Tax cuts? Not for Oregonians.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #32763
    Vitalogy
    Participant

    Do your own math. My taxes go up under this proposal, even with the elimination of the AMT.

    And keep in mind, elimination of the AMT would have saved Trump $31 million in taxes based on his 2005 +/- tax return (the only one available).

    The whopper is the elimination of the estate tax. In order to be subject to this, you must have an estate worth over $5 million or $10 million for married couples. If Trump is worth $10 billion as he claims (which is false) the elimination of the estate tax is a huge boon to Trump’s heirs. A boon of billions. And he’s not the only one. Add in the Waltons and any other multi-generational wealth families.

    Bottom line, when you cut taxes for the ultra wealthy, the gap has to be made up somewhere. And this current plan not only puts that on the middle class (who will see no tax cut and most likely a combo of an increase in taxes and a reduction in services) but it will explode the deficit.

    If you don’t believe me, see the Kansas tax cuts.

    #32764
    Notalent
    Participant

    The burden goes mostly on people who itemize in high tax blue states. NY, IL, MA, CT, CA, and possibly OR too.

    No longer will the national treasury be used to cushion the blow of high state and local taxes in these areas.

    #32766
    paulwalker
    Participant

    Hmm, all States that went for Hillary. Payback? What a bunch of BS.

    #32785
    Vitalogy
    Participant

    “No longer will the national treasury be used to cushion the blow of high state and local taxes in these areas.”

    Once again, Nofacts who hasn’t been around for a while comes in with a whopper lie.

    It’s a well known fact that blue state pay more to the US Treasury than do red states. Blue states already subsidize red states. Eliminating the deduction for local taxes shifts the burden even more to the blue states to fund the red states.

    I say let the red states go it alone, let’s see how that works out. All this talk about living within the budget is bullshit, red states are sucking the tit big time.

    #32793
    Master of Disaster
    Participant

    The main way this will affect practically everyone is it also eliminates personal exemptions.

    http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/02/news/economy/house-tax-reform-bill-individuals/index.html

    Of course, Republicans are claiming “but you’re standard deduction will double!” This is BS because a single individual currently gets a $6,350 standard deduction and a $4,050 personal exemption for a total of $10,400. The new $12,000 standard deduction is really only a few hundred dollars more than standard annual inflation adjustments in a tax code that provides far fewer breaks. For Married Filing Jointly it’s double the amounts with the same caveats, and those who have children/dependents will find themselves really out of luck especially if those ‘family credits’ either don’t make it into the final bill or when they expire in 5 years.

    CNN also posted a PDF of what’s claimed as the full text of the bill:
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/tax-plan-republicans/index.html

    #32798
    cbaravelli
    Spectator

    I,ll take back the extra $1,600.
    Theory is monetary rotation. The more currency is made or paid, the more taxable events. Tax revenues will increase. Worked for Kennedy and Reagan but this ain’t the 60s’ nor 80s’. We’re not in Kansas any more.
    My concern is exploding the National debt. Congress static scoring limits tax cuts to $1.5T over 10 years or $150B a year. Deficits will be larger for the first two or three years. 2016-2017 budget deficit is $666B for a $4.02T budget or 16.6%. Social Security is no longer a locked box and the real budget deficit is much higher.
    Kansas? Reduce income and business taxes but increase State spending will result in a disaster. Not to mention brewer’s corn (ethanol) market collapse.

    #32800
    Andrew
    Participant

    Deficits don’t matter to Republicans unless a Democrat is in the White House. Reagan tripled the national debt in eight years (after running in 1980 on a promise to balance the budget by the end of his first term – hah!). But most Republicans didn’t start pretending to care about the Reagan debt until Bill Clinton took office.

    The big upside for Republicans of increasing the deficit now: the public won’t see the big national debt increases for years and won’t blame Republicans, once a Democrat is back in office. It just gives Republicans another issue to blame on Democrats. As with Obama, as soon as he took office in 2009, Republicans were furious over the big deficits he had created by January 21, 2009 – how DARE he???

    #32804
    cbaravelli
    Spectator

    Give the people everything they want. This is not a D or R issue. There is not a dime’s difference between the two when it comes to spending your money.

    #32805
    Andrew
    Participant

    There’s a huge difference between Democratic and Republican presidents in creating new debt, given the circumstances they inherited. Obama doubled the debt, but he inherited a $1 Trillion+ deficit and an economy on the edge of collapse, and the deficit was lower when he left than when he took office. George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus and a mild recession and still (after big tax cuts) managed to double the debt and leave huge budget deficits for his successor. Reagan inherited a small deficit and (after big tax cuts) left huge deficits and 3X the debt for his successors.

    #32807
    Vitalogy
    Participant

    The tax plan as it stands is a huge giveaway to the wealthy. Eliminating the estate tax will not create one new job. Eliminating the AMT will not create one single job.

    What it will do is line the pockets of the ultra rich. From the one tax return of his we’ve seen, the AMT cost him $31 million. Does Trump need a tax break of $31 million when we are already running deficits?

    When you give more money to the ultra wealthy, the difference has to be made up somewhere, which is why you see the elimination of all the deductions

    And the 25% pass through? Talk about a loophole waiting to be abused by high earning individuals who will work the system to pay 25% rather than 39.6%.

    Not to mention, it’s never been proven that lowering taxes leads to growth or more tax revenue. But it has been proven that lowering taxes leads to higher deficits and a reduction in services.

    As is the norm, the GOP is fooling the Joe Sixpack’s out there that they will have their taxes cut, but most of them already pay zero in Federal taxes anyway.

    If Joe Sixpack really wanted a true tax break, they should lobby for the Social Security tax to be reduced and the elimination of the cap on it.

    But, that would mean the rich pay more and we can’t have that be the case!

    Meanwhile the Trumps, Waltons, and other ultra wealthy families celebrate their millions in savings on the back of Joe Sixpack who gets nothing but a reduction in services they rely on day by day.

    #32808
    Vitalogy
    Participant

    And for the record, I don’t think this plan goes anywhere in the Senate as proposed.

    #32833
    cbaravelli
    Spectator

    Unlike others, I actually read the pre-markup bill. It is a business tax cut. Recall corporations do not pay the 35-40% income taxes, their customers do. Good for C’s. Confusing for PEs, SEs and LLCs. Particularly the pass-through provisions. Tax accountant employment bill. Sales and local tax reduction elimination is contrary to Jefferson and Jackson doctrines of “you can’t tax a tax”. SALT may return in the Senate version.
    Non-earned income such as capital gains, oil and real estate trusts are still taxed at 15%. Forget Trumps and Waltons. The real fat cats are on Wall Street who buy politicians at bargain prices. GS is its own sovereign entity.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.