2017 "Tax Reform": They'll Screw This Up Too, Right? - Page 24 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

2017 "Tax Reform": They'll Screw This Up Too, Right?

...

Page 24 of 101

First

4 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 34 44 74

Last

Page 24 of 101

First

4 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 34 44 74

Last

10-24-2017 , 03:12 PM

#576

StimAbuser

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 8,822

Way more Republicans coming out against a Republican bill than usual.

10-24-2017 , 03:17 PM

#577

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 36,688

Looking forward to some salty Trump tweets aimed at Jeff Flake.

10-24-2017 , 03:18 PM

#578

otatop

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 12,721

Beto O'Rourke is not a Republican.

10-24-2017 , 03:19 PM

#579

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by StimAbuser

Way more Republicans coming out against a Republican bill than usual.

Beto O'Rourke is a Democrat who I think is running against Ted Cruz for Senate next year.

10-24-2017 , 03:42 PM

#580

StimAbuser

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 8,822

Derp my bad, got some false info lol

10-25-2017 , 01:44 PM

#581

TiltedDonkey

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 2,975

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

The PPP says... capping 401k isn't a bad idea

http://peoplespolicyproject.org/2017...y-a-good-idea/

Lower income people have less money in retirement accounts (duh?) doesn't seem like an argument against retirement accounts.

10-25-2017 , 01:53 PM

#582

TiltedDonkey

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 2,975

Quote:

Originally Posted by awval999

We can go round and round on this until we get the final bill, I just can't imagine in the end a Congresscritter would vote for something like that.

The end result of all of this, is going to be a taxpayer's paycheck. Literally the after-tax take home pay that we get biweekly, monthly, etc. We can hem and haw and talk about extra child tax credit, what's deductible and not, but in the end, but the voter is going to see if their paycheck is bigger or smaller on January 1st or whatever when payroll makes the "changes".

Turning a trad 401k into a roth 401k will immediately reduce take-home pay because your retirement contribution will be taken out of take-home pay instead of pretax.

Let me explain.

https://www.paycheckcity.com/calculator/hourly/

$75,000 job with 10% retirement contribution in, let's say, California with a Traditional 401k and a biweekly paycheck. Remember a Trad 401k contribution is exempt from Federal and State income taxes. (Single 1 exemption fed and state)

Bi-weekly Gross Pay $2,884.62
Federal Withholding $424.09
Social Security $178.85
Medicare $41.83
California $135.64
SDI $23.37
401k $288.46
===
Net Pay$1,792.38

Now let's change that into a Roth 401k

$75,000 job with 10% retirement contribution in, let's say, California with a Roth 401k and a biweekly paycheck. (Single 1 exemption fed and state)

Bi-weekly Gross Pay$2,884.62
Federal Withholding$496.20
Social Security$178.85
Medicare$41.83
California$165.15
SDI$25.96
401k$288.46
Net Pay
Net Pay$1,688.17

You just reduced the take home pay of this person by $104 per pay. $208 a month! And he/she isn't even maxing the 401k. And yes, there are financial arguments like, well, technically you can save less in a Roth because it's all tax-free in the end, but you explain that to Joe Taxpayer with your fancy pre and post tax retirement account 'splaining.

My quick calculations on a "full max" employee. $100,000 income and $18,000 full tax deferral? $253 less per paycheck.

That type of **** will get the GOP roasted in the midterms.

Getting me all flustered up in here.

Yeah, this thing seems like the opposite of the normal GOP playbook. Usually, it's do something horrible that people don't really understand so they won't get mad enough about it. Here, it seems to be do something not really that bad that people don't really understand so they will get way too mad about it.

10-25-2017 , 01:55 PM

#583

TiltedDonkey

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 2,975

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victor

sorry dude. that wasnt a dig. for real.

I put the lower middle class as combined income of less than around 250k, esp with kids.

cost of living is high. taxes are high. kids are insanely expensive.

Uh..

10-25-2017 , 01:57 PM

#584

stinkubus

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 4,422

Wouldn't a combined household income of 250k put you in the top 5% or something like that?

10-25-2017 , 02:19 PM

#585

TiltedDonkey

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 2,975

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenorKeeed

It's simply not true. People would be furious if Republicans retroactively made big changes in retirement accounts. Tens of millions of Republican voters would be mad.

Hell I don't think they can even do the 401k thing they're proposing. And that is a pretty small change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

You guys are so cute. You probably thought Trump admitting to sexual assault on tape would matter too.

Man those two things aren't remotely equivalent.

10-25-2017 , 02:20 PM

#586

TiltedDonkey

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 2,975

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson

The Republicans will find some way to spin the numbers to make it look like Joe Six Pack comes out ahead, FOX News will repeat it, Daddy Trump will re-tweet it, and every one of these voters will be fooled.

As stupid as Joe Sixpack is, he will still notice when he actually has less money.

10-25-2017 , 02:35 PM

#587

TiltedDonkey

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 2,975

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

I said upper middle class. A 500k lawyer is a 1 percenter but lives an entirely different life than the people who really pull the strings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victor

Mebbe Trump was reading the thread.

Anyway, weather it's via 401k or not, a large portion of the middle class and lower, say income 50k to 500k, are gonna be paying more in taxes.

You guys all like to redefine the word middle here, but if the 99th percentile guy is middle class, so is the 1st percentile guy. Hint: that guy made ~$0.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllTheCheese

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.

I'm not in favor of these tax cuts, but the fact that Kansas cannot print it's own currency definitely changes the equation.

10-25-2017 , 02:39 PM

#588

TiltedDonkey

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 2,975

Quote:

Originally Posted by raradevils

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.

You can move out of the high-priced area, holy **** you ****ing simpleton.

Spoiler:

10-25-2017 , 02:41 PM

#589

TiltedDonkey

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 2,975

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyrnaFTW

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 .

I pay ~$3k a month for a 800 sq ft apartment but I don't pretend like that isn't a choice and that my location isn't a luxury.

Note: I'm not saying you are pretending that, I just responded to your post b/c I also work in New York.

10-25-2017 , 02:50 PM

#590

otatop

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 12,721

10-25-2017 , 03:21 PM

#591

jt217

veteran

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,020

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey

As stupid as Joe Sixpack is, he will still notice when he actually has less money.

Yea, I don't think this is really true. I mean, I know it's not true for the blue-collar skilled laborers I work around. And like, no one complained when the payroll tax holiday went away. I think a lot of people severely overestimate how much the average american knows about how things (especially taxes) work.

10-25-2017 , 04:25 PM

#592

maulaga58

veteran

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 2,048

How is someone making 45k a year in Ohio. married with a child getting screwed by this tax plan? especially with child tax credit doubling and the first 25k not being taxed at all?

10-25-2017 , 04:31 PM

#593

Victor

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 71,798

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey

You guys all like to redefine the word middle here, but if the 99th percentile guy is middle class, so is the 1st percentile guy. Hint: that guy made ~$0.

thats not the definition of middle class at all. and it never has been. its not literally, "the middle most wealthy".

like, cmon man.

10-25-2017 , 04:36 PM

#594

Victor

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 71,798

Quote:

Originally Posted by maulaga58

How is someone making 45k a year in Ohio. married with a child getting screwed by this tax plan? especially with child tax credit doubling and the first 25k not being taxed at all?

bc it is eliminating the personal exemption https://www.thebalance.com/personal-exemptions-3193153

and other deductions like state taxes may be gone too.

this particular case, 45k and only 1 kid, may be fine. but 60k and 3 kids may not be.

its hard to tell right now without all of the details.

10-25-2017 , 04:37 PM

#595

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by maulaga58

How is someone making 45k a year in Ohio. married with a child getting screwed by this tax plan? especially with child tax credit doubling and the first 25k not being taxed at all?

The child tax credit won't be doubling. Only the personal exemption does, and then the credits for dependents are eliminated.

10-25-2017 , 04:46 PM

#596

Victor

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 71,798

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

The child tax credit won't be doubling. Only the personal exemption does, and then the credits for dependents are eliminated.

this is my understanding, married couple with 1 child under trump gets 24k deduction.

previous plan it was 12,600 for joint filing. then 4,050 for personal exemption and 4,050 for child exemption. so thats 20,700. it proly would rise a bit this year so tack on an extra 150 or whatever.

so ya, with one child, its better under trump in this one scenario from this perspective.

but isnt the lower tax bracket going from 10% to 12%?

and if that couple accidentally pops out another couple children, then they would do a lot better under the previous plan.

10-25-2017 , 05:12 PM

#597

otatop

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 12,721

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victor

this is my understanding, married couple with 1 child under trump gets 24k deduction.

previous plan it was 12,600 for joint filing. then 4,050 for personal exemption and 4,050 for child exemption. so thats 20,700. it proly would rise a bit this year so tack on an extra 150 or whatever.

so ya, with one child, its better under trump in this one scenario from this perspective.

but isnt the lower tax bracket going from 10% to 12%?

Yep, and that's why any "savings" from a higher standard deduction immediately vanish. Who knows what President Bozo's brackets will end up looking like, but a family of 3 would owe ~$2217 using 2017 tax brackets, and ~$2520 using the flat 12% bracket.

Last edited by otatop; 10-25-2017 at 05:18 PM.