CDZ If the Tax Bill Passes

[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.

making $4M/yr

FWIW, the $130K sum was correlated by the news reporter to taxable incomes (i.e, income after one has taken one's allowed deductions and calculated one's AMT liability) of $730K. Quite a ways from from $4M, but nonetheless an income that affords one a very comfortable lifestyle. (As I stated before, I don't know what specific provisions allowed them to arrive at that figure; I just merely repeated what they said.)

 

[usmbguest5318]

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

I have to wonder, even if we do hit 4% GDP growth, what share of that growth will be enjoyed by middle and upper middle income households/individuals, and most especially those who've been counting on Trump to be their economic savior of sorts. Truly, I'm hard pressed to think that those people are the one's who'll be reaping the rewards of such growth. If those people aren't the primary beneficiaries, the Dems won't have a damn thing to worry about, but Trump most certainly will.

Frankly, I'm less disturbed Democrats realizing political gains than I am by Trump, or someone having a depraved character like Trump's, being POTUS. I don't care how that man is removed from office; I just know that man and his ilk need to be eradicated from public service, or at least completely marginalized and made politically and authoritatively (in government) impotent. If that means Democrats win the presidency, the Congress, one chamber of Congress, whatever, so be it. I'm really at the point of utter indifference about just how it happens.

 

[alang1216]

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.

making $4M/yr

FWIW, the $130K sum was correlated by the news reporter to taxable incomes (i.e, income after one has taken one's allowed deductions and calculated one's AMT liability) of $730K. Quite a ways from from $4M, but nonetheless an income that affords one a very comfortable lifestyle. (As I stated before, I don't know what specific provisions allowed them to arrive at that figure; I just merely repeated what they said.)

I'm only a little less impressed. I thought the $130K was the 3.3% difference on Trump's reduction. I guess that's why I'm not in the 1%.

 

[alang1216]

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

I have to wonder, even if we do hit 4% GDP growth, what share of that growth will be enjoyed by middle and upper middle income households/individuals, and most especially those who've been counting on Trump to be their economic savior of sorts. Truly, I'm hard pressed to think that those people are the one's who'll be reaping the rewards of such growth. If those people aren't the primary beneficiaries, the Dems won't have a damn thing to worry about, but Trump most certainly will.

Frankly, I'm less disturbed Democrats realizing political gains than I am by Trump, or someone having a depraved character like Trump's, being POTUS. I don't care how that man is removed from office; I just know that man and his ilk need to be eradicated from public service, or at least completely marginalized and made politically and authoritatively (in government) impotent. If that means Democrats win the presidency, the Congress, one chamber of Congress, whatever, so be it. I'm really at the point of utter indifference about just how it happens.

Income inequality has bee growing for decades and if you ever bring it up you're acused of class warfare. Well that war has already been won: "trickle down", "rising tide lifts all boats", etc. Eliminating the estate tax will be the nail in the coffin. Why do the majority of Trump supporters want to get rid of it?

 

[usmbguest5318]

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

I have to wonder, even if we do hit 4% GDP growth, what share of that growth will be enjoyed by middle and upper middle income households/individuals, and most especially those who've been counting on Trump to be their economic savior of sorts. Truly, I'm hard pressed to think that those people are the one's who'll be reaping the rewards of such growth. If those people aren't the primary beneficiaries, the Dems won't have a damn thing to worry about, but Trump most certainly will.

Frankly, I'm less disturbed Democrats realizing political gains than I am by Trump, or someone having a depraved character like Trump's, being POTUS. I don't care how that man is removed from office; I just know that man and his ilk need to be eradicated from public service, or at least completely marginalized and made politically and authoritatively (in government) impotent. If that means Democrats win the presidency, the Congress, one chamber of Congress, whatever, so be it. I'm really at the point of utter indifference about just how it happens.

Income inequality has bee growing for decades and if you ever bring it up you're acused of class warfare. Well that war has already been won: "trickle down", "rising tide lifts all boats", etc. Eliminating the estate tax will be the nail in the coffin. Why do the majority of Trump supporters want to get rid of it?

Income inequality has bee growing for decades and if you ever bring it up you're acused of class warfare.

Income inequality, in and of itself, don't rankle me. Its causes, on the other hand, in some instances do. To the extent that some of the inequality is attributable to inequity in the tax code and other forms of legislative favoritism, yes, I find that unacceptable, unconscionably so.

Does it bother me that someone comes up with a highly profitable idea/innovation and makes a mint selling it? No. Does it bother me that someone is well off because they inherited it? No. What bothers me is giving favors and legislative "bonuses" to folks who are least in need of such things.

 

[alang1216]

Income inequality, in and of itself, don't rankle me. Its causes, on the other hand, in some instances do. To the extent that some of the inequality is attributable to inequity in the tax code and other forms of legislative favoritism, yes, I find that unacceptable, unconscionably so.

Does it bother me that someone comes up with a highly profitable idea/innovation and makes a mint selling it? No. Does it bother me that someone is well off because they inherited it? No. What bothers me is giving favors and legislative "bonuses" to folks who are least in need of such things.

Have to disagree. You earned your money, you deserve to enjoy it. Inheritance is a different story, I think it is bad for society.

 

[sartre play]

Trying, but just cant find a plus in this tax bill, raises the national debt, no help for the old or working class.

 

[Leo123]

Trying, but just cant find a plus in this tax bill, raises the national debt, no help for the old or working class.

It's not about government/IRS helping anyone it's about getting government out of the way. Libbies can't understand this because most feel entitled to other people's money.

 

[leftwinger]

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.

All those words? I have seen you post this elsewhere. edit: I see you corrected you error in a later post. My apologies.

The upper Tax rate will not be 25%? It will stay near the same? 35% - 40%.
The BUSINESS tax rate will be 15% - 20%. I am not clear how they separate a "BUSINESS" from a high earner.
Feel free to clear that up. In 100 words or less.

 

[leftwinger]

People without a job........many may now be able to go back to work?

Even a modest job will pay $35K/year vs. $~20K/year on Govt. benefits. That is about a 75% raise for those who may get off the couch. Overall wages should rise due to competition.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I see you corrected you error in a later post. My apologies.

Apology accepted.

 

[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.

All those words? I have seen you post this elsewhere. edit: I see you corrected you error in a later post. My apologies.

The upper Tax rate will not be 25%? It will stay near the same? 35% - 40%.
The BUSINESS tax rate will be 15% - 20%. I am not clear how they separate a "BUSINESS" from a high earner.
Feel free to clear that up. In 100 words or less.

The BUSINESS tax rate will be 15% - 20%. I am not clear how they separate a "BUSINESS" from a high earner.

The tax code, at the highest level, two tax filing statuses: individual and corporate (business). For instance, one's tax filing status is "individual" before it is "married, filing jointly." Each status has its own set of "high earners." AFAIK, there are no notions of implementing a single top-level filing status.

 

[usmbguest5318]

People without a job........many may now be able to go back to work?

Even a modest job will pay $35K/year vs. $~20K/year on Govt. benefits. That is about a 75% raise for those who may get off the couch. Overall wages should rise due to competition.

What? Wages are nothing other than the price of labor. Competition does not increase prices; it lowers them.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I heard this morning that this bill will hurt the middle class very badly, while handing all the benefits to the super rich. This is just a bad bill.

Must be defeated.

 

[leftwinger]

People without a job........many may now be able to go back to work?

Even a modest job will pay $35K/year vs. $~20K/year on Govt. benefits. That is about a 75% raise for those who may get off the couch. Overall wages should rise due to competition.

What? Wages are nothing other than the price of labor. Competition does not increase prices; it lowers them.

I meant......Employers competing for Workers (if Jobs surge).

 

[usmbguest5318]

People without a job........many may now be able to go back to work?

Even a modest job will pay $35K/year vs. $~20K/year on Govt. benefits. That is about a 75% raise for those who may get off the couch. Overall wages should rise due to competition.

What? Wages are nothing other than the price of labor. Competition does not increase prices; it lowers them.

I meant......Employers competing for Workers (if Jobs surge).

TY for the clarification.

We're already at the natural unemployment rate/level, so the competitive effect of which you write doesn't apply. When an economy reaches its natural unemployment rate, wages are maintained at their then current level unless and until employers (owners of businesses and their surrogates) are willing to accept lower profitability.

You may find the following discussions useful in seeing why it works that way:

• Natural unemployment
• Structural unemployment

Note:

The two terms noted above are sometimes used interchangeably, as written above, they aren't; however, when referring to the fact that an economy has employed all the people who sought a job, many people will say that the economy has reached its "structural unemployment" level. It's not 100% accurate to say that, but usually context -- be it given by the situation, the discussion topic/theme, subsequent remarks, or the "credentials" of the speaker him-/herself -- informs audience members that what the speaker meant is that the economy has reached its "minimum structural unemployment rate."

I pointed that out only because I know there are on USMB a number of people, who are not well trained in economics and I wanted to eliminate a potential source of confusion for those who are not fully aware of the difference between the two terms and their usage. I did it also because I don't believe the documents I referenced made the noted distinction clear, and I am unwilling to take the time to find similar reference that does.​