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 so, then you can point out cases in which a member of the middle class is paying an extra $87,000+ in federal income tax after the Trump tax cuts for everyone but the rich. Let's see them.
That figure was brought up by you, and I'm sure that that you were not referring to a member of the middle class.
Thou dost protest too loudly. I think that you dispense male cow dung.
SALT cap actually hurt more middle class than the wealthy. Most people weren't deducting hundreds of thousands in SALT deductions. But plenty of middle class were deducting more than $10,000.
The SALT cap allowed Trump and other big government supporters to collect more taxes from the middle class. Another demonstration of Trump's liberal stance.
I think that Informed Consent is confused as to which opponent said what. I went to college with some of the people that were hurt by the $10,000 cap. Most are upper middle class. One made it into the upper class. He really got slammed.
Informed Consent this is to you. There are suburbs with tax burdens over 10K all over America and they will make Trump a one term President.
You are getting into a different issue. We've seen Trump in action. I think that his ego wouldn't allow those states which denied him the popular vote to participate in the savings. In fact I believe that he wanted to actively punish the suburban voters in the blue states for denying him the popular vote. His ego also wouldn't allow him to accept the fact that the inaugural crowd was one of the smallest in history.
Actually, it's more about not having some states subsidize other local and state spending. There is absolutely no reason why some local and state taxes are so much higher than others. The $10,000 SALT deduction limit puts everyone on a level playing field in regards to paying federal income tax. It's about getting those who earn more to do what the left always say they want: pay their "fair share."
I'll repeat this example so you can see what I mean...
Quote:
"A $1 million-plus wage earner came to her tax preparer last weekend to see what the Trump tax cuts, which went into effect for the 2018 tax year, would mean for her tax return due April 15. And boy, was she disappointed. Last year, she deducted $245,500 in real estate taxes, state income taxes and personal property taxes. This year her deduction for these state and local taxes was limited to just $10,000, because of the new SALT cap.
“It’s a real hit,” says her tax pro, Claudia Hill, an enrolled agent in Cupertino, California. “This is why people who have this kind of situation are screaming.”
...To fully benefit from the reduction in the top income tax rate, you’d have to live in a state with no state income tax, says tax lawyer Kaye Thomas, who figures that California’s highest earners are facing a federal effective rate that’s 2.7 percentage points higher in 2018 than 2017 because of the interaction between state and federal taxes."
The SALT tax deduction she took on her US 1040 for...
2017: $245,500
2018: just $10,000
The $235,500 over $10,000 she could no longer deduct in 2018 and going forward was taxed at her marginal rate, likely at 37% which would be an extra $87,135 in federal income tax.
Quote:
The tax bill lowered the corporate tax rate to 21%. If the corporations are not paying taxes what was the purpose of the bill? Pricing formulas involve the demand elasticity of the good being produced and the maximization of profit for the good being produced. If unit and fixed costs equal or exceed the price of the good being produced, why are you in business?
Again, to level the playing field. The cut in corporate tax rates brought the US rate in line with the corporate tax rate in other developed countries. US corporations can't be globally competitive with the handicap of an extra corporate tax burden.
That figure was brought up by you, and I'm sure that that you were not referring to a member of the middle class.
That's exactly my point. The higher one's income (and therefore the more state and local taxes one pays), the harder the $10,000 SALT deduction limit hits. It's highly progressive, making sure higher earners are paying more federal income tax than they used to, which is what the left always say they want.
I think that Informed Consent is confused as to which opponent said what. I went to college with some of the people that were hurt by the $10,000 cap. Most are upper middle class. One made it into the upper class. He really got slammed.
Informed Consent this is to you. There are suburbs with tax burdens over 10K all over America and they will make Trump a one term President.
At least they're finally paying their "fair share." Why is that a bad thing all of the sudden?
At least they're finally paying their "fair share." Why is that a bad thing all of the sudden?
Dems LOVE increasing taxes, but when Trump did it, suddenly it became BAD. Dem taxes good, Trump taxes bad. What a bunch of partisan hacks the Democrats are. This is why they are losing miserably. They are unconsiously incompetent...they don't even know how stupid they are.
Unchecked immigration. Unchecked spending. Unchecked wars after stupid wars. If it survives to see me die, it won't survive to see my grandchildren live to their full potential.
Accusations as to who is responsible for the debt are useless because we are in a fix. If the interest rate on the debt of 22 trillion goes to 3% service on the debt goes to 660 billion. If interest rates go to 5% service on the debt goes to 1.1 trillion, and that's a year.
When the Republicans lowered taxes three years ago that was the height of their stupidity. Finger pointing is another stupid gesture here. The TIGRs (Treasury Insured Growth Receipts) were paying 11% in 1983 and those were 20 year bonds.
Accusations as to who is responsible for the debt are useless because we are in a fix. If the interest rate on the debt of 22 trillion goes to 3% service on the debt goes to 660 billion. If interest rates go to 5% service on the debt goes to 1.1 trillion, and that's a year.
When the Republicans lowered taxes three years ago that was the height of their stupidity. Finger pointing is another stupid gesture here. The TIGRs (Treasury Insured Growth Receipts) were paying 11% in 1983 and those were 20 year bonds.
Aren't you the same poster who bitterly complained about those who pay over $10,000/year in state and local taxes (definitely not the poor) being taxed more by the Fed Gov due to the new $10,000 SALT deduction limit? You've complained about both an increase in taxes and a tax cut, so, which is it?
Aren't you the same poster who bitterly complained about those who pay over $10,000/year in state and local taxes (definitely not the poor) being taxed more by the Fed Gov due to the new $10,000 SALT deduction limit? You've complained about both an increase in taxes and a tax cut, so, which is it?
IX. CONCLUSION T A X P O L I C Y C E N T E R | U R B A N I N S T I T U T E & B RO O K I N G S I N S T I T U T I O N The TCJA’s most fundamental changes relate to corporate and pass-through income. At a conceptual level, the idea of moving to a lower corporate income tax rate and a territorial system with safeguards against income shifting has been the source of a broad consensus in recent years. Whether the actual provisions that were enacted are the best ways to do that is a more debatable proposition.The pass-through provisions are quite complex and are not consistent with any obvious underlying set of principles.In its cut in revenues and untested structural reforms, both of which invite an imminent re-examination of tax provisions, the TCJA seems more like the Economic Recovery and Tax Act of 1981 than the Tax Reform Act of 1986.In terms of its effects, the new tax law will raise deficits and make the distribution of after-tax income more unequal.It will increase GDP in the shortterm. The medium-term effects on GDP are smaller, and the long-run impact on GNP will be even smaller.The new tax law simplifies taxes for some people, but also adds complexities and exacerbates compliance issues in other areas. The new law leaves many unanswered questions. It phases out many provisions over time, and it leaves US revenues significantly below what is needed to address long-term fiscal shortfalls.These aspects invite reconsideration of the tax policy choices made in the TCJA over the next several years.
In the future please quote me directly and say what threads that they are from and don't go into the battle of wits unarmed.
Last edited by Tonyafd; 01-10-2020 at 12:45 PM..
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.
