How much did your paycheck go up from Trump's tax plan?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
That does sound like a good idea, I agree. That's probably because I view helping those less fortunate than me as an intrinsically good thing worthy of spending money on. That's entirely irrelevant to this discussion though.

The relevant point is how funny I find it that conservatives are so excited about a tax cut bill that ends up raising their taxes, all so Republicans can cut taxes hugely for extraordinarily rich people. I mean you have to admit that is pretty hilarious, right? Surely we can at least both laugh together at the stupidity of middle class conservatives who supported this.

If the rich by and large pay most of the taxes, which by many accounts they certainly do...

https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0811/taxes-who-pays-and-how-much.aspx
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-income-tax-1428674384
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/

...then it stands to reason that any broad tax cut would affect the highest contributors the most. Is that not so?
 
Reactions: SlowSpyder

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
The analogy of this tax plan that I came up with is this. Say you are 50 years old and have 1 million in your 401K. The government comes along and liquidates your 401K. They then write you a check for 500K. Would you be happy? In the face of a highly stimulated economy, borrowing substantially from our future for trivial payouts today is not good governance.

So taking half of your $1MM is the progressive plan (fighting 'wealth inequality' by giving it to the poors and all that), so what's the Republican plan? Because your scenario doesn't resemble tax cuts in the slightest.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,320
15,117
136
Does that graph hold if you include total compensation and not just wages?

https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/productivity-and-compensation-growing-together



The wage gap might disappear to a large degree with healthcare wasn't so damned expensive.


I remember my former employer telling me how I really made 18k more than I did because of health care. What's funny is that I opted out of their health care coverage and wasn't receiving any benefits from them for years.

Its fun to watch how companies and politicians manipulate the people into thinking they aren't getting pissed on (these latest tax cuts are a great example).
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,173
5,639
146
Ah yes, the objectivist's myth: that every talented person will rise to wealth and fame, and that poor people who stay poor deserve their misery.

You know damn well that's a lie. The US alone has plenty of wealthy people whose "talent" was being born in the right family, having the right connections or using shady tricks to climb to the top. Do you think the Kardashian sisters were genuinely brilliant business strategists? Hell, there's a certain US President who wouldn't be where he is if if weren't for his rich daddy and his eagerness to cheat contractors.

You need a healthy government framework (including a support system) because real life isn't an Ayn Rand fantasy where everyone gets exactly what they deserve. Talent gets stifled by poorly funded public schools, unaffordable colleges, a lack of local career opportunities and, sometimes, discrimination. Successful people get taken down by layoffs or injuries. It's easy to say "screw you, got mine" when you're a middle-class white man who will never really know what it's like to be denied opportunities because of the conditions you were born into.

Hell, just look at the disparity we've seen between even moderately wealthy people. Take the "affluenza teen" or what's his face (the Stanford Rapist). If they were minorities they get max sentences with no leniency. You change them to poor white people, and they'll get very strict sentences. Wealthy and white, though? Slap on the wrist.

It doesn't matter. Nothing you can say will change their beliefs about this because its not based on reality or anything but what they want to believe. They grew up on the American Fairy Tale and they refuse to see it for what it is. Because they really believe it based on <insert famous person here>, when those are the exceptions far more than the rule. It is slightly amusing how the relatively well off conservatives on here will unify with other conservatives that are actually the people they're talking about, with both not realizing (unless directly confronted with it) that, because they both buy into a belief of what welfare recipients are (poor black women with a bunch of babies with different baby daddies).

Sounds like a urban elite problem to me; maybe you guys should give up a bit more of your money for bread and circuses and stop doing all you can to segregate yourselves and your children from those poor would-be rioters. You can learn a bit from the suburbs where riots of the poors doesn't really happen.

As usual you're just posting bullshit that shows you suck at knowing basic information. Conservatives are consistently the ones pushing for that type of segregation.

Except that most riots in recent history actually take place in suburbs (or smaller cities in more rural regions that would barely count as suburbs in the larger metropolises, but they rarely take place in the areas where urban elites reside): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States

Even trying to make that distinction at this point is stupid though. As many suburbs have grown to be massive cities on their own, but even from there its the fringe areas that are exactly what suburbs were better represent the urban blight now that lots of city centers/downtowns have been gentrified. Shit doesn't happen in the suburbs you're talking about (which are more affluent gated/segmented communities) because very little really happens there. They're just places for people to eat and sleep and veg out their empty minds to, between their commutes to and from their work. They are not areas to aspire to, they are areas to aspire to get out of (and that's nothing new, Rush was making that point 35 years ago). I don't know of anyone that dreams of quaint quiet suburbanite life. They just do that as a means to an end, as they try to accrue wealth to do something they actually want to do, or while they're raising their kids. Hell they originally were literally trying to segregate themselves from minorities after civil rights movement started tackling shit like redlining. But then you seem quite on board with that.

Also, you know that the average welfare recipient is white and lives in the suburbs with two kids, right?

Oh and let's not forget that drugs are quite rampant in the suburbs (thanks prescription opioids!). But hey, keep believing that you've found your little pristine, but most of all, white utopia.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126

Um... except the tax cuts were aimed squarely to benefit the rich. I believe all of the permanent tax cuts apply only to the rich.

I have never heard a single economist advocate for tax cuts in the face of a booming economy. This is a time when the country should be shrinking the deficit not increasing it. It makes no sense and will do real long term damage to the country. Any REAL fiscal conservative would admit that. The Republicans dumped fiscal conservatism long ago. They pay lip service to it from time to time but all of their actions demonstrate the exact opposite. Lower taxes and increase spending, that is their one trick pony.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,653
4,125
136
Maybe you should demonstrate you can fix your own problems with your own poors and stop worrying about ours.

Dont worry. Im in KS. Doesnt get much shittier

Although i do work/live in the large KC Metro (suburbs). Well sort of. I'm a bit farther out now, but in a few years well be a part of it i'm sure.
 

sze5003

Lifer
Aug 18, 2012
14,184
626
126
My company just sent an email that you won't see any changes until the paycheck of January 26th. So I guess I'll find out how much more I'm paying Friday.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
So taking half of your $1MM is the progressive plan (fighting 'wealth inequality' by giving it to the poors and all that), so what's the Republican plan? Because your scenario doesn't resemble tax cuts in the slightest.

Do you understand that the Republican tax plan was done on CREDIT? This means that they borrowed from my future and my kids future to give billionaires 60% of this supposed tax cut. I believe in 10 years, the numbers indicate that the billionaires will then be getting 85% of the tax cut and the middle class will be facing a tax increase.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
How many here complaining about keeping more of the money you have earned will be donating the difference to paying off the national debt or giving it back to the government?
 

Fardringle

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2000
9,190
755
126
Haha, the classic conservative cycle:

1) Create deficits through tax cuts.
2) Say that we need to cut government spending due to deficits.
3) Create more deficits through tax cuts.
4) Rinse, repeat.
If it actually happened that way, instead of also tossing in steps (by both parties) where massive new spending is added to the deficit, the four steps you listed would be an absolutely ideal situation. Keep reducing spending by getting rid of things that should not be part of the federal budget in the first place. The federal government should not be in the business of trying to do everything everywhere for everyone.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
I have never heard a single economist advocate for tax cuts in the face of a booming economy. This is a time when the country should be shrinking the deficit not increasing it. It makes no sense and will do real long term damage to the country. Any REAL fiscal conservative would admit that. The Republicans dumped fiscal conservatism long ago. They pay lip service to it from time to time but all of their actions demonstrate the exact opposite. Lower taxes and increase spending, that is their one trick pony.

I'm not sure I'd call the economy booming.

But if you look around conservative circles, for example National Review, there is plenty of criticism for metaphorically putting desert before vegetables. And I largely agree. I think ramping up deficits is irresponsible. But truly, no one is ever going to eat those vegetables, namely withstanding the political price of cutting spending to the degree that it really makes a deficit-difference (cuts to entitlements). Yet it needs to be done.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
How many here complaining about keeping more of the money you have earned will be donating the difference to paying off the national debt or giving it back to the government?

If the 1% do, I would be ecstatic to do so as well.

In any event, your argument is rather weak and does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that the tax cuts are a good thing. We could reduce the federal income tax to 0% and the country would be completely destroyed within a decade. Governments need capital to function properly.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,320
15,117
136
How many here complaining about keeping more of the money you have earned will be donating the difference to paying off the national debt or giving it back to the government?

I'm guessing, since you've complained about the national debt, that you will be one of those people, right?
 

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,630
82
91
I remember my former employer telling me how I really made 18k more than I did because of health care. What's funny is that I opted out of their health care coverage and wasn't receiving any benefits from them for years.

This is a good argument to disassociate health insurance from employment. We should be trying to get employers out of that business.

Its fun to watch how companies and politicians manipulate the people into thinking they aren't getting pissed on (these latest tax cuts are a great example).

There are some good and some bad components, but the worst offender is not simultaneously cutting spending.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
If the 1% do, I would be ecstatic to do so as well.

In any event, your argument is rather weak and does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that the tax cuts are a good thing. We could reduce the federal income tax to 0% and the country would be completely destroyed within a decade. Governments need capital to function properly.

You could just try being honest by keeping the first part and not lying about the second. It's at least refreshing when someone just says they think the rich need to pay more without throwing in the gratuitous and insincere part about "me too." If every non 1% progressive kicked in a bit of their own coin then poverty would be eliminated, they just don't want to and hope the rich will be made to do it for them.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
I'm not sure I'd call the economy booming.

But if you look around conservative circles, for example National Review, there is plenty of criticism for metaphorically putting desert before vegetables. And I largely agree. I think ramping up deficits is irresponsible. But truly, no one is ever going to eat those vegetables, namely withstanding the political price of cutting spending to the degree that it really makes a deficit-difference (cuts to entitlements). Yet it needs to be done.

Obama appropriately bloomed up the deficit to counter the great recession. As the economy healed the deficits fell. Look at the trend line going into Trump's presidency. It is now going to go in the wrong direction for no reason whatsoever except that Republicans are fiscally irresponsible and care more about the donor class than the rest of the country.

 
Reactions: Homerboy

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
I'm guessing, since you've complained about the national debt, that you will be one of those people, right?

No, I quite clearly said I like the money being in my pocket and I'd much prefer to see our government rein in spending. The huge military industrial machine, overused and abused welfare / social programs, and costs due to illegal immigrants immediately come to mind as areas of opportunity to trim fat.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
No, I quite clearly said I like the money being in my pocket and I'd much prefer to see our government rein in spending. The huge military industrial machine, overused and abused welfare / social programs, and costs due to illegal immigrants immediately come to mind as areas of opportunity to trim fat.

Shit.

I was gonna be a grammar nazi and I now realize I'm an idiot.

...

(All this time I thought it was "reign in".)
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
If the 1% do, I would be ecstatic to do so as well.

In any event, your argument is rather weak and does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that the tax cuts are a good thing. We could reduce the federal income tax to 0% and the country would be completely destroyed within a decade. Governments need capital to function properly.

I bet the average 1% pays more in taxes in a year than you or I do in 20 years.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,708
49,291
136

I'm sorry to tell you that you've been duped yet again by unscrupulous conservative sources. Two easy points:

1) The rich pay most INCOME taxes, but their overall share of the tax burden in comparison to their share of total income is pretty much in line with everyone else.



2) Even if you restricted yourself to income taxes alone (and I have no idea why you would do this) it would be extremely easy to make a tax cut that affected everyone relatively equally. If they cut the bottom rate instead of the top rate, everyone who paid the bottom rate would get roughly the same tax cut. If they had a $1.5 trillion tax cut in mind they could have simply kept cutting/eliminating taxes from the bottom up until they got to their dollar figure.

The reason they did not do this is because they weren't interested in cutting taxes for middle class people like you and me. They wanted to cut taxes for rich people, so they did.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,577
12,689
146
I cannot wait for the tax 'cuts' on the 90% get ripped away in a couple years, just in time for a new election (of most likely a Democrat), followed by all the water-carrying fucks in here blaming it on the incoming administration, completely dismissing the fact that this was 'agreed upon' with the massive <$100/mo tax break we're all (potentially) seeing.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
I bet the average 1% pays more in taxes than you or I do in 20 years.

Congratulations. You were able to figure out that a person pulling $100 million in income is going to pay more in taxes than a person pulling in $100k in income. You should get your resume out to MIT, I think you may have a future in math.
 
Reactions: greatnoob and Zorba
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |