How 'Bout That New Tax Adjustment?

originally posted by: and14263
The guy has more money and we have members still managing to claim this is bad. Sheesh me finks some brain is broked.

Is more money at the expense of the deficit worth it?

a reply to: Deplorable

Imagine the tax cut we would have if the $21,000,000,000,0000 debt was paid off.

In my opinion it was a foolish move to do these cuts now. What needed to happen was to cut spending and keep the record taxes flowing in and pay off the debt.

But paying off the debt is going to take an adult that can communicate with the American people and explain the consequences of allowing the kiddies to run the govt. The US population would have to be behind the paying off of the debt.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: Deplorable

If you are ok with CHUMP CHANGE while the tax bill give Don the Con's billionaire buddies tens of millions in tax break you really need a reality check.

You call it "chump change" but the asstard leftists wouldn't even do that.

I guess you'll send any extra money back to the government because you don't need it.

Only chumps think the tax cut will give them some change.

Horse and sparrow economics at it's most pure.

Some day we'll have a worthless socialist and taxes will get raised. so just hang in there.

originally posted by: Painterz

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: Deplorable

If you are ok with CHUMP CHANGE while the tax bill give Don the Con's billionaire buddies tens of millions in tax break you really need a reality check.

You call it "chump change" but the asstard leftists wouldn't even do that.

I guess you'll send any extra money back to the government because you don't need it.

Not the mud pit fella. Wind in the casual insults eh?

Not an insult, a casual observation on those that enjoy/endorse higher taxes.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: intrptr
Whats that 2500 a year?

2500 more of the man's own earnings than he was allowed to keep for himself under the previous administration's tax policy.

The top 20% of earners paid 95% of net tax revenue last year... of course they're going to see a larger chunk of dollars left in their possession under any fair tax plan. I mean, really... it's not even difficult math to understand there, man.

there's another way to look at it
you make 50,000 a year, while I make 5,000,000 a year.....we both pay 10% in taxes.....you pay 5,000 a year in taxes, while I pay 500,000 a year in taxes, total net tax revenue 505,000 dollars....therefore I ended paying over 95% of the net tax revenue....so....your point is that, America NEEDS TO BORROW MORE MONEY, so I...paying 500,000 a year in taxes, leaving me 4, 500,000, can get a tax break........ok then

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Nyiah

47% of earners pay zero dollars in net income taxes and actually saw more money in IRS rebates paid to them than they paid to the IRS last year... your idea of what is and what is not "fair" isn't sustainable.

A portion of that '47%' is senior citizens who already paid taxes on their current 'earnings' (~10% of that 47%).

A huge chunk is workers that earn so little working that they fall below the threshold required to pay taxes (~24% of that 47%).

Another third chunk is families that have workers but have children and the income they earn is exempt through dependents such that they don't pay taxes (~7% of that 47%).

So, that's at least 41% of the 47% that work or had worked.

Speaking of - you are aware that workers pay payroll taxes on income to the IRS, yes?
That's 7.65% of their taxable income up to the cap - which means people that earn more than the cap ($127,200) pay lower rates on this particular tax. Some of it might come back, if you live long enough to collect.

Saying 47% received more money than they paid is not an accurate statement.

As to the topic, I haven't seen an increase in my wages as an increase in health insurance costs reduced my take home..

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: visitedbythem

I worked from 1969 to 2007. I always paid my taxes, never needed welfare, support the troops and the poor, went through the birth process 3 times, bought a house with cash, get grandchildren off to and from school, help a disabled husband, involved in my community and politics. I am not a thief.
What have you accomplished for others?

It's misguided jealously.

Somehow, they don't realize that the increasingly rich folks at the very top keep taking more and more of the fruits from their hard work for themselves. Productivity increased dramatically since the 1970s, yet wages for everyone not rich remained virtually stagnant.

It's class warfare indeed - and the rich like Mr. Romney are winning it. The 47% talking point is simplistic and naive, but it makes an excellent rallying cry that the rich can use to deflect their share of the blame for someone's economic hardship to those who have absolutely the least to do with it.

a reply to: Deplorable


MAGA!

Great to see how out of touch some are...to say that $1000 let alone $2500 is "scraps" just reinforces that point

An extra couple hundred dollars each pay check makes a huge difference to a true middle class and especially working class family. I am happy to see this has helped you and yours out as well Deplorable

Those talking about paying thousands of dollars in rent are not part of the solution for the middle class either. Things are so expensive where they live, because they have socialized economies which are directly funded through exorbitant taxes. I assure each and every one, if those same apartments were in non-urban areas, you'd be lucky to pay 5-600 a month for

No middle/working class family can afford that kind of rent. In this area, despite its ~hour proximity from Pittsburgh (A very large city) rent is very reasonable, cost of living is reasonable, taxes are reasonable and most importantly the people are "in touch" with reality RE: living expenses. And keep in mind this is far North PA. Many have already learned what others have difficult time with, when cash is tight you have to cut non-neccessities (cell phones - the expensive kind, prepaid will save $$, television, etc) especially when your entire household "only" makes $3000-$4000 a month IF you're lucky.


But I suppose our elitist "friends" in the big city have never had to choose between a new iPhone and putting food on the table or keeping your family warm. We should just be happy to hand over our money to the government so it can blow it on whim-of-the-week. Never mind the fact that a lot of people struggle just to keep their head above water directly thanks to USGOV taking 33%+ out of their pay checks. Can't fathom that anyone thinks this amount should go up and not drastically down. 1-5% is a closer ballpark, but ideally it'd be less.

originally posted by: JBurnswhen your entire household "only" makes $3000-$4000 a month IF you're lucky.

$4000 a month puts you at just about the median income. By definition, 1 in every 2 people is doing better than that. I wouldn't call that lucky.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Deplorable

Let's call that an extra $235 per month.

Whats that 2500 a year?

Out here, thats not even one months rent.

80 % of the tax 'breaks' went to the Rich.

Let me guess. You're the same crowd that thinks the govt should pay for women's birth control because they can't afford it (~ $500 per year). But now you'll turn around and scoff a the working person keeping an extra $2500 of their own money they earn.

a reply to: Deplorable

I am glad for you having some extra $$$$$$$.

However i believe that the corporate tax rate will have to be extended to all people across the board or the corporations will have to lose there personhood status.

It is very unfair to have different tax rate for a certain set of "people".

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: and14263
The guy has more money and we have members still managing to claim this is bad. Sheesh me finks some brain is broked.

Is more money at the expense of the deficit worth it?

When the economy becomes more successful, there will be more taxes paid, even at the lower rates, because more money will be earned.

a reply to: BlueAjah

What you say is true but the maths don't work.

No matter the size of our economy we can never catch up to the wasteful spending that has been done in the last 30 yrs.

Unless we go all evil and start culling peoples based on cost to the system.

Me thinks someone is racing to 30 trillion in debt.!

a reply to: howtonhawky

There are reports that Trump has been ordering every department in government to cut spending. Other changes he has made reducing regulations will also cut costs. Of course there is a long way to go, and federal government definitely does overspend, because it is way too huge and has expanded its power beyond reason.

However, consider that every company that comes back to the US because of lower tax rates will be building and hiring. Every building and business supports other businesses that offer needed services. People that were previously unemployed will now be working and paying taxes. They will also become less of a burden on welfare, etc. And people who are earning more, both due to the improved economy and lower taxes will spend more, helping the businesses they buy from. If this incrementally increases, then there could be a significant increase in tax revenue.

You can't argue with allowing those who work for a living to have a bit extra in the paycheck. You can argue with giving billionaires a huge tax cut while increasing government debt to the point where the rest of the world has little faith in the US economically. It was the wrong move at the wrong time and the next year will prove this to be extraordinarily true. All the weapons in the world will not make a difference this time.

a reply to: BlueAjah

That would be great if that happened but those are just reports vs the actions that have been taken.

I truely hope and i do also believe that some good things are happening that are not mainstream yet.

However looking at this situation with the facts we have provable to date it does not support any good future in terms of debt.

The potus is the type of guy that does have the ability to make us less broke again but currently he is not doing that.

So freaken far he has brought us further into debt than any other. That is a problem.

Hopefully he has a whole deck of cards up his sleeve cause just an ace will not work this time.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Deplorable

Let's call that an extra $235 per month.

Whats that 2500 a year?

Out here, thats not even one months rent.

80 % of the tax 'breaks' went to the Rich.

Nancy, is that you?

It looked good at first glance, due to the fact that the married filing jointly standard deduction went up. We always itemize, and it's always more than the standard deduction. But, it looks like the personal exemptions will be going away, so we will end up paying more even when taking the standard deduction, by close to 1k.

The only way I can see to offset a little, is to do more pre-tax investing to bring down our bracket, but we needed to do that anyway. We are not "rich", whatever that even means. We are very comfortable, but haven't always been this way.

It does seem as those who make a good income in between the middle and upper are the ones that get very few breaks, I wonder what percentage our payments make in the grand scheme of things.

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Deplorable

Let's call that an extra $235 per month.

Whats that 2500 a year?

Out here, thats not even one months rent.

80 % of the tax 'breaks' went to the Rich.

Let me guess. You're the same crowd that thinks the govt should pay for women's birth control because they can't afford it (~ $500 per year). But now you'll turn around and scoff a the working person keeping an extra $2500 of their own money they earn.

Lemme guess, the gubment keeps 30-40 percent of your check but you jump for joy when they throw you a small bone.