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.
Duh... People work to make money, they keep it under the table for a multitude of reasons, one being so they don't have to report it on their tax return and pay taxes on it. If you don't know this happens and understand that, then you're awful naive.
hmm, the rest of your post doesn't even rank as a good spin.
I know, I know, you are from NY and your getting fleeced by your local government so you think you should be able to short change federal government.
I'm not in NY, as I keep trying to tell you. I also said I was OK with paying more in SALT taxes; just don't understand why they'd want to hit people in low tax states. Figures you don't listen to anyone because you think you have all the answers.
What "spin"? It's illegal to work under the table and not file your income with the feds... no spin there, You're TRYING to spin it as something "everyone does so it's okay."
That article was written to try to trick liberal haters into agreeing to the new tax plan.
In reality, it's not only state tax deductions that go away. Local real estate taxes (paid on your home) also go away. This means anyone in any state( red, purple or blue) cannot deduct their real estate taxes. Although the mortgage interest deduction stays, it likely won't be used any longer because with the real estate tax deduction being removed and with the local/state income tax deduction being removed, itemizing solely for mortage interest likely won't be feasible for most taxpayers. Instead, they would take the standard deduction.
But don't be fooled that this is only impacting people in blue states. There are people in Texas and Georgia and Florida and Tennessee and Montana and Arizona and Ohio and Oklahoma that will see their federal income taxes increased because they wont be able to deduct their real estate taxes any longer.
based on this.
Current system: $50k couple using std ded = 50 - 12 std - 8 personal = $30k taxable income. fir $935 taxed at 10% remainder taxed at 15% =3101 total $4033
Proposed appears to be 50k - 24k leaves 26k taxed at at 12% rate which is $3120
what am I missing?
This is assuming the 12% rate cut off will extend all the way to the first $26k of income. The other poster is assuming the bottom bracket will stay where it is, so first $9k is taxed at the bottom rate ($12k) and the balance up to $26k is taxed at the next highest rate.
Don't ruin their fun... remember, they think this tax proposal will destroy all liberals' finances with laser precision (miraculously sparing themselves).
I'm sure I'll be burned at the stake
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751
For how many years all we heard from Democrats that paying taxes was patriotic, some even saying they wouldn't mind paying a little more.. yea, unless you have to pay them right, then it's bad.
You're all acting like the regional party that we know you are. These states will have to stop supporting their leftist politicians that think they are piggy banks and that's! exactly what they don't want. It's your fault for allowing your local politicians to get out of control.
I genuinely think it is insane that unearned income (dividends, capital gains, pass-through entities) is taxed at a lower rate than actual income.
I benefit personally from this system. That does not mean I believe it is good. It's just money. No amount of "extra" money can remove my belief that what is personally beneficial to me is more important than the health of the nation I live in. This is a genuinely dysfunctional system that is damaging the nation; has damaged the nation. I want to believe most people would feel that their country is more important than paying 20% instead of 40% on their capital gains.
This is assuming the 12% rate cut off will extend all the way to the first $26k of income. The other poster is assuming the bottom bracket will stay where it is, so first $9k is taxed at the bottom rate ($12k) and the balance up to $26k is taxed at the next highest rate.
so we are making up stuff?
yea, if we make up stuff we can argue that a person making 25 dollars a year will be tossed in jail for not eating bananas.
we kind of need to work with something real right? bottom line, even the uber liberal New York Times disagrees with the premis.
and the Tax Policy Center is not non-partisian. the politico story is as accurate as a nut suggesting people making 25 bucks a year are going to jail for not eating bananas
yea, if we make up stuff we can argue that a person making 25 dollars a year will be tossed in jail for not eating bananas.
we kind of need to work with something real right? bottom line, even the uber liberal New York Times disagrees with the premis.
and the Tax Policy Center is not non-partisian. the politico story is as accurate as a nut suggesting people making 25 bucks a year are going to jail for not eating bananas
Everyone is making assumptions on what the brackets will likely be - you NEED to make some assumptions to figure out how you'll fare. Otherwise how else are you supposed to determine if you support this or not?
And the NYT was being pretty generous if it assumes the first $26k will be taxed at the lowest rate. That would make quite a few people happy.
I genuinely think it is insane that unearned income (dividends, capital gains, pass-through entities) is taxed at a lower rate than actual income.
I benefit personally from this system. That does not mean I believe it is good. It's just money. No amount of "extra" money can remove my belief that what is personally beneficial to me is more important than the health of the nation I live in. This is a genuinely dysfunctional system that is damaging the nation; has damaged the nation. I want to believe most people would feel that their country is more important than paying 20% instead of 40% on their capital gains.
Here's an example of how Obama's tax plan hurt small business and this would be good for business with the plan that small business would be more able and willing to invest in their companies to grow and to hire more people. Do you understand S-corp and pass-through entities. Do you understand retained earnings.
Retained earnings refer to the percentage of net earnings not paid out as dividends, but retained by the company to be reinvested in its core business. In the case of small business, the earnings "pass through" to to be taxed on the owners personal income tax. In other words, the owner doesn't get to keep the money because he/she must retain money in the business to pay employees and vendors the following year yet they are taxed on that money on their personal income taxes as if they banked it for themselves. Instead of money going for re-investing in the business the money was paid to the government.
I wonder if the employs would be willing to hold off getting paid in Jan, Feb etc until the company they work for is able to earn enough to pay their wages in the current year.
I agree with part of this comment. Once,we know where each bracket is we will certainly know more. It is a bit silly to put forth some tax proposal without that major detail, but lack of details is par for the course with this administration.
What we do know is those who currently itemize will have higher taxable income.
We do know middle class families with dependents will have a higher taxable income even if they currently take the standard deduction. It is too early to know the overall tax picture for them without the brackets being defined.
We do know single people without dependents and married couples without dependents that currently take the will see a decrease in taxable income of $1,600 and $3,200. Too early to know the exact impact on taxes without the brackets.
What we do know about the brackets, regardless of where it's set is those at the top will see a sharp decrease in taxes, especially the higher they go income wise.
do we actually know that (bolded).....don't most liberals complain that the rich don't pay anything near what the top bracket currently is 38%....ie when people were saying Romney only pays 16%
I think the idea of streamlining the brackets 7 down to 3, while removing some of the deductions (that liberals are constantly complaining the rich over use) is a good thing..............
...............the real question is where these brackets start
many (including liberals) have said on here make the first 40k/ 60/ and I even saw a first 90k(believe it was gregw) tax free then start your brackets
so a liberal rag (the new Yorker) is making a judgment (prejudging) a plan, that has not even been set as a bill...and without KNOWING the details.......the new Yorker and all the rest that are JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS have just lost all credibility.....
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.
You're TRYING to spin it as something "everyone does so it's okay."
