Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
2017 "Tax Reform": They'll Screw This Up Too, Right? 2017 "Tax Reform": They'll Screw This Up Too, Right?

11-03-2017 , 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by StimAbuser
Tips are taxed as well, you have to declare them. Or am I misunderstanding something?
not really. awval, like all republicans, thinks that other people would act like him and cheat on their taxes and not claim tips.
11-03-2017 , 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
Tilted,

You don't think the vast majority of people inherit less than $50k?
I think the median net-worth of someone at death is probably >$50k.
11-03-2017 , 01:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
This is objectively better policy than either current law or the GOP proposal
I've always thought this was a great idea. Why are we so ok--not just ok, but vigorously defending--generational wealth that has created an aristocracy? All men created equal IMO
11-03-2017 , 01:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
A waiter tipping a stripper (with his cash tips)
Waiters are the real lucky duckies under our current tax system, not the Dupont heirs living off money that was taxed back in 1920
11-03-2017 , 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 00cooler00
The bill literally calls out Steph Curry by name as a non-job creator. I think that’s all you need to know about the bill/GOP/Trump.
That's pretty hilarious; Curry co-founded a startup, his endorsement deal has people working on his shoes/etc at Under Armour, his wife is opening a restaurant, he's probably responsible for way more jobs than the typical millionaire dbag the GOP aimed this bill at.
11-03-2017 , 01:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaya
Waiters are the real lucky duckies under our current tax system, not the Dupont heirs living off money that was taxed back in 1920
In this instance their income should be taxed as ordinary income not as capitol gains imo (same as Warren Buffets- if that is your soul source of income).

Last edited by raradevils; 11-03-2017 at 01:19 PM. Reason: added the bolded
11-03-2017 , 01:19 PM
Oh OK, so it's OK to double tax people as long as they're like really super rich, but not if they're just kinda sorta multi-millionaires trying to scraping by.
11-03-2017 , 01:21 PM
Hope the next bill includes language that calls out Carmello for being overrated and only really putting in effort during playoffs.
11-03-2017 , 01:25 PM
Quote:
But while the bill is well-optimized to hit the $1.5 trillion target, it doesn’t appear to work at all in terms of complying with the Senate’s rule that reconciliation bills not raise the long-term deficit. The tax cuts will either have to be made temporary (which is what George W. Bush did) or else some kind of big substantive change to the bill has to be made.
uh oh

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...n-in-one-chart
11-03-2017 , 01:26 PM
Looking at my federal return from last year, my taxable income would increase by $4k but the decrease in tax rate means I'd get about a $3k tax cut. I don't exactly need a tax cut and that money is just going to sit in my bank account, USA#1
11-03-2017 , 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
That's pretty hilarious; Curry co-founded a startup, his endorsement deal has people working on his shoes/etc at Under Armour, his wife is opening a restaurant, he's probably responsible for way more jobs than the typical millionaire dbag the GOP aimed this bill at.
Well yeah but he's black
11-03-2017 , 01:50 PM
They will just make the cuts end after 10 years. Easier for House crazies to pass a permanent version then blame the Senate when some total lunatic tries to primary them.
11-03-2017 , 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimmer4141
lol the GOP accidentally put a good policy into their bill and they're going to nuke it by the end of the day if this gets traction
11-03-2017 , 02:36 PM
It doesn't really seem like a good policy. I mean, it's better than nothing I guess.
11-03-2017 , 02:53 PM
Yeah I don't really see it as a good policy. A higher tax bracket of 45.6% for all income above $1M sure, that's great. Putting in a 200k bubble window is just weird.
11-03-2017 , 03:03 PM
Looks like another hidden bonus in this bill is to tax tuition remittance as income, meaning a typical PhD student on a 20k research stipend gets taxed like a person making 50k. Congratulations, GOP, you have ended graduate school.
11-03-2017 , 03:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Looks like another hidden bonus in this bill is to tax tuition remittance as income, meaning a typical PhD student on a 20k research stipend gets taxed like a person making 50k. Congratulations, GOP, you have ended graduate school.
Mother of god, that's absurd.
11-03-2017 , 03:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimmer4141
Yeah I don't really see it as a good policy. A higher tax bracket of 45.6% for all income above $1M sure, that's great.
But that's never ever happening. So, given these two choices, what's better:
$1m+: 39.6%
or
$1m-$1.2m: 46%
$1.2m+:39.6%
11-03-2017 , 03:14 PM
No more graduate school = no more pesky scientists.

11-03-2017 , 03:15 PM
11-03-2017 , 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
But that's never ever happening. So, given these two choices, what's better:
$1m+: 39.6%
or
$1m-$1.2m: 46%
$1.2m+:39.6%
I know objectively the bottom is better but the weirdness of it almost makes me prefer the top.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Lold
11-03-2017 , 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
But that's never ever happening. So, given these two choices, what's better:
$1m+: 39.6%
or
$1m-$1.2m: 46%
$1.2m+:39.6%
I think you could make an argument that the latter is worse when the gains from those tax increases are being transferred to even richer people.
11-03-2017 , 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
No more graduate school = no more pesky scientists.

Pretty sweet deal if you already have a Ph.D., no need to have to compete in the job market with younger, smarter job applicants.
11-03-2017 , 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
Mother of god, that's absurd.
Yeah maybe but unborn children will be explicitly eligible for 529 college savings plans to counter that absurdity.

      
m