So every middle class family won't be getting a tax cut now?
http://www.dispatch.com/news/201711...seholds-would-pay-higher-taxes-under-gop-plan
Interesting while watching Brady of Texas debate this on Sunday, he kept going back to the 'bigger paycheck' theory where, even if your taxes went up, you would have a bigger paycheck to offset and even cut your taxes. What a crock of horse shit!
Statements like this are grossely mis-represented. In cases like these, they need to stop mentioning things based on income, when the income level isn't necessarily why the tax increases.... At that point, the income amount only pertains to the different in tax amount from brackets.....
The Senate jumps were less drastic as there were more steps. It was "better" not ideal.
I wasn't clear on the Estate tax. I was saying the heirs didn't earn it. It's a handout. I understand this is a type of double taxation, but without it, we would create a banana republic (notes than we have).
I don't give a shit if the heirs didn't earn it. When you give money to a non-profit, they didn't earn it.... Anytime you GIFT money, the opposite party didn't "earn" it. Do you tax christmas gifts as well?
A lot of people help their children and grand-children with college tuition, should we tax that too since it was a gift? My ultimate question is WHY the fuck does it matter to you what people do with their own money? It's not yours, so quit acting like you should have a say in what they do wit hit.
As for families with multiple children, I was simply saying they were hurt, nothing more. I agree that people should be responsible. The reality is though that not everyone is and the children shouldn't pay the price, thus my advocating for increased credits for low income families.
Nope, sorry, doesn't work that way. Advocate for education and planned parenthood (give them more money, I support pro-choice for others no matter how much I wouldn't do it myself). Otherwise, bear the consequences and responsibilities that you signed up.
There is a huge problem right now where we are essentially making the movie Idiocracy a reality. The lower class (and lower intelligence) pump out babies like a factory (in part because they are uneducated) and they are incentivized to do so with tax-based rewards. Meanwhile, the middle and upper-middle class with higher intelligence levels continue to kick the can down the road further and further - tons just simply say having kids aren't worth it and never have any. Others kick the can down the road so far in an effort to show responsibility that by the time they feel they can responsibly have children they often experience infertility issues. We need to stop incentivizing the lower class, and if you want to incentivize reproduction there is no reason that it shouldn't be available for everyone of every class..... In particular, we need state sponsored schooling from the moment kids are born, no question that the costs of daycare hits everyone in the nuts - be it in the lower class or in the middle class. No one should have to shell out $10k a year just for a daycare to watch and feed a baby for 8 hours.
As far as the school stuff, the specific concern has to do with grad compensation. Currently if a grad student works 20 hours per week at our local state school, this covers tuition and a small $1200/month stipend. Add on classes, and these students are too busy to work real jobs. Grad school provide a large majority of the scientific research in this country at a low cost. If suddenly those grad students needed to pay taxes on the tuition coverage, they'd have to get secondary jobs or just screw it and go to industry. This would actually be more expensive for the country. Grad student labor is about 18/hour here.
Not qualified enough to respond here, since I'm not a grad student.
I agree with you that the phase out for medical expenses (and others) should be at high income. I phase out of all deductions and credits as it sits and I can afford it. I try to avoid advocating too strongly for myself unless it's something that I think really is needed for everyone.
That's what I'm saying is that these deductions shouldn't be limited to the ultra low-income levels. None of them. I am actually in favor of the housing adjustment to have a cap of $500k, and I think that's a good income cap as well for every credit/deduction. Income thresholds vary by location as we all know - much like the state income tax deduction it's obviously more heavily used in CA/NY then it is for FL or MS. When you put these low thresholds like $30k or $100k, it isn't taking those things into account, and it also creates the glass-ceiling effect as well. Make them an "Anyone can take these except rich people that don't have to worry about money" at around $500k annual income or get rid of them altogether. All of them.
My biggest problem with the elimination of all these deductions is that it's basically another transfer of money from the higher income to the lower income states. While in principal I'm okay with that, it's the low income states that tend to be more red. They are screaming for small government yet benefiting from my taxes. Since most medicaid matches come from the blue states, it would seem more reasonable for them to decide how it's put to use, ie universal healthcare. I say that half in jest, but it is an interesting concept none the less.
Even if we did have a universal healthcare, the same result would apply. We have way more unhealthy people in the red states, for sure. So the same result would still occur? Also, if you want to marginalize red states - red states hold the majority of the black population. So... Yeah, I wouldn't marginalize the red states too much
😉
Lastly, if we are going to be closing deductions and fixing the tax code we should leave deductions that can benefit everyone somewhat evenly and get rid of the ones that only benefit the folks that are doing better than they ever have. I still don't understand why capital gains/investment income isn't taxed like every other dollar earned.
Not saying I agree with the capital gains rules, but let's be honest here - investment is part of what makes our economy. The reason Tesla exists? Investors. No question. The reason all the employees, factories, batteries, etc... exist under Tesla? Investors. To deny that would be downright foolish. They play an integral and important role in our economy (and jobs). Does that mean they should be incentivized to invest their money? Maybe. I'm not sure on that one. I would venture to say no but I may be biased since I don't have any investments outside of retirement.
