Senate passes tax reform bill

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: oddnutz
taxplancalculator.com...

how much worse off will you be under the new tax plan?

Thanks!

Just did it an it said I'd save over $4600 in taxes!

Ask yourself this. How can everyone be saving money if revenues are supposed to go up?

This right here shows you don't even understand the basics. The reason revenues are supposed to go up is because the projected economic growth will result in more jobs and higher wages. The more people that have income, and the higher their income is, the more tax revenue the government can collect. You can argue that won't happen, but to not even know that that's the theory is just sad. You should study up before you comment on these things.

a reply to: face23785

That isn’t the theory. The long term plan is to destroy the United States. When anti abortionists and republicans figure it out, it will be too late.

originally posted by: face23785
This right here shows you don't even understand the basics. The reason revenues are supposed to go up is because the projected economic growth will result in more jobs and higher wages. The more people that have income, and the higher their income is, the more tax revenue the government can collect. You can argue that won't happen, but to not even know that that's the theory is just sad. You should study up before you comment on these things.

No. I understand the theory fine. The argument is that the economy will expand and grow, so taxing a smaller percentage will still yield higher revenues.

That only works if you're growing the economy by a larger amount than you're cutting taxes.

If you start at 100 and tax at 10%, you get 10 in revenue. If you cut taxes to 8%, then the economy needs to grow to 125 to have the same returns, a 25% growth.

Instead, we're cutting taxes by ~10% but expecting 1% additional growth. It offsets the costs slightly, but we do not come out ahead as far as revenues go. That's why they're projected to cost us $1 trillion. It's deficit spending, saying that my generation, and the generation after mine will have to pay off what's effectively government created jobs in the here and now.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

Then we should do even better at a 1% tax rate right? What about a 0% rate? Why not a -20% rate?

Because of the same principle that sets prices... at which rate do we maximize tax revenue? If we go to 0%, then yes, GDP will increase even more. But at 0% there will be no tax revenue from business. Just like if we increased the corporate tax rate to 100%... sure, we'd make a fortune from one business, but no one would have that one business because they could not possibly make anything with it.

Total revenue forms an inverse hyperbolic curve plotted with tax rate versus production, just as total income does plotted with price versus sales. The ultimate point is the maximum on that curve. Everything so far is an attempt to hit that maxima... and it is obvious we are well past it with present tax rates.

TheRedneck

What you're referring to is a Laffer Curve, which has been completely discredited as a theory. Even if it wasn't discredited, there has never been any serious attempt to find where the break point is on the curve, just a bunch of suggestions and feelings that we can move to the left of the curve.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: face23785

That isn’t the theory. The long term plan is to destroy the United States. When anti abortionists and republicans figure it out, it will be too late.

Anti abortionists? Oh, brother!! Give. Me. A. Break.

If anything destroys America, it will be the turn toward socialism. That is when it will be too late.

a reply to: TheRedneck

MyPillow's troubles aren't due to tax rates. It's due to misrepresenting their product, committing fraud, and several BBB violations.

a reply to: Aazadan

What you're referring to is a Laffer Curve, which has been completely discredited as a theory. Even if it wasn't discredited, there has never been any serious attempt to find where the break point is on the curve, just a bunch of suggestions and feelings that we can move to the left of the curve.

Nice googling.

But it's no theory. It is a fact that total revenue lies on the curve, which is by definition the set of points where supply and demand are in equilibrium. The exact location of the curve is dependent on a variety of economic factors, but it does exist as an inverse hyperbola and therefore has a maxima.

To say different is to tell me that 3 x 4 =/= 12.

As to where we are on the curve at this particular point in time, we can compare our GDP growth and revenues to that of other countries with differing corporate tax rates. That analysis shows that we are far from the maxima and those with lower rates are closer. It therefore makes good financial sense to move toward the other positions to maximize our own return. Finding the exact maxima may be extremely difficult, but realizing we are far from it is a no-brainer.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Aazadan

MyPillow's troubles aren't due to tax rates. It's due to misrepresenting their product, committing fraud, and several BBB violations.

I really don't know much about that. Not my state. I only know they are a small company that has shown exceptional growth (and like to run a lot of ads on TV).

None of what you say, though, affects the point of the conversation in any way. They took an idea, grew, and provided jobs for their community.

TheRedneck

nobody and no company should ever have to pay more than 1/3 (%33) of their income to the government in the form of taxes, if our representatives in government can`t operate and provide us with services for 1/3 of our incomes then they are doing something wrong and need to be replaced.
even with all the taxes they have taken from us they still had to go and borrow 20 trillion dollars to fuel their spending sprees, like drunken sailors on shore leave. enough is enough! anything more than 1/3 of our hard earned money as taxes is just armed robbery.

originally posted by: JustAnObservation
Some of the posts here are astounding. The guy making $60/hour complaining about his entitlements I find particularly disgusting, honestly. Sadly, there are many my age who feel this way these days (I'm in my early 20s).

I'm that person. I'm playing it up a bit in my posts. I don't actually mind that I'm going to lose Medicare/Medicaid and have to purchase my own insurance. That's what I want. It's why I've worked for 15 years to get myself into a position where I can do that. However, there's no way for me to also do that for my family members in need of help, much less while putting away the other savings that i need to be putting away at this point in my life.

More to the point - as a mechanic he currently takes home maybe 20,000 per year after taxes and paying for health insurance. About 1,600 per month. Cost of living is high here - rent was 1,200 (anything less would have landed us square in a dangerous, crime infested area), though we eventually were able to purchase a home and now pay 1,300, which is worth it to have something that will one day be ours vs. paying someone else's mortgage.

Maybe you shouldn't have bought a home then? Housing is expensive. In a healthy budget it should cost no more than 25% of income, and that should include 3 (or more) house payments per billing cycle. If you bring $20,000 that leaves you with $5000/year to spend on housing. Not exactly enough to have a stable budget. The simple conclusion is that if you can't find housing within that price, you either need room mates to get it within that price, or to go without.

Homes are so expensive here, that type of mortgage was for one of the cheapest homes we could find that wasn't sure to be burglarized or shot up within days of receiving the keys, though it is still not in a very safe area.

Then maybe pick a profession that makes homes affordable?

You should be able to pay 4x the houses mortgage payment within 25% of your income. Additionally, you should be able to fully pay off any home within 4 years of owning it. If you cannot do that, you cannot afford it.

Our weekly food budget is $15 (bread, peanut butter, bag of potatoes - leftover funds go towards things like toothpaste, soap), we keep the heat at 50 degrees absolute max in winter, no A/C in summer, we don't have internet/TV service (I use my phone, the only luxury we agree is somewhat necessary in our circumstance, which has a hotspot with a small amount of data per month so I can pay bills, etc), we try to never use any electricity unless absolutely crucial, we don't spend any money on anything that is not an absolute necessity to live aside from what I have mentioned.

I've been there, until the summer I had food stamps, but they weren't much... about $60/month which gave me a food budget of about $120/month to eat from. I'm well acquainted with that. Salads become luxuries, meat disappears from the kitchen. And eating nothing but steamed rice every day takes a real toll on ones psyche. I'm glad I don't have to do that anymore, I did it for about 15 years, a large chunk of that eating the same thing every single day.

And you know what? We would never, EVER even consider any kind of handout/government assistance/what have ye. Our quality of life is NOT what the government is for, it is OUR responsibility to improve it - and we have SO MUCH MORE than the average person in this world! For which we are so grateful, and it is why I do whatever I can to help charities.

You have a shelter you can't afford, virtually no food budget, the inability to even use lights and heat. You're missing computers to work on, you have no entertainment. And your husbands career has virtually zero upwards mobility. How exactly are you going to move up? What's your realistic plan to be in the top 10% by age 50 or top 1% by retirement?

Why should someone working as hard as my husband, or even harder, who manages to make more/move up in the world have to pay for us to have some kind of benefit/entitlement?

Because you're a member of society and clearly need it. As I said before, I have zero issue with taxes as long as they're being spent to help people. I only have a problem when they're a giveaway to the already wealthy.

I can say, with full confidence, anyone making anywhere CLOSE to $60 per hour need not complain about their quality of life (monetarily speaking)!

60 does not go far. That's 40 after taxes, 4200/month. Rent for myself runs $1000, Rent for my mom runs $800. Utilities for me run 300, for my mom 150. Health insurance for myself is 550 (if they even take me), same for my mom when I have to buy her a plan out of pocket because of Medicare/Medicaid cuts.

Rent 25% - $1050
Utilities 5% - $210
Food 10% - $420
Discretionary $420
Savings $2100

That's what that looks like. That's basically enough to buy a cheap $600 apartment for myself, and subsidize my moms apartment with the remainder. Then it's a choice between savings and insurance... can't have both. Insurance means never owning a home, owning a home means dying young of treatable illnesses.

Hint: it's hard!

Why should it be?

a reply to: Aazadan

Here's why you can't understand.

Rent 25% - $1050
Utilities 5% - $210
Food 10% - $420
Discretionary $420
Savings $2100

Not touching rent... I don;t know if that is modest or not in your area.

Utilities... about right.

Food... damn, wanna swap? The two of us eat for about $240 a month ($60 a week). You eating steak every night or what?

Discretionary is ridiculous. If you have that much discretionary spending, you have nothing to complain about.

Savings... right. Do you realize how many people are living on a fraction of what you have allotted for savings? And you still complain?

I see where you're getting the numbers. 25% for rent, 5% utilities, 10% food, 10% discretionary, and the rest (50%) for savings. What, did you read that in a book? Here's how most people have to do it:

Rent/Mortgage: as little as practical.
Utilities: whatever the utility company charges.
Food: As little as possible.
Discretionary: a small percentage of what's left.
Extra food: another small percentage of what's left.
Savings: what's left.

Those books are written for people who have plenty of money. If you never have to worry about the price, that's a good rule of thumb. But if you ever have to worry about the price, it's a load of crap. Plus you forgot a few items... household, repairs, auto maintenance, replacement cost on appliances, holidays, gasoline to name a few. Because these expenses are going to come, and usually they come at the exact wrong moment.

Yep, you have a lot to learn... and it sounds like you have some painful lessons ahead of you. Keep listening to people who don't care what happens to you. They have your money; you bought their book.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Aazadan

If I were you, I'd be embarrassed. You made a lifestyle out of gov't handouts, and b*tch now about taxes and .... oh yeah...this jewel of a comment:

much less while putting away the other savings that i need to be putting away at this point in my life.

You lived off the rest of us while you spent 15 years preparing your "position". And you have the audacity to lecture the poster that made personal adjustments to keep from sucking off taxpayers like a leech.

Society doesn't owe you anything. As a matter of fact, you have had more than your share.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: Vector99 Have you read any of the proposal? The big corporate company's currently pay a 35% corporate tax. That number will drop to 20%. I am still reading this behemoth of a thing. And there is very little information about this out there. I doubt this plan is good for average Joe but we will see I guess.

This plan already admits it will create deficit. The only way to negate that deficit is government spending reduction. The reductions likely won't come from benefit programs, but rather trimming the fat from the steak of governmental employment, how is that bad?

Wrong, increased jobs and wage increases tax income. It has every time personal income has been cut. From JFK to Reagan. The problem was and always has been the bastards increase the spending.

Why would a business add jobs if it didn't need them?

You don't add another cashier if the lines aren't longer.

What makes the lines longer? People having more money to spend. Corporations are not people.

Let me make this simpler, then. Less income tax means more disposable income for the average citizen. More I-pads sold. More line-ups at banks paying bills and deposits into savings. More loans needed to be made to garner interest to cover those deposits. More cars sold....get the idea? All adds up to more jobs. That's why every single income tax cut increased federal revenues.

Go it?? I hope.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Please. Your smarter than that. You imply the 'majors' don't want and wouldn't profit from major corporate tax cuts???

The 'majors' obviously preferred a much higher profit margin that a TPP would have assured.

Even then, screw the majors' goals. The small business community LOVES it.

Taxes are irrelevant to a corporation, they pass those costs on to the consumer. Lower tax rates won't lower prices, those are already locked in, the money will just go to the company shareholders.

Sure, small businesses love it. Small businesses have only 1-2 employees though, and those employees aren't the ones who will be seeing the gains. What you mean to say is small business owners love that they're getting huge raises.

Again, wrong. The competition and there still is competition, for example Ford vs Gm Vs Mopar. To increase sales they will cut prices. In this case all will have more room to make cuts or match the cuts of smaller companies.

When a company wants more business, the promote and take extant business away from competitors. Yes?

Sales, galore. Perhaps not everywhere, but enough to drop prices in highly competitive markets. Bank on it.

The intent to to retain and draw back business to the U.S.. To increase the competitiveness of U.S. Corporations. Add in the down the road penalties to those that don't respond accordingly and by the next election?? Four more years....

a reply to: Aazadan

Sure, small businesses love it. Small businesses have only 1-2 employees though, and those employees aren't the ones who will be seeing the gains. What you mean to say is small business owners love that they're getting huge raises.

That shows you just how uninformed you really are.

In the U.S. a small business is generally one that has fewer than five hundred employees for manufacturing businesses and less than $7.5 million in annual receipts for most non manufacturing businesses. There are some variations depending on the type of business, but this is a basic description.

So, it is not just the mom and pop shop with 1 or 2 employees. Sheesh! You would think with 5 degrees you would have been educated by now. Maybe one more degree, and you'll get there!

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: TheRedneck

MyPillow's troubles aren't due to tax rates. It's due to misrepresenting their product, committing fraud, and several BBB violations.

I know what you mean, we went through that ringer with Obama for 8 years and now your grand kids' grand kids' grand kids will be paying on that debt.

a reply to: queenofswords

I fear we're just flapping our gums here.

The problem is he thinks he knows what real life is like, when in fact he has no idea. All he knows is survival from government and now that he's looking at losing that government teat, the fear sets in. How does one make ends meet? Somewhere along the line, he read on the subject, while we learned on our own.

I grew up, as I mentioned, making a few bucks an hour hauling hay during the summer. I didn't really need money back then; my parents provided my food, my transportation, and my housing. I used that small amount of money to buy things I thought I wanted... and quickly realized how very little it would stretch. I learned that I could ride my bike a mile and a half to the country store, and if I kept my eyes open I could find drink bottles thrown out along the road that were worth a nickel each... if I found 5 of them, I could get me a full one. If I worked hard for the farmers, I would get more calls to come help, because they kept track of who was a good worker and who wasn't. That country store let me mow their grass once a week for $5 (and the old guy who owned it would give me a Mountain Dew).

Believe it or not, I saved almost $300 once doing that. My folks got me an old VW Beetle that barely ran and I fixed it with the money I made and a lot of blood sweat and tears. I bought my gas; I bought tires for it; I bought the parts as needed.

By the time I moved out, I knew enough about handling money to not make too terribly many mistakes.

Today we have lost that. People grow up never understanding how money works, how the economy works, how to get ahead, or even how to not fall behind. They've never had to work... really work... for money. They don't understand what it's worth.

And until they figure out that those fancy ideal budgets are not real, they will never know.

TheRedneck

a reply to: face23785

I can read the script as well as you can. I cannot understand the real world implications...in laymans terms.

Can anyone break it down for me? Seems a bit perfunctory.

I don't understand it, so....hopefully those passing it do...?

a reply to: sunkuong

Pretty simple. Destroy the middle clsss. Back to the feudal system. With the help of Russia and China sympathizers.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: sunkuong

Pretty simple. Destroy the middle clsss. Back to the feudal system. With the help of Russia and China sympathizers.

Ho would giving the middle class a tax cut and more jobs destroy them?