Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

    Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
    If you're a single income earner at $150k with three kids, that's a heck of a lot different than dual income at $300k with three kids. Your flat rise/run does a disservice to one family while artificially aiding the other.
    I'm not stating a policy. I'm stating numbers that I think the middle class ends and the well-to-do begins.
    **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

    Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
    Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

    Comment


    • Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

      You know what's funny? I see all these left-wingers in NYS, including Cuomo, whining about the 10k tax cap towards itemizing of deductions. OK, that's not the funny part, aside from maybe Cuomo, who could actually do something about it at the state level. The funny part comes when it's pointed out that what they're doing is advocating for... wait for it... a tax cut for the rich.

      Comment


      • Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

        Q3 GDP growth rate is out. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/us-f...-2017-gdp.html

        3.2%.

        Comment


        • Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

          Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
          You know what's funny? I see all these left-wingers in NYS, including Cuomo, whining about the 10k tax cap towards itemizing of deductions. OK, that's not the funny part, aside from maybe Cuomo, who could actually do something about it at the state level. The funny part comes when it's pointed out that what they're doing is advocating for... wait for it... a tax cut for the rich.
          Yeah because poor people with medical bills are rich мошенник

          Comment


          • Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

            Originally posted by trixR4kids View Post
            Yeah because poor people with medical bills are rich мошенник
            And where does the state and local taxes (including property) have anything to do with medical bills?

            Comment


            • Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

              Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
              And where does the state and local taxes (including property) have anything to do with medical bills?
              It has everything to do with it.
              **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

              Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
              Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

              Comment


              • Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

                Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                It has everything to do with it.
                Please elaborate, including how a "poor person" has a housing asset of, let's say given I'm in NYS, half a million bucks. Adjust for your locale where the property, school, and state/local income tax cost is over $10,000.

                Comment


                • Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

                  You were talking about itemizing deductions, medical bills were one of the things where you can do that.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

                    Originally posted by trixR4kids View Post
                    You were talking about itemizing deductions, medical bills were one of the things where you can do that.
                    And it's not subject to the 10k limit on property taxes that your plea for a tax cut for the rich would repeal.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

                      Code:
                      As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
                      College Hockey 6       College Football 0
                      BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
                      Originally posted by SanTropez
                      May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
                      Originally posted by bigblue_dl
                      I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
                      Originally posted by Kepler
                      When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
                      He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

                      Comment


                      • Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

                        Very well written piece on the tax bill, it's unpopularity, and what that could mean in 2018. A great read even if you are for the bill.
                        Cornell University
                        National Champion 1967, 1970
                        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                        Comment


                        • Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

                          So have the Democrats figured out yet whether the tax bill gives too much away to the rich, or whether it is too punitive for the rich in high-income tax states by capping the deduction for state and local taxes?

                          They've been saying both lately.

                          I ran the numbers for a few states to see the net effect.

                          Top effective federal rate before the cut: 44.6% (39.6% +3.8% Medicare surcharge + 1.2% Pease amendment).
                          Top effective federal rate after the cut: 40.8% (37.0% + 3.8% Medicare surcharge)

                          How does that work out in conjunction with the loss of the deduction for state and local taxes?

                          Minnesota: Before, effective top marginal rate was 50.5%, after it is 50.7% (+.2%)
                          NY State (outside of NYC): Before, effective top marginal rate was 49.9%, after it is 49.6% (-.3%)

                          Basically, the "breakeven" state income tax rate is 9.5% or so; if your state rate is higher than that, for top earners (e.g., annual income > $1 million) it is a net loss, otherwise it is a net gain.
                          That's why California and NY City were screaming the loudest. The top 1% there pay about 40% - 45% of all state income taxes.

                          California: Before, effective top marginal rate was 52.6%, after it is 54.1% (+1.5%).
                          "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                          "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                          "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                          "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                          Comment


                          • Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

                            Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
                            I have an idea. Haven’t played it out in my head, so it might be terrible.

                            Abolish the income tax. Completely. Make whatever you want.
                            Actually, during WWII, the Treasury came up with a somewhat similar proposal, and it was just a few votes away from being passed into law. It is hard to understate how differently our country would have developed since then, it would be more prosperous with a much wider dispersal of wealth had it been enacted.

                            It was very simple and had clear incentives toward saving and investment.

                            1) Take everything that comes into your household during the course of a year, from whatever source (income, gift, inheritance, sale of investments, etc.)
                            2) Deduct the following:
                            -- deposits into savings and investment accounts
                            -- asset purchases (e.g., including the principal payments on a mortgage, not the interest).
                            -- insurance premiums
                            3) Have graduated tax structure on the difference, similar to structure of income tax today.

                            One way to look at it would be that all savings and investment would be tax deductible. YAY!!
                            Another way to frame it would be to call it a "consumption" tax. BOO!!

                            Either way, the ripple effects would have been enormous, especially when compounded over time:
                            -- there would be so much more capital investment in business development, equipment, machinery, the kinds of things that promote higher wages because more skills are required
                            -- our educational system would be so much better because the focus would have been on preparing people to live in that kind of world
                            -- look how much better it would have been for the environment: no one would want to pay for fancy packaging and disposable stuff that overflows our landfills today.
                            "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                            "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                            "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                            "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                            Comment


                            • Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

                              Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                              So have the Democrats figured out yet whether the tax bill gives too much away to the rich, or whether it is too punitive for the rich in high-income tax states by capping the deduction for state and local taxes?

                              They've been saying both lately.

                              I ran the numbers for a few states to see the net effect.

                              Top effective federal rate before the cut: 44.6% (39.6% +3.8% Medicare surcharge + 1.2% Pease amendment).
                              Top effective federal rate after the cut: 40.8% (37.0% + 3.8% Medicare surcharge)

                              How does that work out in conjunction with the loss of the deduction for state and local taxes?

                              Minnesota: Before, effective top marginal rate was 50.5%, after it is 50.7% (+.2%)
                              NY State (outside of NYC): Before, effective top marginal rate was 49.9%, after it is 49.6% (-.3%)

                              Basically, the "breakeven" state income tax rate is 9.5% or so; if your state rate is higher than that, for top earners (e.g., annual income > $1 million) it is a net loss, otherwise it is a net gain.
                              That's why California and NY City were screaming the loudest. The top 1% there pay about 40% - 45% of all state income taxes.

                              California: Before, effective top marginal rate was 52.6%, after it is 54.1% (+1.5%).
                              The rich will all turn themselves into passthrough corporations and carried interest.
                              **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                              Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                              Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

                                Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                                1) Take everything that comes into your household during the course of a year, from whatever source (income, gift, inheritance, sale of investments, etc.)
                                2) Deduct the following:
                                -- deposits into savings and investment accounts
                                -- asset purchases (e.g., including the principal payments on a mortgage, not the interest).
                                -- insurance premiums
                                3) Have graduated tax structure on the difference, similar to structure of income tax today.
                                It would be extremely regressive. Let's a take a low wage laborer under this system. They make just enough to pay their bills, they can't afford a house, they have no savings to speak of. Under this system every cent of their wages is taxed. Now take me, with a big mortgage, a big and growing savings, and big retirement portfolio. A huge portion of my wages is deductible.

                                Now, we could eliminate that by having a steep graduated tax, with a significant 0% bracket, say on the first $50k or so of inputs, making it up on the back-end with 90% on very high inputs say over $10M.

                                There is one good thing about this idea: it rewards savings and punishes spending. But of course that's also bad for the economy as a whole, and is probably unworkable.

                                It seems like all these plans look at the baseline economic condition from the POV of the wealthy, when we should design our taxation system with the needs and realities of the lower middle class and the poor in mind. The entire point of government intrusion into the economy is the improvement of the lives of those least fortunate.
                                Last edited by Kepler; 12-22-2017, 08:32 AM.
                                Cornell University
                                National Champion 1967, 1970
                                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X