2017 "Tax Reform": They'll Screw This Up Too, Right? - Page 33 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

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

...

Page 33 of 101

First

13 23 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 43 53 83

Last

Page 33 of 101

First

13 23 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 43 53 83

Last

11-03-2017 , 12:58 PM

#801

Victor

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 77,657

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

#802

TiltedDonkey

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 2,975

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

#803

JoeC2012

veteran

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 2,717

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

#804

vaya

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 15,156

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

#805

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

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

#806

raradevils

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 8,189

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

#807

otatop

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 12,721

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

#808

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 38,351

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

#809

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,320

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

#810

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

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

#811

JoeC2012

veteran

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 2,717

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

Well yeah but he's black

11-03-2017 , 01:50 PM

#812

Riverman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 73,129

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 , 02:19 PM

#813

Zimmer4141

Wet

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 33,727

https://www.politico.com/agenda/stor...bracket-000570

Super Logical!!!!

11-03-2017 , 02:33 PM

#814

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zimmer4141

https://www.politico.com/agenda/stor...bracket-000570

Super Logical!!!!

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

#815

TiltedDonkey

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 2,975

It doesn't really seem like a good policy. I mean, it's better than nothing I guess.

11-03-2017 , 02:53 PM

#816

Zimmer4141

Wet

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 33,727

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

#817

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

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

#818

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 38,351

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Mother of god, that's absurd.

11-03-2017 , 03:13 PM

#819

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

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

#820

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 100,714

No more graduate school = no more pesky scientists.

11-03-2017 , 03:15 PM

#821

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 100,714

11-03-2017 , 03:18 PM

#822

TiltedDonkey

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 2,975

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

#823

Zimmer4141

Wet

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 33,727

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

#824

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 38,351

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

#825

Namath12

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 55,849

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.

Page 33 of 101

First

13 23 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 43 53 83

Last

...

Page 33 of 101

First

13 23 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 43 53 83

Last