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

[alfablue]

Well the whole D social engineering tax treatment is set up for odd things to fear behavior. From solar tax credits to pinpointed deductions. Start small and encourage. Al gore's "I want to start a back to school retraining credit..."
People who work don't have interest in that. They want to spend times with their families and not go back to night school.

You are moving away from your parties playbook doing that.

As long as corporate subsidies to oil and coal end, too.

Lots of “social engineering” is also done to keep people spending money, since most of the beneficiaries don’t earn enough to save, so all of that goes directly floating through the economy. Saving money without the intent to spend is bad for the economy. At least the one we have set up.

Besides, just simplifying the tax code does not mean all welfare ends.

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Lots of “social engineering” is also done to keep people spending money, since most of the beneficiaries don’t earn enough to save, so all of that goes directly floating through the economy. Saving money without the intent to spend is bad for the economy. At least the one we have set up.

Besides, just simplifying the tax code does not mean all welfare ends.

Are you really saying this in the context of the average worker? Cause right now Corporate profits are at an all time high, Corporations are sitting on Trillions of dollars, AND they plan on using the tax cut for stock buybacks and debt reduction.

The average worker spends all their money.

[joecct]

I’m less concerned about the 45k he pulled out of his *** and more with the fact that his plan penalizes single income families that make the same as dual income families

No more families in tax land, only tax payers. It is called an *income* tax after all. No income, no tax.

Also, by having just a single (income earner) filing status, you get away from the penalty of unmarried couples living together, polymory families, "the marriage penalty", etc.

By giving every taxpayer a large (indexed) standard deduction, you eliminate a lot of filers and paperwork.

Is it a utopian tax plan? Nope. But I feel that it is a darn sight better than what we currently have and will have.

[alfablue]

No more families in tax land, only tax payers. It is called an *income* tax after all. No income, no tax.

Also, by having just a single (income earner) filing status, you get away from the penalty of unmarried couples living together, polymory families, "the marriage penalty", etc.

By giving every taxpayer a large (indexed) standard deduction, you eliminate a lot of filers and paperwork.

Is it a utopian tax plan? Nope. But I feel that it is a darn sight better than what we currently have and will have.

How is it better? You tax single income families considerably more than dual income families. That seems like a terrible idea from both a family option standpoint and the impact on the worker pool size.

And no breaks for kids? I thought you hated abortions, but this could increase it thanks to the cost.

Seems like a worse structure by a wide margin.

[ScoobyDoo]

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

How is it better? You tax single income families considerably more than dual income families. That seems like a terrible idea from both a family option standpoint and the impact on the worker pool size.

And no breaks for kids? I thought you hated abortions, but this could increase it thanks to the cost.

Seems like a worse structure by a wide margin.

Yeah, and skimming 12% off the top from every worker in America is better.

[alfablue]

Are you really saying this in the context of the average worker? Cause right now Corporate profits are at an all time high, Corporations are sitting on Trillions of dollars, AND they plan on using the tax cut for stock buybacks and debt reduction.

The average worker spends all their money.

My “social engineering” is social security and Medicare. Not corporate hand outs. SS money goes right into the economy.

[alfablue]

Yeah, and skimming 12% off the top from every worker in America is better.

Progressive tax rates work fine, as far as I’m concerned.

Treat income all the same, and reduce the kinds of odd deductions. That will fix most of the issues.

Other than rich people being mad.

[ScoobyDoo]

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

My “social engineering” is social security and Medicare. Not corporate hand outs. SS money goes right into the economy.

That's not social engineering. Most of that money was going into the economy in the first place.

[joecct]

How is it better? You tax single income families considerably more than dual income families. That seems like a terrible idea from both a family option standpoint and the impact on the worker pool size.

And no breaks for kids? I thought you hated abortions, but this could increase it thanks to the cost.

Seems like a worse structure by a wide margin.

The tax code is, in reality, a social engineering code. Our plan returns it to revenue generation.

[Kepler]

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

The tax code is, in reality, a social engineering code. Our plan returns it to revenue generation.

Everything is "social engineering." You think laissez-faire isn't social engineering? There is no natural baseline from which policies artificially diverge. Everything is negotiated the instant people begin to live in groups.

"Social engineering" is an empty catch phrase.

[alfablue]

The tax code is, in reality, a social engineering code. Our plan returns it to revenue generation.

No, yours is far more direct social engineering. By a wide margin as I have pointed out.

And that’s not even considering your moving single deduction target. Which adds a whole level to social engineering.

[mookie1995]

I have read this sentence six times and I still can't parse it.

Gear

Auto correct screwup

[St. Clown]

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

So I was talking to my dad and he mentioned that the new tax law has provisions where you will be “required” to sell your stock shares first in, first out. We couldn’t come up with any way of enforcing that or even how that law would work. Would someone like Wells Fargo have to determine if their shares are your oldest?

Anyone else heard anything about this or how it would work?

Also, he worked for a company that inverted and now the dividends will no longer be considered qualified dividends. Might have been changed in the final bill but yeah. Another little Christmas present.

Trust accounting systems (also brokerage systems) track all of your purchases as separate "tax lots". This goes back to their creation, really. You had the option of LIFO, FIFO, or cost-averaging the sale of your shares.

To go with that, a number of years ago (7 or 8, maybe), Cost-Basis Reporting had a big push, so even shares you're gifted from gramps now required their original costs tracked from the old system/company/account into your account. How they're tracked for actual tax purposes at time of sale is another matter entirely.

I know nothing of this rule you're mentioning, if it exists.

[dxmnkd316]

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

I’m aware of most of that. All of that tracking used to be on the consumer. A law required the brokerage or holding company to track the lots a few years ago.

I’m more interested in the fifo rules that come with this new law.

ETA: looks like FIFO was excluded in the final version.

[FlagDUDE08]

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

DJIA now at 25000.

So much for that crash that would happen if Trump was elected.