Let's pretend like your calculations are correct, they are not, but let's pretend

Where do u think the extra revenue to cover all of these cuts come from exactly?


If you don't mind, I'm also curious as to your income and education level

Wow, it is crazy some of the perspective in the thread here. People talk about 200k as if it isn't that much. For me, anything above 100k is wealthy. If you make over 100k then you're probably a millionaire.

I really hope the government doesn't take away the roth. That would make me very sad. This thread is starting to depress me.

I agree generally and $250k is pretty rich, but $100k is not often a millionaire. $6000/mo after taxes, $3k for rent/mortgage, $1k for health insurance, $1k for food, $2k for your college kid's school, car insurance, gas.....damn, maybe $250k isn't so rich.

We kind of have one of those here though not gates rich their in 100 million club. Bet that throws off the median income, which apparently does not matter. Im an idiot on all this stuff...

The disconnect in discussions like this is because most people think of only three classes: lower class, middle class, and upper class. Maybe that was a decent description at one point, but it's certainly not today.

There is a huge difference between people who make a median income, and those who make, say, $200k. And there is another huge difference between people who make $200k and billionaires.

They should be thought of as completely separate categories.

The (annual) deficit is the difference between what the federal government spends in a given year and what it collects in taxes in that same year. This number has been positive every year since 2000 (i.e. spending > collection). When you add up all the deficits from every year, treating a surplus like a negative deficit, you get the national debt, which is currently around 20 trillion dollars, about 4 trillion of which is held by Social Security.

Sam Brownback's disastrous experiment in Kansas was about "deficit funded tax cuts," in which one cuts taxes but does not cut spending correspondingly, because magic growth and Arthur Laffer will make up the difference. Of course, the spell did not work. Their government could not afford to pay for public education and their bond rating fell, among other disasters. This is what will happen on the national level when the GOP passes their federal tax cuts. No lessons learned.

It goes without saying these aren't disasters from a certain perspective. It's baked into a lot of high-level/elite-deplorable assumptions, sort of like a semi-bluff. They get two ways to win:

1. they get super lucky, all of their fantastical growth happens because of or in spite of their policies, so the public treasuries are still filled.
2. the predictable stuff happens, there are huge budget shortfalls as predicted, so public services (education, health, transit, public unions, welfare, etc.) bear all the costs and burdens and cuts. This is 'starving the beast' or whatever they call it, and they absolutely plan for this too.

It's win-win. They always pay less. One unlikely outcome is magic happens and everyone gets richer through promised growth. The more predictable outcome where the government budget becomes a disaster, and crushes people who are poor or rely on government services. What do they give a ****? They've been prattling on about how these are lazy mooching parasites who need to ween themselves from government and find their bootstraps anyway.

Stop assuming they didn't learn their lesson, that we share common desired outcomes. Government not being to afford to pay for things after their huge tax cuts is a totally acceptable outcome for them.

Now, let's veer into imagining what that world might look like: think of all the working and grovelling that normal people will have to do for capital owners, probably at some discounted rates without the government to fall back on. Imagine how were might fete and honor their ability simply to pay people for labor -- and their dynamic ability to literally create labor and roles. Think of all the lobbying capital owners will be able to do to allow monosopny and monopoly firms to buy things, hire, and sell stuff to people without much regulation or labor unions to worry about. Think of all the private solutions like schools they'll need. Think of all the consumer credit instruments and high-leverage finance normal people will need to keep up their old and imagined lifestyles, dreamed up by marketers. Maybe they'll need cool medicines to solve their back and body pain from labor, which might even create a whole new industry of addicted consumers they can get the government regulators to ignore, which won't be hard if they don't have money to operate anyway.

"This is what will happen" -- my friend, my inner leftist says in a whisper here that 40 years of continued lurching into ever-more reactionary right-wing positions that the future isn't THAT far away, and not isolated just to really ****ty backwaters like Kansas.

No, it’s accurate. If you are a partner at a law firm or work in private equity and earn 1 million or more in the top bracket Trump’s plan will save >~250k minus whatever deductions they eliminate. ~200k is reasonable for a lot of those people.

A portion from limiting deductions, most wont be covered and national debt will increase.

Not really relevant, but PhD in math but I work in finance now.

Repealing death tax + banning death itself seems like the way to go

Just for the record I was making a joke.

I still dont get how this will keep the govt running.. if they want to cut corporate taxes , cut tax rates etc etc.. will they be ok with a much smaller govt or are they just going to borrow for a tax cut again.

The Republican true believers will be. To them the only real legitimate purpose of government is to protect property. The Koch's already signaled they're fine with deficits.

Someone has to build the yachts.

Mircobet is from SoCal. I'd assume that's standard there. In my part of PA you could own a palace plus acreage for $3k/mo

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the fledgling yacht boom will not do much to move aggregate demand for the economy as a whole.

As I posted earlier it depends on your zip code. If you are making 250k then in the majority of the country you are doing very well. When you live in high priced areas then not so much. I wouldn't call you rich if you live in the San Fran/Metro NY/Chicago/LA or similar areas. Are they hurting, no but not rich by the same metrics as those living in other areas of the country making the same amount.

I mean cost of living dictates to a great deal how well we'd consider someone to be doing who makes $100k, but being in SoCal is no excuse for blowing half your wad on a mortgage. If you can't afford owning a home because even 1500 sqft homes cost your family $3k/month then time to find what $1500 will get you in renting a 2 or 3 bedroom further from city center or whatever.

its 3k for me too, still upset at some of my family for giving up their rent controlled apartments in the early 90's .

You know there is history on this right? The 1990 tax on yatchs and what it did to some of the local economies.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/199...achts-harrison

Maybe I'm grossly out of touch then.

Could you move 20 miles away and save $1k per month?

Depending on your location a move of 20 miles will add 45/60 minutes to your commute. So it might be a quality of life issue.

The median salary in San Fran is 78k.

it is,, i live on mulberry and hester ,, my office is on elizabeth and canal (2 small blocks) , my gf works in soho ,, which is a 5-10 minute walk .. i see cars every day stuck for what has to be 45 minutes trying to get into the holland tunnel. I grew up and have lived more than half my life in manhattan, so yeah , i can move out , and i have before , but in the end , it's hard for me to move out of here .

Also, this tax reform will obviously hurt people in my state and jersey if they do away with some these Schedule A deductions ... NY state tax is high, NYC tax is high . My gf bought some property in Atlantic city as our summer house last year, and when crunching the numbers if it made sense , tax implication played a huge role.. She currently could write off ALL interest and property tax on her schedule A.