Tax Cuts
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Thursday, April 17, 2025 01:12
VIEWED: 22355
PAGE 2 of 2
Quote:
Um, Granny? We already had this conversation and I already corrected your intended insults ("Daddy's business..."), or don't you remember?- GSTRING
link please. I recall you saying that both your parents had Alzheimer's/ dementia, and when I expressed my sympathy you (of course) pissed on it. Other than that ... ? - SIGNY
Riiiight... you said the planet would be better off without me (and others) and "I'm coming for you!" so spare me your fake concern. You're a conceited, me-first arse hat, plain and simple.- GSTRING
LINKS PLEASE?
But of course, this has NOTHING TO DO WITH you inheriting your daddy's business, having a comfortable niche where you can while away the hours on FFF.net insulting and trolling (when you aren't stuck to social media, that is), being totally out of touch with ordinary Americans and their worries (and the unemployment and underemployment situation), and quite obviously living in your own comfortable bubble with all of the concerns of a silver-spoon child.
Nope! You DIDN'T address any of that.
You may have inherited your daddy's money, but none of his smarts, because you attempted to pull off a really stupid lie by saying that "We already had this conversation". No, son, we didn't. So either YOUR memory is bad, or you're a liar. I vote "liar".
Happy New Year to you too.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cutting taxes is in the Republican DNA. Even an idiot such as George Bush can do it.
Like Trump, Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. Unlike Trump, Bush only won the Electoral College because of the US supreme court. Despite that added spice of illegitimacy, despite having smaller majorities in both houses of Congress (razor-thin in the Senate, almost razor-thin in the House), Bush still managed to push through massive tax cuts – and, unlike Trump, got 40 Democrats to vote with him. And Bush completed his mission a full six months sooner than Trump did.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's okay. His smart phone makes him smart.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well Shazaam! That must be why he was reelected in a landslide, which Democraps have never seen with their party.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
For one in two Americans, those in the bottom half of the income pile, income actually shrank on Reagan’s watch. In 1980, the year he was elected, they earned $16,371 a year on average, in today’s dollars, according to the World Wealth and Income Database. By 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, they had to make do with $16,268.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/business/economy/tax-cuts-incomes.h
tml
T
Perhaps you could provide a reliable, credible news source, instead of hanging your hat on The Libtard's Gospel.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
lol... I'd love to be making $16,268 in today's dollars.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I am unable to navigate that wid database.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Well Shazaam! That must be why he was reelected in a landslide, which Democraps have never seen with their party.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
For one in two Americans, those in the bottom half of the income pile, income actually shrank on Reagan’s watch. In 1980, the year he was elected, they earned $16,371 a year on average, in today’s dollars, according to the World Wealth and Income Database. By 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, they had to make do with $16,268.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/business/economy/tax-cuts-incomes.h
tml
T
Perhaps you could provide a reliable, credible news source, instead of hanging your hat on The Libtard's Gospel.
Can you tell me the numbers they use for 1981, 1982, 1983 - the end of the devastating Carter Economy?
Six, could you help getting those numbers?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thanks for that linky, I had only been going by what people said.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I heard the news report that 2 States had their Governors sign urgent quick laws to allow their residents to pay their property tax early, so it could be before Dec 31. I think NY and NJ.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Wow... is that true JSF?
That's not something I read before. I certainly don't see how that benefits the working class at all.)
I never heard of Governments that did not allow taxes to be paid early. How stupid is that? Free money for the coffers early, less I terest to pay, etc.
OTOH, can you imagine the chaos in Property Tax Offices this week?
In terms of overall benefits of Tax Reform, the simpler the better. Which means less or fewer different kinds of deductions, which would be the case here.
In terms of specific application, consider examples of 2 different taxpayers. 1 is similar to you, or even barely had a benefit of itemizing. 2 is carrying a Million Dollar home. The standard deduction and personal exemptions were raised, one of them doubled - that is for everybody, regardless of Income bracket. By trading an increased Universal deduction and exemptions with elimination of property tax deductible, which party gets the greater benefit? How about a family with one house but more kids? Or somebody not owning property? Those benefitting the greatest from property tax deductible were likely higher income, with more property values. The hard working shlub did not benefit as much, if at all.
That certainly sounds reasonable... but unfortunately I don't see anything aobout either one of them doubling. That would mean either an increase of the personal exemption from $4050 to $8100 or an increase of the standard deduction from $6350 to $12,700.
The current combined total is $4050 + $6350, or $10,400.
The article I'm reading says that both will be combined into a single larger standard deduction of $12,000. So... not really a double at all since it eliminates the personal exemption. Just an increase of $1,600 for a single filer. A larger increase than normal years, so good for me since I use it, but not really all that great.
http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-brackets-2018-trump-tax-plan-chart-
2017-12
Chances are that most low income earners wouldn't come close to being able to itemize at $12k if they were before. If nothing changes for me, almost my entire paycheck next year will be under that $12k cap. Whatever isn't I'll likely put into an IRA to avoid any taxes.
Property taxes likely did not affect, or help the poorest.
Let's assume that linky is accurate, and run some numbers.
Single, with income 21,520. In 2018 Tax would be $952. In 2017 Tax was $1203. With 1 non-spouse dependent $707. But that wage is $10/hr for 40 hour weeks the whole year, no other income.
Income 50,700. 2018 -> $4,456. 2017 -> $5,814. +1 dependent -> $5,039. +2 dependent -> $4,432.
Income 94,500. 2018 -> $14,092. 2017 -> $16,764. +1 -> $15,752. +2 -> $14,739.
Income 169,500. 2018 -> $32,092. 2017 -> $37,536. +1 -> $36,562.: +2 -> $35,588. +3 -> $34,614. +4 -> $33,640. +5 -> $32,666.
In 2018 there are no extra deductions for each dependent, other than spouse.
Looks like taxpayers with 1 or 0 kids are getting a Tax cut. Mostly due to the reduced Tax Rate in each bracket, plus the expansion of brackets.
I might cry for you if you make $100 too much and have to pay $10 in Tax.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So overall, I expect to pay a lot less in taxes in 2018.
Still, need to see Medicare and Social Security stabilized, as well as health insurance rates. Raising or eliminating the cap on Social Security taxable income and negotiating for lower drug prices would really help, but that would be too simple!
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Thanks for that linky, I had only been going by what people said.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I heard the news report that 2 States had their Governors sign urgent quick laws to allow their residents to pay their property tax early, so it could be before Dec 31. I think NY and NJ.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Wow... is that true JSF?
That's not something I read before. I certainly don't see how that benefits the working class at all.)
I never heard of Governments that did not allow taxes to be paid early. How stupid is that? Free money for the coffers early, less I terest to pay, etc.
OTOH, can you imagine the chaos in Property Tax Offices this week?
In terms of overall benefits of Tax Reform, the simpler the better. Which means less or fewer different kinds of deductions, which would be the case here.
In terms of specific application, consider examples of 2 different taxpayers. 1 is similar to you, or even barely had a benefit of itemizing. 2 is carrying a Million Dollar home. The standard deduction and personal exemptions were raised, one of them doubled - that is for everybody, regardless of Income bracket. By trading an increased Universal deduction and exemptions with elimination of property tax deductible, which party gets the greater benefit? How about a family with one house but more kids? Or somebody not owning property? Those benefitting the greatest from property tax deductible were likely higher income, with more property values. The hard working shlub did not benefit as much, if at all.
That certainly sounds reasonable... but unfortunately I don't see anything aobout either one of them doubling. That would mean either an increase of the personal exemption from $4050 to $8100 or an increase of the standard deduction from $6350 to $12,700.
The current combined total is $4050 + $6350, or $10,400.
The article I'm reading says that both will be combined into a single larger standard deduction of $12,000. So... not really a double at all since it eliminates the personal exemption. Just an increase of $1,600 for a single filer. A larger increase than normal years, so good for me since I use it, but not really all that great.
http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-brackets-2018-trump-tax-plan-chart-
2017-12
Chances are that most low income earners wouldn't come close to being able to itemize at $12k if they were before. If nothing changes for me, almost my entire paycheck next year will be under that $12k cap. Whatever isn't I'll likely put into an IRA to avoid any taxes.
Property taxes likely did not affect, or help the poorest.
Let's assume that linky is accurate, and run some numbers.
Single, with income 21,520. In 2018 Tax would be $952. In 2017 Tax was $1203. With 1 non-spouse dependent $707. But that wage is $10/hr for 40 hour weeks the whole year, no other income.
Income 50,700. 2018 -> $4,456. 2017 -> $5,814. +1 dependent -> $5,039. +2 dependent -> $4,432.
Income 94,500. 2018 -> $14,092. 2017 -> $16,764. +1 -> $15,752. +2 -> $14,739.
Income 169,500. 2018 -> $32,092. 2017 -> $37,536. +1 -> $36,562.: +2 -> $35,588. +3 -> $34,614. +4 -> $33,640. +5 -> $32,666.
In 2018 there are no extra deductions for each dependent, other than spouse.
Looks like taxpayers with 1 or 0 kids are getting a Tax cut. Mostly due to the reduced Tax Rate in each bracket, plus the expansion of brackets.
I might cry for you if you make $100 too much and have to pay $10 in Tax.
On face value, this definitely doesn't seem to be the horror show that some people were claiming it was. Any word yet on what the 2019 situation forward is going to look like? I don't want to be saying everything is a-okay when we've been duped by a good first year trojan horse.
lol... I still don't believe that the single guy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Thanks for that linky, I had only been going by what people said.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I heard the news report that 2 States had their Governors sign urgent quick laws to allow their residents to pay their property tax early, so it could be before Dec 31. I think NY and NJ.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Wow... is that true JSF?
That's not something I read before. I certainly don't see how that benefits the working class at all.)
I never heard of Governments that did not allow taxes to be paid early. How stupid is that? Free money for the coffers early, less I terest to pay, etc.
OTOH, can you imagine the chaos in Property Tax Offices this week?
In terms of overall benefits of Tax Reform, the simpler the better. Which means less or fewer different kinds of deductions, which would be the case here.
In terms of specific application, consider examples of 2 different taxpayers. 1 is similar to you, or even barely had a benefit of itemizing. 2 is carrying a Million Dollar home. The standard deduction and personal exemptions were raised, one of them doubled - that is for everybody, regardless of Income bracket. By trading an increased Universal deduction and exemptions with elimination of property tax deductible, which party gets the greater benefit? How about a family with one house but more kids? Or somebody not owning property? Those benefitting the greatest from property tax deductible were likely higher income, with more property values. The hard working shlub did not benefit as much, if at all.
That certainly sounds reasonable... but unfortunately I don't see anything aobout either one of them doubling. That would mean either an increase of the personal exemption from $4050 to $8100 or an increase of the standard deduction from $6350 to $12,700.
The current combined total is $4050 + $6350, or $10,400.
The article I'm reading says that both will be combined into a single larger standard deduction of $12,000. So... not really a double at all since it eliminates the personal exemption. Just an increase of $1,600 for a single filer. A larger increase than normal years, so good for me since I use it, but not really all that great.
http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-brackets-2018-trump-tax-plan-chart-
2017-12
Chances are that most low income earners wouldn't come close to being able to itemize at $12k if they were before. If nothing changes for me, almost my entire paycheck next year will be under that $12k cap. Whatever isn't I'll likely put into an IRA to avoid any taxes.
Property taxes likely did not affect, or help the poorest.
Let's assume that linky is accurate, and run some numbers.
Single, with income 21,520. In 2018 Tax would be $952. In 2017 Tax was $1203. With 1 non-spouse dependent $707. But that wage is $10/hr for 40 hour weeks the whole year, no other income.
Income 50,700. 2018 -> $4,456. 2017 -> $5,814. +1 dependent -> $5,039. +2 dependent -> $4,432.
Income 94,500. 2018 -> $14,092. 2017 -> $16,764. +1 -> $15,752. +2 -> $14,739.
Income 169,500. 2018 -> $32,092. 2017 -> $37,536. +1 -> $36,562.: +2 -> $35,588. +3 -> $34,614. +4 -> $33,640. +5 -> $32,666.
In 2018 there are no extra deductions for each dependent, other than spouse.
Looks like taxpayers with 1 or 0 kids are getting a Tax cut. Mostly due to the reduced Tax Rate in each bracket, plus the expansion of brackets.
I might cry for you if you make $100 too much and have to pay $10 in Tax.
On face value, this definitely doesn't seem to be the horror show that some people were claiming it was. Any word yet on what the 2019 situation forward is going to look like? I don't want to be saying everything is a-okay when we've been duped by a good first year trojan horse.
lol...NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Thanks for that linky, I had only been going by what people said.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I heard the news report that 2 States had their Governors sign urgent quick laws to allow their residents to pay their property tax early, so it could be before Dec 31. I think NY and NJ.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Wow... is that true JSF?
That's not something I read before. I certainly don't see how that benefits the working class at all.)
I never heard of Governments that did not allow taxes to be paid early. How stupid is that? Free money for the coffers early, less I terest to pay, etc.
OTOH, can you imagine the chaos in Property Tax Offices this week?
In terms of overall benefits of Tax Reform, the simpler the better. Which means less or fewer different kinds of deductions, which would be the case here.
In terms of specific application, consider examples of 2 different taxpayers. 1 is similar to you, or even barely had a benefit of itemizing. 2 is carrying a Million Dollar home. The standard deduction and personal exemptions were raised, one of them doubled - that is for everybody, regardless of Income bracket. By trading an increased Universal deduction and exemptions with elimination of property tax deductible, which party gets the greater benefit? How about a family with one house but more kids? Or somebody not owning property? Those benefitting the greatest from property tax deductible were likely higher income, with more property values. The hard working shlub did not benefit as much, if at all.
That certainly sounds reasonable... but unfortunately I don't see anything aobout either one of them doubling. That would mean either an increase of the personal exemption from $4050 to $8100 or an increase of the standard deduction from $6350 to $12,700.
The current combined total is $4050 + $6350, or $10,400.
The article I'm reading says that both will be combined into a single larger standard deduction of $12,000. So... not really a double at all since it eliminates the personal exemption. Just an increase of $1,600 for a single filer. A larger increase than normal years, so good for me since I use it, but not really all that great.
http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-brackets-2018-trump-tax-plan-chart-
2017-12
Chances are that most low income earners wouldn't come close to being able to itemize at $12k if they were before. If nothing changes for me, almost my entire paycheck next year will be under that $12k cap. Whatever isn't I'll likely put into an IRA to avoid any taxes.
Property taxes likely did not affect, or help the poorest.
Let's assume that linky is accurate, and run some numbers.
Single, with income 21,520. In 2018 Tax would be $952. In 2017 Tax was $1203. With 1 non-spouse dependent $707. But that wage is $10/hr for 40 hour weeks the whole year, no other income.
Income 50,700. 2018 -> $4,456. 2017 -> $5,814. +1 dependent -> $5,039. +2 dependent -> $4,432.
Income 94,500. 2018 -> $14,092. 2017 -> $16,764. +1 -> $15,752. +2 -> $14,739.
Income 169,500. 2018 -> $32,092. 2017 -> $37,536. +1 -> $36,562.: +2 -> $35,588. +3 -> $34,614. +4 -> $33,640. +5 -> $32,666.
In 2018 there are no extra deductions for each dependent, other than spouse.
Looks like taxpayers with 1 or 0 kids are getting a Tax cut. Mostly due to the reduced Tax Rate in each bracket, plus the expansion of brackets.
I might cry for you if you make $100 too much and have to pay $10 in Tax.
On face value, this definitely doesn't seem to be the horror show that some people were claiming it was. Any word yet on what the 2019 situation forward is going to look like? I don't want to be saying everything is a-okay when we've been dupNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Looks like the EIC will still be in effect. I don't know how much it changes though, since I never really paid all that much attention other than filing for the pittance I got. The cap for an individual without kids seems on par with what it used to be.
https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-c
redit/eitc-income-limits-maximum-credit-amounts-next-year
So I guess even though you're not claiming dependents, you're still claiming dependents.
I do like this, although I don't know if it is passed in the bill:
Quote:
If the Trump administration’s America First budget plan for 2018 ever gets approved as proposed, anyone claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or the Child Tax Credit (CTC) would face a new requirement: They must have a Social Security number and be legally authorized to work in the U.S.
http://fileyourtaxesnow.com/2018-earned-income-tax-credit-eitc/
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I have not seen this. So working people get no deduction for kids, but pothead couch potato gamers get paid to not work based on how many kids they have?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Looks like the EIC will still be in effect. I don't know how much it changes though, since I never really paid all that much attention other than filing for the pittance I got. The cap for an individual without kids seems on par with what it used to be.
https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-c
redit/eitc-income-limits-maximum-credit-amounts-next-year
So I guess even though you're not claiming dependents, you're still claiming dependents.
I do like this, although I don't know if it is passed in the bill:Quote:
If the Trump administration’s America First budget plan for 2018 ever gets approved as proposed, anyone claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or the Child Tax Credit (CTC) would face a new requirement: They must have a Social Security number and be legally authorized to work in the U.S.
http://fileyourtaxesnow.com/2018-earned-income-tax-credit-eitc/
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Not sure of the wisdom there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I have not seen this. So working people get no deduction for kids, but pothead couch potato gamers get paid to not work based on how many kids they have?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Looks like the EIC will still be in effect. I don't know how much it changes though, since I never really paid all that much attention other than filing for the pittance I got. The cap for an individual without kids seems on par with what it used to be.
https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-c
redit/eitc-income-limits-maximum-credit-amounts-next-year
So I guess even though you're not claiming dependents, you're still claiming dependents.
I do like this, although I don't know if it is passed in the bill:Quote:
If the Trump administration’s America First budget plan for 2018 ever gets approved as proposed, anyone claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or the Child Tax Credit (CTC) would face a new requirement: They must have a Social Security number and be legally authorized to work in the U.S.
http://fileyourtaxesnow.com/2018-earned-income-tax-credit-eitc/
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Not sure of the wisdom there.
No. The EIC means "Earned Income Credit". Social Security, Unemployment and other forms of welfare do not constitute "earned" income. Though this credit is essentially a hidden form of welfare that nobody talks about, but at least it only goes to people who hold a job.
I've talked about it in here before. My gripe with it is that somebody with 3-4 kids working the level of jobs I've had in the last 5 or so years essentially gets paid double what I do for the same job, subsidized by taxpayer dollars. What really adds insult to injury is that anybody I've known that gets it doesn't work half as hard as I do either. But really, hardly anybody I've ever worked with is at my level.
My EIC this year will be roughly $115. I've gotten as much as $400 one year... you really have to hit the sweet spot. There is a whole EIC table in the tax booklet if you want to know more. I don't know how long they've been doing this, but it's been at least 15 or more years.
When I was working at Satan's Asshole, aka KMart, I knew people who couldn't wait for tax day because of that $12,000 check they were getting from the government.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I tried to poke around that WID site, never found any page, report, data grid which showed the numbers that the NYT Libtard (I know, redundant) spouted. Perhaps he just made them up, holding to the high journalistic standards of the Times. Or maybe somebody could find a report from that site with those numbers present, and post a link for that specific page.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I am unable to navigate that wid database.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Well Shazaam! That must be why he was reelected in a landslide, which Democraps have never seen with their party.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
For one in two Americans, those in the bottom half of the income pile, income actually shrank on Reagan’s watch. In 1980, the year he was elected, they earned $16,371 a year on average, in today’s dollars, according to the World Wealth and Income Database. By 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, they had to make do with $16,268.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/business/eco
nomy/tax-cuts-incomes.html
T
Perhaps you could provide a reliable, credible news source, instead of hanging your hat on The Libtard's Gospel.
Can you tell me the numbers they use for 1981, 1982, 1983 - the end of the devastating Carter Economy?
Six, could you help getting those numbers?
Otherwise, I did get a report from that site, for pre-tax income, bottom 50% of earners, in 2016 constant $.
It shows 1980 as $11,502. And 1988 as $12,504.
That right there suggests that not only did the Times just make stuff up, they also lied in the most dishonest and biased way, stating the opposite of what the data shows.
That looks like approximately 9% increase in annual income from 1980 to 1988, an 8 year span, or about 1% per year.
But more pertinently, the data which was avoided shows a fuller picture.
In 1981 it was $11,518.
In 1982 it was $10,888.
1983: $10,839.
1984: $11,453.
1985: $11,693.
1986: $11,762.
1987: $12,094.
First, Reagan had to stop and reverse the runaway downward spiral of the disastrous Carter Economy. That bottomed in 1983, with a loss of about $700 since 1980, or about 6% in 3 years - which is 2% average loss per year.
Then Reagan grew it, an increase of about $1,700 or about 15% in a span of 5 years, or about 3% each year.
Yet again, Libtard Delusions bow to the reality of real numbers.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:OF COURSE I remember saying that you didn't WORK for a living. Said it more than once, you stupid slug. But what DIDN'T happen ... the part where you said
"CLEARLY, you don't give a crap about being laid off or eking out a living as a free-lancer. My guess is that you're working in your daddy's company in a comfy middle-management niche where you can while away the hours posting on Firefly and endlessly checking your Twitter feed. But be that as it may ... "
Does that jog your *memory* at all? Care to apologize for your blatant lying? Care to own your BULLSHIT now? Ever?- GSTRING
Quote:
Um, Granny? We already had this conversation and I already corrected your intended insults ("Daddy's business...") ...
Well, you didn't. You didn't "correct" my intended insults. What you said was
Quote:Well, of course he is!
My "daddy" is dead btw.- GSTRING
That's how you inherited his business!
Please, RE-READ YOUR ENTIRE LIST OF STUPID POSTS. Nowhere in there is a denial of your elite inheritance and your comfy non-productive niche; in fact, it reads more like a confirmation. So this "conversation" where you "corrected" my "insults"?
NEVER HAPPENED, you lying piece of shit.
And, wow. I can't believe you keep flogging this particular lie of yours, dredging up old posts and old threads of yours that undercut your own point. You've clearly got some sort of mental deficit: not only can't you tell evidence from accusation, you can't distinguish truth from lies or reality from fiction. And I should stop picking on the mentally disabled ... and yanno, if you were just STUPID I wouldn't be this harsh .... but you're such a TROLL. Not only do you have some sort of intellectual incapacity, you're a LYING ASSHOLE. Your outright lies have been demonstrated over and over again, this is just the latest. So stop lying and stop being an asshole, and I'll stop pointing it out.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Say, G? The conversations in your head don't really count as valid conversations, m'kay pumpkin?
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
LINKS PLEASE?
You may have inherited your daddy's money, but none of his smarts, because you attempted to pull off a really stupid lie by saying that "We already had this conversation". No, son, we didn't. So either YOUR memory is bad, or you're a liar. I vote "liar".
Hey, $IGNYM FRAUD, lookie what I found from Dec 5th - I told you you tried that sh*t before:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=62106&mid=1
042482#1042482
"CLEARLY, you don't give a crap about being laid off or eking out a living as a free-lancer. My guess is that you're working in your daddy's company in a comfy middle-management niche where you can while away the hours posting on Firefly and endlessly checking your Twitter feed. But be that as it may ... "
Does that jog your *memory* at all? Care to apologize for your blatant lying? Care to own your BULLSHIT now? Ever?
I doubt it! But I look forward to you embarrassing yourself with the upcoming dodges, BS rationals and further Trump level lies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Where did you "correct" my "insults"?
Um, Granny? We already had this conversation and I already corrected your intended insults ("Daddy's business...") ...
Are you not wealthy?
Did you not get your wealth, and your comfy niche, by inheritance?
Are you not completely untroubled by the un- and underemployment problem of most Americans?
Do you not spend much of your time ... time when MOST Americans who have a job MUST be working .... trolling on fff.net and engaged with social media? (And, no, posting on fff.net isn't tolerated in workplaces unless you have a sinecure.)
Did you post a denial, limitation, or correction to any of those suppositions?
No?
Well then, you didn't "correct" anything, did you?
This part of the thread is unbelievably stupid, and I think the problem is at your end. So until you come up with an actual meaningful response, I'm going to bow out.
AND NOW, BACK TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED TOPIC ....
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As a point of curiosity: How? You spend 99% of your posts here insulting and trolling. As YOU YOURSELF said, you don't post a lot about yourself. Apparently, I missed the one post where you mentioned something about taking care of your mom. (Assuming that you're not lying about that too.)
Did you post a denial, limitation, or correction to any of those suppositions? No? - SIGNY
Yes - you must be deaf, dumb and blind:
"So you can't deflect with it again:
I'm definitely not rich, not financially by any definition. I spent most of my life dead ass broke, kinda like Jack. Any inheritance from "daddy" went first to my deadbeat brother (more than a decade without trying to work) and second to take care of my mom - something any intelligent person who genuinely cared and not "fake cared" would have been able to deduce.
Quote:FINALLY! Very late in the day .... and way past the time when you claimed to have "corrected" my posts .... you finally produce a salient post!
Especially someone with a health concern in their own family. That's not you in either case though, is it?"- GSTRING
So, no son, we DIDN'T "have this conversation". Timelines not your thing? An after-the-fact correction is still after-the-fact. And, as I do with some of your posts, I guess I missed this one. Well gosh, whip me with a wet noodle.
Quote:
This conversation in unbelievably stupid, and I think the problem is at your end. So until you come up with an actual meaningful response, I'm going to bow out.- SIGNY
Yes, it's incredibly stupid. "I" lied and were caught and then trolled to deflect from "my" grotesque wealth and now "I" will runaway. - GSTRING
So, you're not wealthy "financially", and yet you spend all hours of the day trolling on Firefly, and you apparently think that the employment situation here in the USA is A-OK? You have NO IDEA about the difficulty of finding and keeping a decent-paying full time job? You have no idea that a record number of children are living with mom and dad? Where have you been hiding? Under a rock?
Quote:As you've pointed out, I post a lot about myself, and I've already touched on this: We worked hard at technical jobs- one in university and one in government, very safe jobs but not extremely well-paid - and saved like maniacs for the time when we would die and our daughter would be on her own. We made less money together than a successful doctor would make on his or her own in this area. Some of our investments did great, some of them not so much. We're neither rich nor poor, and definitely not 1%. Maybe more like top 20% - there are an awful lot of very wealthy people in LA County, and we're definitely not one of them.
Oh yeah.... stepping around your steaming pile of SIGNMY deflection droppings... you still haven't told us about your massive stock pile of wealth - why is that? I would imagine someone as full of themselves as you is having a hard time NOT telling us how great your investment strategies have been. Just let it go, be proud - celebrate you wise investments and superior knowledge and share with us. - GSTRING
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Get a room, you two.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Passive? Who says I'm being passive?
Apparently, I missed the one post where you mentioned something about taking care of your mom. (Assuming that you're not lying about that too.) - SIGNY
Goddamn - are you lying about your Daughter? You keep rolling out the passive aggressive insults and I'll keep flinging them back in your face, a-wipe.- GSTRGING
heh heh heh
Quote:I wasn't calling you a liar because of that post, I was calling you a liar because you CLAIMED to have "corrected" me already, you CLAIMED that "we had this conversation already" and yet ... wow, nowhere to be found! So please, try to stop lying about what I posted, and do try keep up with what's been explained several times already!
And, as I do with some of your posts, I guess I missed this one. Well gosh, whip me with a wet noodle.- SIGNY
OR you could not call someone a liar when you haven't read their posts? Duh?= GSTRING
Quote:When then, you're clearly not READING or THINKING ABOUT what you reply to because, as you said, my posts can be pretty long. So all you're doing, by your own admission, is insulting me automatically. In other words, trolling. But, we already knew that!
So, you're not wealthy "financially", and yet you spend all hours of the day trolling on Firefly..."- SIGNY
If I do, then you spend 72 hours in one day - you post more than anyone but Jack. Takes 2 minutes to roll my eyes and reply to your BS.- GSTRING
Quote:
... and you apparently think that the employment situation here in the USA is A-OK?"- SIGNY
Yep, there are tons of jobs out there if you want one.- GSTRINGi
You have NO IDEA about the difficulty of finding and keeping a decent-paying full time job?" - SIGNY
Not first hand, I haven't had to look for work in decades. I must be a valued employee.- GSTRING
You make a mockery of everyone who is struggling to find work that they can actually live on? From your comfy niche where none of this has any impact on you?
Please, don't EVER pretend to care about ordinary Americans ever again! You CLEARLY have no idea what's happening to the country and you certainly haven't bothered to find out because you obviously don't care about anyone but yourself, you smug self-satisfied jerk
Quote:Seriously? YOUR memory must be failing! Or you're lying again. It was a pretty long conversation about what constitutes "employment". Okay, son, I'll dig it up.
You have no idea that a record number of children are living with mom and dad?- SIGNY
Cites please - GSTRING
Quote:Says the liar. The one who's been caught lying many times already, twice on this page alone. So now you reference your apocryphal "sick mother" who you CLAIM to have posted about already but whom I certainly don't remember reading about. So, yanno ... LINKS PLEASE. If you really posted it, you should be able to find it again.
As you've pointed out, I post a lot about myself, and I've already touched on this: We worked hard at technical jobs- one in university and one in government, very safe jobs but not extremely well-paid - and saved like maniacs for the time when we would die and our daughter would be on her own. We made less money together than a successful doctor would make on his or her own in this area. Some of our investments did great, some of them not so much. We're neither rich nor poor, and definitely not 1%. Maybe more like top 20% - there are an awful lot of very wealthy people in LA County, and we're definitely not one of them.- SIGNY
Who cares what you make - you're a lying @sshole - that's what matters.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Seriously? YOUR memory must be failing! Or you're lying again. It was a pretty long conversation about what constitutes "employment". Okay, son, I'll dig it up. - SIGNY
What?!?!? All that phony righteous outrage and YOU DON'T KNOW???? hahahahahah geezus, stop typing.- GSTRING
Here ya go, son, your impressions about the employment situation in America, in all it's ignorant glory.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=62106&mid=1
042742#1042742
So, all that phony righteous outrage and YOU DON'T KNOW???? About YOUR OWN POST?? hahahahahah geezus, stop typing!
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Thanks for that linky, I had only been going by what people said.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I heard the news report that 2 States had their Governors sign urgent quick laws to allow their residents to pay their property tax early, so it could be before Dec 31. I think NY and NJ.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Wow... is that true JSF?
That's not something I read before. I certainly don't see how that benefits the working class at all.)
I never heard of Governments that did not allow taxes to be paid early. How stupid is that? Free money for the coffers early, less I terest to pay, etc.
OTOH, can you imagine the chaos in Property Tax Offices this week?
In terms of overall benefits of Tax Reform, the simpler the better. Which means less or fewer different kinds of deductions, which would be the case here.
In terms of specific application, consider examples of 2 different taxpayers. 1 is similar to you, or even barely had a benefit of itemizing. 2 is carrying a Million Dollar home. The standard deduction and personal exemptions were raised, one of them doubled - that is for everybody, regardless of Income bracket. By trading an increased Universal deduction and exemptions with elimination of property tax deductible, which party gets the greater benefit? How about a family with one house but more kids? Or somebody not owning property? Those benefitting the greatest from property tax deductible were likely higher income, with more property values. The hard working shlub did not benefit as much, if at all.
That certainly sounds reasonable... but unfortunately I don't see anything aobout either one of them doubling. That would mean either an increase of the personal exemption from $4050 to $8100 or an increase of the standard deduction from $6350 to $12,700.
The current combined total is $4050 + $6350, or $10,400.
The article I'm reading says that both will be combined into a single larger standard deduction of $12,000. So... not really a double at all since it eliminates the personal exemption. Just an increase of $1,600 for a single filer. A larger increase than normal years, so good for me since I use it, but not really all that great.
http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-brackets-2018-trump-tax-plan-chart-
2017-12
Chances are that most low income earners wouldn't come close to being able to itemize at $12k if they were before. If nothing changes for me, almost my entire paycheck next year will be under that $12k cap. Whatever isn't I'll likely put into an IRA to avoid any taxes.
Property taxes likely did not affect, or help the poorest.
Let's assume that linky is accurate, and run some numbers.
Single, with income 21,520. In 2018 Tax would be $952. In 2017 Tax was $1203. With 1 non-spouse dependent $707. But that wage is $10/hr for 40 hour weeks the whole year, no other income.
Income 50,700. 2018 -> $4,456. 2017 -> $5,814. +1 dependent -> $5,039. +2 dependent -> $4,432.
Income 94,500. 2018 -> $14,092. 2017 -> $16,764. +1 -> $15,752. +2 -> $14,739.
Income 169,500. 2018 -> $32,092. 2017 -> $37,536. +1 -> $36,562.: +2 -> $35,588. +3 -> $34,614. +4 -> $33,640. +5 -> $32,666.
In 2018 there are no extra deductions for each dependent, other than spouse.
Looks like taxpayers with 1 or 0 kids are getting a Tax cut. Mostly due to the reduced Tax Rate in each bracket, plus the expansion of brackets.
I might cry for you if you make $100 too much and have to pay $10 in Tax.
On face value, this definitely doesn't seem to be the horror show that some people were claiming it was. Any word yet on what the 2019 situation forward is going to look like? I don't want to be saying everything is a-okay when we've been duped by a good first year trojan horse.
lol..NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Thanks for that linky, I had only been going by what people said.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I heard the news report that 2 States had their Governors sign urgent quick laws to allow their residents to pay their property tax early, so it could be before Dec 31. I think NY and NJ.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Wow... is that true JSF?
That's not something I read before. I certainly don't see how that benefits the working class at all.)
I never heard of Governments that did not allow taxes to be paid early. How stupid is that? Free money for the coffers early, less I terest to pay, etc.
OTOH, can you imagine the chaos in Property Tax Offices this week?
In terms of overall benefits of Tax Reform, the simpler the better. Which means less or fewer different kinds of deductions, which would be the case here.
In terms of specific application, consider examples of 2 different taxpayers. 1 is similar to you, or even barely had a benefit of itemizing. 2 is carrying a Million Dollar home. The standard deduction and personal exemptions were raised, one of them doubled - that is for everybody, regardless of Income bracket. By trading an increased Universal deduction and exemptions with elimination of property tax deductible, which party gets the greater benefit? How about a family with one house but more kids? Or somebody not owning property? Those benefitting the greatest from property tax deductible were likely higher income, with more property values. The hard working shlub did not benefit as much, if at all.
That certainly sounds reasonable... but unfortunately I don't see anything aobout either one of them doubling. That would mean either an increase of the personal exemption from $4050 to $8100 or an increase of the standard deduction from $6350 to $12,700.
The current combined total is $4050 + $6350, or $10,400.
The article I'm reading says that both will be combined into a single larger standard deduction of $12,000. So... not really a double at all since it eliminates the personal exemption. Just an increase of $1,600 for a single filer. A larger increase than normal years, so good for me since I use it, but not really all that great.
http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-brackets-2018-trump-tax-plan-chart-
2017-12
Chances are that most low income earners wouldn't come close to being able to itemize at $12k if they were before. If nothing changes for me, almost my entire paycheck next year will be under that $12k cap. Whatever isn't I'll likely put into an IRA to avoid any taxes.
Property taxes likely did not affect, or help the poorest.
Let's assume that linky is accurate, and run some numbers.
Single, with income 21,520. In 2018 Tax would be $952. In 2017 Tax was $1203. With 1 non-spouse dependent $707. But that wage is $10/hr for 40 hour weeks the whole year, no other income.
Income 50,700. 2018 -> $4,456. 2017 -> $5,814. +1 dependent -> $5,039. +2 dependent -> $4,432.
Income 94,500. 2018 -> $14,092. 2017 -> $16,764. +1 -> $15,752. +2 -> $14,739.
Income 169,500. 2018 -> $32,092. 2017 -> $37,536. +1 -> $36,562.: +2 -> $35,588. +3 -> $34,614. +4 -> $33,640. +5 -> $32,666.
In 2018 there are no extra deductions for each dependent, other than spouse.
Looks like taxpayers with 1 or 0 kids are getting a Tax cut. Mostly due to the reduced Tax Rate in each bracket, plus the expansion of brackets.
I might cry for you if you make $100 too much and have to pay $10 in Tax.
On face value, this definitely doesn't seem to be the horror show that some people were claiming it was. Any word yet on what the 2019 situation forward is going to look like? I don't want to be saying everything is a-okay when we've been dNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, apparently GSTRING has no memory of what it posted just short while ago.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=62106&mid=1
042742#1042742
Is GSTRING a synthetic troll?
Maybe we have been posting to a synthetic "bot" all along ... a set of programmed responses and pre-programmed phrases designed by the NSA for political purposes? That would explain its lack of human background. For example, it's "sick mother" for which it can find no previous posted citation.
Whatever the case, GSTRING is remarkably inept.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you post a link to the brackets that you consider valid, that is good enough for me. They are already part of existing law - of course subject to change. But it will give us an idea of what the landscape and roadmap is as of now.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:I don't think you can find any tax tables for 2018 yet. They usually don't print them that far in advance. (A google search shows plenty results for articles saying what the brackets will be, but no actual tables provided by the IRS).
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:If you find and post a link for the 2019 Tax brackets as they stand now, I will run some numbers for you, as time allows.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:On face value, this definitely doesn't seem to be the horror show that some people were claiming it was. Any word yet on what the 2019 situation forward is going to look like? I don't want to be saying everything is a-okay when we've been duped by a good first year trojan horse.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-brackets-2018-trump-tax-plan-chart-
2017-12
]Thanks for that linky, I had only been going by what people said.
Property taxes likely did not affect, or help the poorest.
Let's assume that linky is accurate, and run some numbers.
Single, with income 21,520. In 2018 Tax would be $952. In 2017 Tax was $1203. With 1 non-spouse dependent $707. But that wage is $10/hr for 40 hour weeks the whole year, no other income.
Income 50,700. 2018 -> $4,456. 2017 -> $5,814. +1 dependent -> $5,039. +2 dependent -> $4,432.
Income 94,500. 2018 -> $14,092. 2017 -> $16,764. +1 -> $15,752. +2 -> $14,739.
Income 169,500. 2018 -> $32,092. 2017 -> $37,536. +1 -> $36,562.: +2 -> $35,588. +3 -> $34,614. +4 -> $33,640. +5 -> $32,666.
In 2018 there are no extra deductions for each dependent, other than spouse.
Looks like taxpayers with 1 or 0 kids are getting a Tax cut. Mostly due to the reduced Tax Rate in each bracket, plus the expansion of brackets.
I might cry for you if you make $100 too much and have to pay $10 in Tax.
lol... I still don't believe that the single guy without kids is getting a tax break. This sounds waaaaaaay too good to be true. Since when does Government reward responsibility?
Do you know anything about EIC in 2018? Do single parents with 4 kids now make 3 times as much as I do instead of only twice as much for the same job?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
The incomes I used above were at the thresholds of the new brackets, so the results between my examples should fairly run predictably. Let me know if there are other specific income examples you would want.
I only asked because I've heard a few articles saying that the first year wasn't bad, but after that it got worse. But you know my trust in the media. I hate thinking I have to wait over a year before I can make my own mind up about it though.
It looks like the EIC welfare program doesn't change much.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
If you post a link to the brackets that you consider valid, that is good enough for me. They are already part of existing law - of course subject to change. But it will give us an idea of what the landscape and roadmap is as of now.
https://taxfoundation.org/2018-tax-brackets/
That's for 2018. Pretty much what we were talking about. Though this link is nice because it shows the AMT and EIC brackets as well.
I'm wondering what they are going to be for 2019. I've heard some people here complain that it is worse for the working class in 2019, but I don't see any evidence of that because I can't find anything on it.
NOTE: Anybody looking at those tables should keep in mind that for the tax brackets you need to add $12,000 to the numbers for a single filer, 18,000 for head of household and $24,000 for married filing jointly before the taxes kick in.
For instance, a single person making $24,524.99 or less doesn't pay a dime in Federal Income Tax. (However, they're still royally screwed from the first penny to the last on the SSI/Medicare taxes, of 7.65% for employees, and 15.30% for self employed. Just look at it as 15.30% for everybody. Your employer does.)
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The exact dollar amount of the tax tables likely must wait for the inflation calculation a Year from now. But if we know there are fundamental differences in the bracket structure, I can work site that, for purposes of comparison.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
If you post a link to the brackets that you consider valid, that is good enough for me. They are already part of existing law - of course subject to change. But it will give us an idea of what the landscape and roadmap is as of now.
https://taxfoundation.org/2018-tax-brackets/
That's for 2018. Pretty much what we were talking about. Though this link is nice because it shows the AMT and EIC brackets as well.
I'm wondering what they are going to be for 2019. I've heard some people here complain that it is worse for the working class in 2019, but I don't see any evidence of that because I can't find anything on it.
NOTE: Anybody looking at those tables should keep in mind that for the tax brackets you need to add $12,000 to the numbers for a single filer, 18,000 for head of household and $24,000 for married filing jointly before the taxes kick in.
For instance, a single person making $24,524.99 or less doesn't pay a dime in Federal Income Tax. (However, they're still royally screwed from the first penny to the last on the SSI/Medicare taxes, of 7.65% for employees, and 15.30% for self employed. Just look at it as 15.30% for everybody. Your employer does.)
Do Right, Be Right. :)
I get better search results from duckduckgo.com for this. The hits from savingtoinvest.com seem clearer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Do you have any for 2019? I can't find any.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow...
Major correction needed here. I can't believe nobody called me out on this.
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
NOTE: Anybody looking at those tables should keep in mind that for the tax brackets you need to add $12,000 to the numbers for a single filer, 18,000 for head of household and $24,000 for married filing jointly before the taxes kick in.
For instance, a single person making $24,524.99 or less doesn't pay a dime in Federal Income Tax. (However, they're still royally screwed from the first penny to the last on the SSI/Medicare taxes, of 7.65% for employees, and 15.30% for self employed. Just look at it as 15.30% for everybody. Your employer does.)
HUGE brainfart on that underlined part.
A single person making $11,999.99 or under doesn't pay a dime. After that, it's 10%. Once that same person hits $25,000, everything they make above $25k will be hit with an additional 2%.
If you're making enough to get hit with 22% (above $50,700 for a single filer), save as much of that as you can because you never know when you're going to lose that nice job. You should also be sheltering as much of it as possible in 401ks, IRAs and HSAs as you can.
Sure... you'd get hit with a 10% fine if you take it out early, but even anything you put in above $12k a year you avoid 10% in federal taxes so it's even. If you're putting money in to dodge 22% you're actually making 12% when you take it out (assuming you take it out when you no longer have that job and your income is low or non-existant).
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I saw that and wondered... But didn't look up the chart.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Wow...
Major correction needed here. I can't believe nobody called me out on this.Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
NOTE: Anybody looking at those tables should keep in mind that for the tax brackets you need to add $12,000 to the numbers for a single filer, 18,000 for head of household and $24,000 for married filing jointly before the taxes kick in.
For instance, a single person making $24,524.99 or less doesn't pay a dime in Federal Income Tax. (However, they're still royally screwed from the first penny to the last on the SSI/Medicare taxes, of 7.65% for employees, and 15.30% for self employed. Just look at it as 15.30% for everybody. Your employer does.)
HUGE brainfart on that underlined part.
A single person making $11,999.99 or under doesn't pay a dime. After that, it's 10%. Once that same person hits $25,000, everything they make above $25k will be hit with an additional 2%.
If you're making enough to get hit with 22% (above $50,700 for a single filer), save as much of that as you can because you never know when you're going to lose that nice job. You should also be sheltering as much of it as possible in 401ks, IRAs and HSAs as you can.
Sure... you'd get hit with a 10% fine if you take it out early, but even anything you put in above $12k a year you avoid 10% in federal taxes so it's even. If you're putting money in to dodge 22% you're actually making 12% when you take it out (assuming you take it out when you no longer have that job and your income is low or non-existant).
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Making $12,000 still gets you Zero Tax.
Then 10% on each dollar above 12,000 up to 21,525.
Another 2% on each dollar above 21,526 up to 50,700.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yup. I don't know what I was thinking. I know it was because of how the table was presented and how my brain mistakenly interpreted it. Saw it with a fresh pair of eyes this morning when I was going to reply to you in the DOW thread and thought "WTF? I can't believe nobody shot me down on that yet."
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you're in the 10% bracket and have access to a 401k and a company match, and can afford to, you really should put the money in there. Even if it just sits there doing nothing in a safe fund.
The 10% you dodge would cancel out the 10% penalty, so you would immediately get whatever percentage that the company matches, which in almost any case should be a multitude greater than any savings account or even a CD where you're really locked in.
At 22%, it's a no brainer. Sure, not only would you have to pay a 10% penalty on top of the 22% income tax if you took it out at a later date while you still had the same job, but if you lose that job you'll have the money to draw under $12k as income you won't be taxed on and it will just be the 10% penalty, netting you a 12% return plus your company match.
Also, if you've never used it before even if you've bought a house, you can take up to $10k one single time in your life out of a 401k/IRA penalty free to purchase a home under the "First Time Homeowner" clause.
It's really a good idea to always put in what your company will match, so long as you're making more than the deductible/exemption and you can afford to do so. No other investment in this current economy has such safe and reliable returns or possibilities.
(NOTE: The above statement is only if you don't gamble with it. You're on your own if you do that. My investment advice is only for putting it somewhere safe, in a low bearing fund. The closer to zero, the better.)
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Glad you agree.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
If you're in the 10% bracket and have access to a 401k and a company match, and can afford to, you really should put the money in there. Even if it just sits there doing nothing in a safe fund.
The 10% you dodge would cancel out the 10% penalty, so you would immediately get whatever percentage that the company matches, which in almost any case should be a multitude greater than any savings account or even a CD where you're really locked in.
At 22%, it's a no brainer. Sure, not only would you have to pay a 10% penalty on top of the 22% income tax if you took it out at a later date while you still had the same job, but if you lose that job you'll have the money to draw under $12k as income you won't be taxed on and it will just be the 10% penalty, netting you a 12% return plus your company match.
Also, if you've never used it before even if you've bought a house, you can take up to $10k one single time in your life out of a 401k/IRA penalty free to purchase a home under the "First Time Homeowner" clause.
It's really a good idea to always put in what your company will match, so long as you're making more than the deductible/exemption and you can afford to do so. No other investment in this current economy has such safe and reliable returns or possibilities.
(NOTE: The above statement is only if you don't gamble with it. You're on your own if you do that. My investment advice is only for putting it somewhere safe, in a low bearing fund. The closer to zero, the better.)
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well... not sure that agree is the word.
I agree that you should use your 401k as a savings account, that's about it.
There's far too much market manipulation out there to actually say that investing is a good idea for anybody. That's actually something that you and Second agree on.
I don't care what historical values were. Everything is far too unpredictable today and the rules to the game are always being changed by the rich who are really the only sure winners in the end.
I'd give anybody the same advice about investing as I would playing slots on the Boat. Go ahead and have your fun if you aren't prone to a gambling addiction and it's with money you can afford to gamble.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:at taxfoundation.org I did a search for "2019 Tax bracket" and found a link for full analysis of the Reform bill. There is a full report PDF which I cannot see. It also says property taxes are allowed with state, local taxes for combined $10k limit. See if they ou can find brackets in that PDF.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Do you have any for 2019? I can't find any.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not finding what you're talking about. You'd have to tell me the article title maybe?
I did see this: https://taxfoundation.org/conference-report-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/
About above the line deductions:
Quote:
Repeals the moving expense deduction (except for active duty military personnel) and eliminates the alimony deduction effective 2019 (though those receiving alimony no longer count it as income). Retains other above-the-line deductions, including educator expenses and student loan interest. Graduate student tuition waivers also remain in place.
The poor schmucks that have to pay alimony will now have to pay Federal Tax on it to add insult and injury to insult and injury. But the ones sitting on their ass doing nothing for the money won't have to pay income tax on it anymore. Yay.
It also says this at the top:
Quote:
Here, then, are the major provisions of the conference committee report. All figures (both current law and conference report provisions) are for 2018. Most individual income tax changes will revert to current law after 2025 unless extended.
I don't know if that means that we'll go back to a standard deduction and personal exemption in 2025 or not.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:the article was dated 19 Dec.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm not finding what you're talking about. You'd have to tell me the article title maybe?
I did see this: https://taxfoundation.org/conference-report-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/
About above the line deductions:Quote:
Repeals the moving expense deduction (except for active duty military personnel) and eliminates the alimony deduction effective 2019 (though those receiving alimony no longer count it as income). Retains other above-the-line deductions, including educator expenses and student loan interest. Graduate student tuition waivers also remain in place.
The poor schmucks that have to pay alimony will now have to pay Federal Tax on it to add insult and injury to insult and injury. But the ones sitting on their ass doing nothing for the money won't have to pay income tax on it anymore. Yay.
It also says this at the top:Quote:
Here, then, are the major provisions of the conference committee report. All figures (both current law and conference report provisions) are for 2018. Most individual income tax changes will revert to current law after 2025 unless extended.
I don't know if that means that we'll go back to a standard deduction and personal exemption in 2025 or not.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Final tax cuts jobs act details analysis
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Did you find it?
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:the article was dated 19 Dec.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm not finding what you're talking about. You'd have to tell me the article title maybe?
I did see this: https://taxfoundation.org/conference-report-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/
About above the line deductions:Quote:
Repeals the moving expense deduction (except for active duty military personnel) and eliminates the alimony deduction effective 2019 (though those receiving alimony no longer count it as income). Retains other above-the-line deductions, including educator expenses and student loan interest. Graduate student tuition waivers also remain in place.
The poor schmucks that have to pay alimony will now have to pay Federal Tax on it to add insult and injury to insult and injury. But the ones sitting on their ass doing nothing for the money won't have to pay income tax on it anymore. Yay.
It also says this at the top:Quote:
Here, then, are the major provisions of the conference committee report. All figures (both current law and conference report provisions) are for 2018. Most individual income tax changes will revert to current law after 2025 unless extended.
I don't know if that means that we'll go back to a standard deduction and personal exemption in 2025 or not.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Final tax cuts jobs act details analysis
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The PDF is here: https://files.taxfoundation.org/20171220113959/TaxFoundation-SR241-TCJ
A-3.pdf
If you can't view it, might I suggest Firefox 
I don't have time to read through it right now, but I don't see anything about 2019 brackets in there. Just what we already knew about 2018.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't think my phone can load that.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The PDF is here: https://files.taxfoundation.org/20171220113959/TaxFoundation-SR241-TCJ
A-3.pdf
If you can't view it, might I suggest Firefox
I don't have time to read through it right now, but I don't see anything about 2019 brackets in there. Just what we already knew about 2018.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Edited the linky.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, apparently GSTRING has no memory of what it posted just short while ago.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=62106&mid=1
042742#1042742
Is GSTRING a synthetic troll?
Maybe we have been posting to a synthetic "bot" all along ... a set of programmed responses and pre-programmed phrases designed by the NSA for political purposes? That would explain its lack of human background. For example, it's "sick mother" for which it can find no previous posted citation.
Whatever the case, GSTRING is remarkably inept.
6
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is what was repeated in SOTU, right?
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Thanks for that linky, I had only been going by what people said.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I heard the news report that 2 States had their Governors sign urgent quick laws to allow their residents to pay their property tax early, so it could be before Dec 31. I think NY and NJ.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Wow... is that true JSF?
That's not something I read before. I certainly don't see how that benefits the working class at all.)
I never heard of Governments that did not allow taxes to be paid early. How stupid is that? Free money for the coffers early, less I terest to pay, etc.
OTOH, can you imagine the chaos in Property Tax Offices this week?
In terms of overall benefits of Tax Reform, the simpler the better. Which means less or fewer different kinds of deductions, by which would be the case here.
In terms of specific application, consider examples of 2 different taxpayers. 1 is similar to you, or even barely had a benefit of itemizing. 2 is carrying a Million Dollar home. The standard deduction and personal exemptions were raised, one of them doubled - that is for everybody, regardless of Income bracket. By trading an increased Universal deduction and exemptions with elimination of property tax deductible, which party gets the greater benefit? How about a family with one house but more kids? Or somebody not owning property? Those benefitting the greatest from property tax deductible were likely higher income, with more property values. The hard working shlub did not benefit as much, if at all.
That certainly sounds reasonable... but unfortunately I don't see anything aobout either one of them doubling. That would mean either an increase of the personal exemption from $4050 to $8100 or an increase of the standard deduction from $6350 to $12,700.
The current combined total is $4050 + $6350, or $10,400.
The article I'm reading says that both will be combined into a single larger standard deduction of $12,000. So... not really a double at all since it eliminates the personal exemption. Just an increase of $1,600 for a single filer. A larger increase than normal years, so good for me since I use it, but not really all that great.
http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-brackets-2018-trump-tax-plan-chart-
2017-12
Chances are that most low income earners wouldn't come close to being able to itemize at $12k if they were before. If nothing changes for me, almost my entire paycheck next year will be under that $12k cap. Whatever isn't I'll likely put into an IRA to avoid any taxes.
Property taxes likely did not affect, or help the poorest.
Let's assume that linky is accurate, and run some numbers.
Single, with income 21,520. In 2018 Tax would be $952. In 2017 Tax was $1203. With 1 non-spouse dependent $707. But that wage is $10/hr for 40 hour weeks the whole year, no other income.
Income 50,700. 2018 -> $4,456. 2017 -> $5,814. +1 dependent -> $5,039. +2 dependent -> $4,432.
Income 94,500. 2018 -> $14,092. 2017 -> $16,764. +1 -> $15,752. +2 -> $14,739.
Income 169,500. 2018 -> $32,092. 2017 -> $37,536. +1 -> $36,562.: +2 -> $35,588. +3 -> $34,614. +4 -> $33,640. +5 -> $32,666.
In 2018 there are no extra deductions for each dependent, other than spouse.
Looks like taxpayers with 1 or 0 kids are getting a Tax cut. Mostly due to the reduced Tax Rate in each bracket, plus the expansion of brackets.
I might cry for you if you make $100 too much and have to pay $10 in Tax.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What's SOTU? I might be having a brainfart here.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:State Of The Union.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
What's SOTU? I might be having a brainfart here.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
A transcript is included in its thread.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Must have been brainfart. You had just posted in that thread 5 hours before.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
What's SOTU? I might be having a brainfart here.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nope. Not a brainfart. I've never owned a smartphone, so I haven't jumped on this bandwagon that we need to have an acronym for everything.
For the longest time, I thought FTW meant Fuck the World.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:To to be a life without knowing what are WTF, SNAFU, Jeep, FBI, POTUS, SUV, CIA, LOL, BOGO, ASAP, SONAR, RADAR, LASER, JPG, GIF, BASIC, IRS, DOS, MHz, MPG, MPH, PPG, PPM, DOT, IFF, ABS, SSN, PIN, VIN, ID, DMV, TV, NASA, DVD, CD, IIRC, DJIA...
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Nope. Not a brainfart. I've never owned a smartphone, so I haven't jumped on this bandwagon that we need to have an acronym for everything.
For the longest time, I thought FTW meant Fuck the World.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Although it did take me awhile for WOT - and not without it being spelled out for me.
Now you make me wonder if second knows what FTS is.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:To to be a life without knowing what are WTF, SNAFU, Jeep, FBI, POTUS, SUV, CIA, LOL, BOGO, ASAP, SONAR, RADAR, LASER, JPG, GIF, BASIC, IRS, DOS, MHz, MPG, MPH, PPG, PPM, DOT, IFF, ABS, SSN, PIN, VIN, ID, DMV, TV, NASA, DVD, CD, IIRC, DJIA...
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Nope. Not a brainfart. I've never owned a smartphone, so I haven't jumped on this bandwagon that we need to have an acronym for everything.
For the longest time, I thought FTW meant Fuck the World.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Although it did take me awhile for WOT - and not without it being spelled out for me.
Now you make me wonder if second knows what FTS is.
WTF - I don't know why, but I always got that one. Maybe that's why I thought what I did about FTW?
LOL - Maybe the first internet created acronym? They were definitely using it back in the America Online days.
ASAP/TV/ID/PIN/VIN/SSN/MPH/MPG - Ones long in the vernacular. I think everybody knows these.
SNAFU/FUBAR - I knew that because of an army movie. Maybe Full Metal Jacket?
SONAR/RADAR/LASER/SUV/JEEP - Movies maybe? Maybe *gasp* school?
FBI/CIA/IRS/DMV/NASA/DOT/Alphabet Agencies - Probably from movies.
BOGO - I don't really shop or buy anything unless I actually need it. Only know this one because of my work in retail.
ABS - Car commercials for sure.
JPG/GIF/BASIC/DOS/MHz/DVD/CD - I've been a huge computer nerd since the late 80's early 90's. I know a lot of the tech jargon.
PPG/PPM - Wow. 2 of them on the list were for sure learned from school. Maybe they actually do teach you something there.
DJIA - Had to google that. Never knew that one even though I was pretty big into investing in the middle of last decade.
POTUS - Didn't even know that one until maybe a year or two ago.
IFF - Never heard of it before. Looks like it has quite few meanings on Wikipedia.
IIRC - If I Recall Correctly?
FTS - File Transfer Service? Fight the System? Fuck the System? Fuck This Shit? Fuck That Shit? Failure To Stop? Flip The Script? Fortis, Inc.? Full Text Search? Financial Tracking Service? Federal Technology Service? Federal Tax Service? Flight Termination System? Floppy Trunk Syndrome? Free The Slaves?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Identification Friend or Foe.
You've surely heard it in movies. System that keeps planes from getting shot down, particularly when transitioning between nations. Also now a system to prevent friendly fire. IIRC it's also used in video games.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Double post
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Double posty.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Paul Ryan: Secretary Getting $1.50 More A Week Shows Effect Of GOP Tax Cuts
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) really wants you to know how great the Republican tax cuts are.
Worried that the partisan Nunes memo released Friday will undermine the FBI’s ability to do its job? Ryan is happy to remind you, ”The tax cuts are working.”
On Saturday, Ryan outdid himself again with a tweet bragging about the extra $1.50 a week that a Pennsylvania secretary is making thanks to the GOP legislation.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-ryan-tax-cut-weekly-pay-bump
_us_5a76151de4b06ee97af318e8?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
T 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Paul Ryan: Secretary Getting $1.50 More A Week Shows Effect Of GOP Tax Cuts
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) really wants you to know how great the Republican tax cuts are.
Worried that the partisan Nunes memo released Friday will undermine the FBI’s ability to do its job? Ryan is happy to remind you, ”The tax cuts are working.”
On Saturday, Ryan outdid himself again with a tweet bragging about the extra $1.50 a week that a Pennsylvania secretary is making thanks to the GOP legislation.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-ryan-tax-cut-weekly-pay-bump
_us_5a76151de4b06ee97af318e8?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
T
Yep. Just as much bullshit as anybody saying the economy or job outlook improved for anyone for 8 years under Obama.
Same lies, different "side".
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:bumpity.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I tried to poke around that WID site, never found any page, report, data grid which showed the numbers that the NYT Libtard (I know, redundant) spouted. Perhaps he just made them up, holding to the high journalistic standards of the Times. Or maybe somebody could find a report from that site with those numbers present, and post a link for that specific page.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I am unable to navigate that wid database.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Well Shazaam! That must be why he was reelected in a landslide, which Democraps have never seen with their party.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
For one in two Americans, those in the bottom half of the income pile, income actually shrank on Reagan’s watch. In 1980, the year he was elected, they earned $16,371 a year on average, in today’s dollars, according to the World Wealth and Income Database. By 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, they had to make do with $16,268.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/business/eco
nomy/tax-cuts-incomes.html
T
Perhaps you could provide a reliable, credible news source, instead of hanging your hat on The Libtard's Gospel.
Can you tell me the numbers they use for 1981, 1982, 1983 - the end of the devastating Carter Economy?
Six, could you help getting those numbers?
Otherwise, I did get a report from that site, for pre-tax income, bottom 50% of earners, in 2016 constant $.
It shows 1980 as $11,502. And 1988 as $12,504.
That right there suggests that not only did the Times just make stuff up, they also lied in the most dishonest and biased way, stating the opposite of what the data shows.
That looks like approximately 9% increase in annual income from 1980 to 1988, an 8 year span, or about 1% per year.
But more pertinently, the data which was avoided shows a fuller picture.
In 1981 it was $11,518.
In 1982 it was $10,888.
1983: $10,839.
1984: $11,453.
1985: $11,693.
1986: $11,762.
1987: $12,094.
First, Reagan had to stop and reverse the runaway downward spiral of the disastrous Carter Economy. That bottomed in 1983, with a loss of about $700 since 1980, or about 6% in 3 years - which is 2% average loss per year.
Then Reagan grew it, an increase of about $1,700 or about 15% in a span of 5 years, or about 3% each year.
Yet again, Libtard Delusions bow to the reality of real numbers.
And reminder to extract some WID links.
http://wid.world/data/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Paul Ryan: Secretary Getting $1.50 More A Week Shows Effect Of GOP Tax Cuts
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) really wants you to know how great the Republican tax cuts are.
Worried that the partisan Nunes memo released Friday will undermine the FBI’s ability to do its job? Ryan is happy to remind you, ”The tax cuts are working.”
On Saturday, Ryan outdid himself again with a tweet bragging about the extra $1.50 a week that a Pennsylvania secretary is making thanks to the GOP legislation.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-ryan-tax-cut-weekly-pay-bump
_us_5a76151de4b06ee97af318e8?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
T
Yep. Just as much bullshit as anybody saying the economy or job outlook improved for anyone for 8 years under Obama.
Same lies, different "side".
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Actually, I'm surprised they didn't go for a two-fer here and claim this as evidence that they were closing the fictional Gender Wage Gap.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:bumpity.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I tried to poke around that WID site, never found any page, report, data grid which showed the numbers that the NYT Libtard (I know, redundant) spouted. Perhaps he just made them up, holding to the high journalistic standards of the Times. Or maybe somebody could find a report from that site with those numbers present, and post a link for that specific page.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I am unable to navigate that wid database.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Well Shazaam! That must be why he was reelected in a landslide, which Democraps have never seen with their party.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
For one in two Americans, those in the bottom half of the income pile, income actually shrank on Reagan’s watch. In 1980, the year he was elected, they earned $16,371 a year on average, in today’s dollars, according to the World Wealth and Income Database. By 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, they had to make do with $16,268.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/business/eco
nomy/tax-cuts-incomes.html
T
Perhaps you could provide a reliable, credible news source, instead of hanging your hat on The Libtard's Gospel.
Can you tell me the numbers they use for 1981, 1982, 1983 - the end of the devastating Carter Economy?
Six, could you help getting those numbers?
Otherwise, I did get a report from that site, for pre-tax income, bottom 50% of earners, in 2016 constant $.
It shows 1980 as $11,502. And 1988 as $12,504.
That right there suggests that not only did the Times just make stuff up, they also lied in the most dishonest and biased way, stating the opposite of what the data shows.
That looks like approximately 9% increase in annual income from 1980 to 1988, an 8 year span, or about 1% per year.
But more pertinently, the data which was avoided shows a fuller picture.
In 1981 it was $11,518.
In 1982 it was $10,888.
1983: $10,839.
1984: $11,453.
1985: $11,693.
1986: $11,762.
1987: $12,094.
First, Reagan had to stop and reverse the runaway downward spiral of the disastrous Carter Economy. That bottomed in 1983, with a loss of about $700 since 1980, or about 6% in 3 years - which is 2% average loss per year.
Then Reagan grew it, an increase of about $1,700 or about 15% in a span of 5 years, or about 3% each year.
Yet again, Libtard Delusions bow to the reality of real numbers.
And reminder to extract some WID links.
http://wid.world/data/
That linky went dead, they must have been too embarrassed at their blatent lies.
And that WID site is cumbersome at best to utilize, plus their data seems to change from one visit to another.
Cannot find ANY of those previously notated figures there now. Not the figures I posted above, nor the figures from the lying story which was linked.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
News said Chipolte gave their employees a $1,000 bonus check because of the Tax Reform improvements.
So these are bartenders, cooks, and waitresses, right?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anecdotal accounts are not necessarily true or reliable because they are based on personal accounts, rather than facts or research. While some here can post much anecdotal evidence, there is little hard facts that most, and not only a few will Truly benefit. Chipotle may have done this to garner support with customers. They lost of lot of them due to several food poisonings.
There are almost 28 million small businesses in the US and over 22 million are self employed with no additional payroll or employees (these are called nonemployers.
What did they get?
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:They got a 2.7% - 3% raise, depending upon dependents and Marital Status. Which is a 4% - 5% increase in "take home" pay.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Anecdotal accounts are not necessarily true or reliable because they are based on personal accounts, rather than facts or research. While some here can post much anecdotal evidence, there is little hard facts that most, and not only a few will Truly benefit. Chipotle may have done this to garner support with customers. They lost of lot of them due to several food poisonings.
There are almost 28 million small businesses in the US and over 22 million are self employed with no additional payroll or employees (these are called nonemployers.
What did they get?
T
Unless earning 150-240K, which would be more like 3.5% raise, or near 6% increase in take home pay.
Or if earning 240-350K, then closer to 4% raise, or near 7% increase in take home pay. And 4% of 300K is more than $1,000.
Try to keep up when the adults are talking, m'kay Pumpkin?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:They got a 2.7% - 3% raise, depending upon dependents and Marital Status. Which is a 4% - 5% increase in "take home" pay.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Anecdotal accounts are not necessarily true or reliable because they are based on personal accounts, rather than facts or research. While some here can post much anecdotal evidence, there is little hard facts that most, and not only a few will Truly benefit. Chipotle may have done this to garner support with customers. They lost of lot of them due to several food poisonings.
There are almost 28 million small businesses in the US and over 22 million are self employed with no additional payroll or employees (these are called nonemployers.
What did they get?
T
Try to keep up when the adults are talking, m'kay Pumpkin?
OR... Maybe this had something to do with those "raises"?
https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/chipotle-prices-increase-nationw
ide-2018
CHIPOTLE HAS OFFICIALLY RAISED PRICES AT ALL ITS LOCATIONS
"Chipotle has had a rough couple years. Between the customers getting sick and the reviews calling its much-hyped attempt at queso a "crime against cheese," you'd think the burrito giant would be courting public approval like the protagonist of a late-'90s teen comedy. You'd be wrong though. Instead, Chipotle has just finished raising prices at all its locations.
The burrito empire has gradually rolled out the new price bump over the last year. Menu prices at 55% of the chain's over 2,200 locations were raised by 5% to 7% between April and November of 2017. Now, the final 45% of restaurants implemented the price hikes as of this week, mostly at locations in the Pacific, Northeast, Southeast, and Mid-Atlantic areas.
As a report by Business Insider explains, the change amounts to a $0.34 increase on a chicken burrito bowl, which should give you some perspective before you go writing to your congressperson or something. In the same report, Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold said, “Even with the increase, Chipotle pricing remains very competitive within the category.” It's mostly the principle, though.
This comes not long after Founder and CEO Steve Ells, who'd been heading the company for close to 25 years, announced plans to step down as CEO.
If Chipotle wants to lure people back into its restaurants, this might not be the best look. But, hey, maybe some more free burrito or free chips and guac deals will help."
Like so many things attributed to Trump, it's mostly pure bullshit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I keep hearing about these Tax Reform Bonus Checks. From $1,000 to $4,000 as examples.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
News said Chipolte gave their employees a $1,000 bonus check because of the Tax Reform improvements.
So these are bartenders, cooks, and waitresses, right?
Anybody know how these are working? Are the companies just issuing company wide bonuses, just because they are happy with Tax Reform?
Are the companies merely issuing one check for the January difference in the Employee's Tax withholding? The new Tax withholding tables for 2018 did not come out by the end of January, so the excessive withholding was still at the 2017 rate.
Or did companies issue the whole year's worth of reduced withholding in one shot, and then will continue with the 2017 withholding rate for the remainder of 2018?
Does anybody know exactly what this is about? Are all of these reported companies doing the same thing, or variations?
I'm wondering if a $1,000 bonus check is for an employee getting a Tax Reform pay raise of $12,000 for the year, or $8,000/yr? Or only $1,000 increase per year? Or is it unrelated to annual wages?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I haven't heard anything at all about these bonus checks you're talking about. You'll have to provide some links.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The more I think of that the less I even understand what you're getting at. If an employee was getting a "pay raise" from a tax break, why would the company they work for give them more? I'm not getting your connection here.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:you sound like you are repeating my question. I'm not getting the exact connection either.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The more I think of that the less I even understand what you're getting at. If an employee was getting a "pay raise" from a tax break, why would the company they work for give them more? I'm not getting your connection here.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Use DuckDuckGo to search "Tax Reform bonus checks" - many hits, some say 40 companies have, other hits say 170 companies have.
Maybe also search "Tax Reform windfall"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Did you make any progress?
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:you sound like you are repeating my question. I'm not getting the exact connection either.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The more I think of that the less I even understand what you're getting at. If an employee was getting a "pay raise" from a tax break, why would the company they work for give them more? I'm not getting your connection here.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Use DuckDuckGo to search "Tax Reform bonus checks" - many hits, some say 40 companies have, other hits say 170 companies have.
Maybe also search "Tax Reform windfall"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nah. The company I work for isn't doing it, and I don't personally know anybody who is benefiting from this supposed thing. I think it's just fake news.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I keep hearing about these Tax Reform Bonus Checks. From $1,000 to $4,000 as examples.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
News said Chipolte gave their employees a $1,000 bonus check because of the Tax Reform improvements.
So these are bartenders, cooks, and waitresses, right?
Anybody know how these are working? Are the companies just issuing company wide bonuses, just because they are happy with Tax Reform?
Are the companies merely issuing one check for the January difference in the Employee's Tax withholding? The new Tax withholding tables for 2018 did not come out by the end of January, so the excessive withholding was still at the 2017 rate.
Or did companies issue the whole year's worth of reduced withholding in one shot, and then will continue with the 2017 withholding rate for the remainder of 2018?
Does anybody know exactly what this is about? Are all of these reported companies doing the same thing, or variations?
I'm wondering if a $1,000 bonus check is for an employee getting a Tax Reform pay raise of $12,000 for the year, or $8,000/yr? Or only $1,000 increase per year? Or is it unrelated to annual wages?
Why don't you ask your employer?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:you sound like you are repeating my question. I'm not getting the exact connection either.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The more I think of that the less I even understand what you're getting at. If an employee was getting a "pay raise" from a tax break, why would the company they work for give them more? I'm not getting your connection here.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Use DuckDuckGo to search "Tax Reform bonus checks" - many hits, some say 40 companies have, other hits say 170 companies have.
Maybe also search "Tax Reform windfall"
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/economy/tax-law-raises-bonuses/in
dex.html
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/economy/tax-law-raises-bonuses/in
dex.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/1000-employee-bonus-check-credits-tr
ump-tax-cut-and-jobs-act/article/2645981
AT&T
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/att-to-give-employees-1000-bonuses-
after-trump-signs-tax-bill
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gop-tax-bill-t-boeing-214700499.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/boom-40-companies-give-trump-tax-ref
orm-bonuses-up-to-2000/article/2644910
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/01/05/tax-reform-credited-for-company
-bonuses/
http://dailysignal.com/2018/01/16/164-companies-credit-tax-reform-for-
bonuses-and-pay-raises/
https://www.atr.org/list
Indiana specifically:
https://www.atr.org/indiana
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/01/11/list-companies-paid-bo
nuses-boosted-pay-since-tax-bill-passed/1023848001/
Home Depot up to $1,000:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/25/home-depot-to-award-hourly-employees-1
000-bonus-due-to-tax-reform.html
Another $1,000:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/17/software-company-ce
o-credits-trump-tax-cut-jobs-act-1000-bonus-checks/
Fiat Chrysler
http://fortune.com/2018/01/12/fiat-chrysler-bonus-tax-reform/
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/12/22/heres-a-list-or-
companies-giving-worker-bonuses-aftee-tax-reform-n2426226
Tyson Foods
https://www.agweb.com/article/tyson-foods-tax-reform-bonus-checks-apne
ws/
I saw some of those mentioned were Walmart, PepsiCo, MetLife, Boeing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't know about the other companies, but I know that Walmart announced these bonuses the very same day that it closed 63 stores in the country without giving anybody a single day notice they were doing it.
Why they would have given bonuses that same day can be left open for debate, but I think it was a PR move to deflect from putting a few thousand Americans out on their asses without any advance warning.
Regardless of the actual reason here, I think it pretty gauche to attribute that bonus to the tax reform. Surely eliminating the cost of operating 63 facilities and paying all of those workers saved them many times more money than any tax reform did this year, in both the short term and the long term.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/opinion/taxpayers-scammed-republica
ns.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=Trending&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article
Paul Krugman op ed on the bogus tx cut.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Taxpayers, You’ve Been Scammed
Originally posted by JO753:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/opinion/taxpayers-scammed-republica
ns.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=Trending&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article
Paul Krugman op ed on the bogus tx cut.
Paul Krugman, March 1, 2018
www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/opinion/taxpayers-scammed-republicans.html
So you go out for dinner with a wealthy acquaintance. “I’ll take care of everything,” he says, and orders you a hamburger. Then he orders himself an expensive steak and a bottle of wine, which he doesn’t share. And when the waiter comes with the check, he points at you and says, “Charge it to his credit card.”
Now you understand the essence of the Trump tax cut, signed into law a little over two months ago.
The key thing you need to know is that right now the U.S. government has no business cutting taxes. We need more revenue, not less. Why? The federal government, as an old line says, is a giant insurance company with an army. Most of its costs come from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — and all three programs are becoming more expensive as ever more baby boomers reach retirement age. This means that unless we cut back sharply on benefits that middle-class Americans count on, we will need to raise more revenue than in the past.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
U O! The forum haz boundry break out agen (or still?).
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yet even before the tax cut, federal tax receipts were looking weak for an economy with low unemployment and a rising stock market — for example, far lower as a percentage of G.D.P. than the tax take during the Clinton boom of the 1990s, and even a bit lower than they were at the end of the Bush-era expansion. The tax cut will push them lower still. Something will have to give.
Originally posted by JO753:
U O! The forum haz boundry break out agen (or still?).
And we already know what will give, if Republicans get their way: programs that benefit working Americans. In fact, the usual suspects like Paul Ryan were talking about the need for “entitlement reform” — meaning cuts in Medicare and Medicaid — to reduce deficits even as they were passing a huge tax cut that will make those deficits much worse.
Hence my analogy about the guy who “gives” you a hamburger, then bills it to your credit card. Ryan celebrated the tax cut with a tweet about a teacher saving $1.50 a week on her taxes; that’s like saying you should feel grateful for a “gift” that’s actually being charged to your own credit card. How’s that $75-a-year saving going to look when the teacher finds out that, partly because of that tax cut, her mother’s Medicare plan has been converted into an inadequate voucher system and Medicaid won’t pay for her father’s nursing home care?
Meanwhile, about your companion’s steak dinner: Most of the tax cut actually consisted of huge tax breaks for corporations, which is in effect a big tax cut for stockholders. And while many Americans own a bit of stock via their retirement accounts, even if you include these indirect holdings, more than 80 percent of stocks are owned by the wealthiest 10 percent of the population. So on the face of it, the wealthy are giving themselves a big gift, and sending the bill to the middle class.
Now, the tax cut’s defenders insist that it won’t really work that way, that the benefits of lower corporate taxes will trickle down to workers instead. How’s that supposed to happen?
Well, the theory is that lower corporate taxes will draw in lots of money from overseas, which corporations will invest in new plants and equipment, which will drive up the demand for labor, which will raise wages. And to be fair, there’s probably something to this theory — something, but not very much.
First of all, even if the process were to work as advertised, it would take a long time — probably decades. Even the most optimistic analyses suggest that there would be little effect on wages for the first few years, which means that for now what looks like a tax break for the wealthy is, in fact, a tax break for the wealthy.
Second, the story relies on a long chain of events with multiple weak links. For example, corporations with monopoly power won’t see lower taxes as a reason to invest more; they’ll just take the money. Meanwhile, there’s growing evidence that big employers are using their power to suppress wages; cutting their taxes won’t change that fact. So even in the long run we shouldn’t expect a lot of trickle-down.
But wait — weren’t there a lot of stories about companies using the tax cut to give their workers bonuses? Yes, there were — but only because the news media let themselves get played. Most of those bonuses would have happened anyway: In an economy with low unemployment, there are always some companies deciding to pay a bit more to attract workers. But companies had every incentive to pretend that the tax cut was responsible, if only to curry favor with the Trump administration.
And in any case the bonus hype was out of all proportion to the reality. So far, we’ve seen about $6 billion in bonuses versus more than $170 billion in stock buybacks, that is, handing money to wealthy stockholders. And money spent on buybacks is money that isn’t being invested in plants and equipment, the supposed point of the tax cut.
So the message to middle-class taxpayers is, if you think you were helped by the tax cut, think again. Donald Trump and his allies pretended to
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Such a scam, sez the rabid Libtards.
Originally posted by second:Quote:Yet even before the tax cut, federal tax receipts were looking weak for an economy with low unemployment and a rising stock market — for example, far lower as a percentage of G.D.P. than the tax take during the Clinton boom of the 1990s, and even a bit lower than they were at the end of the Bush-era expansion. The tax cut will push them lower still.
Originally posted by JO753:
U O! The forum haz boundry break out agen (or still?).
Most of the tax cut actually consisted of huge tax breaks for corporations, which is in effect a big tax cut for stockholders. And while many Americans own a bit of stock via their retirement accounts, even if you include these indirect holdings, more than 80 percent of stocks are owned by the wealthiest 10 percent of the population. So on the face of it, the wealthy are giving themselves a big gift, and sending the bill to the middle class.
Now, the tax cut’s defenders insist that it won’t really work that way, that the benefits of lower corporate taxes will trickle down to workers instead. How’s that supposed to happen?
Well, the theory is that lower corporate taxes will draw in lots of money from overseas, which corporations will invest in new plants and equipment, which will drive up the demand for labor, which will raise wages. And to be fair, there’s probably something to this theory — something, but not very much.
Second, the story relies on a long chain of events with multiple weak links. For example, corporations with monopoly power won’t see lower taxes as a reason to invest more; they’ll just take the money. Meanwhile, there’s growing evidence that big employers are using their power to suppress wages; cutting their taxes won’t change that fact. So even in the long run we shouldn’t expect a lot of trickle-down.
But wait — weren’t there a lot of stories about companies using the tax cut to give their workers bonuses? Yes, there were — but only because the news media let themselves get played. Most of those bonuses would have happened anyway: In an economy with low unemployment, there are always some companies deciding to pay a bit more to attract workers. But companies had every incentive to pretend that the tax cut was responsible, if only to curry favor with the Trump administration.
And in any case the bonus hype was out of all proportion to the reality. So far, we’ve seen about $6 billion in bonuses versus more than $170 billion in stock buybacks, that is, handing money to wealthy stockholders. And money spent on buybacks is money that isn’t being invested in plants and equipment, the supposed point of the tax cut.
www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/opinion/taxpayers-scammed-republicans.html
Corporate Stock Buybacks (increasing or inflating the value of the stocks, which are part of the Executive Compesation Package, and therefore inflating income of Executives who are voting for the Buybacks), and bonuses for workers. That is just horrible.
Compared to Obamanomics era nonstop Buybacks without a single round of Mass bonuses, which made gains of the wealthy far outdistance income of the workers during Bobo's Regime. That is what Libtards clearly prefer.
If they didn't like Buybacks so much, why did they spend 8 years perpetuating them?
And yes, second did copy over today's posts from the Thread For Democrats Only.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mueller asking if Kushner's business interests influenced Trump foreign policy
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/mueller-asking-if-kushner-s-business-
interests-influenced-trump-foreign-policy-1175268931949
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Taxpayers, You’ve Been Scammed
Originally posted by JO753:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/opinion/taxpayers-scammed-republica
ns.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=Trending&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article
Paul Krugman op ed on the bogus tx cut.
Paul Krugman, March 1, 2018
www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/opinion/taxpayers-scammed-republicans.html
So you go out for dinner with a wealthy acquaintance. “I’ll take care of everything,” he says, and orders you a hamburger. Then he orders himself an expensive steak and a bottle of wine, which he doesn’t share. And when the waiter comes with the check, he points at you and says, “Charge it to his credit card.”
Now you understand the essence of the Trump tax cut, signed into law a little over two months ago.
The key thing you need to know is that right now the U.S. government has no business cutting taxes. We need more revenue, not less. Why? The federal government, as an old line says, is a giant insurance company with an army. Most of its costs come from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — and all three programs are becoming more expensive as ever more baby boomers reach retirement age. This means that unless we cut back sharply on benefits that middle-class Americans count on, we will need to raise more revenue than in the past.
Calling the US Government an insurance company isn't selling this to me. It's not that I'm arguing with the sentiment... actually, I applaud Krugman for calling a spade a spade. That is EXACTLY what the government has become over time.
This is a HUGE problem.
Insurance costs are rising at a rate that people can't keep up with anymore. The answer is not more taxes on the people. We need a major overhaul of the entire healthcare system, and the insurance industry as-is needs to be completely gutted.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Would anybody like to post, in general terms, how Trump's Tax Reform has changed your paycheck?
Like, comparing your take-home pay now contrasted to last December or November?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This post was from 29 December:
Quote:That linky seems to have been missing info, or the info changed.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Thanks for that linky, I had only been going by what people said.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I heard the news report that 2 States had their Governors sign urgent quick laws to allow their residents to pay their property tax early, so it could be before Dec 31. I think NY and NJ.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Wow... is that true JSF?
That's not something I read before. I certainly don't see how that benefits the working class at all.)
I never heard of Governments that did not allow taxes to be paid early. How stupid is that? Free money for the coffers early, less I terest to pay, etc.
OTOH, can you imagine the chaos in Property Tax Offices this week?
In terms of overall benefits of Tax Reform, the simpler the better. Which means less or fewer different kinds of deductions, which would be the case here.
In terms of specific application, consider examples of 2 different taxpayers. 1 is similar to you, or even barely had a benefit of itemizing. 2 is carrying a Million Dollar home. The standard deduction and personal exemptions were raised, one of them doubled - that is for everybody, regardless of Income bracket. By trading an increased Universal deduction and exemptions with elimination of property tax deductible, which party gets the greater benefit? How about a family with one house but more kids? Or somebody not owning property? Those benefitting the greatest from property tax deductible were likely higher income, with more property values. The hard working shlub did not benefit as much, if at all.
That certainly sounds reasonable... but unfortunately I don't see anything aobout either one of them doubling. That would mean either an increase of the personal exemption from $4050 to $8100 or an increase of the standard deduction from $6350 to $12,700.
The current combined total is $4050 + $6350, or $10,400.
The article I'm reading says that both will be combined into a single larger standard deduction of $12,000. So... not really a double at all since it eliminates the personal exemption. Just an increase of $1,600 for a single filer. A larger increase than normal years, so good for me since I use it, but not really all that great.
http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-brackets-2018-trump-tax-plan-chart-
2017-12
Chances are that most low income earners wouldn't come close to being able to itemize at $12k if they were before. If nothing changes for me, almost my entire paycheck next year will be under that $12k cap. Whatever isn't I'll likely put into an IRA to avoid any taxes.
Property taxes likely did not affect, or help the poorest.
Let's assume that linky is accurate, and run some numbers.
Single, with income 21,520. In 2018 Tax would be $952. In 2017 Tax was $1203. With 1 non-spouse dependent $707. But that wage is $10/hr for 40 hour weeks the whole year, no other income.
Income 50,700. 2018 -> $4,456. 2017 -> $5,814. +1 dependent -> $5,039. +2 dependent -> $4,432.
Income 94,500. 2018 -> $14,092. 2017 -> $16,764. +1 -> $15,752. +2 -> $14,739.
Income 169,500. 2018 -> $32,092. 2017 -> $37,536. +1 -> $36,562.: +2 -> $35,588. +3 -> $34,614. +4 -> $33,640. +5 -> $32,666.
In 2018 there are no extra deductions for each dependent, other than spouse.
Looks like taxpayers with 1 or 0 kids are getting a Tax cut. Mostly due to the reduced Tax Rate in each bracket, plus the expansion of brackets.
I might cry for you if you make $100 too much and have to pay $10 in Tax.
I am looking at an IRS W-4 Form Worksheet for 2018 withholding.
Personal Allowances.
A. Enter 1 for yourself.
B. Enter 1 for Married Filing Jointly.
C. Enter 1 for Head of Household.
D. Enter 1 for several Marital Status including single.
E.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Smaller tax refunds put GOP on defensive
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/smaller-tax-refunds-put-gop-on
-defensive/ar-BBTLUKe?li=BBnb7Kz
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
T
Missouri Republicans Refuse To Honor Vote On Medicaid Expansion
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This thread is still relevant.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yup. Better lower the taxes to zero to offset the Biden* inflation.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What does the Fed say?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
What does the Fed say?
"We'll just pretend that $100 worth of Platinum is worth $1,000,000,000,000.
It'll be fine." ~Fed 2021
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How a secretive conservative group influenced ‘populist’ Trump’s tax cuts
Documents and recordings obtained by the Guardian shed new light on a powerful and secretive rightwing network and the influence it was able to exert on Trump administration policies favoring the super-rich.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-a-secretive-conservative-g
roup-influenced-populist-trump-s-tax-cuts/ar-AAPUN0j?ocid=msedgntp
This is why I keep my threads close; bump them. Most of the threads I’ve created are on topics that update with new information showing I was correct. And, continue to show how stupid Trumps minions are.
tick tock
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How Democrats are targeting billionaires with new wealth-tax plan
Democrats are looking to target billionaires and their unrealized capital gains with a new wealth-tax plan. CNBC's Robert Frank reports.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/how-democrats-are-targeting-billi
onaires-with-new-wealth-tax-plan/vi-AAPVt0X?ocid=msedgntp
Can you see the difference between democrats’ independents, and republicans? If not you are dumb as a rock. Republicans work for big business not the American people. Republicans are working to destroy democracy not uphold it.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Biden revises IRS monitoring plan, banks still opposed
https://www.djournal.com/news/national/biden-revises-irs-monitoring-pl
an-banks-still-opposed/article_cbe0714b-bb6a-5889-af42-84776c577c5b.html
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
How Democrats are targeting billionaires
WTF are you talking about?
MSNBC the same news group that ignores docs implicating Epstein crimes, while pushing marxist identity politics?
Are you telling me Democrats are targeting Zuckerberg, Prince Harry, the Rothschild, old European royal money family, Oprah with her friends on those islands, the Rockefeller, the Saudi linked islamics in America, the Rapers and Pop artists and Sportsball Stars Rockers, they are targeting all those rich Globalits Marixist Bolseviks that hang out at the Bohemian Grove and the military industrial complex?
Quote:
those Democrats hang out with those Republcians at weird parties in the woods..all those other fantastic names like Bilderberg Group, Skull and Bones, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission. The Bohemia thing An article in a local community newspaper, The Santa Rosa Sun, reported on the Cult of Canaan and the legend of Moloch in place at Bohemian Grove. Both Bush and Kerry part of the same ivy league blackmail club of Skull and Bones Brotherhood of Death. That Bohemia global club, the elite and marxist royalty of Europe it features Henry Kissinger,former House Speaker Newt Gingrich a as well as homosexual hollywood actors and other luminaries.
https://historycollection.com/powerful-men-go-misbehave-secrets-bohemi
an-grove-unveiled-photos/
https://medium.com/mondo-americana/weirding-the-bohemian-grove-922a77e
9d23e
https://consortiumnews.com/2012/07/13/bohemian-grove-reagans-treason/
https://www.sgtreport.com/2019/07/list-of-attendees-at-secretive-bohem
ian-grove/
Hunter and Beau Bidens' ties to DuPont pedophiles??
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597171/Beau-Biden-defends-ju
dge-gave-du-Pont-heir-probation-admitting-sexually-assaulting-3-year-old-daughter.html
An Occult worshiping DuPont heir raped a toddler and got probation and it seems Joe Biden’s son was the prosecutor. More coddling of rich pedophiles.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trumps trillion-dollar giveaway to the rich is about to expire.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME