CDZ If the Tax Bill Passes

[william the wie]

What economic and political effects do you expect to see?

 

[task0778]

Increasing the personal exemptions for me and the mrs would definitely cut my taxes quite a bit.

Politically, the GOP has to do this or many of them will not get past their next repub primary. Bad enough they bitched about ObamaCare for almost 8 years and couldn't repeal and replace it, but if they can't do this either then we might see a big political shift back to the Dems in 2018 and 2020.

I think cutting the corp and personal taxes would be a plus for the economy. People on the Left bitch about tax cuts for the rich, well guess what? No matter what you do that gooses the economy, that is going to benefit them more than anyone else cuz they're the ones with the most money invested. If business picks up they get the most out of it; but the rest of us benefit too, which is something they fail to mention.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Democrat economic motto: Your paycheck is my paycheck

 

[william the wie]

Well, if we can hit 4% GDP growth the Ds will lose a lot more offices nationwide

 

[alang1216]

What economic and political effects do you expect to see?

The best the middle and working class can hope for would be to break even. The rich will get the majority of the benefits. The deficit will skyrocket. Overall the economy will tank since giving money to the rich means it will get saved/invested. Had they given the major benefits to the less well off the money would be spent immediately and the economy spike upward.

If the economy tanks the Dems will take over and the economy will recover. Once recovered the GOP will take over and the cycle will repeat.

 

[william the wie]

What economic and political effects do you expect to see?

The best the middle and working class can hope for would be to break even. The rich will get the majority of the benefits. The deficit will skyrocket. Overall the economy will tank since giving money to the rich means it will get saved/invested. Had they given the major benefits to the less well off the money would be spent immediately and the economy spike upward.

If the economy tanks the Dems will take over and the economy will recover. Once recovered the GOP will take over and the cycle will repeat.

On solely the federal level that comment about the rich is probably true but when taking away the deductions for state and local taxes are factored in I would suspect you are wrong.

 

[alang1216]

What economic and political effects do you expect to see?

The best the middle and working class can hope for would be to break even. The rich will get the majority of the benefits. The deficit will skyrocket. Overall the economy will tank since giving money to the rich means it will get saved/invested. Had they given the major benefits to the less well off the money would be spent immediately and the economy spike upward.

If the economy tanks the Dems will take over and the economy will recover. Once recovered the GOP will take over and the cycle will repeat.

On solely the federal level that comment about the rich is probably true but when taking away the deductions for state and local taxes are factored in I would suspect you are wrong.

Trump has already walked back from removing the state tax deduction. Otherwise the bill would never make it through Congress.

 

[sartre play]

Wish I felt more confident, those Republicans fighting over the deficit have gone silent now that the new policy includes over one trillion dollar increase in the deficit.
having lived in Kansas when Brownback made the state the fore runner for give the money to the top & it will help us all. then Kansas plunged to the bottom.
no party seems to have workable solutions.

 

[Toronado3800]

What economic and political effects do you expect to see?

It might help the Republicans next election.

It will leave me saying things like, "but the debt you used to complain about guys!"

Hopefully we'll get enough economic growth out of it to offset the debt increase as a % of GDP.

If interest rates go up and servicing the debt gets more expensive it may hurt Republicans next election.

 

[Dekster]

What economic and political effects do you expect to see?

If they cap 401K's at anywhere close to the level they are considering, you will see the stock market nose dive.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What economic and political effects do you expect to see?

I expect my taxes to go down by a lot.

 

[sartre play]

Think it will pass, but its set up so the potential damage wont begin to appear until after the next election & its true scope until after the 2020 elections. the only thing that will show up right away is the additional trillion+ added to the debt. early on much noise was made over the needed reduction of the debt. only hear silence now. don't understand what that trade off is about. as usual it looks like ordinary working folks will carry most of the burden.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What economic and political effects do you expect to see?

I expect my taxes to go down by a lot.

Well, according to what I just heard on the news, I should expect that I'm going to see something in excess of $130K in my pocket as a result of Trump's tax proposal. (The sum cited is just my quoting what I heard the news anchor say regarding earners roughly in my range of income. I haven't done the math for my specific earnings.) That's about enough to cover the tuition for two of my kids' college next year. Now that's great, and as I've repeatedly said, yes, I'll take the money. But here's the thing: my kids are already attending those schools and I'm already paying out of pocket for them to be there. The money Trump/the GOP wants to put back into my pocket won't alter their or my lifestyles.

The current GOP proposal, according to what I just saw on cable news, defines three tax brackets -- 12%, 25% and 25% -- where by the projected tax saving are as follows:

• After tax incomes up to $25K --> 0.5% savings, corresponding to ~$50 to $125.
• After tax incomes between $48.6K and $85.1K --> 1.3% savings corresponding to ~$630 to $1106
• After tax incomes of $150K+ --> 3.3% savings corresponding to $4950+ (because of some current phase out provisions, for this group, the actual savings aren't as easily shown by merely multiplying the rate times the income, accordingly the savings for this group actually start at $8500, but I'm not going to take the time here to explain them, so I've, for now, gone with the $4950 figure.)

That is a travesty and a miscarriage of equitableness in my mind. Why in the hell is the thing not structured so the savings percentages are reversed or otherwise designed so that the highest earner aren't the ones reaping the greatest percentage savings? For instance, why aren't the folks with incomes up to $25K the one's who'll see the 3.3% savings? I realize that $825 dollars isn't much, but I suspect that $825 to a person earning $25K means a good deal more than does ~$5K to someone earning $150K. Be that as it may, the folks earning $25K or less are surely the ones most in need of the savings, yet they aren't the ones who are receiving the greatest percentage measure of relief.


Are those savings going to alter the lifestyles of low and middle income earners? No! But, IMO, if Trump's/the GOP's tax proposal were intended to be good for low and middle income earners, they'd be structured so that they do provide enough that some sort of noteworthy change would be possible as a result of the tax savings.
Why would I suggest structuring the tax changes thus? Well, because I know how much it'd take for a tax liability reduction to alter the lives of people in my income bracket and higher -- and I'm nowhere near the top of high income earners -- and it's simply not realistic to think that kind of reduction is plausible, probable or even possible. Consequently, I think it better to make possible the prospect of positive life change where one can rather than to not do so anywhere because one cannot do so for everyone.

 

[GHook93]

What economic and political effects do you expect to see?

A boom in the economy, but an issue with the national debt and need to cut spending


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[usmbguest5318]

What economic and political effects do you expect to see?

I expect my taxes to go down by a lot.

Well, according to what I just heard on the news, I should expect that I'm going to see something in excess of $130K in my pocket as a result of Trump's tax proposal. (The sum cited is just my quoting what I heard the news anchor say regarding earners roughly in my range of income. I haven't done the math for my specific earnings.) That's about enough to cover the tuition for two of my kids' college next year. Now that's great, and as I've repeatedly said, yes, I'll take the money. But here's the thing: my kids are already attending those schools and I'm already paying out of pocket for them to be there. The money Trump/the GOP wants to put back into my pocket won't alter their or my lifestyles.

The current GOP proposal, according to what I just saw on cable news, defines three tax brackets -- 12%, 25% and 25% -- where by the projected tax saving are as follows:

• After tax incomes up to $25K --> 0.5% savings, corresponding to ~$50 to $125.
• After tax incomes between $48.6K and $85.1K --> 1.3% savings corresponding to ~$630 to $1106
• After tax incomes of $150K+ --> 3.3% savings corresponding to $4950+ (because of some current phase out provisions, for this group, the actual savings aren't as easily shown by merely multiplying the rate times the income, accordingly the savings for this group actually start at $8500, but I'm not going to take the time here to explain them, so I've, for now, gone with the $4950 figure.)

That is a travesty and a miscarriage of equitableness in my mind. Why in the hell is the thing not structured so the savings percentages are reversed or otherwise designed so that the highest earner aren't the ones reaping the greatest percentage savings? For instance, why aren't the folks with incomes up to $25K the one's who'll see the 3.3% savings? I realize that $825 dollars isn't much, but I suspect that $825 to a person earning $25K means a good deal more than does ~$5K to someone earning $150K. Be that as it may, the folks earning $25K or less are surely the ones most in need of the savings, yet they aren't the ones who are receiving the greatest percentage measure of relief.


Are those savings going to alter the lifestyles of low and middle income earners? No! But, IMO, if Trump's/the GOP's tax proposal were intended to be good for low and middle income earners, they'd be structured so that they do provide enough that some sort of noteworthy change would be possible as a result of the tax savings.
Why would I suggest structuring the tax changes thus? Well, because I know how much it'd take for a tax liability reduction to alter the lives of people in my income bracket and higher -- and I'm nowhere near the top of high income earners -- and it's simply not realistic to think that kind of reduction is plausible, probable or even possible. Consequently, I think it better to make possible the prospect of positive life change where one can rather than to not do so anywhere because one cannot do so for everyone.

defines three tax brackets -- 12%, 25% and 25% --

Correction:

The third proposed tax bracket is 35%.​

After tax incomes

Correction:

"After tax income" should have been "taxable income."​

 

[alang1216]

What economic and political effects do you expect to see?

I expect my taxes to go down by a lot.

Well, according to what I just heard on the news, I should expect that I'm going to see something in excess of $130K in my pocket as a result of Trump's tax proposal. (The sum cited is just my quoting what I heard the news anchor say regarding earners roughly in my range of income. I haven't done the math for my specific earnings.) That's about enough to cover the tuition for two of my kids' college next year. Now that's great, and as I've repeatedly said, yes, I'll take the money. But here's the thing: my kids are already attending those schools and I'm already paying out of pocket for them to be there. The money Trump/the GOP wants to put back into my pocket won't alter their or my lifestyles.

The current GOP proposal, according to what I just saw on cable news, defines three tax brackets -- 12%, 25% and 25% -- where by the projected tax saving are as follows:

• After tax incomes up to $25K --> 0.5% savings, corresponding to ~$50 to $125.
• After tax incomes between $48.6K and $85.1K --> 1.3% savings corresponding to ~$630 to $1106
• After tax incomes of $150K+ --> 3.3% savings corresponding to $4950+ (because of some current phase out provisions, for this group, the actual savings aren't as easily shown by merely multiplying the rate times the income, accordingly the savings for this group actually start at $8500, but I'm not going to take the time here to explain them, so I've, for now, gone with the $4950 figure.)

That is a travesty and a miscarriage of equitableness in my mind. Why in the hell is the thing not structured so the savings percentages are reversed or otherwise designed so that the highest earner aren't the ones reaping the greatest percentage savings? For instance, why aren't the folks with incomes up to $25K the one's who'll see the 3.3% savings? I realize that $825 dollars isn't much, but I suspect that $825 to a person earning $25K means a good deal more than does ~$5K to someone earning $150K. Be that as it may, the folks earning $25K or less are surely the ones most in need of the savings, yet they aren't the ones who are receiving the greatest percentage measure of relief.


Are those savings going to alter the lifestyles of low and middle income earners? No! But, IMO, if Trump's/the GOP's tax proposal were intended to be good for low and middle income earners, they'd be structured so that they do provide enough that some sort of noteworthy change would be possible as a result of the tax savings.
Why would I suggest structuring the tax changes thus? Well, because I know how much it'd take for a tax liability reduction to alter the lives of people in my income bracket and higher -- and I'm nowhere near the top of high income earners -- and it's simply not realistic to think that kind of reduction is plausible, probable or even possible. Consequently, I think it better to make possible the prospect of positive life change where one can rather than to not do so anywhere because one cannot do so for everyone.

Impressive income you have there, kudos on being a 1%er. Even more impressive is your civic-minded attitude. The problem with tax breaks for people like yourself is, as you noted, you don't need the money and will likely save/invest it. People on the lower end will spend almost every dime they get and the entire economy will get a spur. I believe it's been shown the tax-reduction benefits trickle up, they don't trickle down.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What economic and political effects do you expect to see?

I expect my taxes to go down by a lot.

Well, according to what I just heard on the news, I should expect that I'm going to see something in excess of $130K in my pocket as a result of Trump's tax proposal. (The sum cited is just my quoting what I heard the news anchor say regarding earners roughly in my range of income. I haven't done the math for my specific earnings.) That's about enough to cover the tuition for two of my kids' college next year. Now that's great, and as I've repeatedly said, yes, I'll take the money. But here's the thing: my kids are already attending those schools and I'm already paying out of pocket for them to be there. The money Trump/the GOP wants to put back into my pocket won't alter their or my lifestyles.

The current GOP proposal, according to what I just saw on cable news, defines three tax brackets -- 12%, 25% and 25% -- where by the projected tax saving are as follows:

• After tax incomes up to $25K --> 0.5% savings, corresponding to ~$50 to $125.
• After tax incomes between $48.6K and $85.1K --> 1.3% savings corresponding to ~$630 to $1106
• After tax incomes of $150K+ --> 3.3% savings corresponding to $4950+ (because of some current phase out provisions, for this group, the actual savings aren't as easily shown by merely multiplying the rate times the income, accordingly the savings for this group actually start at $8500, but I'm not going to take the time here to explain them, so I've, for now, gone with the $4950 figure.)

That is a travesty and a miscarriage of equitableness in my mind. Why in the hell is the thing not structured so the savings percentages are reversed or otherwise designed so that the highest earner aren't the ones reaping the greatest percentage savings? For instance, why aren't the folks with incomes up to $25K the one's who'll see the 3.3% savings? I realize that $825 dollars isn't much, but I suspect that $825 to a person earning $25K means a good deal more than does ~$5K to someone earning $150K. Be that as it may, the folks earning $25K or less are surely the ones most in need of the savings, yet they aren't the ones who are receiving the greatest percentage measure of relief.


Are those savings going to alter the lifestyles of low and middle income earners? No! But, IMO, if Trump's/the GOP's tax proposal were intended to be good for low and middle income earners, they'd be structured so that they do provide enough that some sort of noteworthy change would be possible as a result of the tax savings.
Why would I suggest structuring the tax changes thus? Well, because I know how much it'd take for a tax liability reduction to alter the lives of people in my income bracket and higher -- and I'm nowhere near the top of high income earners -- and it's simply not realistic to think that kind of reduction is plausible, probable or even possible. Consequently, I think it better to make possible the prospect of positive life change where one can rather than to not do so anywhere because one cannot do so for everyone.

Impressive income you have there, kudos on being a 1%er. Even more impressive is your civic-minded attitude. The problem with tax breaks for people like yourself is, as you noted, you don't need the money and will likely save/invest it. People on the lower end will spend almost every dime they get and the entire economy will get a spur. I believe it's been shown the tax-reduction benefits trickle up, they don't trickle down.

more impressive is your civic-minded attitude.

Thank you. That, unlike my earnings, is a source of pride. One's income simply is what it is, but having money doesn't make one a better citizen or person.

 

[alang1216]

What economic and political effects do you expect to see?

I expect my taxes to go down by a lot.

Well, according to what I just heard on the news, I should expect that I'm going to see something in excess of $130K in my pocket as a result of Trump's tax proposal. (The sum cited is just my quoting what I heard the news anchor say regarding earners roughly in my range of income. I haven't done the math for my specific earnings.) That's about enough to cover the tuition for two of my kids' college next year. Now that's great, and as I've repeatedly said, yes, I'll take the money. But here's the thing: my kids are already attending those schools and I'm already paying out of pocket for them to be there. The money Trump/the GOP wants to put back into my pocket won't alter their or my lifestyles.

The current GOP proposal, according to what I just saw on cable news, defines three tax brackets -- 12%, 25% and 25% -- where by the projected tax saving are as follows:

• After tax incomes up to $25K --> 0.5% savings, corresponding to ~$50 to $125.
• After tax incomes between $48.6K and $85.1K --> 1.3% savings corresponding to ~$630 to $1106
• After tax incomes of $150K+ --> 3.3% savings corresponding to $4950+ (because of some current phase out provisions, for this group, the actual savings aren't as easily shown by merely multiplying the rate times the income, accordingly the savings for this group actually start at $8500, but I'm not going to take the time here to explain them, so I've, for now, gone with the $4950 figure.)

That is a travesty and a miscarriage of equitableness in my mind. Why in the hell is the thing not structured so the savings percentages are reversed or otherwise designed so that the highest earner aren't the ones reaping the greatest percentage savings? For instance, why aren't the folks with incomes up to $25K the one's who'll see the 3.3% savings? I realize that $825 dollars isn't much, but I suspect that $825 to a person earning $25K means a good deal more than does ~$5K to someone earning $150K. Be that as it may, the folks earning $25K or less are surely the ones most in need of the savings, yet they aren't the ones who are receiving the greatest percentage measure of relief.


Are those savings going to alter the lifestyles of low and middle income earners? No! But, IMO, if Trump's/the GOP's tax proposal were intended to be good for low and middle income earners, they'd be structured so that they do provide enough that some sort of noteworthy change would be possible as a result of the tax savings.
Why would I suggest structuring the tax changes thus? Well, because I know how much it'd take for a tax liability reduction to alter the lives of people in my income bracket and higher -- and I'm nowhere near the top of high income earners -- and it's simply not realistic to think that kind of reduction is plausible, probable or even possible. Consequently, I think it better to make possible the prospect of positive life change where one can rather than to not do so anywhere because one cannot do so for everyone.

Impressive income you have there, kudos on being a 1%er. Even more impressive is your civic-minded attitude. The problem with tax breaks for people like yourself is, as you noted, you don't need the money and will likely save/invest it. People on the lower end will spend almost every dime they get and the entire economy will get a spur. I believe it's been shown the tax-reduction benefits trickle up, they don't trickle down.

more impressive is your civic-minded attitude.

Thank you. That, unlike my earnings, is a source of pride. One's income simply is what it is, but having money doesn't make one a better citizen or person.

Still, making $4M/yr is something to be proud of. Unless you inherited $40M, in which case you're a blood-sucking parasite.

Either way, enjoy it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What economic and political effects do you expect to see?

I expect my taxes to go down by a lot.

Well, according to what I just heard on the news, I should expect that I'm going to see something in excess of $130K in my pocket as a result of Trump's tax proposal. (The sum cited is just my quoting what I heard the news anchor say regarding earners roughly in my range of income. I haven't done the math for my specific earnings.) That's about enough to cover the tuition for two of my kids' college next year. Now that's great, and as I've repeatedly said, yes, I'll take the money. But here's the thing: my kids are already attending those schools and I'm already paying out of pocket for them to be there. The money Trump/the GOP wants to put back into my pocket won't alter their or my lifestyles.

The current GOP proposal, according to what I just saw on cable news, defines three tax brackets -- 12%, 25% and 25% -- where by the projected tax saving are as follows:

• After tax incomes up to $25K --> 0.5% savings, corresponding to ~$50 to $125.
• After tax incomes between $48.6K and $85.1K --> 1.3% savings corresponding to ~$630 to $1106
• After tax incomes of $150K+ --> 3.3% savings corresponding to $4950+ (because of some current phase out provisions, for this group, the actual savings aren't as easily shown by merely multiplying the rate times the income, accordingly the savings for this group actually start at $8500, but I'm not going to take the time here to explain them, so I've, for now, gone with the $4950 figure.)

That is a travesty and a miscarriage of equitableness in my mind. Why in the hell is the thing not structured so the savings percentages are reversed or otherwise designed so that the highest earner aren't the ones reaping the greatest percentage savings? For instance, why aren't the folks with incomes up to $25K the one's who'll see the 3.3% savings? I realize that $825 dollars isn't much, but I suspect that $825 to a person earning $25K means a good deal more than does ~$5K to someone earning $150K. Be that as it may, the folks earning $25K or less are surely the ones most in need of the savings, yet they aren't the ones who are receiving the greatest percentage measure of relief.


Are those savings going to alter the lifestyles of low and middle income earners? No! But, IMO, if Trump's/the GOP's tax proposal were intended to be good for low and middle income earners, they'd be structured so that they do provide enough that some sort of noteworthy change would be possible as a result of the tax savings.
Why would I suggest structuring the tax changes thus? Well, because I know how much it'd take for a tax liability reduction to alter the lives of people in my income bracket and higher -- and I'm nowhere near the top of high income earners -- and it's simply not realistic to think that kind of reduction is plausible, probable or even possible. Consequently, I think it better to make possible the prospect of positive life change where one can rather than to not do so anywhere because one cannot do so for everyone.

Impressive income you have there, kudos on being a 1%er. Even more impressive is your civic-minded attitude. The problem with tax breaks for people like yourself is, as you noted, you don't need the money and will likely save/invest it. People on the lower end will spend almost every dime they get and the entire economy will get a spur. I believe it's been shown the tax-reduction benefits trickle up, they don't trickle down.

more impressive is your civic-minded attitude.

Thank you. That, unlike my earnings, is a source of pride. One's income simply is what it is, but having money doesn't make one a better citizen or person.

Still, making $4M/yr is something to be proud of. Unless you inherited $40M, in which case you're a blood-sucking parasite.

Either way, enjoy it.

Either way, enjoy it.

Without at doubt, I do. LOL

 

[Leo123]

Well, if we can hit 4% GDP growth the Ds will lose a lot more offices nationwide

Unless the MSM convinces their sheep it ain't really happening.