It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Byrd
originally posted by: StallionDuck
Looks like he didn't do squat for the middle class. Everyone got a tax break BUT the middle (The people who actually work their ass off) class.
There's some more subtle and worse things there.
If you itemize (a good way for many of us), he eliminates everything but charitable deductions and mortgage interest (gosh, doncha wonder who has lots of mortgages and charitable claims?)
* medical expenses won't be deductible (how many families are struggling with medical issues right now?)
* the cost of education isn't deductible (back to college being only for the wealthy)
* business expense for small businesses
* mileage (for techs who do a lot of travel)
...are among the things you can't deduct.
Higher taxes for a lot of folks.
originally posted by: Lab4Us
Not saying it covers all those expenses because, like others, I would need to see the bill presented as law to determine specifics, but doubling the standard deduction should cover a lot of that for those truly middle class (which to me are families making 100k or less annually).
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Byrd
It should be noted that only medical expenses which exceed 10% of your AGI are deductible. For example, assume AGI $50,000. Only unreimbursed medical expenses beyond $5,000 are deductible.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: BubbaJoe
Not to mention Trump's 24% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber, they are saying this alone will remove the ability of many to buy homes. Go Trump, screw the middle class.
...the beauty of the free market will manifest itself on this in due time, allowing America's timber industry to operate as it should with fewer choking restrictions and less federal legislation. Homes will be built with American lumber, as they should have been all along.
originally posted by: lordcomac
I finally had a little time to read up on this, and found this:
2016 proposed brackers
I can't get the old proposed rates to quote, but basically from what I'm seeing, anyone in the 25% tax bracket now (which is pretty well middle class in these parts) is going to be in the new 25% tax bracket- No change for those of us holding the place up.
However, a lot of people currently in the 15% bracket will be bumped down to only 10%. Granted, in that low an income bracket you're only talking about a couple hundred bucks a year- but when you don't have a couple hundred bucks, a few hundred a year is everything. I know a lot of people who will save a few bucks with this.
the upper middle class is getting screwed a bit, paying 35% instead of 28 or 33... But frankly, if you're taking home 200k a year, you can afford it.
I would like to see a fourth bracket, though. 40% for anyone taking home more than 400k. Nobody earns that much money, so they only way to get it is to be screwing over a lot of other people and taking a portion of their share. CEOs, bankers, government officials... Screw 'em.
I don't fully disagree with brackets he proposed last year. I like that it helps those making a below-livable wage (those who are still working, and haven't given up to be part of the problem, anyway). I'd like to see it help me, too- but we've all got our own priorities. Government getting involved in anything and not raising my taxes is probably the best I can hope for, so I'll be happy enough if they stay the same.
Dropping business tax, though, is a+
That will create more jobs. Granted, you can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting a "help wanted" sign, but maybe dropping the business taxes will raise the wages those signs promise, and get some of these bums off the streets and out of their parents basements.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Mishmashum
Softwood is the ultimate renewable resource, though. It's from seed to harvest able size in 10 years. I don't totally disagree with you where nonrenewables are concerned.
However, even use of forests by removing only logs exported 0.08–1.02 kg P per ha per year, whereas whole-tree harvest removed 0.24–1.75 kg P per ha per year. These harvested systems lost P regardless of harvest intensity and were considered unsustainable in the absence of fertilizer. Not surprisingly, forest harvesting has required inputs of 15–30 kg P per ha per year to compensate.
Flueck, BioScience (2011) 61 (8): 582
originally posted by: pavil
Just playing devils advocate with the left leaning people here: What if 10% of the corporate tax cut was used to boost company
Wages for their rank and file workers? Would you be for or against it?