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 by author/seeder
Who is online
79 visitors
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."
So do you think the Democrats will pass a bill lowering their taxes?
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
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.
All well and good, but I did notice you very carefully avoided the question asked.
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?
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?
yes
What proposals have they put forward?
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 ?
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!
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.
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.
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
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?
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
Use Google, it's friendly
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.
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.
Sure, that's why they seem to lose the most elections.....<Face Palm>
I will get just about the very same amount of money back this year as last year.
So how did you benefit?
Just wait till next year, when you get less.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gee, why are their states taxing their residents so much, and why are they so dang happy about it?
Many are getting out,
Yep...
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
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.
I know what SALT is. I am a CPA (sadly).
The proprety taxes is the part that is killing us on Long Island.
Duh....she had said:
Nice schools, great athletics [programs....deleted]
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!
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!
Nothing like the smell of unresearched bullshit in the morning....
And in fairness:
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.
Please provide details if this is true. How much did they owe last year?
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.
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.
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.
Please tell us what money was moved up.
Are you talking about money they already HAD?
How is that moving it up?
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.
My money is still with me, minus what I always end up paying in taxes.
Did someone come take your money or something?
Yes, the IRS. Wait till next year when you pay more.
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.
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 \.
It's too bad that conservatives seldom research and only throw out comments that have no value
Talk about illogical!
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.
Pot????/ Meet kettle...
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?
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.
I guess one of us has some special definition of what stealing is.
Please define supply side economics.
Gee that was easy, try it. Google.com
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.
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?
Not when it's the government who does it.
Yeah, Ok, try to tell the police that the government stole your money to give it to the rich. Good luck with that.
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?
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.
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.
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!!!!!!!
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.
Think the deficit will be as high as it was under Obama?
"Think" may be the key word here.
Are you trying to say that you don't believe that he thinks?
"He?"
Deficit. 2016 $585B. 2017 $665B 2018 $779B
It is the 'he' which is in question here.
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.,
Deficit. Obama.
2009 $1.413 trillion
2010 $1.294 trillion
2011 $1.295 trillion
2012 $1.087 trillion
The deficit numbers from 2009-2012 make the numbers you supplied look like bargains!
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
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.
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
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.
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."
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.
You're way ahead of on that laugh.
But still....bwaaaaahahaha.
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!
So exactly what I posted. You could have just copied and pasted my comment!
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.
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.
Wouldn't Democrats want to--if it is such a big deal and all?
How's about a return to the 1950's rates for all?
One of the reasons I support a flat tax regardless of income.
This was of course before the trump tax cuts.
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.
Higher.
Not yet it isn't compared year to year with Obama.
Think Democrats will raise taxes and cut spending?
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.
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.
Year to year.
Obama's first year vs. Trump's first year.
Obama' second year vs. Trump's second year.
LOL!
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?
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.
Gee, it was real nice of Obama to continue that by issuing a no bid contract to Halliburton!
The Obama Administration's Justice Department declined to press charges. Why don't you ask them why?
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
Damn, look at that, the deficit actually dropped under Obama and, it seems it has gone up under Trump.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Yes, the deficit went down over the course of Obama's terms. Happy now?
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.
Thank you for finally admitting that much.
You have made it a point to imply that somehow magically Trump was responsible for the lower deficit in 2016.
From your post,
Weren't you implying that 2016 was somehow because of Trump being president?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Did you write this, or did someone post under your name?
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.
You've made several allegations let's see you prove them
Got a chart for those allegations?
What allegations did I make that you need me to prove for you?
And please, quote me on the allegations.
Can you at least be specific enough as to what allegations you are referring to?
Is that really asking too much?
Wholly
My taxes are going swimmingly !
"Some" paycheck to paycheck workers should STOP doing their own taxes. Those types think they're "Smart"
, but they ain't when it comes to "Tax Laws" !
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.
On the other hand, if you are having to pay, they are taking too little out of your paycheck in the first place.
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 !
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.
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 !
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.
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 !
Guess I'll bottle the smoke and send it to the IRS.
Privatize retirement !
In Simple terms.….allow "Individual Choice". If other things are worthy and protestable for "Choice", why not this ?
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!
Been there, done that !
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.
You don't invest for just a quickie twelve month return !
Many have committed suicide because of investing like that !
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?
I don't do "Low" or "Medium" !
I go for the "Gusto" !
That's why I have what I do !
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.
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.
"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 !
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.
Just another indulgence that takes money from the worker, and hands it over to the Billionaire. And folks bitch about Billionaires.
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?!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Pretty sure I won't be taking tax advice from somebody who can't spell, uses emojis and thinks global warming is a hoax.
Nothing like trying to demean a comment that notes: "Go to a Professional".
You do your own taxes huh.
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.
One can be retired. My mother gets a homestead exemption for being over 65.
Yep - Another possibility in some States.
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'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 :
They also point out that the international provisions of the TCJA are consistent with bi-partisan plans that had previously been considered:
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.