Democrat Presidential Nominees

[Plan9Misfit]

This is a perfect example of how ignorant people are even about the taxes they pay themselves:

Yet as the first tax filing season under the new law wraps up on Monday, taxpayers are skeptical. A survey conducted in early April for The New York Times by the online research platform SurveyMonkey found that just 40 percent of Americans believed they had received a tax cut under the law. Just 20 percent were certain they had done so. That’s consistent with previous polls finding that most Americans felt they hadn’t gotten a tax cut, and that a large minority thought their taxes had risen — though not even one in 10 households actually got a tax increase.

OK, let me dumb this down for you. My income tax rate went down, but the taxable exemptions against my property got capped and thus could no longer be taken as a tax deduction and thus had to be paid, causing my taxes TO INCREASE by nearly $8000 at the federal level. That isn't the state. That was the federal government's new plan because it affected people with large mortgages.

Do you get it now? And to let you know, my wife and I both file our taxes as Single, 0 so that we can get larger returns at the end because we'd otherwise owe at the federal level based on our income brackets.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

FYI-the homeownership rate is estimated to be over 64%, its unlikely this only effected 5% of the country

FWIW, I recommend never basing a purchase or investment solely on some tax benefit or government program because they cant jerk it out from underneath you at any moment. I always look at a deal cold without any tax advantage to determine if I could carry it and then look at any tax or gov benefit as a temporary bonus

The problem is people get their taxes lowered but lose the deduction. Many of those people still had their taxes reduced because the way the deduction works isn't as great as people realize. A few grand more in taxable income isn't a loss of a few grand in taxes. It's only a percentage of that.

In the end I think 2 out of 3 people had their taxes reduced and 90% didn't see any increase. So yeah, it's a tax cut even though most people are too dumb to realize it.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

OK, let me dumb this down for you. My income tax rate went down, but the taxable exemptions against my property got capped and thus could no longer be taken as a tax deduction and thus had to be paid, causing my taxes TO INCREASE by nearly $8000 at the federal level. That isn't the state. That was the federal government's new plan because it affected people with large mortgages.

Do you get it now? And to let you know, my wife and I both file our taxes as Single, 0 so that we can get larger returns at the end because we'd otherwise owe at the federal level based on our income brackets.

No need to dumb it down, I actually fully understand how it works. You're one of the minority. Meaning taxes were cut, tax breaks just changed and screwed a few minority like yourself who own a lot of property.

If you pay 8,000 more in taxes you must pay some pretty insane property taxes. Like 30,000 or more annually. Props to you. Actually I probably undershot that significantly depending on your tax braket. So yeah fuck the State of California for fucking you with those property taxes.

 

[yimyammer]

The problem is people get their taxes lowered but lose the deduction. Many of those people still had their taxes reduced because the way the deduction works isn't as great as people realize. A few grand more in taxable income isn't a loss of a few grand in taxes. It's only a percentage of that.

In the end I think 2 out of 3 people had their taxes reduced and 90% didn't see any increase. So yeah, it's a tax cut even though most people are too dumb to realize it.

I'm not following you

Are you saying that because the standard deduction was raised to $12,000 that 95% benefited from this being higher and only 5% had enough interest and taxes to justify itemizing their taxes?

That would be a logical way to look it but I don't see any evidence to support your assertions regarding the percentages you're throwing out but neither of us can change it so whatever it is, it is

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I'm not following you

Are you saying that because the standard deduction was raised to $12,000 that 95% benefited from this being higher and only 5% had enough interest and taxes to justify itemizing their taxes?

That would be logical way to look it but I dont see any evidence to support your assertions regarding the percentages your throwing out but neither of us can change it so whatever it is, it is

I said it was actually 90%. See the article quoted above. 95% was just a hypothetical in asking if one considers that a tax hike if 5% of the population had to pay higher taxes. The true number after some research is more like 10%.

Reason being just exceeding the deduction amount didn't necessarily increase peoples taxes. A reduction in tax rate still offset that for most. Granted people who pay a lot in property taxes to their state probably did get screwed. I couldn't imagine paying 30,000+ in property taxes like some. I'd probably be more upset if I did though.

 

[yimyammer]

I said it was actually 90%. See the article quoted above. 95% was just a hypothetical in asking if one considers that a tax hike if 5% of the population had to pay higher taxes. The true number after some research is more like 10%.

Reason being just exceeding the deduction amount didn't necessarily increase peoples taxes. A reduction in tax rate still offset that for most. Granted people who pay a lot in property taxes to their state probably did get screwed. I couldn't imagine paying 30,000+ in property taxes like some. I'd probably be more upset if I did though.

regardless of whether you said 90 or 95%, is your point that the standard deduction increase to 12K resulted in an overall tax cut?

 

[Cowboysrock55]

regardless of whether you said 90 or 95%, is your point that the standard deduction increase to 12K resulted in an overall tax cut?

Yes, because overall tax rates were cut.

 

[Plan9Misfit]

No need to dumb it down, I actually fully understand how it works. You're one of the minority. Meaning taxes were cut, tax breaks just changed and screwed a few minority like yourself who own a lot of property.

If you pay 8,000 more in taxes you must pay some pretty insane property taxes. Like 30,000 or more annually. Props to you. Actually I probably undershot that significantly depending on your tax braket. So yeah fuck the State of California for fucking you with those property taxes.

Remember, the cap is also factored against the interest deduction taken from the total value of the mortgage. It’s not just the property tax. High home prices make the gap greater. It’s fucking bullshit. That’s why people in (or who own property in) CA, WA, NY, NJ, CT, RI, etc are so pissed. I consider taxation theft, so I get furious with anyone who raises them. I, like you, and everyone else, worked really hard for my money and for what I have, so it really pisses me off when some vindictive asswipe maliciously screws me because he’s throwing a temper tantrum.

Fuck Trump and his bullshit plan.

 

[yimyammer]

Yes, because overall tax rates were cut.

There has to be a mechanism to create a tax cut, you don't just speak it into existence. Either the rates were lowered, deductions were raised, etc, etc, that's what I'm trying to get you to explain versus continually throwing it out that there was a tax cut.

To clarify, is it your assertion that the standard deduction increase to $12,000 is the mechanism that created the tax cut to the extent that you claim it did?

or was it something else?

 

[Cowboysrock55]

There has to be a mechanism to create a tax cut, you don't just speak it into existence. Either the rates were lowered, deductions were raised, etc, etc, that's what I'm trying to get you to explain versus continually throwing it out that there was a tax cut.

To clarify, is it your assertion that the standard deduction increase to $12,000 is the mechanism that created the tax cut to the extent that you claim it did?

or was it something else?

Here is an example, I apologize, I thought you were aware of this:

As you can see, the biggest changes under the new Trump tax plan came for those in the middle of the chart. A married couple whose total income minus deductions is $250,000, for instance, would have had a tax rate of up to 33% in 2017. For 2018, 2019 and beyond, their highest tax rate is just 24%. That led to a fairly significant difference in take-home pay.

Those who earn less may also see a bit of a break. A single person making $39,000 in taxable income in 2017 saw a rate of 25%. In 2018, 2019 and beyond, that rate drops to 12%.

You also got a tax cut if you were or are among the country’s highest earners. The highest tax bracket used to carry a 39.6% rate and apply to single people earning more than $418,401 and married couples, filing jointly, who earned more than $470,701 in taxable income. Now the highest rate, which is just 37%, kicks in at $518,401 for single people and $622,051 for married couples.

 

[yimyammer]

TY sir, I hadn't dived into the exact changes and only recalled how the property tax deduction effected my return thus why I was trying to clarify because I was interpreting your posts to say that caping the property tax & interest deduction and raising the standard deduction was the reason for the overall tax cut which imo would be hard to make exact conclusions over this one part of the income tax calculation change, thus my confusion.

back to our regularly scheduled nonsense...

 

[L.T. Fan]

The problem is people get their taxes lowered but lose the deduction. Many of those people still had their taxes reduced because the way the deduction works isn't as great as people realize. A few grand more in taxable income isn't a loss of a few grand in taxes. It's only a percentage of that.

In the end I think 2 out of 3 people had their taxes reduced and 90% didn't see any increase. So yeah, it's a tax cut even though most people are too dumb to realize it.

Rule of thumb used to be you will have to spend 20.00 to get a 1.00 deduction. I don’t know what is is now but you can’t get ahead on the tax game by spending money on deductible items.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Remember, the cap is also factored against the interest deduction taken from the total value of the mortgage. It’s not just the property tax. High home prices make the gap greater. It’s fucking bullshit. That’s why people in (or who own property in) CA, WA, NY, NJ, CT, RI, etc are so pissed. I consider taxation theft, so I get furious with anyone who raises them. I, like you, and everyone else, worked really hard for my money and for what I have, so it really pisses me off when some vindictive asswipe maliciously screws me because he’s throwing a temper tantrum.

Fuck Trump and his bullshit plan.

I hope you know that the Democrats are the most taxing system this countries history has seen.

 

[Cotton]

I couldn't claim my son on my taxes this last year because he turned 18, so my taxes went up.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I couldn't claim my son on my taxes this last year because he turned 18, so my taxes went up.

Probably Trumps fault for allowing him to become 18.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I couldn't claim my son on my taxes this last year because he turned 18, so my taxes went up.

I made more money and paid less but I got married and added a child so I can't easily say how much the tax cut helped and how much the other things helped.

 

[Smitty]

I couldn't claim my son on my taxes this last year because he turned 18, so my taxes went up.

In fairness... this example would be better if you said, like, Trump changed the cutoff age you can claim from 18 to 17, and because he just just turned 17, now I lose that last year of exemption and my taxes went up.

But yeah, I don't really consider what is being discussed here a tax increase. It's a reduction in your exemptions/deductions, but one that effects a relatively small number of people.

I do see how a tax break for most, but then something that raises taxes on a few, would upset someone who believed all taxation was theft. But C-rock also has a point where he says the entity that you should really be mad at is California. Plan9 was taking advantage of a deduction from his high income based on property he owned (the high taxes he was paying against it). The ultimate goal here, though, should be low federal tax rates across the board and low/small/simple deductions against it, eliminating loopholes and insuring everyone pays a very small federal income tax. Prior to this people who owned lots of real estate were getting subsidized the same way corporations were: with loopholes not available to average Joe.

My dad uses this same argument against the elimination of the income tax and progression to a federal sales tax: He says, "I spent my whole life paying high income tax rates on high (relatively) income, so they already stole all that money from me.... now they will switch and stop taking income tax right as I'm about to retire and stop making income and start spending my savings.... so they will get me twice by reducing the purchasing power of my savings by making everything I buy more expensive."

I get it, but at the same time, someone getting fucked twice isn't an excuse to keep fucking everyone in perpetuity.

 

[Plan9Misfit]

I hope you know that the Democrats are the most taxing system this countries history has seen.

Oh, I do. There isn't a tax on the planet that the Democrats don't love. Granted, Republicans aren't much better. Rather than tax and spend like the Democrats, they borrow and spend, then whine about massive debt levels and potentially high inflation.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Oh, I do. There isn't a tax on the planet that the Democrats don't love. Granted, Republicans aren't much better. Rather than tax and spend like the Democrats, they borrow and spend, then whine about massive debt levels and potentially high inflation.

Inflation is generally caused by market demand or at least it used to be when the markets indicators were commercial banks and they reacted to money costs based on their individual needs. Aggressive banks always paid higher rates and conservative oriented items banks clipped coupons by putting their excesses in the bond markets.

That all changed under Greenspan when he took the market away from commercial banks and used the Federal Reserve to set the market which in actual practice the federal set the money cost for the entire market not even tied to any barometer except what the Fed establishes. The primary reason for this was to keep interest rates low because the nations debt could be paid and not be in default. This practice is still the essential monetary policy of this country. The difference in the two parties is that the more taxes that can be collected the more money you can have in the budget for descrationary spending. This is the democratic view and supports their long held view of taxing every thing that moves or stands still.

The republican view is that as long as interest rates stay low they can make a budgets what they want even if not matched to tax income and can still be expanded to the point of allocating budgeted reductions by not getting into debt default and exceed tax incomes as the budget target. This of course allows them to create budgets a mak requests of the fed to fund them as a congressional approval method.

So pick your poison.

 

[Plan9Misfit]

Inflation is generally caused by market demand or at least it used to be when the markets indicators were commercial banks and they reacted to money costs based on their individual needs. Aggressive banks always paid higher rates and conservative oriented items banks clipped coupons by putting their excesses in the bond markets.

That all changed under Greenspan when he took the market away from commercial banks and used the Federal Reserve to set the market which in actual practice the federal set the money cost for the entire market not even tied to any barometer except what the Fed establishes. The primary reason for this was to keep interest rates low because the nations debt could be paid and not be in default. This practice is still the essential monetary policy of this country. The difference in the two parties is that the more taxes that can be collected the more money you can have in the budget for descrationary spending. This is the democratic view and supports their long held view of taxing every thing that moves or stands still.

The republican view is that as long as interest rates stay low they can make a budgets what they want even if not matched to tax income and can still be expanded to the point of allocating budgeted reductions by not getting into debt default and exceed tax incomes as the budget target. This of course allows them to create budgets a mak requests of the fed to fund them as a congressional approval method.

So pick your poison.

I'm well aware of how the markets work. And, I've never agreed with either the Democratic or Republican budget strategies. I find both to be incredibly irresponsible just in different ways. And sadly, I find the Republican strategy more irresponsible than the Democrat's. While the Democrat's method is vile because they'll tax everything under the sun (including the sun itself if they could), at least they follow a "pay as you go" philosophy. The despicable part is that they freely spend into oblivion because there is no limit on what they want to buy, and they arrogantly think that every taxpayer is happy and willing to fund whatever useless pet project they put out there. The Republicans share the spend into oblivion philosophy, while wasting money on different pet projects, and then put the bill on a credit card and kick the can down the road.

Both methods disgust me because the end result is the same: a bloated, inefficient government with high taxation.