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

[glenn1]

Do you agree or disagree that stocks are a good way to grow the economy? Before you answer I'll remind you that stocks made a huge recovery by 2009 after crashing in 2008. I will also remind you that stock prices have been growing at a ridiculous rate. I will also remind you that companies have been doing heavy stock by backs while their huge sums of savings have been going to mergers and buyouts.

So I'll state my point more plainly because you clearly missed it the first time; tax cuts do not grow the economy.

Now would you like to dispute my actual claim?

You still misunderstand how stock markets work. Money invested “in” by definition goes “out” to the person on the other side of the transaction. Stocks neither grow nor decrease the economy, they are simply a means of one person switching high liquidity cash for less liquid shares of stock while simultaneously someone else is doing the opposite.

You can have your discussion about “growing the economy” with resident Keynesians, they’re fine with anything from tax cuts to fake alien invasions as a means of growing the economy. That’s how you come to believe the reason economies crash is because the poor aren’t spending enough money on beer and Cheese Whiz.

 

[Exterous]

Not enough not make a notable difference in my life

The other negatives to deficit spending during an expanding economy are rising interest rates and inflation.

I wouldn't necessarily count those as negatives. Perpetually low interest rates distort certain market segments and remove economic turmoil fighting tools. While inflation is up since the summer its down from its previous winter highs and is right around the nebulous 'ideal' goal of 2%

 

[umbrella39]

Dead account? I've been posting here fairly steady for years. I just typically posted in the technical forums and once in a while in off topic. I'd come here and read but rarely post, but I couldn't resist as of late, the lunacy is overwhelming here and I had to chime in. It all started with the gun threads, how out of touch with reality this forum is. Now I'm here, live with it.

You are a sock... Own it an deal with it... It's pretty much a moot point anyhow, you are a VERY low information concern troll that we all just laugh and poke sticks at... Ipso Facto, you are good for a laugh until your shtick becomes tiring again...

 

[jpeyton]

$0 so far. I think most businesses won't adjust withholding tables until February.

That said, I'll take a hit on my SALT deduction. I live a wonderful blue state, which has a lot of perks, but we're also in the Top 10 of all states for the average individual SALT deduction. My guess is the Democrats who control my state government will craft a workaround for the difference between the $10k I can deduct in my 2018 return and the rest of my state income tax liability.

 

[Atreus21]

15% taxes on someone earning $35k per year is real money, and has a real effect on their lifestyle.

15% taxes on someone earning $500k or 1 million+...isn't really noticeable. It in no way changes their lifestyle that they effectively pay more. Those guys have to get to 40% and higher (actual taxes paid) to notice a real impact.

math is simple. you're just dumb.

Why does 15% matter to someone who makes $35k ($5250 in tax) a year but not someone who makes $500k ($75000 in tax)?

This isn't a question of math, but of opinion. I see that scenario as fair. We take the same portion of every man's pie.

 

[Sunburn74]

Why does 15% matter to someone who makes $35k ($5250 in tax) a year but not someone who makes $500k ($75000 in tax)?

This isn't a question of math, but of opinion. I see that scenario as fair. We take the same portion of every man's pie.

Zinfamous said it perfectly and politicians from almost every country in the world that collect taxes understand and utilize his point.

The reason we don't have a flat tax in this country (ie everyone pays the same percentage) is that it appears fair but actually is a massive tax on the poor because like everything else in the world the value of money isn't the same as it increases in amount. The more money you have the less valuable it actually is to you; to some this is a deceptively simple concept to grasp.

If you make a million a year and have to give 10%, you still have 900,000 to live on. However for those who are barely making enough to feed their families, 10 percent lost can be the difference between food on the table, paying bills, repairing a flat tire, going to college, etc etc. There was a study recently commissioned by the NH state government where they found that when money was the reason why students were dropping out of school, the median cost of the difference between what they could pay currently and what they needed in addition to stay in college was like $480. That's it. $480 dollars extra a semester is the difference between graduating with a 4 year degree or dropping out at year 1.5.

The long and short of it is $400 dollars may mean mountains more to a 24 year old single man than $400,000 to a millionaire even if the percentages are the same in terms of taxes.

 

[mect]

Why does 15% matter to someone who makes $35k ($5250 in tax) a year but not someone who makes $500k ($75000 in tax)?

This isn't a question of math, but of opinion. I see that scenario as fair. We take the same portion of every man's pie.

The difference is a person making $35k has very little if any disposable income. Just as rough but reasonable numbers, lets say the person making $35k spends $30k on necessities, leaving $5k in disposable income. If this person is taxed 15%, he no long has enough money to meet his necessities, let alone any disposable income for recreation. Now if that person instead is making $500k, $30k is still the required amount for necessities, leaving $470k in disposable income. Losing $7500 to taxes, this person still has about $400k in disposable income. We can even be more friendly to the wealthy, and make the assumption that someone earning a larger income is entitled to a better basic standard of living. Lets assume instead that the person making $400k spends $100k in necessities. That still leaves $300k in disposable income, or $225k after taxes. You seriously think that is the same impact as on the person making $35k?

 

[ElFenix]

You still misunderstand how stock markets work. Money invested “in” by definition goes “out” to the person on the other side of the transaction. Stocks neither grow nor decrease the economy, they are simply a means of one person switching high liquidity cash for less liquid shares of stock while simultaneously someone else is doing the opposite.

You can have your discussion about “growing the economy” with resident Keynesians, they’re fine with anything from tax cuts to fake alien invasions as a means of growing the economy. That’s how you come to believe the reason economies crash is because the poor aren’t spending enough money on beer and Cheese Whiz.

big deficit keynesianism isn't about planning long term growth, it's about how to respond to short term cratering of the economy. have you ever read anything in your life that isn't a chain saw manual?


the greatest social experiment that ever freaking occured proved that keynesian economics works to get economies out of the dumps. but for some reason we keep coming back to this idiocy about tightening our belts and putting our nose to the grindstone whenever the economy gets stuck in some terrible low gear.

 

[ivwshane]

You still misunderstand how stock markets work. Money invested “in” by definition goes “out” to the person on the other side of the transaction. Stocks neither grow nor decrease the economy, they are simply a means of one person switching high liquidity cash for less liquid shares of stock while simultaneously someone else is doing the opposite.

You can have your discussion about “growing the economy” with resident Keynesians, they’re fine with anything from tax cuts to fake alien invasions as a means of growing the economy. That’s how you come to believe the reason economies crash is because the poor aren’t spending enough money on beer and Cheese Whiz.

Thanks for confirming that you didn't bother understanding the discussion at hand and would rather argue about something I didn't say.

You've also confirmed that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Keynesian economic theory.

 

[bbhaag]

It's looking to be right about $200 a check or around $400 a month. I'm a small business owner though and there seem to be quit a few changes that affect small business owners when it comes to this new tax bill. Like every time a new tax bills is passed it's a wait and see game. So I will wait and see....Then let my cpa figure it out.haha

 

[Zorba]

Why does 15% matter to someone who makes $35k ($5250 in tax) a year but not someone who makes $500k ($75000 in tax)?

This isn't a question of math, but of opinion. I see that scenario as fair. We take the same portion of every man's pie.

Because it is a hell of a lot easier to live on $425,000 than $29,750. $75K to the one is an extra BMW, the $5250 to the other is the ability to put tires on and do a repair to his 15 year-old car.

I currently save ~60% of my gross income, while taking at least 4 nice vacations a year and live in a nice house. My friends living on dual Oklahoma teacher's salaries live in a tiny, cheap house, have never gone on a vacation their parents didn't pay for, and have basically no savings, they do provide all the necessities for their family, though. Oh, and I pay double their taxes.

This is the difference in being in the top 5% and being in top 45%. I can easily afford more taxes, to claim otherwise isn't an opinion it is willful ignorance. Of course, I would love all the benefits of living in a first world country while paying zero taxes, but that isn't reality.

 

[Zorba]

Not going to lie, I'm loving all of you leftists suddenly care about the debt. Again, this is money I've earned, more of it is going in my pocket. You can keep arguing how terrible that is, but I don't think it is a bad thing at all.

I love how you try to claim that you are/were a dem or dem leaning in other threads, then through out the "leftist" insults here.

Deficit spending during a booming economy makes no since. We are literally taking on debt to "stimulate" the economy at the same time the Feds are increasing interest rate to slow down the economy. Think about that for a second.

Further, what is this job you do and where is it that you live were the federal government does nothing for you? The whole idea that you earned 100% of your income, and the government is stealing it from you is BS. The government has created a framework and infrastructure that allows you and your employer to earn a decent living, in order to do that requires taxes. It is reasonable to pay for the services and infrastructure that allow you to earn your income and live comfortably.

 

[umbrella39]

I love how you try to claim that you are/were a dem or dem leaning in other threads, then through out the "leftist" insults here.

Deficit spending during a booming economy makes no since. We are literally taking on debt to "stimulate" the economy at the same time the Feds are increasing interest rate to slow down the economy. Think about that for a second.

Further, what is this job you do and where is it that you live were the federal government does nothing for you? The whole idea that you earned 100% of your income, and the government is stealing it from you is BS. The government has created a framework and infrastructure that allows you and your employer to earn a decent living, in order to do that requires taxes. It is reasonable to pay for the services and infrastructure that allow you to earn your income and live comfortably.

We've seen this same exact MO many times before. I was a dem.. a real life lefty, now I'm not so much and you are all leftists!

 

[urvile]

That's 185 post tax dollars a month in my pocket for doing nothing different. I'll gladly take it with a smile on my face. If you don't want any extra money that comes your way I can give you my Paypal, you can send it to me.

OK but I can only pay in australian dollars. Which I have been told while overseas previously is not real money. Still every little bit counts. I seriously wish I could get a tax cut.....I pay more in tax than what a member of the working class earn in a year but I don't make trump money so I can't avoid paying tax altogether. It's very disconcerting.

 

[glenn1]

The difference is a person making $35k has very little if any disposable income. Just as rough but reasonable numbers, lets say the person making $35k spends $30k on necessities, leaving $5k in disposable income. If this person is taxed 15%, he no long has enough money to meet his necessities, let alone any disposable income for recreation. Now if that person instead is making $500k, $30k is still the required amount for necessities, leaving $470k in disposable income. Losing $7500 to taxes, this person still has about $400k in disposable income. We can even be more friendly to the wealthy, and make the assumption that someone earning a larger income is entitled to a better basic standard of living. Lets assume instead that the person making $400k spends $100k in necessities. That still leaves $300k in disposable income, or $225k after taxes. You seriously think that is the same impact as on the person making $35k?

You're ignoring the fact that flat tax generally includes a rather sizable standard deduction and that person making $35k wouldn't pay the 15% on the entire $35k or maybe any of it. One proposal from Senator Kyl in 2012 was to give a $75k/person standard deduction, and others proposing flat taxes have also given fairly generous ones also. Thus in most systems your $35k person would owe no or little income tax liability, likely less than he does currently. If we were to consider the flat tax the amount of standard deduction would of course be negotiable. It's not a perfect system and it has its flaws (every possible system does, including the current one) but the internal logic works and doesn't screw over the low income folks like you're suggesting. I'm guessing it would be no sale for the hard progressive left though because one of their core desires is to bring down the rich a few pegs, and a tax plan that concerns itself only with raisiing funds needed to run government and not redistribution has no appeal to them.

 

[soulcougher73]

Not going to lie, I'm loving all of you leftists suddenly care about the debt. Again, this is money I've earned, more of it is going in my pocket. You can keep arguing how terrible that is, but I don't think it is a bad thing at all.

That's because you are short sighted and don't care about the future of the country. Imagine if you were this irresponsible with your own debt and you shackled your kids and wife with it when you died. Only making 100k/year but spending 500k/y on a no balance credit card. Basically you are a selfish person who only cares about himself.

 

[glenn1]

That's because you are short sighted and don't care about the future of the country. Imagine if you were this irresponsible with your own debt and you shackled your kids and wife with it when you died. Only making 100k/year but spending 500k/y on a no balance credit card. Basically you are a selfish person who only cares about himself.

Meanwhile your side wants to spend the credit card 500k/year on welfare for someone else’s family who was even less responsible.

 

[cytg111]

Meanwhile your side wants to spend the credit card 500k/year on welfare for someone else’s family who was even less responsible.

I hope all of you gets a taste of what its like down there.

 

[fskimospy]

I love how you try to claim that you are/were a dem or dem leaning in other threads, then through out the "leftist" insults here.

Deficit spending during a booming economy makes no since. We are literally taking on debt to "stimulate" the economy at the same time the Feds are increasing interest rate to slow down the economy. Think about that for a second.

Further, what is this job you do and where is it that you live were the federal government does nothing for you? The whole idea that you earned 100% of your income, and the government is stealing it from you is BS. The government has created a framework and infrastructure that allows you and your employer to earn a decent living, in order to do that requires taxes. It is reasonable to pay for the services and infrastructure that allow you to earn your income and live comfortably.

I’m as shocked as you are that a left leaning person such as SlowSpyder would be ensorsing a $1.5 trillion, debt financed tax cut that goes almost entirely to the absolute richest Americans.

I was similarly shocked when he told me that he, a gun rights fanatic who thinks white people are the true victims of racism, was a Democratic/Clinton voter until he found out how the DNC was financed.

It’s almost as if he’s transparently lying about his political preferences in the hopes that it increases his credibility.

 

[fskimospy]

I hope all of you gets a taste of what its like down there.

This is a red herring anyway. It is pretty easy to justify social welfare spending for the poor as it reduces the sum total of human misery, which is kind of the point of civilization. The stated purpose of these tax cuts is to cause greater growth to achieve that effect. The problem is that the empirical research shows debt financed cuts like this harm long term growth so they fail at their stated purpose.

In good economic times we should be reducing deficits, which we are not. If we aren’t going to do that though we should at least be using that money to make people’s lives better, not defeating our own purpose.

All moral judgments aside this tax cut is very stupid even when evaluated purely on its stated goals. This is because growth was never the goal either, giving money to rich people was.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I hope all of you gets a taste of what its like down there.

What do you know about it?

 

[ivwshane]

You're ignoring the fact that flat tax generally includes a rather sizable standard deduction and that person making $35k wouldn't pay the 15% on the entire $35k or maybe any of it. One proposal from Senator Kyl in 2012 was to give a $75k/person standard deduction, and others proposing flat taxes have also given fairly generous ones also. Thus in most systems your $35k person would owe no or little income tax liability, likely less than he does currently. If we were to consider the flat tax the amount of standard deduction would of course be negotiable. It's not a perfect system and it has its flaws (every possible system does, including the current one) but the internal logic works and doesn't screw over the low income folks like you're suggesting. I'm guessing it would be no sale for the hard progressive left though because one of their core desires is to bring down the rich a few pegs, and a tax plan that concerns itself only with raisiing funds needed to run government and not redistribution has no appeal to them.

And you continue to ignore the point everyone keeps trying to explain to you. Deductions, btw, are used after taxes have been paid throughout the year, which means the relief you claim they will get isn't very helpful for all but one month out of the year.

Its a no sale for those who can think critically.

 

[glenn1]

And you continue to ignore the point everyone keeps trying to explain to you. Deductions, btw, are used after taxes have been paid throughout the year, which means the relief you claim they will get isn't very helpful for all but one month out of the year.

Its a no sale for those who can think critically.

Selecting the correct W-4 withholdings mean you wouldn't pay a tremendous amount in taxes during the year unless you wanted to. Arguing on the mechanics of implementation isn't an argument against the concept; it would be easier and more truthful if you said you object primarily because you do want a system where the rich get charged significantly more.

 

[IronWing]

The increase in my health insurance premiums swamped any benefit from the Republicans' donor payback bill. I think I'll call this and all future premium increases "The Trump Tax" as gutting the ACA will push the costs of medical care for the newly uninsured back unto the people who have insurance and the uncertainty in the insurance markets created by Trump and the Republicans also pushed rates up.

 

[ivwshane]

Selecting the correct W-4 withholdings mean you wouldn't pay a tremendous amount in taxes during the year unless you wanted to. Arguing on the mechanics of implementation isn't an argument against the concept; it would be easier and more truthful if you said you object primarily because you do want a system where the rich get charged significantly more.

Yes, the country whose citizens do a crappy job of saving and whose lowest earners live paycheck to paycheck would be better off with a flat tax setup so long as they knew what w4 option to select and so long as they saved enough money just in case they do owe money.

This conversation would be more honest if you said you were for the rich getting richer and class mobility to be a thing of the past.