Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-02-2017, 06:24 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,876 posts, read 26,418,164 times
Reputation: 34086

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
According to you guys not that long ago, yes.. do you forget the whining and crying over non profit deductions, especially during the Romney campaign?
I'm not a "you guys" and I have no idea what you are talking about, but if you can find a post of mine from 2102 in which I cried and whined over non profit deductions, bring it on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-02-2017, 06:24 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,833 posts, read 19,539,982 times
Reputation: 9632
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by 1grin_g0
Ok, so married couple with 2 young children with a combined gross income of $114,000 and claiming the standard deduction: Does that household benefit more under the GOP plan, or the current tax system?



The current system. Even without recognizing that this couple would likely itemize within a few years (when they buy a house), four personal exemptions plus the standard deduction would be $28,900 in deductions/exemptions. Under the proposal, they take $24k standard.

Current law: $85,100 taxable income
Proposed law: 90,000 taxable income

Current law: $12,752.50 federal taxes
Proposed law: $7,920 on the first $66k (12% bracket); 6,000 on the remaining $24k (25% bracket)--$13,920 in federal taxes

This would be a ~$2,000 tax increase.

Using proposed brackets as explained here:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/02/here...-gop-plan.html
you would be incorrect

Current law: $85,100 taxable income
Proposed law: 90,000 taxable income

correct up to there


Current law: $180 on the first $18k (10% bracket); 8550 on the second $57k (15% bracket);...2525 on the remaining $10k (25% bracket)----$11255 in federal taxes

Proposed law: first 24k not taxed....24k through 90k 12%...so 66k taxed at 12%.....7920.....total tax owed....7920

3335 LESS in taxes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2017, 06:24 PM
 
2,212 posts, read 1,077,584 times
Reputation: 1381
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
Only an unproductive employee is a liability, an experienced, productive employee is an income producing asset ((s)he makes the company more money than their compensation)
I'm not talking about the person. Payroll REMOVES money from a company.
Employees are not assets no matter how hard you wish.
They are a dime a dozen. One opening and you have thousands lining up for interviews.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2017, 06:25 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,228,994 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Or stock buybacks and corporate bonuses
Which would result in taxes out the ass given the tax rate on individuals will be far higher than corporations..

that doesnt make any sense.. not even to you..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2017, 06:26 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,833 posts, read 19,539,982 times
Reputation: 9632
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKM View Post
Its a tax cut for the rich disguised as a cut for families and the middle class. They totally ignore the removal of exemptions. A family with 3 little kids has their taxable income jacked up by 20k under this.
false
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2017, 06:27 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,876 posts, read 26,418,164 times
Reputation: 34086
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
So you think their deduction reductions are going to be more than their savings? hahaha ok, lets just suppose thats true.. Didnt you guys just whine not that long ago that non profit donations being deductible meant the rest of the nation had to subsidize this money?
Why isnt the same true with THESE deductions?
Once again, I am not part of any group called "you guys", and I have no clue what you are trying to accuse me of. But I offered the math and from what I posted it's clear that a number of middle class people will pay more tax under this machiavellian tax plan, if you don't agree then run the numbers yourself and prove otherwise
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2017, 06:27 PM
 
2,212 posts, read 1,077,584 times
Reputation: 1381
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
$23/week? That is a meal for two at McDonalds these days....
$6.28 for a Quarter Pounder with cheese meal (medium). I had one today for lunch

What are you looking for...$0 taxes to pay and $$$$$ coming back in your paycheck ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2017, 06:27 PM
 
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,669,317 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by skycaller23 View Post
I'm not talking about the person. Payroll REMOVES money from a company.
Employees are not assets no matter how hard you wish.
They are a dime a dozen. One opening and you have thousands lining up for interviews.
Put it this way, if your company has to turn away work (and therefore income) because you don't have enough employees on hand to perform the new work, are you going to turn down income, just to not hire people?

If people didn't bring in more money than they cost, they wouldn't have jobs, people like that get fired or laid off
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2017, 06:28 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,833 posts, read 19,539,982 times
Reputation: 9632
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
You should check your math.

Here's a decent methodology:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business...takers/361668/

California is the 14th lowest taker, getting back less than it spends on federal taxes.
that would be false...it doesn't identify any of the following

that would be false

sorry you are miss informed

if you look at all the federal money that goes to California...it is way more than what cali pays in taxes


what most don't count:

all your national guard troops and facilities.....paid for by the federal government

all the military bases (32 of them), and the 40 thousand federal troops....paid for by the federal government.......and all those Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors who work there...spend FEDERAL MONEY IN CALIFORNIA

all the defense contractors.... (55 billion worth)

the 28 national parks, and its federal employees (which you receive federal monies for)

36 national natural landmarks (for which you receive federal money for upkeep)....

145 national historic landmarks(for which you receive federal money for upkeep...

9 wild and scenic rivers...managed and paid by the national parks service....paid for by the federal government



******45% of all California LAND IS FEDERAL OWNED******... 45 million acres are federally owned...in otherwords California owns just over half of its self

then there is the money Cali OWES the federal government....California borrowed $10 billion from the federal government to shore up its recession-battered Unemployment Insurance Fund. Even though the state’s economy is now booming, it still owes the feds about $8 billion.
California is paying interest on the loan, an estimated $174.5 million this year, according to a new report from the state Employment Development Department, and the balance is shrinking only because in lieu of direct payments, the Department of Labor has raised taxes on employers.

not to mention all the 'other' federal agencies that have FEDERAL employees in California....200,000 FEDERAL employees (most making atleast 60k)... you lose all that FEDERAL incomes and revenue that the FEDERAL government GIVES your state...these employees SPEND money in your state


then look at all the FEDERAL money going to secondary schools:

BS USC-Berkeley --$370 million in funding from the federal government

USC- Los Angeles-- $250 million in 2016

UCLA and its two sister campus' get 9 billion in federal funds annually
.....$3 billion in research grants. Nearly four-fifths of the funds are awarded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. UC is the nation’s largest recipient of federal funding for research and related projects, with UC San Francisco, UC San Diego and UCLA receiving the largest grants.
.....$3.5 billion to UC medical centers for Medicare and Medicaid patients.
.....$1.6 billion in financial aid to UC students for federal Pell Grants, work-study awards, graduate fellowships and other grants and scholarships.
.....$800 million to operate the federal Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
UCLA’s budget is approximately $6.7 billion. State funding accounts for only six percent of total revenues
About 39 percent of undergraduates receive Pell Grants, federal aid

University of California, San Diego....Total federal R&D grant money 2016 : $637 million
Stanford University........................ Total federal R&D grant money 2016 : $656 million....Stanford took in nearly $72 million from the Department of Defense and $445 million from HHS

45.8% of California land is FEDERAL OWNED
nearly half of cali is federal owned....hmmm https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state


when you look at federal money going to California...they get BILLIONS more, than they pay into the federal coffers
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2017, 06:28 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,228,994 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I'm not a "you guys" and I have no idea what you are talking about, but if you can find a post of mine from 2102 in which I cried and whined over non profit deductions, bring it on.
The question is, do you think tax deductions people receive for donations to non profits are fair or not?

https://www.financialsamurai.com/why...ty-tax-breaks/

the left went bonkers pointing out that Romney "didnt pay his fair share" because he donated huge amounts of money to the non profits connected to his church.. and by him not paying "his fair share", then others have to pick up the balance

The same would be true for other deductions since at the end of the day, a deduction is a deduction, no matter what its for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:46 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top