Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Republicans were smart they would have increased tax credits for poor and middle class families, but they’re not and their big legislative “win” is supported by about 30%.
or at the very least triggered corporate tax cuts upon a certain event, like wage increases for their employees, or hiring a certain number of new full time employees, but oh no...we can't do something that would actually help the middle class and stimulate consumer spending.
This will make CPAs and tax attorneys plenty money in the next 3 to 4 years. Doubling the standard deduction to 12000.00 or 24000 is not a big deal if you loose all of your exemptions and dependents.
Example married with 2 children
2017. 2018
Standard deduction. 12700. 24000
Exemptions 4 4050 x 4. 16200. 0
------------------------------------
28900. 24000
Difference 4900.00 x 10%. 490 more in taxes
So the tax rate may be lower but applied to more of your income. Also your take home if you are w2 employee will need to be adjusted since exemptions are no longer part of the tax calculation. How ? I do not know.
This will make CPAs and tax attorneys plenty money in the next 3 to 4 years. Doubling the standard deduction to 12000.00 or 24000 is not a big deal if you loose all of your exemptions and dependents.
Example married with 2 children
2017. 2018
Standard deduction. 12700. 24000
Exemptions 4 4050 x 4. 16200. 0
------------------------------------
28900. 24000
Difference 4900.00 x 10%. 490 more in taxes
So the tax rate may be lower but applied to more of your income. Also your take home if you are w2 employee will need to be adjusted since exemptions are no longer part of the tax calculation. How ? I do not know.
Indeed, and what a lot of people aren't even aware of is that by folding the personal exemption into the standard deduction, they are taking $4050 per person away from people who itemize. So if in the past a family of four had $24,000 in itemized deductions, they would also apply the $16,200 personal exemption for a total deduction of $40,200. Now they will be lose the value of their itemized deductions and be stuck taking the standard deduction. It's an absolute BS dirty trick and the GOP is counting on a large number of people not knowing the difference between personal exemption and standard deduction. http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...duction-2017-9
This will make CPAs and tax attorneys plenty money in the next 3 to 4 years. Doubling the standard deduction to 12000.00 or 24000 is not a big deal if you loose all of your exemptions and dependents.
Example married with 2 children
2017. 2018
Standard deduction. 12700. 24000
Exemptions 4 4050 x 4. 16200. 0
------------------------------------
28900. 24000
Difference 4900.00 x 10%. 490 more in taxes
So the tax rate may be lower but applied to more of your income. Also your take home if you are w2 employee will need to be adjusted since exemptions are no longer part of the tax calculation. How ? I do not know.
but the fact is it works out to be LESS, because of lower brackets
lets do some simple math
two single moms of two kids, both make a gross of 90k
person one...uses the current deductions and tax brackets
90k - deductions of (18k itemized (due to high realestate tax of 12k on a basic house) plus exemptions for 3 (4kx3) (34k) = 56k taxable income
25% bracket (HoH)
$8500 taxes owed
person two..... uses the new brackets and takes the new std ded
90k minus deductions = 70k taxable income
12% Bracket
only 7.9k owed if they took the new std-ded, not going to count the child credits etc that MAY expire in 10 years
you don't need the deductions if they are lowering the tax levels
so the simple FACT is that not counting child credits..the 90K single mom will pay about 600 less...and nearly 3500 less with the child credit (that may or may not sunset in 10 years, and she may or may not qualify for by 10 years )
but the fact is it works out to be LESS, because of lower brackets
lets do some simple math
two single moms of two kids, both make a gross of 90k
person one...uses the current deductions and tax brackets
90k - deductions of (18k itemized (due to high realestate tax of 12k on a basic house) plus exemptions for 3 (4kx3) (34k) = 56k taxable income
25% bracket (HoH)
$8500 taxes owed
person two..... uses the new brackets and takes the new std ded
90k minus deductions = 70k taxable income
12% Bracket
only 7.9k owed if they took the new std-ded, not going to count the child credits etc that MAY expire in 10 years
you don't need the deductions if they are lowering the tax levels
so the simple FACT is that not counting child credits..the 90K single mom will pay about 600 less...and nearly 3500 less with the child credit (that may or may not sunset in 10 years, and she may or may not qualify for by 10 years )
Except that basically ever number in your post is wrong. Actual numbers under the House plan:
$90k income less $18,300 HOH standard deduction ($18,000 in the senate): $71,700 and not $70,000.
Tax brackets for single are NOT 12% for 71,700. They are 25% for the House and 24% for the senate
For the House plan the first $45,000 would be at 12%; 5,400
and the remaining $26,700 at 25%; 6,675
5,400 + 6,775 = $12,175 tax liability before credits under the House plan.
There is an addition $600 per child of tax credit (which you ignored entirely) over the current law, meaning that's effectively 1,200 less or $10,975 relative to the $8,500 figure which seem correct aside from the fact that the personal exemptions are actually 4,050 and not 4,000 so it's really 8,350 less existing tax credit.
It's not rocket science. $10,975 is more than $8350. The single person with a taxable income of $71,700 will only be in the 12% bracket if they commit tax fraud. Of course they could have likewise committed the same tax fraud you're suggesting under the current system which would mean they would be in the 15% bracket under current law and not the 25%. If committing the same fraud you propose that they commit on $56,000 taxable income, the tax liability would be $7,465 under the existing law.
Breaking from all the partisan insults and Red vs Blue state nonsense, could be most Americans would do better to change their focus on what really matters...
No matter who you are, took us awhile to recover from the Great Recession, but finally we went from an economy in free fall to one of growth and better employment prospects -- for all Americans. Still, we had lots of angst and disagreement over how we should all have access to a better health care system (or not), and the Republicans struggled for leadership that could overcome the want to "throw the bums out." Along comes Trump.
Of course now Trump has the economic winds to his back and a rebounding stock market as well. All opposite what Obama had to face, and no matter who you are, we all know we'd rather have the winds to our back rather than in our face when trying to get somewhere. Also of course, people who don't really know what's going on around them will credit our economic good or bad fortunes to the POTUS. Not much anyone can do about that sort of ignorance either, but what is important is what we do during our good times and bad.
Yes, of course, the deficit was driven up as a result of trying to revive the economy after GW left America/Obama no choice. Also of course, tax revenues grow during times of economic growth, so there is that argument Trump/GOP are trying to make now, but to cut taxes, especially for the highest income companies and individuals, without compensating for the lost tax revenues is obviously going to add to our deficit, significantly, AKA passing that problem onto our children if not ourselves. Not a good idea.
So we go ahead and pass this bill that sounds good on its face, I mean who doesn't want to pay less taxes, but regardless the implications? Who really knows what those implications are? Might feel good at first, but those implications will take years to reveal just what harm Americans will experience over time, just as the economists are warning. Trump will no doubt take credit for this "win" too. He knows Americans, too many Americans, are into immediate gratification. When it all "hits the fan," it will be time yet again for America to do what it had to do when all "hit the fan" as GW turned things over to Obama.
This what all us Americans want to keep doing over and over, time and time again?
The rich make out time and time again regardless, but all the rest of us Americans not in the top 5 percent rank of income and wealth? Are we not getting a little tired of bickering amongst ourselves while those who have the most keep taking more at the expense of the rest? I know we are growing tired, but not because we want all this to keep happening. We don't want this to keep happening. We don't want the gap between rich and poor to continue to widen.
Yet it keeps happening, because we don't understand what's happening...
"took us awhile to recover from the Great Recession,"
The great recession was back in the 30's. Is that what ypu are talking about?
"All opposite what Obama had to face"
The recession was officially OVER when Obama took office an HE claimed he could fix our situation in his 1st term and if did not he would NOT DESERVE a 2nd term.
He did NOT perform yet he ran again anyway.
"Yes, of course, the deficit was driven up as a result of trying to revive the economy after GW left America/Obama"
The economy was BOOMING AND the deficit was COMING DOWN under W. Bush until 2008 when the dem took back control of the Congress.
W. TRIED to get the dems to address the housing banking issue and they said that there was NO problem, then the housing bubble burst.
Many experts say that Clinton started the problem.
At first W. was OK with it UNTIL he fond out the problem and tried to get congress to address it.
So, to put ALL the blame on W is disingenuous, to say the least.
" Publication: Business Wire
Date: Friday, January 4 2008
More Than 8.3 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Run Of Job Growth On Record
WASHINGTON -- Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures - 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months - the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 5 percent. The U.S. economy benefits from a solid foundation, but we cannot take economic growth for granted and economic indicators have become increasingly mixed. President Bush will continue working with Congress to address the challenges our economy faces and help facilitate long-term economic growth, job growth, and better standards of living for all Americans.
* Real GDP grew at a strong 4.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2007. The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.
* Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 11.7 percent - an average of more than $3,550 per person - since President Bush took office.
* Over the course of this Administration, productivity growth has averaged 2.6 percent per year. This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”"
Bush's debt and deficits were fueled almost entirely from the wars, Katrina, and all of the other bad luck events that happened under his watch.
Unfortunately for Bush, his time in office never saw a break in terms of bad luck. Regardless of all this bad luck, he managed to control the 2001 recession and bring unemployment back down to healthy levels again (less than 5%). Bush managed to get the economy back on its feet, and given the fact that we were in two wars and had Katrina hit during 2005 (near the peak of the economy), I think he did a fantastic job managing everything.
In addition, he managed to steadily reduce our increase in public debt and our deficit near the end of his final term. It only started to rise again in 2008. If Bush had more time in office, I am very confident he could have gotten this economy stabilized and back on its feet again in much shorter time than Obama. Unemployment would not have gone higher than 9% I'm thinking either. In fact even during the 2001 recession, unemployment never got higher than 6.3%!"
Last edited by Quick Enough; 12-04-2017 at 05:39 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
