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.
No, I do not. You complained quite bitterly that higher-income earners (definitely not the poor) have to pay more federal income tax now that the state and local tax (SALT) deduction has a $10,000 cap.
No, I do not. You complained quite bitterly that higher-income earners (definitely not the poor) have to pay more federal income tax now that the state and local tax (SALT) deduction has a $10,000 cap.
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.
No, I do not. You complained quite bitterly that higher-income earners (definitely not the poor) have to pay more federal income tax now that the state and local tax (SALT) deduction has a $10,000 cap.
I think that you should do some research into Prevagen.
Other people are reading my quote from The Brookings Institute, did you?
Republican in bubble courtesy ComerCap Investment council
Nope!
I objected to the entire tax law as irresponsible.
So, you think it's irresponsible to charge those who earn more and therefore pay more in state and local taxes a higher amount of federal income tax? Sounds like you're advocating for the reinstitution of the formerly unlimited SALT deduction, which benefitted the rich the most.
So, you think it's irresponsible to charge those who earn more and therefore pay more in state and local taxes a higher amount of federal income tax? Sounds like you're advocating for the reinstitution of the formerly unlimited SALT deduction, which benefitted the rich the most.
The question still remains... Do you believe those who earn more and therefore have more should pay more federal income tax due to the new $10,000 SALT deduction limit? Or not?
Obama used two TRILLION dollar "stimuli" to payback his political cronies like Public and Private sector UNIONS for getting him elected. He incurred MORE DEBT than any previous President COMBINED. It made TARP look like a library fine. Get real.
Forgetting this under Dubyas watch? I believe it came out to roughly 26 trillion
The total lending for the Fed’s “broad-based emergency programs” was $16,115,000,000,000. Barclays PLC, Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC, Deutsche Bank AG, UBS AG. These four institutions each got between a quarter of a trillion and a trillion dollars. None is an American bank.
and this
Another $10,057,000,000,000 in currency swaps. In the currency swaps, the Fed handed dollars to foreign central banks, no strings attached, to fund bailouts in other countries. The Fed’s only collateral was a corresponding amount of foreign currency,
Forgetting this under Dubyas watch? I believe it came out to roughly 26 trillion
The total lending for the Fed’s “broad-based emergency programs” was $16,115,000,000,000. Barclays PLC, Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC, Deutsche Bank AG, UBS AG. These four institutions each got between a quarter of a trillion and a trillion dollars. None is an American bank.
and this
Another $10,057,000,000,000 in currency swaps. In the currency swaps, the Fed handed dollars to foreign central banks, no strings attached, to fund bailouts in other countries. The Fed’s only collateral was a corresponding amount of foreign currency,
You must know that the above money was all paid back?
NONE of our tax money was involved. And NO increase in our National Debt.
And almost all the related interest payments on those holdings gets swept back to the Treasury.
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.
