How's that tax cut working out?

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Did the "tax cut" help or hurt you?

  • Tax Rate Went Up - Income $0-50K

    Votes: 10 9.5%
  • Tax Rate Went Up - Income $51-100K

    Votes: 10 9.5%
  • Tax Rate Went Up - Income $101-200K

    Votes: 20 19.0%
  • Tax Rate Went Up - Income $200K+

    Votes: 7 6.7%
  • Tax Rate Went Down - Income $0-50K

    Votes: 4 3.8%
  • Tax Rate Went Down - Income $51-100K

    Votes: 14 13.3%
  • Tax Rate Went Down - Income $101-200K

    Votes: 24 22.9%
  • Tax Rate Went Down - Income $200K+

    Votes: 16 15.2%

  • Total voters
    105
Feb 23, 2005
17,489
383
106
So what? The effective tax rate on the 1% was considerably higher in 1980. Their share of national income was less than half of what it is today. Their gain came at the expense of the lower 75%. Taxes are also regressive in the top 1%. Mere fact.

Tables 5 & 8-

https://files.taxfoundation.org/201...ederal-Income-Tax-Data-2018-Update-FF-622.pdf

As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post

The GOP has been handing out tax cuts to the uber wealthy for nearly 40 years. You know- people who don't need tax cuts at all.
Hey I can cherry pick data too! The top 1% has been paying a higher majority of all revenue collected since 1980. Isnt that your goal? To collect more of their money? Well guess what Sparky we've been doing that for 30 years!



https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-pays-more-taxes-bottom-90-percent/
 
Feb 23, 2005
17,489
383
106
Oh, you mean like reinvesting all of that taxable income back into their companies for R&N and employee pension funds instead of sending it to the Fed (now they just pocket it and buy yachts)...you mean when actual "trickle down" really was a thing, and it worked so incredibly well for generations? What's wrong with doing that again, which is what the dems propose?
You do understand the wealthy very rarely own their companies directly, right? If they, as an executive employee, gets a salary of $10M how would that person "reinvest" back into the company?

Also, the Democrats want nothing more than to raise taxes on the wealthy. Thats it. And that alone will nothing to restore what you speak of.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,807
1,386
126

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
5,379
203
126
Hey I can cherry pick data too! The top 1% has been paying a higher majority of all revenue collected since 1980. Isnt that your goal? To collect more of their money? Well guess what Sparky we've been doing that for 30 years!



https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-pays-more-taxes-bottom-90-percent/
Well, duh? As the share of bottom 90% personal income declined over the past 40 years of course the share of taxes they pay is going to decline as well. How is this a surprise? What do you think you proved here?
 
Feb 23, 2005
17,489
383
106
Well, duh? As the share of bottom 90% personal income declined over the past 40 years of course the share of taxes they pay is going to decline as well. How is this a surprise? What do you think you proved here?
Sometimes to understand things you have to read the words and not just look at the pictures. It'll help you to not ask stupid questions.
 
Oct 6, 2009
23,220
1,585
126
Sometimes to understand things you have to read the words and not just look at the pictures. It'll help you to not ask stupid questions.
Speaking of understanding, it is helpful to understand that liberals' goal is not "to collect more of their money." The goal is to prevent massive wealth inequality because it harms society. Once you get that simple distinction into your fat head, you can then understand why your chart is useless for this discussion.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,807
1,386
126
Speaking of understanding, it is helpful to understand that liberals' goal is not "to collect more of their money." The goal is to prevent massive wealth inequality because it harms society. Once you get that simple distinction into your fat head, you can then understand why your chart is useless for this discussion.
Wealth inequality is 100% based on gloating selfishness of other's success. Just the fact that you morons start off by asking questions like "What is the wealth disparity?" instead of identifying what the actual problems are just tells you everything. It's 100% jealousy and it's pathetic.

Just because someone has a larger percentage of the pie doesn't mean that the others do not have a big enough slice of pie. It COULD just mean... you know.. the ENTIRE fucking pie got bigger.

For a place that supposedly sucks so much ass, we sure do have a fuckload new influx of people claiming asylum here.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
53,038
2,877
126
Oh, you mean like reinvesting all of that taxable income back into their companies for R&N and employee pension funds instead of sending it to the Fed (now they just pocket it and buy yachts)...you mean when actual "trickle down" really was a thing, and it worked so incredibly well for generations? What's wrong with doing that again, which is what the dems propose?
Because Gubmint is evil. Because taxes are theft. Because greed is good. Because fuck you, libtard.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
53,038
2,877
126
Wealth inequality is 100% based on gloating selfishness of other's success. Just the fact that you morons start off by asking questions like "What is the wealth disparity?" instead of identifying what the actual problems are just tells you everything. It's 100% jealousy and it's pathetic.

Just because someone has a larger percentage of the pie doesn't mean that the others do not have a big enough slice of pie. It COULD just mean... you know.. the ENTIRE fucking pie got bigger.

For a place that supposedly sucks so much ass, we sure do have a fuckload new influx of people claiming asylum here.
Project often? People who worship wealth are always jealous of it.
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
5,487
1,025
136
Wealth inequality is 100% based on gloating selfishness of other's success. Just the fact that you morons start off by asking questions like "What is the wealth disparity?" instead of identifying what the actual problems are just tells you everything. It's 100% jealousy and it's pathetic.

Just because someone has a larger percentage of the pie doesn't mean that the others do not have a big enough slice of pie. It COULD just mean... you know.. the ENTIRE fucking pie got bigger.

For a place that supposedly sucks so much ass, we sure do have a fuckload new influx of people claiming asylum here.
LOL. Oh Where to begin.. Assuming if we were wrong and this was correct..

In response to your 1st paragraph.. if the jealousy of incomes is the problem, why are you the ones giving out more assault weapons to the jealous so they can go on carrying mass shootings at work?

In response to your 2nd and 3rd paragraph.. if the pie is truly bigger.. why isn't your orange god giving out asylum to those escaping rape and murder? Clearly enough of the pie for everyone by your logic.
 
Feb 23, 2005
17,489
383
106
Speaking of understanding, it is helpful to understand that liberals' goal is not "to collect more of their money." The goal is to prevent massive wealth inequality because it harms society. Once you get that simple distinction into your fat head, you can then understand why your chart is useless for this discussion.
First of all, in order to accomplish "preventing massive wealth inequality" can only be accomplished three ways. 1. reduce the wealthy's wealth, 2. increasing the poor's wealth, or 3. some combination of the two. All I ve seen proposed by the left is raising taxes and God forbid the few far left wackos suggesting we tax wealth itself. Thats it. So who is the dishonest one here?

Secondly, as far as the chart goes, youre also in the simple crowd who doesnt read the words but only looks at the pictures. If you had, you would know the graph itself wasnt the point of my post.

But please. Do carry on.
 
Feb 23, 2005
17,489
383
106
LOL. Oh Where to begin.. Assuming if we were wrong and this was correct..

In response to your 1st paragraph.. if the jealousy of incomes is the problem, why are you the ones giving out more assault weapons to the jealous so they can go on carrying mass shootings at work?

In response to your 2nd and 3rd paragraph.. if the pie is truly bigger.. why isn't your orange god giving out asylum to those escaping rape and murder? Clearly enough of the pie for everyone by your logic.
Please dont tell me you think wealth is finite...
 
Oct 6, 2009
23,220
1,585
126
First of all, in order to accomplish "preventing massive wealth inequality" can only be accomplished three ways. 1. reduce the wealthy's wealth, 2. increasing the poor's wealth, or 3. some combination of the two. All I ve seen proposed by the left is raising taxes and God forbid the few far left wackos suggesting we tax wealth itself. Thats it. So who is the dishonest one here?

Secondly, as far as the chart goes, youre also in the simple crowd who doesnt read the words but only looks at the pictures. If you had, you would know the graph itself wasnt the point of my post.

But please. Do carry on.
Trust me, I read your words just fine. You forgot option 4: disincentivize hoarding to the point that reinvestment becomes more attractive. This is done by raising taxes on large amounts of income. The taxes are raised not because the goal is to collect more taxes, but because if the government is just going to tax it all at a very high rate well then I would be better off reinvesting in my companies, paying people more to attract and retain top talent, etc.
 
Feb 23, 2005
17,489
383
106
Trust me, I read your words just fine. You forgot option 4: disincentivize hoarding to the point that reinvestment becomes more attractive. This is done by raising taxes on large amounts of income. The taxes are raised not because the goal is to collect more taxes, but because if the government is just going to tax it all at a very high rate well then I would be better off reinvesting in my companies, paying people more to attract and retain top talent, etc.
All I see is raise taxes. If you want to put cute words like disincentivize, so be it. Bottom line is you're raising taxes.

Edit: how are you going to tax say Jeff Bezos whose salary was 86k? Or Larry Page whose salary is$1?
 
Last edited:

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,511
64
116
Well, duh? As the share of bottom 90% personal income declined over the past 40 years of course the share of taxes they pay is going to decline as well. How is this a surprise? What do you think you proved here?
And the top 1% are MUCH richer than they used to be. So since you like graphs...

 
Jul 20, 2001
54,937
1,619
126
All I see is raise taxes. If you want to put cute words like disincentivize, so be it. Bottom line is you're raising taxes.

Edit: how are you going to tax say Jeff Bezos whose salary was 86k? Or Larry Page whose salary is$1?
Good. Raising taxes on the wealthy is good. Taxing wealthy directly through high inheritance taxes is even better. Taxing capital gains as regular income is how you tax Bezos and Page. Enough of these welfare tax rates for billionaires.
 
Oct 6, 2009
23,220
1,585
126
All I see is raise taxes. If you want to put cute words like disincentivize, so be it. Bottom line is you're raising taxes.

Edit: how are you going to tax say Jeff Bezos whose salary was 86k? Or Larry Page whose salary is$1?
If you can't understand words like disincentivize then you aren't capable of understanding the topic to begin with, yet here you are arrogantly calling other people idiots.
 
Jun 11, 2004
13,606
290
126
LOL. Oh Where to begin.. Assuming if we were wrong and this was correct..

In response to your 1st paragraph.. if the jealousy of incomes is the problem, why are you the ones giving out more assault weapons to the jealous so they can go on carrying mass shootings at work?

In response to your 2nd and 3rd paragraph.. if the pie is truly bigger.. why isn't your orange god giving out asylum to those escaping rape and murder? Clearly enough of the pie for everyone by your logic.
Russians like michal1980 seldom understand how things work in our country...
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
5,487
1,025
136
First of all, in order to accomplish "preventing massive wealth inequality" can only be accomplished three ways. 1. reduce the wealthy's wealth, 2. increasing the poor's wealth, or 3. some combination of the two. All I ve seen proposed by the left is raising taxes and God forbid the few far left wackos suggesting we tax wealth itself. Thats it. So who is the dishonest one here?

Secondly, as far as the chart goes, youre also in the simple crowd who doesnt read the words but only looks at the pictures. If you had, you would know the graph itself wasnt the point of my post.

But please. Do carry on.
Tax the rich for healthcare and education, not tax them for taxing them.

Atleast get it right man.
 

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,073
1,033
136
Hey I can cherry pick data too! The top 1% has been paying a higher majority of all revenue collected since 1980. Isnt that your goal? To collect more of their money? Well guess what Sparky we've been doing that for 30 years!



https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-pays-more-taxes-bottom-90-percent/
Let's see... if the top 1 percent paid themselves less then their share of the taxes collected would be lower, right? Just like they were in 1980. Now take that money they didn't pay themselves and instead pay it out to the bottom 90 percent. Guess what would happen next, Sparky? That bottom 90% line would move right back up to where it was back in 1980. That sure would fix a lot of shit, wouldn't it?

Saint Ronaldus Reagan's tax cuts made this all possible.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,187
156
126
Finally got all my forms and got my taxes done. Let's take a look at the results using a few different levels of analysis:

Trumpian Analysis: In 2017 I owed $798. In 2018 I got a refund of $750. I'M SO MUCH BETTER OFF!! Thank you Heaven-sent Prophet Trump for the gift from God!

News Media Analysis: In 2017 I paid $3,488 in total tax. In 2018 I paid $3,335 in total tax. I'm slightly better off under the Trump tax plan than I was before.

Basic Economist Analysis: In 2017 I had an effective tax rate of 1.41%. In 2018 I had an effective tax rate of 2.66%. Screw you Trump for hurting the middle class at the benefit of the 1%!

Experienced Economist Analysis: In 2017 I had an AGI of $79,121,and a taxable income of $41,690. In 2018 I had an AGI of 106,513 and a taxable income of $82,513. Given the total tax due in the News Media Analysis those effective tax rates cannot be right. Turns out that I had a substantial change in income type in 2018 that is not properly accounted for in the effective tax rate calculation. My wife changed her business tax election from LLS as Partnership to LLC as S-Corp. Then she started paying herself wages. That shifted a not insubstantial amount of tax (~$1,900) from self-employment tax to tax on wages. Since self-employment tax isn't technically part of the effective tax rate calculation (Line 13 divided by Line 7 on a 2018 form) it skews the calculation and cannot be relied upon. Additionally, I had several other changes including, but not limited to: a substantial increase in wage income, a loss of personal exemptions, a loss of itemized deductions, an increase in standard deduction, an increase in child tax credit amounts, and an increase in student loan payment deductions. By redoing my 2018 taxes using the 2017 methodology I estimate my 2018 tax bill would have been about $6,680. So, the end (correct) result is that the tax law changes cut my tax burden in half.

It is worth noting that the changes to general personal income taxes (adjusted tax tables, increased standard deduction, increased child credits, etc.) resulted in a minor decrease in my tax burden, a few hundred dollars. The bulk of the benefit came from the change in how pass-through income is handled and our conscious decision to take advantage of that by shifting to S-Corp taxation. Had my wife's income been taxed as self-employment income we would have been walloped with several thousand more dollars in taxes. That's not a move the average taxpayer can take advantage of.
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
7,380
572
136
Finally got all my forms and got my taxes done. Let's take a look at the results using a few different levels of analysis:

Trumpian Analysis: In 2017 I owed $798. In 2018 I got a refund of $750. I'M SO MUCH BETTER OFF!! Thank you Heaven-sent Prophet Trump for the gift from God!

News Media Analysis: In 2017 I paid $3,488 in total tax. In 2018 I paid $3,335 in total tax. I'm slightly better off under the Trump tax plan than I was before.

Basic Economist Analysis: In 2017 I had an effective tax rate of 1.41%. In 2018 I had an effective tax rate of 2.66%. Screw you Trump for hurting the middle class at the benefit of the 1%!

Experienced Economist Analysis: In 2017 I had an AGI of $79,121,and a taxable income of $41,690. In 2018 I had an AGI of 106,513 and a taxable income of $82,513. Given the total tax due in the News Media Analysis those effective tax rates cannot be right. Turns out that I had a substantial change in income type in 2018 that is not properly accounted for in the effective tax rate calculation. My wife changed her business tax election from LLS as Partnership to LLC as S-Corp. Then she started paying herself wages. That shifted a not insubstantial amount of tax (~$1,900) from self-employment tax to tax on wages. Since self-employment tax isn't technically part of the effective tax rate calculation (Line 13 divided by Line 7 on a 2018 form) it skews the calculation and cannot be relied upon. Additionally, I had several other changes including, but not limited to: a substantial increase in wage income, a loss of personal exemptions, a loss of itemized deductions, an increase in standard deduction, an increase in child tax credit amounts, and an increase in student loan payment deductions. By redoing my 2018 taxes using the 2017 methodology I estimate my 2018 tax bill would have been about $6,680. So, the end (correct) result is that the tax law changes cut my tax burden in half.

It is worth noting that the changes to general personal income taxes (adjusted tax tables, increased standard deduction, increased child credits, etc.) resulted in a minor decrease in my tax burden, a few hundred dollars. The bulk of the benefit came from the change in how pass-through income is handled and our conscious decision to take advantage of that by shifting to S-Corp taxation. Had my wife's income been taxed as self-employment income we would have been walloped with several thousand more dollars in taxes. That's not a move the average taxpayer can take advantage of.
Quick question, what are you doing that your effective rate is so low?

I have my notepad ready.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,187
156
126
Quick question, what are you doing that your effective rate is so low?

I have my notepad ready.
I'm married, have three kids, own a home, contribute to 401k, have FSA/HSA.

In 2017 and earlier we got 20k in personal exemptions plus itemized to the tune of 17k. On top of having tax deferred income through the retirement and health accounts. We also got 3k in child credits and 1.2k in child care credits. In 2018 we lost the exemptions and itemized deductions but took the 24k standard. Our child care credit stayed at 1.2k and our child credit doubled to 6k. The switch to S-Corp filing meant taxes stayed the same on her salary but the tax on profit dropped significantly since we don't owe self - employed on that any more.
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
7,380
572
136
I'm married, have three kids, own a home, contribute to 401k, have FSA/HSA.

In 2017 and earlier we got 20k in personal exemptions plus itemized to the tune of 17k. On top of having tax deferred income through the retirement and health accounts. We also got 3k in child credits and 1.2k in child care credits. In 2018 we lost the exemptions and itemized deductions but took the 24k standard. Our child care credit stayed at 1.2k and our child credit doubled to 6k. The switch to S-Corp filing meant taxes stayed the same on her salary but the tax on profit dropped significantly since we don't owe self - employed on that any more.
Can't say mine has been that different, but I've historically paid 16-18%. Less than 2% effective seems crazy low.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS