• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Corrected title: Now the GOP has accomplished massive tax reform

Page 19 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
What's the logic for if they need 60 votes or not? Obviously they aren't passing shit if it needs 60 in the senate.

They only need 50 for this since it's under reconciliation. As long as they don't blow the debt limit specified in the budget resolution (1.5T) in the 10 year window or add to the deficit outside the window (hence the sunsetting of, apparently, all the middle class tax relief).
 
The more I think about this the more I believe we do need a big overhaul.

I think decreasing the standard deduction to something small and a per person basis. This would represent the fact that people need food, clothes, and shelter. Shelter costs vary much more than than others. As such, we give say $6000 for food and clothes PER PERSON on the return.

Then from there we get to add.

We can add mortgage interest up to $500k mortgage. Renters could claim 10% of their rent instead.
We can add property tax and state taxes.
We can add health costs and health insurance premiums.
We can add child care costs if both parents are working.

This would better represent what the deductions are for. They are meant to not tax yoh on the minimum necessary for life. It also would better represent your local cost of living. Someone in the city would have more deductions than someone living in the middle if nowhere. This is to help the city folks that are struggling due to lower end of the wage scale not keeping up with cost of living.

From there out you can have tax brackets that start at 15% and go up by 5% intervals until 40% around $500k. Then jump to 70% or higher at 1 mil individual or 2 mil per family.

My guess us this would give a lot back to low and middle income, it would be fair in that necessities for life generally aren't taxed, and would reduce runaway salaries, thus leading to reinvestment in the workers.



Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
The more I think about this the more I believe we do need a big overhaul.

I think decreasing the standard deduction to something small and a per person basis. This would represent the fact that people need food, clothes, and shelter. Shelter costs vary much more than than others. As such, we give say $6000 for food and clothes PER PERSON on the return.

Uh, isn't that basically the current standard deduction PLUS the current $4,000+ per person exemption for dependents?
 
The more I think about this the more I believe we do need a big overhaul.

I think decreasing the standard deduction to something small and a per person basis. This would represent the fact that people need food, clothes, and shelter. Shelter costs vary much more than than others. As such, we give say $6000 for food and clothes PER PERSON on the return.

Then from there we get to add.

We can add mortgage interest up to $500k mortgage. Renters could claim 10% of their rent instead.
We can add property tax and state taxes.
We can add health costs and health insurance premiums.
We can add child care costs if both parents are working.

This would better represent what the deductions are for. They are meant to not tax yoh on the minimum necessary for life. It also would better represent your local cost of living. Someone in the city would have more deductions than someone living in the middle if nowhere. This is to help the city folks that are struggling due to lower end of the wage scale not keeping up with cost of living.

From there out you can have tax brackets that start at 15% and go up by 5% intervals until 40% around $500k. Then jump to 70% or higher at 1 mil individual or 2 mil per family.

My guess us this would give a lot back to low and middle income, it would be fair in that necessities for life generally aren't taxed, and would reduce runaway salaries, thus leading to reinvestment in the workers.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Run for president because I am voting for you.

Of course this is all fantasy. The wealthy will never be taxed at higher rate than they are now. Their rate will only go down from now on.


f20-tax-480.png
 
I'm hearing that selective Obamacare repeal (individual mandate) is now being thrown back in the mix as a way to stay under the $1.5T deficit limit which amounts to ~13 million Americans losing their health care. Goes straight to the Repub mindset that if sacrifices must be made it has to come from the middle class and the poor.

Way to go Repubs.
 
I'm hearing that selective Obamacare repeal (individual mandate) is now being thrown back in the mix as a way to stay under the $1.5T deficit limit which amounts to ~13 million Americans losing their health care. Goes straight to the Repub mindset that if sacrifices must be made it has to come from the middle class and the poor.

Way to go Repubs.

To add to this point, it's not just people losing their health insurance it's also going to bring premium increases. The individual mandate is not very popular but it is a pretty essential piece that makes health insurance work.
 
This would better represent what the deductions are for. They are meant to not tax yoh on the minimum necessary for life. It also would better represent your local cost of living. Someone in the city would have more deductions than someone living in the middle if nowhere. This is to help the city folks that are struggling due to lower end of the wage scale not keeping up with cost of living.

From there out you can have tax brackets that start at 15% and go up by 5% intervals until 40% around $500k. Then jump to 70% or higher at 1 mil individual or 2 mil per family.

My guess us this would give a lot back to low and middle income, it would be fair in that necessities for life generally aren't taxed, and would reduce runaway salaries, thus leading to reinvestment in the workers.

Wait, wut?

Last I checked, living in a rural location is more costly than living in the city. A rural area has little to no competition... This goes for stores, hospitals, gas stations, food distribution, product distribution, etc...No distribution company is going to make small rural stops if it isn't monetarily worth it.
Last I checked, rural locations have no means of transportation other than a personal vehicle. Plenty of cities have public (AND subsidized) means of transportation.

IF anything, it's MORE costly to live in a rural area. Please proceed to think about more than just yourself. I live in one of the most populated cities and even I can come to some basic understandings like that. The only thing that can possibly be more expensive in a city is rent - and that is strictly based on where precisely you live, with plenty of options to live in suburbs for much lower rental costs.

I do however agree that deductions should supplement the standard deduction, not replace it.

70% or higher taxes is fucking hilarious too. Again, proceed to pull your head out of your ass and imagine that if every dollar you earned you were paying $0.70 cents. At that point it would no longer be worth it. The amount of work you must produce to just get $0.30 cents you may as well produce said income from a country that isn't blatantly retarded.

EDIT: Remind me, how did that 90% tax on the rich go over in France?
 
So I don't have a stream but apparently Orrin Hatch is screaming at Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee right now. Probably asking a lot of inconvenient questions.

Bringing healthcare into this is a real big gamble.
 
Wait, wut?

Last I checked, living in a rural location is more costly than living in the city. A rural area has little to no competition... This goes for stores, hospitals, gas stations, food distribution, product distribution, etc...No distribution company is going to make small rural stops if it isn't monetarily worth it.
Last I checked, rural locations have no means of transportation other than a personal vehicle. Plenty of cities have public (AND subsidized) means of transportation.

IF anything, it's MORE costly to live in a rural area. Please proceed to think about more than just yourself. I live in one of the most populated cities and even I can come to some basic understandings like that. The only thing that can possibly be more expensive in a city is rent - and that is strictly based on where precisely you live, with plenty of options to live in suburbs for much lower rental costs.

I do however agree that deductions should supplement the standard deduction, not replace it.

70% or higher taxes is fucking hilarious too. Again, proceed to pull your head out of your ass and imagine that if every dollar you earned you were paying $0.70 cents. At that point it would no longer be worth it. The amount of work you must produce to just get $0.30 cents you may as well produce said income from a country that isn't blatantly retarded.

EDIT: Remind me, how did that 90% tax on the rich go over in France?

Rural areas have higher costs for things like medical care and such but much, much lower housing costs. I did a quick google search and BLS reports as of a few years ago that urban costs are significantly higher than rural ones, primarily due to those housing costs, but in total but there's the large caveat that you make more money in urban locations as well. Not the newest report but I don't think the overall conclusions would have changed if it was published again today.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/expenditures-of-urban-and-rural-households-in-2011.htm

There are a lot of cities where living in the suburbs isn't a realistic option either, at least if you want to maintain any quality of life. If I lived in Long Island or Westchester I would be commuting 4 hours a day and...well...just thinking about that makes me cringe.
 
Also it's important to note that after 10 years this tax bill RAISES taxes on almost everyone except those with significant corporate earnings.

This may be the worst designed tax bill in the history of the United States.
 
Also it's important to note that after 10 years this tax bill RAISES taxes on almost everyone except those with significant corporate earnings.

This may be the worst designed tax bill in the history of the United States.

But Paul Ryan says that won't happen because reasons. I mean he's a wonk. He's got pamphlets and charts!

In other news a major NY GOP fundraiser has stopped raising money for the party and called this tax bill a piece of shit. GOP reps in NY/NJ are about to declare open warfare on the administration over the legislation.
 
Also it's important to note that after 10 years this tax bill RAISES taxes on almost everyone except those with significant corporate earnings.

This may be the worst designed tax bill in the history of the United States.
This is the party that sent everybody $300 of their own money (granted the Dems first suggested the idea sarcastically) and the voters ate it up. Ten years is in no-care land politically.
 
But Paul Ryan says that won't happen because reasons. I mean he's a wonk. He's got pamphlets and charts!

In other news a major NY GOP fundraiser has stopped raising money for the party and called this tax bill a piece of shit. GOP reps in NY/NJ are about to declare open warfare on the administration over the legislation.

Haha, our good friend Paul has spent this year coming to the painful realization that in real life you can’t use magic asterisks to cover up the fact that your math doesn’t work.

It’s easy to hide how incompetent you are when no one actually expects you to produce anything.
 
This is the party that sent everybody $300 of their own money (granted the Dems first suggested the idea sarcastically) and the voters ate it up. Ten years is in no-care land politically.

I’m pretty sure the political messaging on this is easy: it raises everyone’s taxes to give money to corporations.
 
Not really. Repubs have to pass it this year so that they can get back to their usual emotional issues- God, guns, gays, transgenders, minorities, immigration, illegals, voter fraud, abortion & the rest of the usual culture war load that has served them so well. It's all insincere pandering designed to advance their top down class warfare agenda.

If Hillary dies, they'll really be in trouble.

It's not that they have to get back to those issues, it's just that it's part of the process: when the actual disaster rears up in direct response to their failed economic policies (trickle-down; this failure of a tax/healthcare/redistribution of wealth to corporate donors bill), they turn to God, guns, immigrants, gays, etc, to absorb the blame. You really can't be a card-carrying republican these days without supporting ignorant, self-killing economic policy along with the shriveled balls to blame your constant failure on intangible issues far removed from actual policy.
 
This seems fine:

American voters disapprove 52 - 25 percent of the Republican tax plan. Republican voters approve 60 - 15 percent, with 26 percent undecided. All other party, gender, education, age and racial groups disapprove.

The wealthy would mainly benefit from this tax plan, 61 percent of American voters say, while 24 percent say the middle class will mainly benefit and 6 percent say low-income people would mainly benefit.

American voters say 59 - 33 percent that the Republican tax plan favors the rich at the expense of the middle class.

Only 16 percent of American voters say the Republican tax plan will reduce their taxes, while 35 percent of voters say it will increase their taxes and 36 percent say it won't have much impact on their taxes.

Only 36 percent of voters believe the GOP tax plan will lead to an increase in jobs and economic growth, while 52 percent do not believe it.

American voter opinions on some of the elements of the Republican tax plan are:
  • 49 - 45 percent that lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent is a bad idea;
  • 58 - 30 percent that doubling the standard deduction is a good idea;
  • 59 - 30 percent that eliminating the deduction for state and local income taxes is a bad idea;
  • 48 - 43 percent that eliminating the estate tax is a good idea.
"The sentiment from voters: The GOP tax plan is a great idea, if you are rich. Otherwise, you're out of luck," Malloy said.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2501
 
The way things are going the GOP will finally please their donors but get wiped out electorally from the most local of offices up thru congress.

If only that were true. Their voters don't give a fuck economic policy apparently.
 
70% or higher taxes is fucking hilarious too. Again, proceed to pull your head out of your ass and imagine that if every dollar you earned you were paying $0.70 cents. At that point it would no longer be worth it. The amount of work you must produce to just get $0.30 cents you may as well produce said income from a country that isn't blatantly retarded.

It's always worth it for the people at the top. It's not like they work proportionately harder than any of the rest of us. How could they?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/income-on-top-400-us-tax-returns-rises-20-2016-12-07

They get the biggest tax cuts under the repub plan. If it's only 3%, that's nearly $4M/yr at the low end for having done nothing any different. Lots of Americans who work like dogs won't make that much in a lifetime.
 
Also it's important to note that after 10 years this tax bill RAISES taxes on almost everyone except those with significant corporate earnings.

This may be the worst designed tax bill in the history of the United States.

One of the things that American's really needs to do is demand that Congress remove the ability to 'sunset' things so that congress can manipulate the numbers. It is has just become a way for both parties to game the system. It is fundamentally dishonest.
 
One of the things that American's really needs to do is demand that Congress remove the ability to 'sunset' things so that congress can manipulate the numbers. It is has just become a way for both parties to game the system. It is fundamentally dishonest.

Honestly we should just get rid of the filibuster and then this sunsetting nonsense wouldn't be necessary.
 
Back
Top