Analysis: How the GOP’s Tax Scam Is Now Backfiring Spectacularly

  
Via:  don-overton  •  5 months ago  •  248 comments

Analysis: How the GOP’s Tax Scam Is Now Backfiring Spectacularly
The Republican Tax Scam of 2017 — also known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — was filled with tricks and gimmicks designed to hide the fact that it was

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


And now that Americans have started to file their 2018 tax returns, the extent of the GOP deception is being seen for the first time.

Writing in Vox, Matthew Yglesias explained that the backlash being seen from many Trump supporters now filing their taxes is a direct result of unconscionable accounting trickery from the IRS.

Article is Locked

Find text within the comments Find 
 
Don Overton
1  seeder  Don Overton    5 months ago

800

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1  WallyW  replied to  Don Overton @1    5 months ago

How about giving us an example of how this alleged scam works.

You know...facts, figures, charts, graphs....that kind of stuff.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  WallyW @1.1    5 months ago
You know...facts, figures, charts, graphs....that kind of stuff.

Now, now.   You know "fact, figures. charts, graphs.... that kind of stuff" does not fit the narrative of the Trump and Republican haters.   

But it should be interesting to see if any actually provide intelligent rebuttal to your position.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
1.1.2  Studiusbagus  replied to  WallyW @1.1    5 months ago
You know...facts, figures, charts, graphs....that kind of stuff.

Here's a novel idea. Since just about every conservative I hear, they know all about the tax plan.

Do you already know what changes are going to happen?

Or maybe you should just read the fucking thing and weep

 
 
 
SteevieGee
1.1.3  SteevieGee  replied to  WallyW @1.1    5 months ago
How about giving us an example of how this alleged scam works. You know...facts, figures, charts, graphs....that kind of stuff

Why?  So you can ignore it and then ask the same question later in the same thread?

 
 
 
cjcold
1.1.4  cjcold  replied to  WallyW @1.1    5 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  JohnRussell    5 months ago

I heard a little about this on the news this morning. A lot of middle class folks have to pay more in taxes this year than they expected.

"Thank you Mr President*, may I have another."

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2    5 months ago

So do you think the Democrats will pass a bill lowering their taxes?

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.1.1  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    5 months ago

They will do a much better job than any republican administration has ever done.  It's never been conservative admin that has ever done any good for the economy Google it Tex.  Here's the address https://www.google.com/

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.2  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    5 months ago
So do you think the Democrats will pass a bill lowering their taxes?

Democrats do targeted tax cuts that help the regular folk, and use taxes and credits for max benefits to more Americans.  Dems aren't against tax cuts.  They are against tax cuts to the top that don't help most Americans, especially those that funnel ever more economic gains to the very top 1%.   You know, like the ones the gop just passed that are proving to be very unpopular, especially as the tax season gets going.   Seems a lot of folks who got nice refunds last year are losing the refund and paying a hell of a lot more.  Can't shine this turd.

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.1.3  dennis smith  replied to  Don Overton @2.1.1    5 months ago

They will do a much better job than any republican administration has ever done.  It's never been conservative admin that has ever done any good for the economy Google it Tex.  Here's the address https://www.google.com/

Any republican administration has ever done any good makes no sense. 

Your comment is a direct contradiction the fact that many Republicans have been voted in office to the WH and majorities in Congress by American voters for centuries. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @2.1.2    5 months ago

All well and good, but I did notice you very carefully avoided the question asked.

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.5  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    5 months ago

Yes, the dems would pass what I said.  Unfortunately, republicans won't.  Because they truly don't want to do it for anybody but the top.  If they had, they would have done it in their 'big beautiful tax cut'.  Is that direct enough for you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @2.1.5    5 months ago

The Dems have the majority in the House. We'll see, won't we?

I haven't heard any Democratic proposals to cut any taxes, have you?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.1.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.6    5 months ago

yes

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.7    5 months ago

What proposals have they put forward?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.1.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.8    5 months ago

Some of Dem candidates want to raise taxes on the wealthiest, thus cutting taxes for the vast majority over all, but i'm sure you're against raising taxes on the wealthiest.

Yea, sounds fair, 400 plus people have as much wealth as the rest of US, no ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.9    5 months ago

Ok, how much of a tax cut should I expect?

Where are the proposals to CUT middle-class taxes?

What ARE the proposals to CUT taxes?

What you stated is a plan to INCREASE some people's taxes. Not a damn thing about REDUCING anyone's taxes.

And PLEASE tell me you don't believe that if someone else pays MORE, that means someone else will end up paying LESS!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.1.11  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.10    5 months ago
And PLEASE tell me you don't believe that if someone else pays MORE, that means someone else will end up paying LESS!

That is our current system Tex, deal with it.

The lower middle, middle, and upper middle pay more, as the wealthier pay less, 

sounds fair, know / ? cause i think not after your statement exampling you think not.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.11    5 months ago
That is our current system Tex, deal with it.
The lower middle, middle, and upper middle pay more, as the wealthier pay less,

I am done. You apparently don't have a freaking clue on how taxes work.

No one pays LESS because the rates go up for rich folks, And unless Congress passes laws, no one pays more because tax rates decrease for any group.

When you grasp that concept, come back and we'll talk.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.1.13  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.12    5 months ago
When you grasp that concept, come back and we'll talk.

I like you Tex, but you are a tad naive on some things.

I never proclaimed to be a tax expert, that is why i hire accountants,

but to inform me of my inability to grasp concepts, 

definitely gave me a snicker,

cause your not always yourself, when you hunger for the saity only found in the grasping and consuming of concepts...what a concept, huh ?

You have a good day Tex, i'm off to bother people

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.13    5 months ago

Should I rephrase my post so you can better understand it?

What part about coming back AFTER you grasp the concept is confusing to you?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.1.15  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.14    5 months ago
What part about coming back AFTER you grasp the concept is confusing to you?

id have to go with the part that's confusing you Tex

i'm off to stir debate at local watering hole

n joy Tex

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.1.16  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.3    5 months ago

Use Google, it's friendly

 
 
 
cjcold
2.1.17  cjcold  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.3    5 months ago

Republicans accuse democrats of "tax and spend" when It is actually the GOP who is guilty of that.

Funny how far right wing fascists turn up into down and day into night.

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.1.18  dennis smith  replied to  Don Overton @2.1.16    5 months ago

You made the claim so provide proof instead of telling others to look up your "proof"

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.1.19  dennis smith  replied to  cjcold @2.1.17    5 months ago

Still waiting for proof. As usual it has not been forthcoming. 

 
 
 
DRHunk
2.1.20  DRHunk  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.10    5 months ago

I think your missing the point, The Dems always have to raise taxes to counter the dreadful tax policy implemented by the previous GOP administration. Every GOP administration increases the deficit and ever Dem has to com in and clean up the mess to lower the deficit. Then the GOP scream, look they raise taxes.  The next Dem will hopefully raise taxes back to Clinton era rates and make Capital Gains count as Income.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.21  MUVA  replied to  DRHunk @2.1.20    5 months ago

Democrats raise taxes to fund more spending and buy votes.

 
 
 
DRHunk
2.1.22  DRHunk  replied to  MUVA @2.1.21    5 months ago

Sure, that's why they seem to lose the most elections.....<Face Palm>

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @2    5 months ago
A lot of middle class folks have to pay more in taxes this year than they expected.

True.   But I will submit those people live in those high tax states like New York, California, Connecticut and others that can no longer deduct the grossly high local and state taxes they were paying but are now capped at $10,000 per year.

Maybe they should piss and moan to their local and state politicians to reduce their LOCAL and STATE burdens, before blaming others.  Of course they have another alternative available if they so choose.   Sell their homes and move into an apartment or other rental property where they would not qualify for a real estate property tax deduction or mortgage interest deduction to begin with, like so many other Americans.

Damn, I wish there was an emoji for the worlds tiniest violin!!  

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.2.1  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2    5 months ago

Be great if you would stay on topic instead of try to piss on facts.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.3  XDm9mm  replied to  Don Overton @2.2.1    5 months ago

Please explain EXACTLY how I was not "on topic"?

I fully concurred that many WOULD see higher tax liability this year.  

I then also provided the likely rational for that higher tax burden.  If you don't like the likely reason for those higher federal tax liabilities, that's your prerogative, but it's factual none the less.

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.2.4  dennis smith  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2    5 months ago
They will do a much better job than any republican administration has ever done.  It's never been conservative admin that has ever done any good for the economy Google it Tex.  Here's the address https://www.google.com/

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.2.5  dennis smith  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2    5 months ago

Those who bitch about it find it easy to place blame instead of working toward solutions locally.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.2.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.3    5 months ago

Mock away as you will, but because your state does not have other taxes, your property taxes have been going up and up. It is why your state (and I say that glibly since was a Long Islander always a Long Islander) is not so slowly become purple. 

Priced out of their home? North Texans see tax bill rise $1,200 in five years

      Here's Why Property Taxes Are Higher In Texas

Texas' Property Tax Rate Among Highest In Nation

We can discuss how you feel when that cap starts to hurt your pocketbook. 

And I can't wait till after this following tax year when everyone across the nation sees that the new tax law has diminishing returns. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.2.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  dennis smith @2.2.5    5 months ago

The only thing that I ever moaned about was the property tax cap. It was a spiteful move. That money mostly goes to our schools which are among the best in the nation. 

 
 
 
Kavika
2.2.8  Kavika   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.2.7    5 months ago

In researching a home purchase in Texas I did a lot of investigation on the property tax issue.(also lived there twice but rented) What I found was not to my liking in terms of cost to me based on the house that I wanted regarding the PT issue. 

Although there is no state income tax their property tax level is quite high. When a state has no income tax they have to make that money up somewhere, and it seems that property tax in Texas is their way of doing it. 

Anyhow, ended up purchasing a home in Florida which does not have a state income tax but my property tax here is about half of what it would have  been in Texas based on the same home purchase price. If you are a full time resident of Florida you get a $50,000 exemption on the assessed value (homestead). This past election there was a item on the ballot to increase that for homes that were valued under $150,000 I believe it was. Also I'm entitled to an additional exemption for my veterans status. 

Texas also has a homestead exception of I believe $40,000. Not sure if there is a vet exemption. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @2.2.8    5 months ago

I pay about $2350 in property taxes for my 3 bedroom, 2 bath home with almost a 1/2 acre lot. About 1700 square feet. How does that compare to Florida?  My home is valued at 162,500.

 
 
 
Kavika
2.2.10  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.9    5 months ago

Just taking a semi educated guess I would say around $1200/1300 per year. 

There are some  variables depending on the area of the state etc. Just like Texas.

I also have some property in California and Nevada...And both are much lower than they would be in Texas. Of course CA has a state income tax and Nevada doesn't.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @2.2.10    5 months ago

Well, that is significantly less than what I pay.

But there are plenty of states that have high property taxes AND state income taxes.

There are only 7 states left that do not have state income taxes.

But I love where I live, so doubt I will be moving from the area. My wife and I are going to downsize in a couple of years, though, because we don't need this much house. We got it when my dad came to live with us late in his life.

 
 
 
Kavika
2.2.12  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.11    5 months ago
But there are plenty of states that have high property taxes AND state income taxes. There are only 7 states left that do not have state income taxes.

That is true. I have some property in California, but I'm grandfathered in under Prop 13 so my property tax is very very low. 

I have have some property in Nevada and the property tax is low and there is no state income tax. 

If you like where you live it makes little different. If you can afford it you live where it makes you happy.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.13  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @2.2.12    5 months ago

The problem I have with Cali is the housing prices. It is ridiculously high, gas prices are too high, etc. Plus state income tax and high sales taxes.

I think Cali will end up with very rich taxpayers and a whole lot of people who won't pay taxes.

 
 
 
Kavika
2.2.14  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.13    5 months ago

The way property tax is set up in CA is it's 1% of the purchase price. We bought our property years ago and it's valued quite high but the property tax is very very low. 

It depends where in CA you buy. the urban areas and the ones close to the beach are very very high. The inland areas not so much. 

Yes, it does have a state income tax and it is high. 

Being a avid bass fisherman (tournament type) being close to bass water is important to me. In Texas I've fished a number of the lakes and love fishing Lake Fork east of Dallas. Of course Florida has some of the best bass fishing in the world. I live around a 45 minute drive from Rodman reservoir one of the best bass lakes in the country. 

I'm also a horse person, was raised with 4 Appaloosa  so being in an area that is horse country is quite nice. Where I live in Florida it is known as the ''Horse Capital of the World''.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.15  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.2.6    5 months ago
Mock away as you will, but because your state does not have other taxes, your property taxes have been going up and up. It is why your state (and I say that glibly since was a Long Islander always a Long Islander) is not so slowly become purple. 

Sorry Perrie....   there is no reason to mock...

I'll LAUGH MY ASS OFF!!!!   Here's CURRENT taxes on several properties I've lived in around the country, including New York and now Texas.   It would behoove you to actually get out of New York and realize what happens in the rest of the country.

Islip Terrace  (sold in 1985 when the RE taxes were in the $4,000 range.)  CURRENTLY   $9829.00  and that's for a tiny 900 square foot ranch on about 1/4 acre.

Spotsylvania VA (Just outside Fredericksburg VA)  (Sold in 1987 when RE taxes were just shy of $2,000)  CURRENTLY  $2980.00   and that's for a nice size 3,000 square foot Colonial sitting on about 1 1/4 acre.

Let's head north to Minnesota.... 

Maple Grove MN (Twin cities metro area) We sold that in 1997 when we left that frozen wasteland.   That's a roughly 2700 sg ft home on about 1/4 acre, four bedrooms, huge great room, living room, full basement and two car garage.   CURRENTLY  $4211.   

San Antonio TX (zip code only  we're outside of 'city limits' and turned down SA's attempt to annex us in the last election.)  Four bedroom, three full and two half bath, two car garage, on approximately 1/4 acre.  (I have other much larger properties but this is my 'residence of record' for license, voting and such.)   Currently  $5269.00  FIXED for the rest of my life.   Texas loves it's seniors and veterans and locks taxes at age 65.

Oh, the sales taxes are about the same as NY, so that's a wash.   

Our gas taxes are minimal which means I'm paying about $1.82 locally.   Per "gas buddy", the people in Roslyn (sound familiar) are paying about $2.53.   

Here in Texas there is NO....  allow me to repeat that NO STATE INCOME TAX....   so my state income tax bill is ZERO.   On a hypothetical $120,000 annual salary in NY, the State INCOME TAX is roughly $6900.00

So no, I'm not mocking...   as I noted, I'm LAUGHING at people willing to pay the extortion rates imposed on them by politicians buying the votes of the people they give YOUR money away to.

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.2.16  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.3    5 months ago

Average tax rebate -to the non wealthy- is -$175

You know all the facts are available to you if you were really interested, which I know you really are not

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.2.17  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.2.7    5 months ago

Too bad the textbooks aren't the same.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.2.18  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.15    5 months ago

First of all, there is no need to be nasty in this discussion. 

From your own papers:

Texas' effective property tax rate ranked sixth highest in the country, the report found, nestled between Nebraska and Vermont. On average, state and local governments across the country bring in about $1,500 a year in property taxes per person. Here are the numbers for Texas:

  • Effective property tax rate: 1.7 percent
  • Median home value: $172,200 (20th lowest)
  • Per capita property taxes: $1,731.37 (13th highest)
  • Median household income: $59,206 (23rd highest)

https://patch.com/texas/dallas-ftworth/texas-property-tax-rate-among-highest-nation

So while your home value are amont the lowest, your property taxes are among the highest. 

btw, NYS caps off from our vets and seniors too. That is what the STAR rebate is all about. 

As for gas taxes, that was never part of the discussion. The discussion is if this tax plan is good, and it isn't. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.19  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.2.18    5 months ago
First of all, there is no need to be nasty in this discussion.

Who is being nasty?

I posted FACTS above from personal EXPERIENCE.   

Are you trying to claim that the PROPERTY taxes on the TINY HOUSE I owned in Islip Terrace are NOT $9,829.00?   And once again, that was a tiny 900 square foot ranch.

As opposed to the 3,000 sq foot house I use as my primary legal residence in Texas is $5,269.00?

THOSE ARE FACTS.....   Period end of story.

And are you claiming that your state income taxes are in some way better than I pay here in Texas?

How's this...  as I noted above for a hypothetical situation:

On a hypothetical $120,000 annual salary in NY, the State INCOME TAX is roughly $6900.00 On that SAME hypothetical annual salary in TX, the State INCOME TAX is ZERO...  NADDA, ZIP, ZILCH...   every penny of the $6900 that NYS extorts from it's residents is IN MY POCKET here in Texas.  

Oh, as to gas taxes, I'm sorry, but to me taxes are taxes....   And our roads are actually pretty good in Texas.....   I can't quite say the same about Jericho Turnpike, or Sunrise Highway.

And you're using info from the Dallas/Fort Worth metro area, which is absurdly high compared to the rest of Texas....   just sayin.  That's like using info from Manhattan as the 'median' for the entire STATE of NY.  Obviously apples and oranges.

Here's the STATE median price:  

Despite the moderation, theTexas median home pricehit a record high at $235,727.

Source:  https://www.recenter.tamu.edu/articles/technical-report/Texas-Housing-Insight

Here's the STATE effective property tax rate. ( A bit higher than you'r DFW rate)

“The overall effective real estate tax rate in Texas is just under 2 percent – 1.9 percent to be specific.” ... According to WalletHub rankings, the Lone Star State is only five spots better than New Jersey, which has the highest property tax rates in the nation.Aug 17, 2017

Source:  https://www.google.com/search?q=Effective+state+wide+texas+property+tax+rate&oq=Effective+state+wide+texas+property+tax+rate&aqs=chrome..69i57.12326j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

State median income:

Texas Family Income

The ACS 1-year survey shows that the median family income for Texas was $70,136 in 2017. Compared to the median US family income, Texas median family income is $3,755 lower. Like the median household income numbers, 2018 family income data will be released in September of 2019.

Show dollars as:NominalReal

Real Median Family Income in Texas

2017 1 Year Change 3 Year Change
US $73,891 +1.79% +8.17%
Texas $70,136 +2.44% +7.70%

Source:  https://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/texas/

Needless to say, we can go round and round here all day long.  However, as I DO have real personal experience in NY, I actually have a real basis for comparisons as opposed to other that read articles about various places and then use that as comparisons.

One question for you.

WHY do YOU think you're entitled to an income tax deduction for property taxes and or income taxes?  Are you special in some way?     People that pay RENT, don't have the ability to deduct property taxes, yet they most certainly do pay them.  At least my tenants do, as do the tenants of all other landlords that I'm familiar with.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.20  XDm9mm  replied to  Don Overton @2.2.16    5 months ago
Average tax rebate -to the non wealthy- is -$175

Exactly what are you rambling about?  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
2.2.21  Studiusbagus  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2    5 months ago
True.   But I will submit those people live in those high tax states like New York, California, Connecticut and others that can no longer deduct the grossly high local and state taxes

Yes, that could be, or could it be other thongs? Nahhhh, of course not! Just liberals pissing and moaning...

Then I take it you're not a road warrior for a company and getting a 1099. Nor are you a field service technician.

Nope, whatever is good for you is just fine. 

Typical.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.22  MUVA  replied to  Studiusbagus @2.2.21    5 months ago

You seem to think what is good for you is just fine what's the difference?

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
2.2.23  Studiusbagus  replied to  MUVA @2.2.22    5 months ago
You seem to think what is good for you is just fine what's the difference?

And where did I make that implication?

I'm no longer having to worry about unreimbursed expenses, but a few million other sales people and technicians might have a problem not being able to deduct miles or specialty clothing.

Example....you can go out and scrape barnacles all day in jeans and a tee shirt. You can't deduct that....you want to go use your "chop gun" or your HVLP sprayer? You'll need protective wear that isn't cheap. I'll go one further...I contract spraying industrial coatings, epoxies and keep a fleet painted which means spraying imron paint. Potetially lethal in all three types requiring a closed environment oxygen fed suit. 

If you work for the company and buy those items including my $1500 gun cannot be claimed as an unreimbursed employee expence. If you're completing your tasks in multiple sites you can't write off the miles, hotel, meals...etc.

I used to clock 90,000 miles a year...that was a $30,000 deduction. Can't do that now....

That's why I'm a contractor and not an employee, so I can write off more.

Since those things no longer effect me but I still see the difficulty an employee would feel, how is that squaring away with your comment?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.24  XDm9mm  replied to  Studiusbagus @2.2.21    5 months ago
Then I take it you're not a road warrior for a company and getting a 1099. Nor are you a field service technician.

Not a "road warrior" or field service technician.

BUT....   you are aware of methods to circumvent your apparent problem aren't you?   

If not, come on back and I'll clue you in on what I've accomplished.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
2.2.25  Studiusbagus  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.24    5 months ago
BUT....   you are aware of methods to circumvent your apparent problem aren't you?   

Yeah, are you under the impression I've never owned a business before?

If not, come on back and I'll clue you in on what I've accomplished

Wow. Is that what you're about?  That's sad. I mean it...that's just seriously saddening and such a waste.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.26  MUVA  replied to  Studiusbagus @2.2.23    5 months ago

I run a real business we have accountants that care of expensing. Most of my guys work on commission and receive a 1099  we supply all special tools clothing we supply the trucks fleet service and gas I don't run a hobby business my friend and have forgotten more about running a business then you will ever know.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
2.2.27  Studiusbagus  replied to  MUVA @2.2.26    5 months ago
I run a real business we have accountants that care of expensing. Most of my guys work on commission and receive a 1099  we supply all special tools clothing we supply the trucks fleet service and gas I don't run a hobby business my friend and have forgotten more about running a business then you will ever know.

Since whatever that comment.was intended to be a response, it wasn't and even more telling than most of the others. I responded to this:

You seem to think what is good for you is just fine what's the difference?

When I explained how that doesn't effect me anymore because I am retired. Sort of....but further explained that the one that gets screwed is the sales person and unreimbursed employee expenses. 

When one makes the comments that have been made it's easy to call in to question what one thinks could be forgotten are basic principles of business...and like now, when it goes over the persons depth they refer to "my wife or my accountants" .

I don't doubt that people are involved somewhat with a business. I do doubt their station in that business when they make rookie comments. 

Makes one think the person commenting is about ankle high on the company totem pole.

 
 
 
Freewill
2.2.28  Freewill  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.2.6    5 months ago
And I can't wait till after this following tax year when everyone across the nation sees that the new tax law has diminishing returns.

I'd be interested to learn more about this Perrie.  Can you provide details?  Nothing I've seen so far would indicate any diminishing returns during the next decade.  There may be some diminished returns when parts of the program sunset in 2025, unless those provisions are extended, perhaps even in part like Obama did with the Bush tax cuts. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.2.29  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.20    5 months ago

Unfortunately you don't care for facts and you prefer your own fantasy

 
 
 
Freewill
2.2.30  Freewill  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.2.7    5 months ago
The only thing that I ever moaned about was the property tax cap.  It was a spiteful move. That money mostly goes to our schools which are among the best in the nation. 

Forgive me Perrie, but I don't understand the logic behind this concern.  Can you explain?  My thoughts are these:

1.   The TCJA does not put any kind of cap on local property taxes or remove the ability of local and state governments to direct those revenues into education (the amount of which is a debate topic of its own by the way).  It has no impact on those taxes/revenues whatsoever, so how is it a spiteful move?

2.   The only thing the TCJA does is put a cap of $10,000 on the amount of State and local taxes (including property taxes) that one can claim as a deduction on their Federal Income taxes. You can still deduct that $10,000 assuming you will want to given the other deductions you might be able to take and the cumulative total exceeds the now doubled standard deduction in the 2018 code for all filers.  Now looking at that state/local tax deduction provision on it's own it sounds like it might impact more tax-payers than one might expect, primarily in those States with high income and/or property taxes.  However, there are other provisions of the Code which will bring the tax burden down for almost all of them in the lower/middle/even upper-middle class range, like the range adjustments and lower rates in the brackets themselves, other credits and allowable deductions, and the aforementioned effective doubling of the standard deduction. 

3.   In fact, this provision on it's own or even coupled with the limit on NEW mortgage interest deduction to only that portion of the indebtedness below $750,000 (married filing jointly) will have the biggest impact on those who live in high income areas, who can afford $1M homes or lots of property, and who already pay a great deal of Federal, State and Local taxes.  Remember the limit on the mortgage interest deduction ONLY applies to those mortgages started after Dec 31, 2017, so many folks who have lived in homes that have accrued that value for decades but don't actually have that kind of current income to buy them will be grandfathered, subject to pre-2018 Code.   Many wanted to see those 1% or 2% or even 5% sorts of people avoid less of their "fair share" of income taxes anyway.  So there it is, what's to complain about?

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.3  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @2    5 months ago

What do you determine to be a lot of middle class folks"?

I am middle class and received a weekly pay increase during 2019 of an additional $40 + per week. I have same status as last year except for the increased weekly income. Am also getting $607 more refund than last year.

Agree with your "Thank you Mr President*, may I have another.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3  Texan1211    5 months ago

I will get just about the very same amount of money back this year as last year.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Texan1211 @3    5 months ago

Bad, bad Texan.......

You really need to stop giving them a free loan.   Keep that money in your own pocket and let them have a small payment on April 14th.

I already finished mine and have the payment set to be made on April 14th myself.

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.1.2  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1    5 months ago

your imagination keeps running wild

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.3  XDm9mm  replied to  Don Overton @3.1.2    5 months ago
your imagination keeps running wild

Are you telling me I have not finished my taxes this year or that I have already established the date of payment?

Or are you disputing that giving the government more than they are due through the year is NOT a free loan to them?

You ARE aware are you not that any overpayment is NOT earning interest or working for the actual owner, the taxpayer, aren't you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.3    5 months ago

Pretty clear some on here just guess about most things.

Sad little things.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
3.1.5  Studiusbagus  replied to  Don Overton @3.1.2    5 months ago

Same here, I just added up my quarterlies did my taxes andcut a check. It's already been received.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  Don Overton @3.1.2    5 months ago
your imagination keeps running wild

Not a logical or acceptable comment. Personal attack.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.6    5 months ago
your imagination keeps running wild
Not a logical or acceptable comment. Personal att

say what, how , where, and when ....

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.8  XDm9mm  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.6    5 months ago
Not a logical or acceptable comment. Personal attack.

It doesn't bother me....   I just view the source.

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.1.9  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.4    5 months ago

One thing neither of you ever do is real research  Google could be an instrument for learning

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.10  XDm9mm  replied to  Don Overton @3.1.9    5 months ago
One thing neither of you ever do is real research  Google could be an instrument for learning

Something you should try yourself.

Now, would you like to intelligently support your vain attempt at denigrating me?

 
 
 
cjcold
3.1.11  cjcold  replied to  Don Overton @3.1.9    5 months ago
One thing neither of you ever do is real research 

Parroting fossil fuel industry propaganda is so much easier than doing actual research.

I first came online to bring scientific facts to AGW deniers.

That didn't work out so well. EXXON and the Kochs hired rooms full of paid deniers.

It seems science deniers are incapable of being educated due to a pre-existing condition.

GREED and ignorance of science.

Religious indoctrination and greed seem to be at the root of this science denying madness.

AOC is just saying what all scientists are saying. Planet Earth is rapidly reaching a tipping point.

A tipping point means the planet is screwed and nothing can be done to save it.

Many scientists think we have already reached the point of no return.

Seems science deniers (the fossil fuel industry) have already well and truly fucked us.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @3    5 months ago

So how did you benefit?

Just wait till next year, when you get less. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2    5 months ago

I never claimed to have benefitted, but I am no paying any more than last year.

If I get less, then I'll get less.

Not like any of us actually has a choice in the matter.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.1    5 months ago
Not like any of us actually has a choice in the matter.

Look, first of all, I am a die hard capitalist, so I'm not a robin hood type. But on the other hand, this tax plan is the pits and it will hurt the middle and working class.  And yes we could have done something, and chosen better representation. But that didn't happen. Think about this: the death of the middle and working class who are the people who actually spend and when they stop spending the economy tanks. 

It's already happening with the housing market. Between the capping of the only middle-class deduction (their property taxes), and the hikes the fed have made, nothing is moving. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.2    5 months ago

I am a capitalist, too, and have never claimed anything for you.

I'm simply saying that my taxes were roughly the same as last year. 

No one took my money and gave it to some rich person.

the rich still, like always, pay the lion's share of income taxes. The rich make more, and receive far more in salaries, but pay a higher percentage of taxes collected than their income would seem to dictate.

Funny how some folks want to return to 1950's tax rates for the rich, but don't want to return to the 1950's tax rates for anyone else.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.4  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.2    5 months ago

It's already happening with the housing market. Between the capping of the only middle-class deduction (their property taxes), and the hikes the fed have made, nothing is moving. 

Nothing is moving in the grossly over taxed states like New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and such....  
In other tax rational areas, they're having trouble keeping up with demand.
However, it's not just taxes that are an impediment to the housing market right now, although they are a factor, the MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES are holding a great many people back.   On my properties with a mortgage, I'm actually paying the banks less in interest than I'm capable of earning on that money, so I don't pay them off.  Why would I want to pay off a mortgage of 2.85% when I can get 3%+ or more on that money on a CD or other investment vehicle?   Further, as the property is a business, I'm able to deduct expenses associated with that property (of course, some of those deductions will come back and bite me in the ass when I sell, but there are ways to minimize that also.)
 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.2    5 months ago
It's already happening with the housing market. Between the capping of the only middle-class deduction (their property taxes), and the hikes the fed have made, nothing is moving.

The federal cap on property taxes is capped at 10k.

Not too many people in the middle class pay 10k or more in property taxes.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.6  XDm9mm  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.5    5 months ago
The federal cap on property taxes is capped at 10k. Not too many people in the middle class pay 10k or more in property taxes

Actually, the federal 'cap' is $10,000 on SALT.

State  -  Any taxes imposed at the state level which is generally INCOME taxes

And  -  State income taxes in addition to

Local  -  Local taxes which are generally property taxes with the exception of say NYC which also imposes an income tax on residents and non-residents earning a wage in NYC.

Taxes  -   Ok...  that's a pretty obvious term!!  LOL

So, it's a combination of income and property taxes that are capped at $10,000.   NOT //NOT just property taxes.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.6    5 months ago

Gee, why are their states taxing their residents so much, and why are they so dang happy about it?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.8  XDm9mm  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.7    5 months ago
Gee, why are their states taxing their residents so much, and why are they so dang happy about it?

The answer to the first part of the question is easy.   

Those that don't have a pot to piss in and don't have sufficient income to be taxable in the first place, (the majority of the voting populace) vote for the politician that promises to provide them the most "services", which of course other people that actually pay the taxes pay for.

They're not actually happy about it, they've simply been brainwashed into believing that they're doing good for society by essentially depriving their own families the benefit of the taxes that the state extorts from them for others benefit.   It's the liberal mindset.

My brother has a customer on the north shore of Long Island....   now, let me say this right now...   the guy is EXTREMELY wealthy.   But, he's now in the process of selling his home there as the PROPERTY TAXES alone are over $50,000 a year.   As I said, the guy is EXTREMELY wealthy to say the least.    He's relocating to his place in Florida for the tax benefits.   He's also looking at properties in Tennessee, another tax advantageous state, to have a place to escape to in the event of a major hurricane.   He's not the anomaly there though.  Many are getting out, and many point directly at the SALT limitation which was the impetus for the final decision. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.8    5 months ago

Many are getting out, 

Yep...

https://nypost.com/2019/02/04/cuomo-announces-income-tax-revenues-have-dropped-by-2-3b/amp/

One percent of the state’s top income earners provide 46 percent of the state’s personal income tax revenues, officials said.

Cuomo said Albany can’t go to the well and tax the wealthy again because that would only worsen the situation

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.10  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.4    5 months ago

You live in one of those overly taxed areas. 

You also have some of the best schools in the country. 

In other states, you have to send your kids to private school to get great education. 

I already said that the interest rates were part of this. I also said that the cap was a huge mistake. Your state will go blue over it. 

The only upside to the interest rates, is as you stated, you are making more on your CD's, but the assumption is that you have money to put into those CD's and IRA's. Many people used to take their refund and put it into those. But most people in the US need that money. You might consider it a forced savings, but that suddenly not being there is a shocker. That is human nature. 

I prepped my clients for the shock of this all, and they are still reeling from it. I could understand if this tax program didn't take into consideration state taxes, but it was outrageously out of line going after property taxes, which the bulk is for schools.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.11  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.6    5 months ago

I know what SALT is. I am a CPA (sadly).

The proprety taxes is the part that is killing us on Long Island.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.12  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.10    5 months ago
In other states, you have to send your kids to private school to get great education.

Wow...   not too sanctimonious there are you?  Well, I hate to really break your bubble Perrie, but here's a little piece you can chew on for a bit, then get down off your high horse:

EIGHT HIGH SCHOOLS IN LATEST RANKINGS OF NATION’S TOP SCHOOLS

April 18, 2016

Eight Northside high schools are ranked among the top schools in the state and country in the latest rankings fromThe Washington PostandU.S. News and World Report.

Six Northside high schools are included inThe Washington Post’s list of America’s Most Challenging High Schools. More than 2,300 high schools were ranked nationwide.
Ranking State National
Communications Arts High School #37 #129
Health Careers High School #51 #235
Business Careers High School #66 #442
Clark High School #114 #1043
Warren High School #115 #1047
John Jay High School #120
#1192

Source:  https://nisd.net/news/articles/61240

NSISD (North Side Independent School District) is on the north west side of San Antonio.

Maybe you'll approve of the Aquatics center?

natatorium-pool.jpg?itok=rGgoxLva

That's the INDOOR part...

Or would you prefer the OUTDOOR part?

NISD%20Aquatics%20107%281%29.jpg?itok=WL

And DON'T get me started on the HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL STADIUM which many colleges would drool over.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
3.2.13  Studiusbagus  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.12    5 months ago

Duh....she had said:

You live in one of those overly taxed areas.  You also have some of the best schools in the country. 

Nice schools, great athletics [programs....deleted]

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.14  XDm9mm  replied to  Studiusbagus @3.2.13    5 months ago
Nice schools, great athletics programs....reading and comprehension obviously lacks a bit

Thanks for the catch.   I honestly missed that as PH and I often get into contentious little NYer/EX-NYer spats.

[deleted]

 
 
 
cjcold
3.2.15  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.3    5 months ago
No one took my money and gave it to some rich person.

Actually, that's exactly what is happening. The 1% get richer while the rest of us get poorer.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @3.2.15    5 months ago
Actually, that's exactly what is happening. The 1% get richer while the rest of us get poorer.

I'm real sorry someone came and took your money from you, and that you aren't doing well in this economy.

I am!

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.17  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @3.2.15    5 months ago

Pretty darn weird that over 1000 people per day become millionaires in this country, what with all the money going to the top 1% and all!

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
3.2.18  Studiusbagus  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.4    5 months ago
Nothing is moving in the grossly over taxed states like New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and such....  
In other tax rational areas, they're having trouble keeping up with demand.

Nothing like the smell of unresearched bullshit in the morning....

https://m.mysanantonio.com/realestate/article/Red-States-vs-Blue-States-What-s-the-State-of-12534715.php

Last year, blue states saw higher home price growth, at 9.1%, than red states, at 5.9%. They also saw stronger sales growth, at 1.6%, than red states, at 0.7%.

And in fairness:

And the outlook for blue states in 2018 isn't so rosy, either, especially in the wealthier enclaves. The new tax law eliminates the interest deduction on mortgages greater than $750,000. That fits the bill of 2.5% of mortgages in blue states, compared with 0.4% of mortgages in red states.
 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
4  Hal A. Lujah    5 months ago

I know a couple people who have gotten screwed by federal taxes this year.  One of them owes nearly $5,000. Did anyone actually expect Donald Trump to deliver on a promise?  I’m sure he made out like a bandit, but those who actually work hard are getting hammered.  That is the story of Trump’s deplorable life.

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.1  dennis smith  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4    5 months ago

Still bitter that he defeated Clinton

 
 
 
bbl-1
4.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  dennis smith @4.1    5 months ago

Bitter?  Nah.  Many--and more to come--of individuals that associated with the Trump are ending up with felonies.  The base is collapsing. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  bbl-1 @4.1.1    5 months ago
Many--and more to come--of individuals that associated with the Trump are ending up with felonies.  The base is collapsing. 

That sounds like a wild ass assumption.

 
 
 
arkpdx
4.1.3  arkpdx  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.2    5 months ago

Sounds like wishful (and wrong) thinking to me.

 
 
 
Don Overton
4.1.4  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.2    5 months ago

Prove it.  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
4.1.5  Studiusbagus  replied to  Don Overton @4.1.4    5 months ago
Prove it.  

Amazing how that phrase can stop a troll in it's tracks...

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.6  XDm9mm  replied to  Studiusbagus @4.1.5    5 months ago
Amazing how that phrase can stop a troll in it's tracks.

You should be astute enough to know you can't prove a negative.

 
 
 
cjcold
4.1.7  cjcold  replied to  dennis smith @4.1    5 months ago

Still bitter that an ignorant, lying, venal, fool was elected POTUS. That fact says nothing good about the USA.

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.1.8  dennis smith  replied to  bbl-1 @4.1.1    5 months ago

Your crystal ball was inaccurate in 2016 and will also be in 2020 when we will have 4 more years to MAGA.

 
 
 
Don Overton
4.1.9  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  dennis smith @4.1.8    5 months ago

He'll be in jail, kicked out of office before that time

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4    5 months ago
 One of them owes nearly $5,000

Please provide details if this is true. How much did they owe last year?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
4.2.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2    5 months ago

It is my wife.  She normally receives at least $2,000 back, but was shocked to find out she owed $4,700 this year.  We have only been married for less than a year, so this will be our first opportunity to file jointly.  On a side note, I ended up owing enough in state taxes last year than I changed my withholding status to 0 exemptions across the board to ensure I don’t owe anyone.  It looks like my efforts will only go to help dig her out of the debt that Donald Trump foisted on her.  Increasing the standard deduction didn’t even come close to equalling the goal itmized deductions she has relied on for decades to stay ahead.  This administration has seen to it to punish the hardest working Americans in order to further enrich its wealthiest citizens.  One more reason to say goodbye to a second term.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
4.2.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.2.1    5 months ago

Last night we were at a dinner party, and my wife was venting about this.  I now realize that I misspoke - she normally receives at least a $6,000 return (not 2k), and this year she owes $4,700.  We share most of all our expenses equally, but keep our finances separate, so I’m not up to date on her income tax history.  As much as I’d like to say that it is financially naive to let the government hang on to that much of your money rather than withholding less and investing more, I’m very glad she did last year.  Her surprise Trump tax burden might have ruined us otherwise.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.3  MUVA  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4    5 months ago

Paying their fare share isn't getting screwed.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
4.3.1  SteevieGee  replied to  MUVA @4.3    5 months ago

When we see Trump's returns we'll learn what that fair share really is.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
4.3.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  MUVA @4.3    5 months ago

Wow.  Trust fund millionaires who never have an economic concern beyond when to upgrade their yacht got a big Trump bonus this year, but department managers and their underlings apparently weren’t paying their fair share, huh?  Your hero exploded the national deficit to to give the uber wealthy a sloppy wet blowjob, at the expense of the hardest workers this country has to offer.  Just be glad that you married into riches.  It’s a good gig when you can get it, especially with this POTUS*.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.3.3  MUVA  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.3.2    5 months ago

Thanks I'm really glad.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
4.3.4  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  MUVA @4.3.3    5 months ago

It’s funny - on this site, most members don’t give enough clues about themselves to rightfully be identified as unworthy of their economic status.  [Deleted]

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
4.3.5  Studiusbagus  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.3.4    5 months ago
Removed for context

You wrote that so well! Bravo.

Don't forget the private contractors that commute from Swamp Hole Tx. To DC area to work for those "secret squirrel agencies".

 
 
 
MUVA
4.3.6  MUVA  replied to  Studiusbagus @4.3.5    5 months ago

You actually should have posted it was( well written )I wouldn't cast stones.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.3.7  MUVA  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.3.4    5 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
4.3.8  Studiusbagus  replied to  MUVA @4.3.6    5 months ago
You actually should have posted it was( well written )I wouldn't cast stones.

Thanks for the confirmation, right on time..

Removed for context
 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
4.3.9  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  MUVA @4.3.7    5 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.3.10  XDm9mm  replied to  Studiusbagus @4.3.5    5 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MUVA
4.3.11  MUVA  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.3.9    5 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.3.12  Tessylo  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.3.4    5 months ago
'Just be glad that you married into riches.'

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.3.13  Tessylo  replied to  Studiusbagus @4.3.5    5 months ago
'Don't forget the private contractors that commute from Swamp Hole Tx. To DC area to work for those "secret squirrel agencies".'

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
4.3.14  Studiusbagus  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.13    5 months ago

See that pile-up on the highway back there? Lol

 
 
 
bbl-1
5  bbl-1    5 months ago

The Trump/GOP tax plan is not really a scam.  It is simply another implementation and innovation of Supply Side Economics.  It moves the wealth up, into tighter concentration.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @5    5 months ago

Please tell us what money was moved up.

Are you talking about money they already HAD?

How is that moving it up?

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
5.1.1  Studiusbagus  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1    5 months ago

You didn't notice that essentially you have the same rate?

Corporations don't they dropped roughly 12%, points. And getting bigger breaks. Your not.

Your money just moved up.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Studiusbagus @5.1.1    5 months ago

My money is still with me, minus what I always end up paying in taxes. 

Did someone come take your money or something?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.2    5 months ago

Yes, the IRS. Wait till next year when you pay more.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.3    5 months ago

Well, future isn't now. The claim was made that my money is moving up to richer folks, and that is just a little too silly for me to swallow.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1.5  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.3    5 months ago
Yes, the IRS. Wait till next year when you pay more.

OK..

As a teacher, can you please explain to me how paying "A" (tax rate) amount of "B" (income) is going to change year to year?   Unless "A" or "B" increases, the taxes due (C) will remain the same.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  Studiusbagus @5.1.1    5 months ago
Your money just moved up

Another illogical comment. And corporations don't really pay taxes anyway, they pass them on down the line in the distribution chain. If they pay less, the costs passed down are lower \.

 
 
 
Don Overton
5.1.7  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.6    5 months ago

It's too bad that conservatives seldom research and only throw out comments that have no value

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
5.1.8  Studiusbagus  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.6    5 months ago
. If they pay less, the costs passed down are lower \.

Talk about illogical!

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
5.1.9  Studiusbagus  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1.5    5 months ago
As a teacher, can you please explain to me how paying "A" (tax rate) amount of "B" (income) is going to change year to year?   Unless "A" or "B" increases, the taxes due (C) will remain the same.

If "A" tax rate is the same, and "B" income is the same, but in the filing you find that you can no longer deduct your miles, or the technical clothes to do your job then under the same rates your tax bill jumps "C" by $5000 you wouldn't need a teacher for that math.

And it's going to get even worse next year.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1.10  XDm9mm  replied to  Studiusbagus @5.1.9    5 months ago
If "A" tax rate is the same, and "B" income is the same, but in the filing you find that you can no longer deduct your miles, or the technical clothes to do your job then under the same rates your tax bill jumps "C" by $5000 you wouldn't need a teacher for that math.

For someone who likes to denigrate others, you're obviously not astute enough to know the means available to circumvent those issues you apparently have.

Go find a good tax attorney or a CPA worth his/her salt and have a discussion.  You'll be amazed at what you will actually learn, or not.

 
 
 
bugsy
5.1.11  bugsy  replied to  Don Overton @5.1.7    5 months ago
throw out comments that have no value

Pot????/ Meet kettle...

 
 
 
cjcold
5.1.12  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1    5 months ago

Money always moves up to the top 1% that's how this game works.

Steal a loaf of bread to feed your family and go to jail.

Steal millions on the market and you get a bonus.

What is wrong with this picture?

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
5.1.13  Studiusbagus  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1.10    5 months ago

didn't even make sense. You asked how that could happen I showed you.

Those aren't my problems. This is what I read from the law that obviously some who claim business knowledge didn't bother reading. Or they were too busy trying to brag about their accomplishments.

It's a habit since I started having some self employed side gig since I was a teen. I read the law and what it will be like next year too and adjusted my plan accordingly. 

"You can't guide a child through a maze you don't know" me.

A business is a child I raise. Can't steer it clear of trouble if you haven't looked to see what's ahead.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @5.1.12    5 months ago

I guess one of us has some special definition of what stealing is.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.2  Greg Jones  replied to  bbl-1 @5    5 months ago

Please define supply side economics.

 
 
 
Don Overton
5.2.1  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  Greg Jones @5.2    5 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Gee that was easy, try it.  Google.com

 
 
 
cjcold
5.2.2  cjcold  replied to  Greg Jones @5.2    5 months ago

It's called Reaganomics. You should know since you use his avatar.

P.S. it has never worked for WE THE PEOPLE. It only works for the uber wealthy.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
5.2.3  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Greg Jones @5.2    5 months ago

Steal from the poor to give to the rich.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @5.2.3    5 months ago
Steal from the poor to give to the rich.

It's a crime to steal.  You should alert your local law enforcement personnel next time you see it happen.

It would be the right thing to do.

I am rather curious as to what a rich person would want from poor people?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
5.2.5  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.4    5 months ago
It's a crime to steal.

Not when it's the government who does it.

  You should alert your local law enforcement personnel next time you see it happen.

Yeah, Ok, try to tell the police that the government stole your money to give it to the rich. Good luck with that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @5.2.5    5 months ago

How did the government disperse all that money to the rich?

Is there a paper trail, a list of bank deposits, anything, anything at all?

And what did the government steal from the poor?

Did they take some of their money through taxation?

Is that what you call stealing?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
5.2.7  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.6    5 months ago

Open your eyes and, keep watching, sooner or, later, if you keep your eyes open and, your mind open you will see it. Maybe.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @5.2.7    5 months ago
Open your eyes and, keep watching, sooner or, later, if you keep your eyes open and, your mind open you will see it. Maybe.

Ooh, how cryptic!

I suppose that is easier than answering what was asked.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
5.2.9  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.8    5 months ago
Ooh, how cryptic! I suppose that is easier than answering what was asked.

You have spent countless posts on here saying that the deficit was high under Obama's first three years, discounting the five years after as if they never happened. You tried to claim that somehow Trump was responsible for the lower deficit in 2016 when he hadn't even been elected yet. You have stated that Trump has been president for three years when we have just entered his third year as president and, you wonder why I don't answer your questions? Please, as I said, learn to read, open your eyes and, keep watching, if you have an open mind, then you will see it. Until then, I'm done with you.

 
 
 
dennis smith
5.2.10  dennis smith  replied to  Greg Jones @5.2    5 months ago

Don will not explain it, he will tell you to find what he calls "proof"

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @5.2.9    5 months ago

OMG! Are you deliberately misreading or misunderstanding what I write?????

I never claimed Trump was responsible for the lower deficit or higher deficit.

Is this show you argue---put words in others' mouths and then argue like they have said stuff YOU make up?

Whoo Boy!

It would behoove you to look at what I actually posted, not what you SAY I posted without evidence.

I am SO DAMN GLAD you are done with me so I can be free from inane posts!

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
6  Studiusbagus    5 months ago

Wait and see what the derficit will be once the dust settles and all the returns are in. 

Odds are the treasury is going to start a severe downward spiral.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1  Texan1211  replied to  Studiusbagus @6    5 months ago

Think the deficit will be as high as it was under Obama?

 
 
 
bbl-1
6.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    5 months ago

"Think" may be the key word here.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @6.1.1    5 months ago

Are you trying to say that you don't believe that he thinks?

 
 
 
bbl-1
6.1.3  bbl-1  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.2    5 months ago

"He?"

Deficit.  2016 $585B.  2017 $665B  2018 $779B

It is the 'he' which is in question here.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @6.1.3    5 months ago

You really need to make more sense.

I asked a question----"Think the deficit will be as high as it was under Obama?"

You then responded with ""Think" may be the key word here.".

Since I was asking the poster what HE thought the deficit might go to, your post makes no sense whatsoever.,

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @6.1.3    5 months ago

Deficit. Obama.

2009  $1.413 trillion

2010  $1.294 trillion

2011 $1.295 trillion

2012  $1.087 trillion

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @6.1.3    5 months ago

The deficit numbers from 2009-2012 make the numbers you supplied look like bargains!

 
 
 
bbl-1
6.1.7  bbl-1  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.5    5 months ago

Absolutely true.  No argument.  The Cheney/Bush left the incoming president with a shit sandwich without the bread.  When Obama left office in Jan. 2017   it was $585B.  That's the facts Jack. 

Have no idea what you're trying to say or prove.  I really don't. 

What in the hell is it that you're defending?  j e c

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @6.1.7    5 months ago

WTF are you trying to prove?

Besides whatever the hell you posted in 6.1.1 and 6.1.3 still don't make sense.

We have deficits.

Have for a long time. The deficits for Trump's first years are significantly lower than Obama's first years.

Debate THAT.

 
 
 
LynneA
6.1.9  LynneA  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.8    5 months ago

I'd think deficit expectations would be expotentially less then Obama's last couple of years given the unemployment numbers, regulation easing, windfall tax reductions on repatriated money, lowering of corporate taxes, etc.

Trickle down has this retired couple paying more in taxes...being pissed on makes for wet, pissed off seniors.  LOL

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  LynneA @6.1.9    5 months ago

I think history shows us that what we pay in taxes has really very little to do with the actual spending by Congress.

We run deficits when the economy is poor and we run deficits when the economy is great.

we simply allow Congress to spend whatever they wish without regard to debt and deficits.

 
 
 
LynneA
6.1.11  LynneA  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.10    5 months ago

That's like saying the GOP knew the White House talking points would equate to a trillion more in debt, while climbing aboard the tax train.  Conservatives relished in the tax cuts, even when think tanks accurately predicted the financial impact.

I find it disingenuous to post Obama's first years of deficits and turn around with "We run deficits when the economy is poor and we run deficits when the economy is great."

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  LynneA @6.1.11    5 months ago

I posted Obama's deficits to contrast with the deficits under Trump. It is a valid comparison.

it is simply a fact, no matter which party is in charge, that we run deficits. Been that way for the vast majority of time since the 1960's at least.

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1.13  MUVA  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.10    5 months ago

I'm paying less in income and corporate taxes I will have exact numbers soon but between both this year somewhere around 50,000 dollars combined.

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.1.14  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    5 months ago

AmandaJeff-7.png

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.1.15  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  MUVA @6.1.13    5 months ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
6.1.16  Studiusbagus  replied to  Don Overton @6.1.15    5 months ago

You're way ahead of on that laugh.

But still....bwaaaaahahaha.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @6.1.14    5 months ago

Let's compare, shall we?

Deficit. 2016 $585B. 2017 $665B 2018 $779B

Deficit. 2009 $1.413 trillion 2010 $1.294 trillion 2010 $1.294 trillion 

Now. let's see if you can figure which years were higher in deficits and which years were lower.

Here's a real hint for ya:

Trillion is more than a billion, okay?

Hope all this helps!

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.18  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.17    5 months ago
This year, FY 2019, the federal government in its latest budget has estimated that the deficit will be $984 billion.

Here is the federal deficit by year for the last decade:

Deficits in billions
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018  
$458 $1,413 $1,294 $1,295 $1,087 $679 $485 $438 $585 $665 $779  

Click for deficits from 1960 to present.

See also deficit as percent of GDP.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html
 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @6.1.18    5 months ago

So exactly what I posted. You could have just copied and pasted my comment!

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.20  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.19    5 months ago

Under Obama (and Bush) the deficit spending was intentional.

It backed off in his later term when the economy was recovering.

Now it is rising again in a supposedly great economy.

Also with major tax cuts without cutting spending, it is only going to get worse.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @6.1.20    5 months ago

I guess Democrats better get busy raising taxes and cutting spending then, huh?

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.22  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.21    5 months ago
I guess Democrats better get busy raising taxes and cutting spending then, huh?

So republicans make a mess and the Democrats should clean it up?

I never thought taxes needed to be cut to begin with.

With loopholes and deductions, it was never what was paid anyway.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @6.1.22    5 months ago
So republicans make a mess and the Democrats should clean it up?

Wouldn't Democrats want to--if it is such a big deal and all?

I never thought taxes needed to be cut to begin with.

How's about a return to the 1950's rates for all?

With loopholes and deductions, it was never what was paid anyway.

One of the reasons I support a flat tax regardless of income.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.24  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.23    5 months ago
There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percentfor most of the decade.[1]However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.

The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent.

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

This was of course before the trump tax cuts.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @6.1.24    5 months ago

Not really sure what point you are trying to make here.

I know that the rich pay a lot in taxes. In fact, they pay the lion's share and then some as far as collected income taxes go. They always have. More so now than in the 1950's.

That is why I said rates for ALL from the 1950's. The middle class and lower class do not pay as much as they did then, or even close, really.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
6.1.26  Studiusbagus  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    5 months ago
Think the deficit will be as high as it was under Obama?

Higher. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  Studiusbagus @6.1.26    5 months ago

Not yet it isn't compared year to year with Obama.

Think Democrats will raise taxes and cut spending?

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
6.1.28  Studiusbagus  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.27    5 months ago
Not yet it isn't compared year to year with Obama.

Yeah, it has. I took a quick look on Google and from Obama's last year to Trump's first it's already jumped. This year will probably be titanic.

Think Democrats will raise taxes and cut spending?

I couldn't say. With the precedents set by the Republicans and especially if Trump pulls the trigger on the emerg powers it's difficult to guage how they would react.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  Studiusbagus @6.1.28    5 months ago

Year to year.

Obama's first year vs. Trump's first year.

Obama' second year vs. Trump's second year.

LOL!

 
 
 
cjcold
6.1.30  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    5 months ago

Obama added the cost of two ongoing wars which Bush didn't.

Amazing how much money Bush paid Cheney for starting a war with a no-bid contract for Halliburton.

How is it that these scumbags are not in prison?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @6.1.30    5 months ago
Obama added the cost of two ongoing wars which Bush didn't.

It always amazes me when people are still falling for that Democratic fairy tale.

Do you really believe it, or just don't know the difference between off the books and off the budget? Congress approved every penny spent on the wars.

Amazing how much money Bush paid Cheney for starting a war with a no-bid contract for Halliburton.

Gee, it was real nice of Obama to continue that by issuing a no bid contract to Halliburton!

How is it that these scumbags are not in prison?

The Obama Administration's Justice Department declined to press charges. Why don't you ask them why?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
6.1.32  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.17    5 months ago
Let's compare, shall we?

Deficit. 2016 $585B. 2017 $665B 2018 $779B

Deficit. 2009 $1.413 trillion 2010 $1.294 trillion 2010 $1.294 trillion 

Let's take in the numbers you've given use here and, examine them closely,

Deficit, 2016 $585B, Texan, who was president in 2016? Obama was, well, damn, that means that the deficit had dropped under Obama's watch.

Deficit 2017 $665B, I don't know, I wasn't much good at math but, it seems to me that is greater than $585B and, I believe Trump was president in 2017 and, the deficit in 2018 was $779B in 2018, isn't that higher than $585B, it seems to me it is. Now, the argument could be made that the fault lies with Obama except I remember Trump and, the Republicans adding to the budget in 2017 and, giving a tax cut to millionaires during 2017/18 which the CBO said would ADD to the deficit.

Now, let's look at 2009 to 2010, what was happening during that period of time? Oh yeah, Bush had put us into a recession that was called "The Great Recession" we were losing jobs at that time at 700k a month and, we had bailouts for banks and, auto makers at the time, adds a lot of money to the deficit don't ya think and, to top it off we were still fighting a war in Iraq and, Afghanistan at the time so, those trillions really were from the Bush administration but, again it could be argued that it was Obama who added to the deficit, I guess but, then we have to look at what the deficit did after 2010 to figure out what went on, don't we?

2011 $1,295B, 2012 $1,087B, 2013 $679B, 2014 $485B, 2015 $438B, 2016 $585B

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_federal_deficit.php

Damn, look at that, the deficit actually dropped under Obama and, it seems it has gone up under Trump.






 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.1.32    5 months ago

Yep, figures you like trillion-dollar deficits more than billion-dollar ones because, well, Obama!

Look at Obama's first 3 years, and then compare it to Trump's first 3 years.

Now, if and when Trump's deficits reach over a trillion per year, you will finally have an actual point and then we can talk again.

Now, if the deficit is so troubling, I expect Democrats to cut spending and pass a tax increase. And not just on the rich--on all of us, after all, it is an emergency, right?

Want to bet they don't?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
6.1.34  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.33    5 months ago
Look at Obama's first 3 years, and then compare it to Trump's first 3 years.

Next time read every word in my posts, then you might get what I was saying, the deficit dropped under Obama every year he was in office from 2011 through 2016, under Trump for the past two years it has gone up, now, what do you want to bet it will go up again this year?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.35  Texan1211  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.1.34    5 months ago
Next time read every word in my posts, t

Read every single word.

I am not happy with ANY deficit run under ANY President.

But I'll be DAMNED if I am going to be conned into thinking that trillions in deficits is better than billions in deficits. I ain't that freaking gullible.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
6.1.36  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.35    5 months ago
But I'll be DAMNED if I am going to be conned into thinking that trillions in deficits is better than billions in deficits. I ain't that freaking gullible.

Well, that's a matter of opinion, especially when I look at the numbers under Obama where the deficit dropped over his eight years in office and, you won't even admit that happened. We went from a trillion dollar deficit at the beginning of Obama's presidency to a billion dollar deficit by the end of his presidency, to me that says the deficit dropped under his presidency, that should make you happy but, you can't see it because of your hate for the man. Wow, talk about pot and, kettle.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.37  Texan1211  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.1.36    5 months ago
Well, that's a matter of opinion, especially when I look at the numbers under Obama where the deficit dropped over his eight years in office and, you won't even admit that happened.

Yes, the deficit went down over the course of Obama's terms. Happy now?

We went from a trillion dollar deficit at the beginning of Obama's presidency to a billion dollar deficit by the end of his presidency, to me that says the deficit dropped under his presidency, that should make you happy but, you can't see it because of your hate for the man. Wow, talk about pot and, kettle.

Yes, the deficit dropped under his Presidency. 

When did I dispute that? Why are you arguing like I ever denied it?

I was talking the amount of the deficits, not whether they increased or went down.

I don't want ANY deficits, period. 

If you are accusing me of hating Obama, have the decency to quote me on it instead of accusing me unjustly.

You have done this before--put word in my mouth. Stop it.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
6.1.38  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.37    5 months ago
Yes, the deficit dropped under his Presidency. 

Thank you for finally admitting that much.

When did I dispute that? Why are you arguing like I ever denied it?

You have made it a point to imply that somehow magically Trump was responsible for the lower deficit in 2016.

From your post,

Let's compare, shall we?
Deficit. 2016 $585B. 2017 $665B 2018 $779B

Weren't you implying that 2016 was somehow because of Trump being president?

I was talking the amount of the deficits, not whether they increased or went down.

Then you should have included the FACT that the deficits did go down during the five years of Obama's presidency. To do otherwise makes it seem as if you don't want to give credit were credit is due.

I don't want ANY deficits, period. 

Neither do I, that is why I am against the Trump tax cut, that is a deficit maker. I would like to see people get a tax cut but, we need something to offset the expense it will create. You claim to have been in business, when is it ever a good idea to cut revenue to a business especially when expenses are high and, putting the company in the red?

If you are accusing me of hating Obama, have the decency to quote me on it instead of accusing me unjustly.

I'm not accusing you of hating him, I'm just saying you don't want to give him credit for any of his accomplishments, like actually cutting the deficit, you want to make it Trumps effort when it is obvious to anyone who can see that the deficit was cut under Obama.

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.1.39  dennis smith  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.1.32    5 months ago

Continuing with the Obama supporters using the "blame Bush for Obama's results". 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.40  Texan1211  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.1.38    5 months ago
You have made it a point to imply that somehow magically Trump was responsible for the lower deficit in 2016.

Wholly inaccurate, and if THAT is what you got from my post, then that is on you. I certainly didn't write it, so continue to just make shit up.

I'm not accusing you of hating him, I'm just saying you don't want to give him credit for any of his accomplishments, like actually cutting the deficit, you want to make it Trumps effort when it is obvious to anyone who can see that the deficit was cut under Obama.

Did you write this, or did someone post under your name?

that should make you happy but, you can't see it because of your hate for the man. Wow, talk about pot and, kettle.

Now, should I merely pretend that you didn't write this, like you are doing? Should I believe you or my lying eyes? Did you mean to write that I don't hate the man, and just made a serious typo, and then added a little snark to your typo?

You say I have claimed or written things I haven't, and then deny what you yourself have written.

Difference is, when you write stuff, and I claim you did, I can prove it, while you claim things you don't bother to prove, because we know you can't when you just make stuff up.

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.1.41  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.31    5 months ago

You've made several allegations let's see you prove them

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.1.42  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.29    5 months ago

Got a chart for those allegations? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.43  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @6.1.41    5 months ago
You've made several allegations let's see you prove them

What allegations did I make that you need me to prove for you?

And please, quote me on the allegations.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.44  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @6.1.42    5 months ago

Can you at least be specific enough as to what allegations you are referring to?

Is that really asking too much?

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.1.45  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  Don Overton @6.1.41    5 months ago
I'm not accusing you of hating him, I'm just saying you don't want to give him credit for any of his accomplishments, like actually cutting the deficit, you want to make it Trumps effort when it is obvious to anyone who can see that the deficit was cut under Obama.

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.1.46  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  Don Overton @6.1.41    5 months ago
Difference is, when you write stuff, and I claim you did, I can prove it, while you claim things you don't bother to prove, because we know you can't when you just make stuff up.

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.1.47  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  Don Overton @6.1.42    5 months ago

Wholly

 
 
 
It Is ME
7  It Is ME    5 months ago

My taxes are going swimmingly ! jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

"Some" paycheck to paycheck workers  should STOP doing their own taxes. Those types think they're "Smart" jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif, but they ain't when it comes to "Tax Laws" ! 

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1  It Is ME  replied to  It Is ME @7    5 months ago

By the way:

"Millions of Americans are now paying their taxes and either getting smaller refunds than they expected or owing the government more money than they had expected."

If they are taking out less from your paycheck, meaning you are taking more money home, your refund WILL be less. jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

On the other hand, if you are having to pay, they are taking too little out of your paycheck in the first place. jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

And the biggy of all time:

If you get a "Big Refund" at the end of the year, your paying too much in the first place, and allowing the Government to play with YOUR money to make money, and yet you get no interest on your money they played with, when YOU get YOUR overpaid hard earned money back ! jrSmiley_23_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
LynneA
7.1.1  LynneA  replied to  It Is ME @7.1    5 months ago

Perhaps there are those like us who live on retirement income, have zero debt and left the federal tax paid in 2017 to remain the same in 2018...only to find themselves sending more $ to the IRS this year.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  LynneA @7.1.1    5 months ago

If you rely on a retirement income, and make 25 grand or less a year in SS, you shouldn't be paying taxes at all. You just have to file showing the sort !

IMO, if you are getting back retirement (SS) income you paid into the system for all your life, you shouldn't have to pay back to government at all, but you also shouldn't get MORE back either !

It's YOUR money they are you giving back ! They did make interest off your money though, but they aren't gonna give you that.....for sure !

I'm always pissed about those that don't contribute at all, yet get 3 or 4 grand back every year from the gov., just because !

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.3  XDm9mm  replied to  LynneA @7.1.1    5 months ago
Perhaps there are those like us who live on retirement income, have zero debt and left the federal tax paid in 2017 to remain the same in 2018...only to find themselves sending more $ to the IRS this year.

I'm sorry Lynne....   but unless you live in a high tax state where your SALT deduction is now capped at $10,000, you're blowing smoke....

 
 
 
LynneA
7.1.4  LynneA  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.2    5 months ago

Fortunate to have had financial breaks and advances in our working lives.  Did without then to have an adequate retirement income now. 

My only point is, with all things being equal (except inflation), the tax cuts negatively impacted the amount we owe.  The 'increased' married couple deduction is laughable given healthcare costs for many seniors.

Laugh to myself as my Mom relays how she's getting $500 back...asked her what her refund was last year, already knowing it was $1200.  Proceeds to tell me she was happy to get a larger individual deduction or she wouldn't have gotten anything!  After explanation, realizes she just got screwed.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  LynneA @7.1.4    5 months ago
Laugh to myself as my Mom relays how she's getting $500 back

Because they were taking out too much in the first place. Don't EVER let government take more of YOUR money than they should. A big "Refund" isn't a perk. That just means YOU gave them to much in the first place. Banks give you "Interest" for money used, Government doesn't !

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.6  XDm9mm  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.2    5 months ago
IMO, if you are getting back retirement (SS) income you paid into the system for all your life, you shouldn't have to pay back to government at all, but you also shouldn't get MORE back either !

Actually, in most cases, a SS recipient ultimately receives more back than paid in, even factoring in what the employer 'contributes' to the 'account'.

Personally, I receive the maximum allowed by law monthly, as I (and my employer(s)) paid the maximum amount annually my entire working life.  But remember one point.  The amount your employer contributed was never taxed.  In point of fact, it was a business deduction the employer took against revenue.   Now, that I'm receiving that money, it is 'taxable' to me.

Oh, and the 'interest' the SS funds make are not spectacular.   The funds are invested, by law, into a specific type of federal debt obligation which in no way shape or form is anywhere close to the returns money in the stock markets have realized over the last 50 year or so.  Just sayin.

 
 
 
LynneA
7.1.7  LynneA  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.3    5 months ago

Guess I'll bottle the smoke and send it to the IRS.jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.8  It Is ME  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.6    5 months ago
The funds are invested, by law, into a specific type of federal debt obligation which in no way shape or form is anywhere close to the returns money in the stock markets have realized over the last 50 year or so.  Just sayin.

Privatize retirement ! jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

In Simple terms.….allow "Individual Choice". If other things are worthy and protestable for "Choice", why not this ?

 
 
 
LynneA
7.1.9  LynneA  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.5    5 months ago

Totally agree!  I'm a better investor then the federal govt.  Mom is old school...likes the refund for the vacation she wouldn't put the same money aside for.  Always treated refunds like a bonus...love her dearly, thankfully we can assist her vacation funds to meet her bucket list! 

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.10  It Is ME  replied to  LynneA @7.1.9    5 months ago
thankfully we can assist her vacation funds to meet her bucket list! 

Been there, done that ! jrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
7.1.11  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  LynneA @7.1.9    5 months ago

Not everyone has the time and energy for investing.  The interest earned on $1,200 accumulated over the course of 12 months is barely worth the effort to ensure you are investing it wisely and moving it around as needed to keep on top.  It might buy you a nice dinner somewhere - whoopdedoo.  If that was the plan and one didn’t do their homework on how to change your withholding status to accommodate the new tax laws, one could easily find themselves in the negative this filing season.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.12  It Is ME  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7.1.11    5 months ago
The interest earned on $1,200 accumulated over the course of 12 months is barely worth the effort to ensure you are investing it wisely and moving it around as needed to keep on top.

You don't invest for just a quickie twelve month return !

Many have committed suicide because of investing like that !

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
7.1.13  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.12    5 months ago

So you tell me - if one invests that cumulative $1,200 in long term low maintenance medium risk investments, what restaurant should they choose to indulge their profits on?

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.14  It Is ME  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7.1.13    5 months ago

I don't do "Low" or "Medium" !

I go for the "Gusto" !

That's why I have what I do ! jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
7.1.15  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.14    5 months ago

Since you didn’t answer my question, why don’t you answer the same question framed in the terms of how you would have invest it?  Would it be the Olive Garden, or something along the line of Ruth’s Chris?

A much wiser plan would be to refinance at a good opportunity from a 30 year mortgage to a 15 year, and stop eating out so much to help pay for it.  That’s what we did and it will save tens of thousands in the long run.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.16  It Is ME  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7.1.15    5 months ago
Since you didn’t answer my question

Can't answer for "Safers" !

I can only answer for what worked for "It Is ME" !

I'm a "Ruth Chris" kinda guy ! Always have been. I know what I want, and I go get it myself. jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

"stop eating out so much to help pay for it."

Now there is your "Sign", on WHY folks don't have. They have this "NEED" to live beyond their means, then Bitch that they deserve MORE....on some others dime !

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
7.1.17  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.16    5 months ago

Now there is your "Sign", on WHY folks don't have.

There’s plenty of those signs around.  Half of them say Starbucks on them. A daily Starbucks addiction wouldn’t even come close to the return on a high risk cumulative $1,200 stock investment.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.18  It Is ME  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7.1.17    5 months ago

Just another indulgence that takes money from the worker, and hands it over to the Billionaire. And folks bitch about Billionaires. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
7.1.19  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.18    5 months ago

And folks bitch about Billionaires.

They don’t bitch about billionaires, they bitch about how their billions are taxed.  For every 50,000 Americans who worked hard to climb ladders that solidify their middle class status, there’s a worthless slug that sleeps in every morning before engaging in the only “work” they accomplish - opening envelopes to see how their investments are doing.  Why on earth should their earnings be taxed at a lower rate than the people who actually make the country function?!

 
 
 
LynneA
7.1.20  LynneA  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7.1.11    5 months ago

Hal, I agree with your $1200 investing scenario and perhaps my wording needs clarification.  Her whole life, she looked forward to refunds.  During her working days it may have amounted to $4 or $5K/yr.  Over her lifetime, if she didn't spend all the refund, her retirement income would be larger.  To be fair to my Mom, 401K and IRA's weren't available in her early life.  She was born in poverty whose goal was to get out if it and provide the necessities and fun she never had to her children.  She achieved it well.

We lived quite frugally to save for our retirement, thankfull we never suffered through tragedies that wiped out financial stability.  Many of us are but one tragedy away from losing middle class status.  Healthcare is my #1 concern.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
7.1.21  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  LynneA @7.1.20    5 months ago

I got wiped out before the recession.  NW Ohio and SE Michigan (where I used to live) were heavily dependent on the automotive industry.  My engineering colleagues and I were designing subdivisions to feed the exploding growth in home buyers, and we kept asking ourselves who are these people that are buying all these expensive new homes?  We had good paying jobs, plenty of job security, and modest homes with reasonable mortgages - so who were all these people who suddenly could afford homes that cost twice as much as ours?  They were the poor thinking targets of predatory lenders.  

Eventually NAFTA caused many of those targeted automotive factory workers to lose their jobs, thus compounding their ballooning house payment problems, ending up losing everything to foreclosure and kicking off the mortgage crisis that spread like wildfire throughout the rest of the country.  No more new house buying meant no more subdivisions, hence no more job security.  I lost my job, then my home, and was damn near ready to close the garage door and leave the engine running.  It’s a hard thing to recover from, financially and mentally.  Certain people deserved to go to prison over that shit, but that did not happen.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.22  XDm9mm  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7.1.21    5 months ago
They were the poor thinking targets of predatory lenders.  

The lender did not hold a gun to the heads of the people buying as you note "these expensive new homes".   I was in that situation myself.  I was house shopping and when the RE agent told me the price, I LITERALLY laughed in her face.  Then I quickly asked if the selling price included a full time prepaid maid, butler and gardener.   What absolutely floored me was that the next week, the price had risen $10 grand and people were bidding the price up!!!!   So, please don't dare claim that was the fault of the lender.

Needless to say, I didn't buy and instead, rented.  My son however, made out like a bandit.  He and his wife bought a townhouse the year earlier and sold it the next year for better than double what they paid for it....   and that was a bargain compared to what others were selling for in the area....  but they turned around and dumped every penny of what they walked away with on a really nice five bedroom, five full and three half bath, colonial sitting on just over 5 acres.  They bought that place for just over $750,000 in Loudoun county VA.... 

THEN came the housing bubble popping.....

That's when I started buying.   Foreclosures, short sales, and other properties.   Yeah, people called me all sorts of names, but I saw the opportunity and jumped at the chance.

I rented those properties out and kept buying....   now, I've sold all of them in VA off and own properties here in Texas.   Fortunately, several of the properties in VA provided sufficient funds to turn around here and buy multiple properties cash.  Gotta love the absurdity of the NOVA housing market...  those people are doing the exact same thing today as they did before the housing crash.

Now, as to people going to prison.

That's a hard call.  What they did was legal even though dubious.   But when the markets bought those "derivatives", they knew what they were investing in, and it didn't take a rocket scientist to see that it was only a matter of time before that house of cards collapsed.   I actually called that collapse back in the '90's, but I was off by a few years.  HOW it continued as long as it did was beyond my comprehension.

Hell, hold onto you seat because the same thing is happening all over again.   But some are more circumspect about it today and not so blatantly in your face.   But, it's acummin.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
7.1.23  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.22    5 months ago

The lender did not hold a gun to the heads of the people buying

I didn’t say that they did.  There will always be people willing to make poor economic choices without thinking them through, that is just reality. Consequently, there should also always be regulations to prevent lenders from preying on those people.  When those regulations are stripped away, millions of innocent people are eventually affected.  The bubble bursting causes all segments of society to suffer lost income, with the possible exception of house flippers.  Patting yourself on the back over your ability to profit off of the mass suffering of your countrymen is extremely poor form.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.24  XDm9mm  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7.1.23    5 months ago

This is an excellent read on the topic, and from all places Wikipedia!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble

Patting yourself on the back over your ability to profit off of the mass suffering of your countrymen is extremely poor form.

Simply stating a fact.  I happened to be in a position to take advantage of a bad situation.   In fact, I rented several of the properties back to the people who were losing them.  I only needed to cover my expenses, and those expenses were appreciably less than what they had previously been paying to the bank.  They ALL thanked me for not taking advantage of them in their down time.  It gave them the opportunity to stay in the same house, keep their kids in the same schools, go to the same 'house of worship', keep several of the neighborhood friends, and have a routine that was as close to what they had before as was humanly possible.  Actually, several of them were able to repurchase the property from me when I decided to sell.  I let them know my intentions and gave them the first go at the house.  I reduced the "selling price" I had been quoted by several agents by the amount of RE commission I would have had to pay had I utilized a listing/selling agent. 

If it was not me, it would have been others that very likely would not have been quite as nice about the situation and instead would have kicked them out, patched the place up a little and sold it off for a quick ROI.

 
 
 
LynneA
7.1.25  LynneA  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7.1.21    5 months ago

We were asking the same question regarding the price of new housing NW of Chicago in the 90's.  Amazed it'd be a mid-30's couple, two kids, BWM, a mini van moving into a 450,000 home.  Lots of them...until the bottom fell out.  Predetory lenders sold a pipe dream to a willing generation.  

Mortgages bundled up and sold, those on the gravy train made millions.  Average middle class workers paid dearly in housing and jobs.  Some never recovered.

I'm sorry to learn what befell you.  Glad you didn't take to the garage!  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.26  XDm9mm  replied to  LynneA @7.1.25    5 months ago
Predetory lenders sold a pipe dream to a willing generation. 

Excuse me, but the people that sold the houses were REAL ESTATE AGENTS.....   the lenders simply made the funds available for the grossly overpriced homes.

If you care to disprove that, please show me the lending institution that held the open houses, planted the signs all over the place, ran the TV and print ads promoting those developments.

Everyone always wants to blame the big bad bank, as if they were the only entities involved in the transaction.

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1.27  MUVA  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7.1.23    5 months ago

I understand your position but isn't the fault XDm9 you should have tried being in the boat business during the recession the market dropped by 70% in just a couple years.   

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1.28  MUVA  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.26    5 months ago

I find it funny people borrow money don't pay it back and it's the lenders fault.

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1.29  MUVA  replied to  LynneA @7.1.25    5 months ago

How did the rest of resist refinishing or buying a house we couldn't afford predatory lending is BS it should be called people making bad choices.

 
 
 
lady in black
7.1.30  lady in black  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.22    5 months ago

I can't give any details due to confidentiality but I have been privy to certain bank things that would make your head spin and yes banks certainly were at fault with the swaps, cdos, derivatives etc.  

As far as housing prices, etc., when my late husband and I were looking to buy in 2003/2004 (mind you housing prices in WNY never went crazy) we set the price we'd go up to even though we were approved for 100,000 more than we had any intention of paying.  We lived by the saying we didn't want to be house poor.  I even remember reading an article before the housing bubble burst and it was in regards to interest only loans, I thought to myself anyone who would get a loan like that would have to be crazy.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.31  XDm9mm  replied to  lady in black @7.1.30    5 months ago
I can't give any details due to confidentiality but I have been privy to certain bank things that would make your head spin and yes banks certainly were at fault with the swaps, cdos, derivatives etc.  

What the banks did AFTER the fact with the mortgages (swaps, cdos, derivatives etc.) is another topic.  There was no bank that was involved, other than making the initial loan, in any real estate transaction.

As far as housing prices, etc., when my late husband and I were looking to buy in 2003/2004 (mind you housing prices in WNY never went crazy) we set the price we'd go up to even though we were approved for 100,000 more than we had any intention of paying.  We lived by the saying we didn't want to be house poor.  I even remember reading an article before the housing bubble burst and it was in regards to interest only loans, I thought to myself anyone who would get a loan like that would have to be crazy.

First, sorry for your loss.  Losing a loved one always sucks but should not stop the survivor from living as you obviously know and understand.  

Now, congratulations to you and your late husband for living within your means AND knowing your own limitations.  As I noted in 7.2.22 above, I laughed at one (more than one actually) real estate agent when they quoted me a price.  The big pitch of the day back then was as you indicated a "zero down, interest only, ARM" to buy the place.  THAT pitch was almost immediately followed by "you can flip this place in six months for 50K or more than you'll pay today...  and have those tax advantages to help you manage."  I actually had one agent that had a print out of how "You can buy this today, and in one year, buy the house of your dreams all cash."  It was a buy and flip scheme that was laughable, but considering the time and how some people WERE cashing in on the buy and flip scheme, I could understand how some would fall for the pitch.  Hell, there were TV programs essentially promoting the schemes........

 
 
 
lady in black
7.1.32  lady in black  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.31    5 months ago

Thank you for the kind words.

I do partly blame real estate agents....we went into the house buying process saying we would NOT get in a bidding war and lo and behold the first house we put a bid on the agent called us and said we are in a bidding war.  Guess what, I stayed firm.  Needless to say we ended up dumping said real estate agent when we went to look at another house by ourselves and he actually came there with another client and said something to the effect of I can't seem to stay away from you guys in a snarky manner. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
7.1.33  dennis smith  replied to  LynneA @7.1.4    5 months ago

This is not about healthcare issues unfortunately. They go up every year. Without the marries increased deduction, you would owe more taxes. 

 
 
 
cjcold
7.2  cjcold  replied to  It Is ME @7    5 months ago
, but they ain't

Pretty sure I won't be taking tax advice from somebody who can't spell, uses emojis and thinks global warming is a hoax.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.2.1  It Is ME  replied to  cjcold @7.2    5 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Nothing like trying to demean a comment that notes: "Go to a Professional".

You do your own taxes huh. jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cjcold
7.2.2  cjcold  replied to  It Is ME @7.2.1    5 months ago

Haven't paid income taxes or property taxes in many years. Guess why?

 
 
 
Freewill
7.2.3  Freewill  replied to  cjcold @7.2.2    5 months ago
Haven't paid income taxes or property taxes in many years. Guess why?

One possibility - You rent and are among the bottom 44% of income earners thus pay no Federal income tax?  You may still  need to file, but you pay no Federal income tax.  You'd still have payroll taxes and in some cases State income taxes of course.  

 
 
 
Ender
7.2.4  Ender  replied to  Freewill @7.2.3    5 months ago

One can be retired. My mother gets a homestead exemption for being over 65.

 
 
 
Freewill
7.2.5  Freewill  replied to  Ender @7.2.4    5 months ago
My mother gets a homestead exemption for being over 65

Yep - Another possibility in some States.

 
 
 
LynneA
10  LynneA    5 months ago

You're excused....don't be nasty by shouting.  Quite certain your superior intellect and grammar skills can understand the point I was making to Hal.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
10.1  XDm9mm  replied to  LynneA @10    5 months ago
You're excused....don't be nasty by shouting.  Quite certain your superior intellect and grammar skills can understand the point I was making to Hal.

I'll surmise you were attempting to reply to me, but didn't actually hit the reply icon...

However, please show me in your 'reply to Hal', exactly where you blamed the actual people responsible for taking those loans they could not afford to pay for grossly overpriced real estate.  Yet one more time, those 'greedy bankers' simply provided a service to a WILLING borrower by permitting said borrower the funds the BORROWER requested.

Until such time as the mortgage application was made and the loan closed on, those bankers had absolutely NOTHING to do with the transaction.

 
 
 
LynneA
10.1.1  LynneA  replied to  XDm9mm @10.1    5 months ago

Actually I did hit reply, it posted incorrectly.  Deleted, hit reply again and this is the outcome.  Decided to give into the glitch and let it ride.   

Perhaps terminology 'willing generation' didn't hit your mark of understanding.  Hal can advise if he took that to mean they've responsibility for living beyond their means.  

Are you always this honorary and disrespectful of people and their postings?   Your use of 'greedy bankers' is on you...self projection perhaps?

Having a family member who worked for Countryside in Florida, I don't need schooling on the righteousness and  schemes employed to close mortgage applications. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
10.1.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  XDm9mm @10.1    5 months ago

Similar to how there are young folks who seem to find themselves in unwanted pregnancies over and over because they weren’t careful enough, there are folks who are just chronically bad at making economic decisions.  When banks are allowed to entice these suckers into loans that they have no business signing, then bury that toxic agreement in a bundle of responsibily signed agreements and punt it away to the next greedy investor who’s willing to catch the hot potato for long enough to punt it to another investor, the whole system is at risk.  It’s like there were thousands of games of musical chairs happening throughout the country simultaneously, and for every chair that was pulled away, an investment group got burned by that toxic component.

Meanwhile, as this cancer metastasized, it devastated entities that had nothing to do with the root cause of the illness.  Land development stopped dead in its tracks, commercial expansion died on the vine, less money in people’s pockets meant less widgets being sold (widgets being everything from French fries to laptops), and voila - recession.  It was a public economic crisis, just like how unwanted pregnancies can become a societal crisis, and unvaccinated humans can become a public health crisis.  A sucker’s decision to sign a bad mortgage does not only impact the sucker.  Stephen Colbert has the best analogy in his book ‘I Am America (and so can you)’ - the mortgage investment bundles were like brownie mix, with the bad mortgage being a little nugget of shit that the cook tossed in.  America unknowingly ate the brownies, the cook did not.

Those who ran around buying up forclosed properties to flip for huge profits were like the cockroaches that survived a nuclear strike and gorged on the dead bodies, IMO.  Those who are critical of the regulations (typically libertarians and conservatives) that help prevent these public types of crisis are doing a disservice to their country just as much as the chronically bad decision makers are.

 
 
 
MUVA
10.1.3  MUVA  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @10.1.2    5 months ago

People that bought bad debt and foreclosures saved the housing industry as for Colbert what a douche.  

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
10.1.4  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  MUVA @10.1.3    5 months ago

People that bought bad debt and foreclosures saved the housing industry

That was obviously not their objective.  Capitalism was their objective.  Some of them were wolves in sheep’s clothing as well.  Trump University anyone?

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @10.1.3    5 months ago

How funny that you call such an extremely intelligent man a douche.  

Says volumes about you and nothing about Stephen.  

 
 
 
cjcold
10.1.6  cjcold  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @10.1.4    5 months ago

Carpetbaggers?

 
 
 
Freewill
11  Freewill    5 months ago

I'd like to make one thing clear right now.  I am not an avid Trump supporter, in fact I find him to be rude and boorish and not so Presidential.  But I am also not prone to what some call "Trump derangement syndrome" where anything he does or proposes is an unmitigated disaster worthy of an emotional breakdown.  I will look at each issue, article, or claim about him dispassionately, do the research and decide for myself where the truth lies.  For example, I have found that the TCJA is not as beneficial to small business as Trump may have led us to believe and I wrote about that HERE.

So I could not help but notice that the seeded article claims to report that the TCJA was "filled with tricks an gimmicks designed to hide the fact that it was a massive giveaway to large corporations and the super-rich".   Yet isn't it interesting that only two examples were provided that do not support the conclusion drawn at the end of that statement, and are quite honestly pretty weakly supported at all.

1.  The first example simply decries the actions of the IRS with respect to withholding guidelines, suggesting that it is cruel to allow folks to keep more of their money during the year and end up with a smaller refund at the conclusion in April of the following year.  So I suppose it is better to let the IRS keep your money, collect interest on it and then refund it to you in April of the following year without interest?  The article even admits that the law did lower taxes for some Americans (actuality for nearly ALL Americans for the next decade) but then turns around and contradicts that by saying, "But it didn’t reduce the amount of total tax they owe for the year."  So which is it?  The facts are that nearly everyone will benefit from the cuts and that in 2027 some individual provisions will sunset and we will be back where we started unless Congress elects to extend those provisions.  I've done the calculations for my family's situation and looks like we will save $7,200 under the 2018 code vs. the 2017 code using the expanded standard deduction, and we even live in CA.  There might be some who make considerably more than me in high State tax locations like CA or NY, and who typically take considerable deductions, who may actually pay more.  But those upper middle class folks do not represent the VAST majority of the tax-payers, or even middle class tax-payers.  Perhaps some of those will be the Trump supporters who may regret their voting decision.  (-:

2.  The other example in the article was a single provision of the multi-faceted foreign incoming and outgoing tax provisions the article describes as a "sweetheart deal for companies seeking to hide profits abroad".  However, the GILTI provision cited in the  article on its own may appear like it provides an incentive to continue operations abroad, but the article fails to mention the many other aspects of the new code and the "anti-base erosion rules" that discourage that.  They forgot to mention the Base Erosion Alternative Minimum Tax (BEAT), for example.  Not to mention the one-time 15.5% tax on pre-2018 profits of foreign affiliates that have been allowed to simply defer/accumulate into the trillions of dollars range under the previous Code.  Does it not make sense to recover a good portion of those revenues now rather than letting them defer indefinitely in the hopes that someday they might be "repatriated" in the current system that does not ensure that?  And don't forget that those multi-national corporations still need to compete with other foreign companies and that must be balanced with the other concerns about "hiding" taxable income overseas.

The Tax Policy Center Reports:

The TCJA’s international reforms are significant. Combined with the reduced corporate rate, they largely eliminate the incentive for US firms to accrue assets overseas, while seeking to protect the tax base from avoidance by both US and foreign-based multinationals.

They also point out that the international provisions of the TCJA are consistent with bi-partisan plans that had previously been considered:

The TCJA follows the basic outlines of  proposals introduced in recent years by leaders from both parties, including  former House Ways and Means Committee Chair Dave Camp (R-MI)Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Charles Schumer (D-NY), and the Obama Administration.

One might ask, why is it then that only now such strategies are found to be "unexpected" or "a sweetheart deal for corporations"?

Another couple of interesting points on the international provisions of the TCJA HERE from an accounting and tax consulting firm.

  • The U.S. tax structure’s taxation of international offshore income now more closely resembles the systems used by most other industrialized countries.
  • The law does not mention “corporate inversions,” but its new structure essentially removes the incentive to utilize them. It encourages investment in the U.S., and removes the incentive corporations had under old rules to leave cash earnings outside the country.
  • Overall, the changes are designed to incentivize U.S. companies to bring or leave property or operations (including employees) in the U.S., in exchange for tax breaks that lower a company’s tax. Meanwhile, the country’s tax base will increase because the system no longer encourages a company to divert assets out of the country or delay bringing useful funds back.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



Ed-NavDoc
Freefaller
cjcold
GregTx


57 visitors