You’re wrong.
I’m deeply distressed at the rich paying less because the country needs the money - and they don’t. By any and all objective measures it’s better to tax the very rich because they can bear the load with less discomfort and such taxation gives better returns than taxing other demographics. As long as the US is either running a deficit or having difficulty funding social programs tax on the wealthy shouldn’t drop one penny.
They’re not where they need to get to yet, I can feel it. I saw a list of the largest cuts and the largest revenue raisers and the diff is 3.3 T. Way off.
They’re not going to give up any of the cuts. So they need to expose more income to taxation. None of the saved deductions except Charitable Contributions is safe yet. Mortgage interest, Property Tax, 401k limit, any or all of them still have big fat bullseyes on them. Maybe even requiring accelerated distributions from retirement accounts.
You can feel it?
Where did you see this list? Do you have a link?
ETA: are you sure you didn’t just see my reference upthread to the government receipts being $3.3T?
I don’t do cites. I’m not trying to convince anybody of anything. No, I didn’t read your post and then somehow accidentally type the same number into my post, I’m not that bad yet.
They caved way too far way too fast all of a sudden on the revenue side. I think a lot of those concessions are gonna have to get at least partially reversed.
Do you realize how improbably the claim sounds? You said: “I saw a list of the largest cuts and the largest revenue raisers and the diff is 3.3 T. Way off.”
Even if we were to assume that the “revenue raisers” amounted to $0 (which, we know is false because Bone and John Mace have already discussed they’ll have to pay additional taxes) …
The TOTAL government revenue for 2016 was $3.3 trillion. That includes not just the income and corporate tax, but payroll taxes, excise taxes, EVERYTHING. It sounds like you’re saying that the TC&J Act cut ALL of that. Cut EVERYONE’s rates to 0%, for everything.
Does that sound realistic to you?
I haven’t seen any numbers outside of this thread, but I often see federal budget changes projected out over ten years. It’s possible someone said “this will decrease revenue by 3.3 trillion” meaning that it was over that time period.
I don’t understand what this means. Bankrupting Republican poor? My post was a partisan dig? I’m truly confused.
We are talking past each other on the term “increasing taxes.” I’m talking about the general tax policy of eliminating deductions to increase revenue by some marginal amount, which offsets the marginal cost of eliminating the estate tax (among other things that benefit the rich). You’re talking about the overall tax bill of an individual.
Wait, do you care about debt or not? Why are we even talking about cutting taxes at all, to say nothing about needing to throw a bone to the ultra-wealthy in order to increase the debt by trillions.
If I searched your posts, would I find criticism of Obama’s fiscal policies that lead to increasing debt?
Over 10 years. You what the rules are about how this thing has to work, right? Why would anybody be talking about a single year in this context, it’s meaningless.
They’re currently at ~5.5 T in cuts over 10 years and ~2.2 T in offsetting revenue over 10 years. The diff is 3.3 T over 10 years. Too big. Way too big.
My apologies if this has already been addressed in the thread. I did a quick scan and may have missed it.
Is there a reliable calculator that can show how this plan will affect a married couple with no deductions? I thought I found one (maybe Business Watch), but it nearly made me toss my pizza. If it is accurate, we go from breaking even with no refund to owing nearly another $10,000.
If true, I am really not a fan.
Gross Income
Minus
Your combined 401k contributions (not including employer’s match)
And
Minus
The greater of:
The sum of (Mortgage Interest + Property Tax + Charitable Contributions)
OR
$24,000
Whatever the end result of that calculation is:
The first $90,000 is taxed at 12%, then
The next $170,000 is taxed at 25%, then
The next $740,000 is taxed at 35%, then
the rest is taxed at 39.6%
The crux of the matter, of course, is : Whom does the tax cut benefit?
That much of the cuts go directly to the wealthy is not in dispute. Corporate tax cuts must surely be so regarded, not to mention a large reduction in the top bracket, and the repeal of any estate tax. These are all huge breaks for the rich. (The home mortgage deduction ceiling aims directly at the middle class. That deduction was never important for the very rich — with the $1 mill, single home limits.)
And recall that Pence-Ryan don’t even have GWB’s excuse. The budget is not in balance; deficits are already high and this will balloon them. That the GOP tax plan is not scorned by all Americans is a tribute to our age of doublethink and ignorance. The economy is not in trouble; the loss of tax revenue will put a stop to plans for infrastructure, at least if fiscally prudent.
The poor and working poor will be much worse off — they were paying little income tax to start with, will pay at least as much into SocSec but will get less SocSec and Medicare benefit out. The middle class? Some gain a little; some lose. Even for those in the middle class who get tax savings, the typical savings, perhaps $250 to $500 per month, is not a game-changer. The rich? With a big reduction in tax rate (though don’t even dare propose the detail here), elimination of estate tax (and therefore loss of capital gains tax), etc. this is a windfall of many millions for the rich, and literally hundreds of millions or billions for the super-rich over time!
Let’s repeat that: Especially when changes to Medicare etc. are considered, this plan devastates the poor. The rich gain big. Deficits rise. Recall Trump’s campaign threat to default, note the nomination of a “monetary dove” to the FRB chair.
No, we shouldn’t need to ask who will benefit.
Yes, with proposed cuts in SocSec, Obamacare etc. the poor will be hit hardest, but many middle class will also lose (or win only slightly). This scurrying around (“Well, I’m middle class and I gain $2500!” … “Yeah, I’m middle-class and I only lose $1000; I guess it’s worth it to reward the Job Creators”) is just meekish acceptance of GOP propaganda.
I disagree with literally every fact and opinion in this post!
Has anyone looked at the pass through provisions? I have an S-corp. A service business. The vast majority of pass through business owners that I know are service orientated business. I keep reading about this big give away to pass through business. It appears to me from reading this proposal that myself, and most other pass through owners that I know will be excluded from any lower rate or benefit at all. And, it appears like the proposal requires pass through service business to consider 100% of income as wages, with payroll taxes. Most use a formula now, 70-30 or whatever. We can argue if that should be allowed, but either way, that would cause most to be looking at big payroll tax increases next year and going forward.
Am I reading this wrong? If not, what exactly is this big giveaway pass through businesses are suppose to get here?
Then you’re probably posting in the wrong forum.
The max rate will be 25%. So you’ll benefit if you’re currently being taxed higher than that on it.
I read that service based pass through business are not eligible for that rate.
Crap. I think I answered my own question. Back to the 401k! Thank you very much for the clarification. 
Even though the new provisions won’t apply to 2017, I would go ahead and keep adding to the 401(k) this year if you can afford to. Because there’s no reason to believe them when they say they will leave the cap where it is for next year.
I don’t know enough about that subject. I thought that article looked like it might have had your answer. Poke around a bit and you should find one.
No one is stopping you from making that argument and backing it up instead of JAQing. Although no one has has suggested everyone up and leave New York, so have fun?
He couldn’t sell a home in New York City. Yet he was able to sell you that yarn.
There are plenty of McDonald’s in Tennessee. There are plenty of metro areas with lower unemployment rates than NYC – hundreds, actually. 4% of Americans move to a different county every single year. And while the folks commuting all the way from Doylestown probably have a job that makes it worth their while, the “everywhere in between” includes everything in between. Living in a desirable area is an optional luxury.