'There You Have It': McConnell Says He 'Misspoke' When He Promised No Tax Hike on Middle Class

a reply to: Phage

Ok. My tax rate will still drop by 10%. Whether it's called a bracket or not has zero impact on my finances. Which high earners are gonna see a drop of 6%? Right now, the highest bracket is 39.6% kicking in at $418,400 for singles and $470,700 for married filing jointly. Under both the House and Senate plans, a single person making $418,400 or married at $470,700 will be in the 35% bracket. Single people making over $500K won't even see a rate reduction in the House plan, they stay at 39.6%, and actually their effective tax rate may end up increasing depending on what they've been deducting. And let's not forget all of this is subject to change.

As to why high earners should see a bigger rate reduction than me, they won't. And even if they did, they're still paying a much higher rate and higher outright amount than me, so I don't feel particularly screwed. I wouldn't wanna pay 35 or 39 or whatever the top percentage ends up being. That's a lot no matter how you spin it.

a reply to: face23785

As to why high earners should see a bigger rate reduction than me, they won't.

Good for you, I'm sure you'll make good use of all that money you save. Are you familiar with the Alternative Minimum Tax? Maybe not, since it doesn't affect you. But it's the thing that cost Donald Trump $31 million in 2005. It's the thing that's going away.

In 2017, 29.4 percent of households with “expanded cash income” (which is a broad measure of income) between $200,000 and $500,000 will be affected by the AMT (table 1). That number rises to 62.9 percent for those with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million. In contrast, only 19.9 percent of households with incomes greater than $1 million will be on the AMT.

www.taxpolicycenter.org...

I will not be receiving as great a tax reduction as very many higher wage earners will. I am, pretty much, middle class (on the lower end of it). But, if I do get any reduction, rather than give it to them, I would rather not have it at all and not see the deficit increase as it will.

a reply to: Greven

That's not what I asked.

I asked if Reagan's tax plan in general reduced tax, I did not ask for a comparison to 30 years later.

So from your own quote:

1988 top rate for median: 15% rate 1981 top rate for median: 24% rate

Does that mean that Reagan in general reduced tax for citizens????

a reply to: UKTruth

Did people, in general, pay less tax under Ronald Reagan?

I thought you were talking about that trickle down thing? Remember? Growth. It didn't really help much then, but for some reason it will now.
I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong: Tax cuts don’t equal growth.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Greven

That's not what I asked.

I asked if Reagan's tax plan in general reduced tax, I did not ask for a comparison to 30 years later.

So from your own quote:

1988 top rate for median: 15% rate 1981 top rate for median: 24% rate

Does that mean that Reagan in general reduced tax for citizens????

This is what you wrote, and what I responded to:

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Right, because what happened before has nothing to do with what may happen as a result of the same actions.

This time it will be different. Maybe.

Did people, in general, pay less tax under Ronald Reagan?

Less tax under Ronald Reagan than... what/who exactly???
Your context was left up in the air.

A few things:
1) Reagan increased taxes on the poor by the time the 1988 tax changes took effect - more than a quarter of the population had large tax rate increases.
2) The 1988 tax cut happened in... 1988, which would mean 1988 tax returns that would have been filed in April 1989.
3) The median annual income barely saw a reduction; a married couple at the median income had an effective rate at the 1981 tax rates of 15.28% - the first 19% of income was tax-free, and another 11% of income was at the 14% tax rate, which greatly offset the 24% top rate.
4) Under Obama, tax rates have generally been lower than they were under Reagan.

Chew on that #4 for a bit.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: face23785

As to why high earners should see a bigger rate reduction than me, they won't.

Good for you, I'm sure you'll make good use of all that money you save. Are you familiar with the Alternative Minimum Tax? Maybe not, since it doesn't affect you. But it's the thing that cost Donald Trump $31 million in 2005. It's the thing that's going away.

In 2017, 29.4 percent of households with “expanded cash income” (which is a broad measure of income) between $200,000 and $500,000 will be affected by the AMT (table 1). That number rises to 62.9 percent for those with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million. In contrast, only 19.9 percent of households with incomes greater than $1 million will be on the AMT.

www.taxpolicycenter.org...

I will not be receiving as great a tax reduction as very many higher wage earners will. I am, pretty much, middle class (on the lower end of it). But, if I do get any reduction, rather than give it to them, I would rather not have it at all and not see the deficit increase as it will.

I know you're fully aware of the difference between the tax rate on paper and the effective tax rate you end up paying. There's no way to figure that out for high earners until they reconcile these 2 bills and determine which deductions are staying and going. You can't determine what tax rate high earners are gonna pay. It'll undoubtedly be higher than your rate though. If you really want it to be fair you can offer to pay the government an extra 10%.

Both Ryan and McConnell need new jobs,(at maybe McDonald's.) although it's always been obvious we weren't gonna catch a tax break. Those still go to the useless rich.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: FyreByrd

Miss-spoke my ass. I looked at a list of deductions that will disappear and I will be loosing about five or six. I make less than fifty grand a year and this will cost me at least a thousand in lost deductions. For some it will mean a new yacht.

Fill out your taxes on a single sheet of paper. Bollox

The CBO has also estimated that Insurance Premiums will increase an minimum average of 10% a year with the mandate repeal.

Any tax breaks to individuals are temporary, set to expire in 10 years. All the tax breaks for Corporations are forever.

Not letting people deduct state and local property tax from the math.

This is a thorough eff you to the middle class.

originally posted by: face23785
I have to point out that the $1.5T this is supposed to add to the debt is over a 10 year period, so it's $150B per year. Does anyone know what GDP growth rate was used in that calculation? Someone on TV said they only assumed 1.9% GDP growth per year over those 10 years to get that number. If the actual growth rate is only a few tenths of a percent higher, it will eat up that $150B a year no problem and actually balance. I haven't been able to find a source for that 1.9% number though.

As for the tax plans, under either I get a tax cut, my brother gets a tax cut, and my parents get tax cuts. We're all lower-middle class.

So you and family plan on not getting health insurance?

All analysis and CBO's own estimate say that premiums will rise a minimum average of 10% annually with the elimination of the mandate. Insurance companies have written to congress explaining that premiums will go much higher than that.