Originally posted by: Syringer
With a typical two children family getting about $1000, and the rich getting richer..if the plan were more graduated (I think, or whatever the opposite of it is now), how much more money would they expect to have?
Originally posted by: Syringer
With a typical two children family getting about $1000, and the rich getting richer..if the plan were more graduated (I think, or whatever the opposite of it is now), how much more money would they expect to have?
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Syringer
With a typical two children family getting about $1000, and the rich getting richer..if the plan were more graduated (I think, or whatever the opposite of it is now), how much more money would they expect to have?
Considering the poor dont pay much in taxes, it is hard to give them a big tax break. We could of course give them more money than they pay in taxes, but that would be called welfare, not a tax cut.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Syringer
With a typical two children family getting about $1000, and the rich getting richer..if the plan were more graduated (I think, or whatever the opposite of it is now), how much more money would they expect to have?
Considering the poor dont pay much in taxes, it is hard to give them a big tax break. We could of course give them more money than they pay in taxes, but that would be called welfare, not a tax cut.
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Syringer
With a typical two children family getting about $1000, and the rich getting richer..if the plan were more graduated (I think, or whatever the opposite of it is now), how much more money would they expect to have?
Considering the poor dont pay much in taxes, it is hard to give them a big tax break. We could of course give them more money than they pay in taxes, but that would be called welfare, not a tax cut.
Well... if you increase the earned income tax credit you could..
trikle down
read this..
demand side dogma
I'm not in agreement with this in total but, it is worth reading
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Syringer
With a typical two children family getting about $1000, and the rich getting richer..if the plan were more graduated (I think, or whatever the opposite of it is now), how much more money would they expect to have?
Considering the poor dont pay much in taxes, it is hard to give them a big tax break. We could of course give them more money than they pay in taxes, but that would be called welfare, not a tax cut.
Well... if you increase the earned income tax credit you could..
trikle down
read this..
demand side dogma
I'm not in agreement with this in total but, it is worth reading
But increasing the earned income tax credit is increasing welfare...
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Syringer
With a typical two children family getting about $1000, and the rich getting richer..if the plan were more graduated (I think, or whatever the opposite of it is now), how much more money would they expect to have?
Considering the poor dont pay much in taxes, it is hard to give them a big tax break. We could of course give them more money than they pay in taxes, but that would be called welfare, not a tax cut.
Well... if you increase the earned income tax credit you could..
trikle down
read this..
demand side dogma
I'm not in agreement with this in total but, it is worth reading
But increasing the earned income tax credit is increasing welfare...
Well.. the notion was to return the FICA/Med in part that the poor pay.. but, if you wish to term it welfare ok... for the welfare of the less rich.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Syringer
With a typical two children family getting about $1000, and the rich getting richer..if the plan were more graduated (I think, or whatever the opposite of it is now), how much more money would they expect to have?
Considering the poor dont pay much in taxes, it is hard to give them a big tax break. We could of course give them more money than they pay in taxes, but that would be called welfare, not a tax cut.
Well... if you increase the earned income tax credit you could..
trikle down
read this..
demand side dogma
I'm not in agreement with this in total but, it is worth reading
But increasing the earned income tax credit is increasing welfare...
Well.. the notion was to return the FICA/Med in part that the poor pay.. but, if you wish to term it welfare ok... for the welfare of the less rich.
The linked article did not mention FICA/MED. But even if we gave a FICA/MED cut/holiday, the "wealthy" would still get most of the cut as it is paid on percentage basis of income.
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Syringer
With a typical two children family getting about $1000, and the rich getting richer..if the plan were more graduated (I think, or whatever the opposite of it is now), how much more money would they expect to have?
Considering the poor dont pay much in taxes, it is hard to give them a big tax break. We could of course give them more money than they pay in taxes, but that would be called welfare, not a tax cut.
Well... if you increase the earned income tax credit you could..
trikle down
read this..
demand side dogma
I'm not in agreement with this in total but, it is worth reading
But increasing the earned income tax credit is increasing welfare...
Well.. the notion was to return the FICA/Med in part that the poor pay.. but, if you wish to term it welfare ok... for the welfare of the less rich.
The linked article did not mention FICA/MED. But even if we gave a FICA/MED cut/holiday, the "wealthy" would still get most of the cut as it is paid on percentage basis of income.
Comments in Committee way back when suggested that it would be a way to offest Fica for the poor because the effect on a 25000 person was regressive when the cut off (at the time) was 53000 for Er and Ee. The higher earner paid no fica on the balance of income.. You can look at the EIC as what is effectivly does today.
25000 has what a taxable income of (family of four) say 8000 at 10 %= 800 tax with 2 child credits of 600 he has no income tax. but, gets about 700 or so EIC refund... to offset FICA or whatever.
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Off-topic Maybe I'm misinformed but why don't we give corporations tax credits for providing health insurance/care to their employees? Wouldn't this kill two birds with one stone? Provide health insurance/care to everyone who is working and put money back in everyone's pocket?
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Off-topic Maybe I'm misinformed but why don't we give corporations tax credits for providing health insurance/care to their employees? Wouldn't this kill two birds with one stone? Provide health insurance/care to everyone who is working and put money back in everyone's pocket?
This UQ, just now occured to me as well.... that would indeed kill lots of birds. At least catastophic health care but, I'd wan't to see a HMO type that also was supported by the Health Care Professionals. Yeah, It costs us (my company) a fortune and I toyed with the idea of giving the Ee's an allowance to get their own on their own but, when I researched the cost for them it was much greater than if through our set up. Some of them would not get it and use the funds elsewhere. We've had increases of 15% and 25% in last two years. Workers Comp just went up 25% this year. It is killing the notion of hiring because of the discrimination rules, but I could assign some folks to a "class of employee" to avoid this but, won't. At the moment we could hire two more people in the construction co and two in the engineering co. all this is real but, we hold off on some bidding or sub out just because of the "package" 401k, health, etc that has to be offered.. (our plan is set up so 30 days wait is all that is required) The sub out option is not really an option because of the tech in the eng co. Some would say well someone gets the work... yup. rather they get the work so their folks get to work 35 hrs vs 20 or so a week. Our guys are into OT.
I don't believe that's quite accurate. Obviously the people who pay the most dollars get the greatest reduction in dollars. However, according to an analysis in the local paper, the wealthy also get a much greater percentage reduction. According to their chart, the average wage-earning family gets only about a 1% reduction while $100K plus get over 2% and $1 million+ get 4% or more. I suspect this is due in part to the new preferential treatment of capital gains and dividend income, but the paper didn't offer that level of detail.Originally posted by: KenGr
This isn't a "trickle down" tax cut. Now that the bill has passed, estimates are that it is almost purely a simple tax reduction without a change in the tax structure. By that I mean that the evaluations I have seen indicate, for example, that the top 5% of wage earners paid about 57% of the total income tax before the reduction and will pay about 57% after the reduction. Of course they get a higher absolute reduction but we've been over all that before.
[ ... ]
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I don't believe that's quite accurate. Obviously the people who pay the most dollars get the greatest reduction in dollars. However, according to an analysis in the local paper, the wealthy also get a much greater percentage reduction. According to their chart, the average wage-earning family gets only about a 1% reduction while $100K plus get over 2% and $1 million+ get 4% or more. I suspect this is due in part to the new preferential treatment of capital gains and dividend income, but the paper didn't offer that level of detail.Originally posted by: KenGr
This isn't a "trickle down" tax cut. Now that the bill has passed, estimates are that it is almost purely a simple tax reduction without a change in the tax structure. By that I mean that the evaluations I have seen indicate, for example, that the top 5% of wage earners paid about 57% of the total income tax before the reduction and will pay about 57% after the reduction. Of course they get a higher absolute reduction but we've been over all that before.
[ ... ]
Anyone have a link to a good analysis?
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I don't believe that's quite accurate. Obviously the people who pay the most dollars get the greatest reduction in dollars. However, according to an analysis in the local paper, the wealthy also get a much greater percentage reduction. According to their chart, the average wage-earning family gets only about a 1% reduction while $100K plus get over 2% and $1 million+ get 4% or more. I suspect this is due in part to the new preferential treatment of capital gains and dividend income, but the paper didn't offer that level of detail.Originally posted by: KenGr
This isn't a "trickle down" tax cut. Now that the bill has passed, estimates are that it is almost purely a simple tax reduction without a change in the tax structure. By that I mean that the evaluations I have seen indicate, for example, that the top 5% of wage earners paid about 57% of the total income tax before the reduction and will pay about 57% after the reduction. Of course they get a higher absolute reduction but we've been over all that before.
[ ... ]
Anyone have a link to a good analysis?
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Off-topic Maybe I'm misinformed but why don't we give corporations tax credits for providing health insurance/care to their employees? Wouldn't this kill two birds with one stone? Provide health insurance/care to everyone who is working and put money back in everyone's pocket?
This UQ, just now occured to me as well.... that would indeed kill lots of birds. At least catastophic health care but, I'd wan't to see a HMO type that also was supported by the Health Care Professionals. Yeah, It costs us (my company) a fortune and I toyed with the idea of giving the Ee's an allowance to get their own on their own but, when I researched the cost for them it was much greater than if through our set up. Some of them would not get it and use the funds elsewhere. We've had increases of 15% and 25% in last two years. Workers Comp just went up 25% this year. It is killing the notion of hiring because of the discrimination rules, but I could assign some folks to a "class of employee" to avoid this but, won't. At the moment we could hire two more people in the construction co and two in the engineering co. all this is real but, we hold off on some bidding or sub out just because of the "package" 401k, health, etc that has to be offered.. (our plan is set up so 30 days wait is all that is required) The sub out option is not really an option because of the tech in the eng co. Some would say well someone gets the work... yup. rather they get the work so their folks get to work 35 hrs vs 20 or so a week. Our guys are into OT.
But does it make sense? Would companies do it? If we gave them full credit for health care costs would they ante up and cover their employees? It wouldn't cost them anything except maybe what? Cost of capital? Administrative costs? What would they do with the extra money (the ones who have a med. plan now that is)? A plan like this may also lower health care costs across the board as HMO's and insurance companies compete for business.
The down side I guess would be a possible loss of tax revenue if the money saved isn't put back into the economy.
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
OK I was with ya all the way up until the national health care part. I am totally opposed to any more gov't programs. They are inefficient in both cost and process. Private sector is the way to go.
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
OK I was with ya all the way up until the national health care part. I am totally opposed to any more gov't programs. They are inefficient in both cost and process. Private sector is the way to go.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
OK I was with ya all the way up until the national health care part. I am totally opposed to any more gov't programs. They are inefficient in both cost and process. Private sector is the way to go.
No offense to HJD1 since he seems to be atleast thinking about how things will affect other things. What I find slightly amusing is it just like a Democrat(read Liberal) to bitch and moan about Tax-cuts and how they "cost" us money(which they don't ) but yet they push for National health coverage which would add hundreds of Billions of dollars to our budget. Do we need to make health insurance more accessable to working americans? Yes. But we sure as hell don't need national health care "insurance" - because we already have it. If you are sick - you go to the emergency room and they will treat you - regardless of your insurance status. Now I'm not as ignorant so as to believe they get the same level of care as those of us who are insured, but health insurance is kind of like car insurance - those of us with insurance get treated better at the body shop than those who don't have insurance.
But anyway, Charrison posted the "new rates" anyone still care to say this is a tax-cut only for the rich? Seems to me that anyone who pays taxes will get a tax break.
CkG
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
OK I was with ya all the way up until the national health care part. I am totally opposed to any more gov't programs. They are inefficient in both cost and process. Private sector is the way to go.
No offense to HJD1 since he seems to be atleast thinking about how things will affect other things. What I find slightly amusing is it just like a Democrat(read Liberal) to bitch and moan about Tax-cuts and how they "cost" us money(which they don't ) but yet they push for National health coverage which would add hundreds of Billions of dollars to our budget. Do we need to make health insurance more accessable to working americans? Yes. But we sure as hell don't need national health care "insurance" - because we already have it. If you are sick - you go to the emergency room and they will treat you - regardless of your insurance status. Now I'm not as ignorant so as to believe they get the same level of care as those of us who are insured, but health insurance is kind of like car insurance - those of us with insurance get treated better at the body shop than those who don't have insurance.
But anyway, Charrison posted the "new rates" anyone still care to say this is a tax-cut only for the rich? Seems to me that anyone who pays taxes will get a tax break.
CkG
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
OK I was with ya all the way up until the national health care part. I am totally opposed to any more gov't programs. They are inefficient in both cost and process. Private sector is the way to go.
No offense to HJD1 since he seems to be atleast thinking about how things will affect other things. What I find slightly amusing is it just like a Democrat(read Liberal) to bitch and moan about Tax-cuts and how they "cost" us money(which they don't ) but yet they push for National health coverage which would add hundreds of Billions of dollars to our budget. Do we need to make health insurance more accessable to working americans? Yes. But we sure as hell don't need national health care "insurance" - because we already have it. If you are sick - you go to the emergency room and they will treat you - regardless of your insurance status. Now I'm not as ignorant so as to believe they get the same level of care as those of us who are insured, but health insurance is kind of like car insurance - those of us with insurance get treated better at the body shop than those who don't have insurance.
But anyway, Charrison posted the "new rates" anyone still care to say this is a tax-cut only for the rich? Seems to me that anyone who pays taxes will get a tax break.
CkG
Cadification.... see my post above yours... I was thinking out loud about the national health care issue and see it as a nice to have costly to have but, maybe needed to help the needy.