Federal Income Tax Reform Proposal - Effect on Californians (insurance, houses)

[2sleepy]

The report that with dynamic scoring this will increase the debt by a trillion dollars isn't going over well with at least a few Republican Senators

McConnell works to salvage tax bill | TheHill

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

there are currently 13 Republican house members in California and I don't think this will leave very many California voters in the mood to re-elect them.

That's for sure.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ral/vi-BBG2RPm

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

The report that with dynamic scoring this will increase the debt by a trillion dollars isn't going over well with at least a few Republican Senators

McConnell works to salvage tax bill | TheHill

Strange that the Democrats did not complain the debt going from about 8 Trillion to 20 trillion under Obama. This year is still running under the last budget passed by the Obama administration. Trump's starts next year.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Strange that the Democrats did not complain the debt going from about 8 Trillion to 20 trillion under Obama. This year is still running under the last budget passed by the Obama administration. Trump's starts next year.

...oh yes, another verse from the conservative catechism, ranks right up there with "but the emails" and "obama wore a tan suit" and of course "he's a muslim". The issue of the debt and deficit are more complicated than some people try to make them out to be. Here's an excellent explanation:

#1 The debt was NOT 8 trillion when Obama took office, it was 10.6 trillion

#2 Before Obama took office, President Bush's last budget (FY 2009) created a deficit of $1.16 trillion. That fiscal year began on October 1, 2008, and continued until September 30, 2009. That means most of that deficit occurred after Obama took office in January. But since it wasn't his budget, it's not accurate to attribute it to him.

#3 Is it fair to blame any president for events over which he had no control? During Obama's terms, there was less federal income than usual. The recession and the Bush tax cuts reduced tax receipts. At the same time, the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and other mandatory programs continued to increase. The War on Terror, although technically over, was still being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq.

#4 The fairest method is to measure the debt incurred by Obama's specific policies. The Congressional Budget Office does this for every program When all these are added up, Obama's debt contribution was $983 billion between 2009 and 2017.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-...-obama-3306293

[CA4Now]

When the House of Representatives started work on the bill, it eliminated many tax deductions, including medical expenses, state taxes and local taxes. Some of those deductions turned out to be popular, and they were revived in the negotiations between the House and Senate. As a result, plenty of middle-class taxpayers will have to figure their taxes under two systems, both with itemized deductions and without.

What's missing from the GOP tax bill? Just about anything that would help the working and middle classes - LA Times

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

The report that with dynamic scoring this will increase the debt by a trillion dollars isn't going over well with at least a few Republican Senators

McConnell works to salvage tax bill | TheHill

Remember that debt is not 1 year debt but the theoretical debt over 10 years.

GOP tax cut plan would add $1.7 trillion to the deficit, CBO projects

• The amended House Republican tax plan will increase budget deficits by $1.7 trillion over 10 years, according to the CBO.
• https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/08/hous...llion-cbo.html

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Remember that debt is not 1 year debt but the theoretical debt over 10 years.

GOP tax cut plan would add $1.7 trillion to the deficit, CBO projects

• The amended House Republican tax plan will increase budget deficits by $1.7 trillion over 10 years, according to the CBO.
• https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/08/hous...llion-cbo.html

That was from November, for the tax plan they project the deficit to be 1.4 trillion over 10 years
http://http://www.wisn.com/article/c...years/13931894

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

That was from November, for the tax plan they project the deficit to be 1.4 trillion over 10 years
http://http://www.wisn.com/article/c...years/13931894

Yep over 10 years so not that much per year and about what was seen in the last Obama years. Obama may well have been at least partially responsible for low income tax receipts as he was elected twice and his actions impacted income for sure in his second term. Can't try to shift the blame away from any President when elected twice. Yes Bush's budget impacted Obama's first year as well as some of his other decisions, and I am not a fan of Bush, Obama or Trump. Poor actions by all of them. Well, on the other hand I will benefit from the new tax plan.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Yep over 10 years so not that much per year and about what was seen in the last Obama years. Obama may well have been at least partially responsible for low income tax receipts as he was elected twice and his actions impacted income for sure in his second term. Can't try to shift the blame away from any President when elected twice. Yes Bush's budget impacted Obama's first year as well as some of his other decisions, and I am not a fan of Bush, Obama or Trump. Poor actions by all of them. Well, on the other hand I will benefit from the new tax plan.

Not that much? Did you ever stop and think how much a trillion in infrastructure spending over a decade would have stimulated the economy vs a trillion in tax breaks to the oligarchs? And as far as your Obama blame game, Trump has done nothing to create jobs or stimulate the economy what we are enjoying right now is the result of 8 years of Obama policy. The bizarre part of this is that these tax cuts come at a time of full employment so if new jobs are created the only option will be to import labor to fill them. And this fiasco is cleverly designed to reduce withholding for most people in Feb 2018, so the question is will they be dumb enough to see a few dollars a week as a good reason to re-elect their Republican reps or will they realize that once again they've been screwed by the party of "fiscal responsibility"?

[wac_432]

The rich will get MUCH richer, mostly at the expense of the Federal Debt. The poor and middle class will basically tread water, so by comparison they will seem poorer.
Even in the expensive parts of CA, the loss of 10K+ tax deductions and 750K mortgage deductions will only hurt the far-upper-middles, who can comfortably absorb the damage. They will be annoyed, and campaign/vote/think against Repubs, but not do much.
CA has the 2nd-most number of ultra-rich people in the USA, (LA and San Fran top the list of the most millionairs/billionairs for US cities trailing only New York). Very few ultra-rich people live in red states (I guess the ultra-rich like diversity, clean air/water/food, etc.) So, in terms of money accumulation, it will dramatically accelerate the total net wealth accumulation of Californians compared to poor states like... well pretty much everybody else except for some deep-blue Northeastern states. It will just be concentrated in the hands of a few.
If there's any truth to trickle-down (and there's not much) that means that everybody else in CA will benefit somewhat from that money influx.
So, big local picture: It's good news for CA, despite the headlines. We're robbing the federal coffers to make our rich corporate paymasters richer, and they live here, so that will help out our local economies somewhat. CA tax codes will shift to redistribute some of that wealth to keep social stability in our state. Good luck to the poor bastards in places like Texas or Kansas.
National big picture, it's still adding to the snowballing disaster of increasing economic inequality and federal debt. But, hey, if the USA eventually goes down, CA can form it's own country if need be.
I always get a giggle out of those who think that something as paltry as the federal (or state) tax code has any impact on where or how the wealthy live or do business. Yes, it affects those who operate on the razors-edge, but they aren't rich--they're just scraping by. The rich live where they want. The corporations cater to them because they are run by them. The rich and smart want to live in California, so the corporations put their HQ and development/design stuff here and move/keep manufacturing overseas or somewhere with cheap labor. The poison factorys choke and inject cancer into the poor who live and work around them, while we still get to enjoy the last relatively clean air, water, and land.
I thank my lucky stars every day that I made it out of the poison fields in flyover country, and to the golden state of opportunity, while it was still possible for an everyday schmo to do so.