan that benefits a large segment because it benefits the rich a bit more over the non-rich.

I'd like to see changes to payroll withholding and Medicare/Social security for those younger folks who want more control over their retirement plans. I.e., an opt out. I'd also like to see federal refunds for sales taxes on essential items for lower income earners.

KoD · Dec 26, 2017

If I could opt out of Medicare & Social security deductions I'd be able to put away hundreds more towards my Roth IRA a month. No way that's going to happen though, they gotta pay out for the people who've been putting money in that for decades.

David in SW Blount · Dec 27, 2017

Kory said:
Any tax cut or simplification will have some favoritism toward the rich. They pay the most and have been taking on a growing overall portion of the American tax bill.

https://taxfoundation.org/new-irs-data-wealthy-paid-55-percent-income-taxes-2014/

This bill benefits many outside of the upper class by doubling the standard deduction. Keeping a couple thousand in taxes is huge for cash strapped lower/middle class families. But, we see the same segment of the partisan political realm turn up their nose to a tax plan that benefits a large segment because it benefits the rich a bit more over the non-rich.

I'd like to see changes to payroll withholding and Medicare/Social security for those younger folks who want more control over their retirement plans. I.e., an opt out. I'd also like to see federal refunds for sales taxes on essential items for lower income earners.

When I've looked at projected tax change calculators based on the new legislation, I haven't seen anything like $2,000 per year for a family my size (5) in the lower middle class income ranges. Looks like people in those brackets will bring home 1-2% more of their income versus now. You'll need to make about $100K per year to pocket $2,000 more. A household income of $100K is 88th percentile for 2017. 50th percentile is about $38,000 per year, with a projected increase in take home pay of $418 for the year, or about $35 per month. 75th percentile household income for 2017 is about $65K, and those families will bring home about $87 more month. Looking at these numbers is pretty eye opening for me and really illustrates who this tax reform will truly benefit.

David in SW Blount · Dec 27, 2017

KoD said:
If I could opt out of Medicare & Social security deductions I'd be able to put away hundreds more towards my Roth IRA a month. No way that's going to happen though, they gotta pay out for the people who've been putting money in that for decades.

Yep, when I think about how much I would have in an IRA right now if I had been able to privately invest my SS and Medicare deductions, it can be frustrating. But I also appreciate that HUGE swaths of the population are ill equipped to manage personal investments AND they wouldn't do it. Hence why we have a forced retirement savings system.

Kory · Dec 27, 2017

David in SW Blount said:
When I've looked at projected tax change calculators based on the new legislation, I haven't seen anything like $2,000 per year for a family my size (5) in the lower middle class income ranges. Looks like people in those brackets will bring home 1-2% more of their income versus now. You'll need to make about $100K per year to pocket $2,000 more. A household income of $100K is 88th percentile for 2017. 50th percentile is about $38,000 per year, with a projected increase in take home pay of $418 for the year, or about $35 per month. 75th percentile household income for 2017 is about $65K, and those families will bring home about $87 more month. Looking at these numbers is pretty eye opening for me and really illustrates who this tax reform will truly benefit.

What tax calculators have you been using? NY Times shows a $1,800+ cut for families making 25-75K, filing married, with 3+ kids, and taking the standard deduction.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/17/upshot/tax-calculator.html

Kory · Dec 27, 2017

CNN is roughly the same. 2-3% cut for lower and middle class. Of course upper class people will get more money back because the percentage they pay is more than lower/middle class.

1.5% back of $100,000 taxable income > 3.0% back of $45,000 taxable income. They’re getting double the percentage back of what they pay in. Their original starting pay in is significantly less.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/politics/calculate-americans-taxes-senate-reform-bill/index.html

David in SW Blount · Dec 27, 2017

Kory said:
What tax calculators have you been using? NY Times shows a $1,800+ cut for families making 25-75K, filing married, with 3+ kids, and taking the standard deduction.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/17/upshot/tax-calculator.html

I wish I had bookmarked it. I like this calculator better!

But I wonder why they were so different?

David in SW Blount · Dec 27, 2017

I was looking at the table on this site.

Kory · Dec 27, 2017

I believe the tax calculators I posted were revised to include the final bill that was signed. Some were based on the original bill before it was revised and then sent through the motions.

The original bill was a real stinker (I posted my disdain for it a few pages back). The new one doubled the child tax credit, eliminated tuition credits as taxable income, etc to just name a couple. It definitely is improved over the original version but of course it isn’t perfect.

David in SW Blount · Dec 27, 2017

Kory said:
I believe the tax calculators I posted were revised to include the final bill that was signed. Some were based on the original bill before it was revised and then sent through the motions.

The original bill was a real stinker (I posted my disdain for it a few pages back). The new one doubled the child tax credit, eliminated tuition credits as taxable income, etc to just name a couple. It definitely is improved over the original version but of course it isn’t perfect.

Hopefully that explains it. The website I was using was dated 12/22, so I assumed it was up to date. But maybe the tables they used were from before the final piece of legislation.

Matt · Dec 28, 2017

David in SW Blount said:
Nothing, if the gubment can absorb the lower revenues without harming things that are legitimately needed and/or help people who need it. But why should higher income people get a higher percentage tax cut than people in more normal middle class ranges?

But revenues increase. More people being hired means more taxpayers

KoD said:
If I could opt out of Medicare & Social security deductions I'd be able to put away hundreds more towards my Roth IRA a month. No way that's going to happen though, they gotta pay out for the people who've been putting money in that for decades.

When GWB proposed the privatization of a small portion of SS the dems and left went nuts.

David in SW Blount · Dec 28, 2017

SS isn't so bad if you live a long time after you start collecting it. But it's frustrating that once you croak, that's it other than your spouse being able to collect your monthly payment if it's higher than hers (or his) was. There's no legacy account to pass on to your kids. But it is what it is, and when you've grown up in/live in the safe 'burbs in a 3-4 bedroom/2-3 bath home with a comfortable income, it's easy to forget that the majority of the U.S. population doesn't live that way and isn't logging in to check their Fidelity retirement accounts.

Kory · Dec 28, 2017

LMAO

Matt · Dec 29, 2017

KoD said:
I'm sure we'll see reports of a few large companies giving bonuses or raises, but for the most part the majority of corporations will end up saving most of the increased profits and pay dividends to stockholders, people who generally make enough to afford housing, food, insurance, children and have enough to invest. While that's good for the middle & upper class, it doesn't fix key issues in the long run. Neglecting the lower class will impact everyone when their health expenses go unpayed and crime rate per population never declines.
In a best case scenario, the largest employers in the country will start offering benefits to their workers and hire on more full time, less part time. That could help curb the healthcare issue and encourage those making very little to invest just a little bit, so they can somewhat support themselves financially in the future so our tax dollars don't go to avoidable issues. It's easy to focus on now, but what will our country look like in 40 years? Hopefully we find ways to support the poor and lower class so they aren't an even bigger burden in the future. I'm not sold on tax cuts being the solution to that problem, I certainly don't trust corporations any more than I trust the government to fix these problems.

Is the purpose of starting a business to be able to give workers health insurance and benefits ? No. The purpose is to make money. As much as you can. Providing benefits attracts good people and hopefully success. But, the first agenda is to make money for the people that took the risk and those that helped by investing.

Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member