Why you’ll pay for Trump’s tax cut

[jaeger19]

Ahhhh those are state and local taxes and have nothing to do with federal taxes or Trump and they get FICA reimbursed through the EITC which is a defined benefit program anyway and they get the benefit, money when they retire.

The fact remains they MAKE MONEY off the FEDERAL tax system, they pay a negative effective tax rate.

You mean a negative income tax rate.

And the fact is.. that over the working life of people who at times have a negative income tax rate.. over their life many. if not most are net income tax payers.

Plus.. when it comes to federal taxes., they still pay federal taxes on things like highway taxes etc.

If you want just to say income taxes.. well then yes. at some points people can have a negative tax rate.

But its not correct to say that overall they pay a negative effective tax rate.

 

[Stinger]

Only an unabashed partisan hack, who only cares about perpetuating talking-points and misinformation, would make that statement. Who cares what the statutory rate is? It's the effective rate (psst, the rate that they really pay) that matters, which is 18.6%.

On a partisan would ignore the statutory rate which is the highest in the world but do convince me why we should have a corporate tax rate higher than Argentina and it's successful economy.

 

[Stinger]

Reagan had to sign the bills (unless it was a veto override, in which case I'd like to know which of those 11 times he was overridden).

So you do NOT believe such things should be negotiated between the political parties and can you convince me you voted for Republicans in order to sustain these vetoes? Regan requested LESS spending every year than Congress authorized and they failed to pass all the spending recessions he sent to them. It was the Democrats who pushed for higher taxes while Reagan pushed for lower spending, not the other way around.

 

[Critter7r]

Employers don't pay payroll taxes on the amount they contribute to healthcare insurance (if they have an employer plan).

Its one reason that employers are likely to offer healthcare insurance.

its two edged sword though.

With employer provided healthcare insurance.. the company gets a substantial tax benefit. However.. employer provided healthcare insurance is easier for insurance companies to gouge (studies show that premiums will follow industry performance rather than healthcare experience) which raises the cost of healthcare insurance to everyone. (not to mention portability issues).

So it sounds like requiring employees to pay taxes on the employer portion of health insurance benefits isn't even helping employers, it's just adding to the tax burden of employees.

 

[Stinger]

You mean a negative income tax rate.

DUH

And the fact is.. that over the working life of people who at times have a negative income tax rate.. over their life many. if not most are net income tax payers.

Facts not I evidence bht then we know lots of people at tbe top don't remain at tbe top so what is your point? The fact remains that the top 1% pay aout 40% of income taxes, the top 20% pay almost 90% while those at the bottom pay virtually nothing.

If that is not fair then what would be? If that is not progressive enough what would be?

Plus.. when it comes to federal taxes., they still pay federal taxes on things like highway taxes etc.

If you want just to say income taxes.. well then yes. at some points people can have a negative tax rate.

But its not correct to say that overall they pay a negative effective tax rate.

On federal taxes and that tax burden it is 100% correct and the discussion here and trying to conflate that with state and local taxes is a dodge amd diversion.

 

[jaeger19]

DUH


Facts not I evidence bht then we know lots of people at tbe top don't remain at tbe top so what is your point? The fact remains that the top 1% pay aout 40% of income taxes, the top 20% pay almost 90% while those at the bottom pay virtually nothing.

If that is not fair then what would be? If that is not progressive enough what would be?

Plus.. when it comes to federal taxes., they still pay federal taxes on things like highway taxes etc.



On federal taxes and that tax burden it is 100% correct and the discussion here and trying to conflate that with state and local taxes is a dodge amd diversion.

Pretty convoluted post from you.. but federal taxes are not just income taxes. They are things like highway taxes, excise taxes, FICA, etc.

And the poor still pay federal taxes.. for most not federal INCOME taxes.. but federal taxes? their tax liability is not zero.

And truly.. "conflating state and local taxes" is not necessarily a dodge and diversion. Not when you consider that federal money supports the states, and so federal tax policy effects local and state tax policy as well.

So.. less federal tax that say wealthy pay.. this means that states may not get the federal grants that they normally get... which means they have to fill their budget in other ways.. one of which is state sales taxes which is highly regressive.

 

[jaeger19]

So it sounds like requiring employees to pay taxes on the employer portion of health insurance benefits isn't even helping employers, it's just adding to the tax burden of employees.

Actually.. the tax burden would increase on both the employers and the employees..

The reason that both democrats and republicans support these measures to impose tax on healthcare benefits (democrats call not taxing healthcare benefits a "subsidy). Its to decrease the number of employers that offer heatlh insurance coverage.. and to push people out of employer sponsored plans.. to individual plans.

the idea is that then the insurance companies will not be able to gouge the profitable companies for insurance.. thus lowering the cost of insurance. (in other words.. if Apple, Google and Amazon are capable and willing to pay 10,000 per employee for insurance.. this increases the cost of insurance for Jaeger19 healthcare business... )

Obamacare has a provision in this to try and reduce this by taxing "Cadillac plans". In other words punishing employers that bought expensive insurance plans (the problem is.. the reason it could be expensive is because the insurance company gouging them.. not because the plan covered things others didn't).

 

[Geoist]

I bust my butt in school.. college, and med school.. while some of my classmates snickered behind my back calling me a nerd.. and were proud of getting c's and their escapades with the cheerleaders.

What college/med school has students that snicker at other students for being 'nerdy?' :lol:

I now make 1 million due to my hard work and pay 100,000 of dollars back to the public (not to mention all the salaries I provide to people, the taxes I pay for half of FICA)

Hard work should be rewarded with high salary. And while higher earners would pay a higher percent, they would still be making more money than the average citizen so the incentive is still there.

they make 25,000 and pay just 2500 back to the public...

While my 100,000 helps finance their healthcare insurance?

And its NOT FAIR TO THEM?

As I mentioned before, if we are to have an income tax it should be determined by the burden it imposes on the taxpayer. 20% is a far greater burden to someone making $25K per year than it is to someone making $2.5 million a year. You are going to disagree, and that is fine, but that is just the way I see it.

By the way, wealth does not always determine 'how hard' someone works, and not every low-earner was a 'C' student.

 

[Geoist]

No they do not due to the various deductions and credits they pay a negative income tax, IOW the MAKE MONEY off the tax system.

This is false for the vast majority of working poor.

about 60 percent of those who pay no income tax will work and owe payroll taxes. (Most of the other 40 percent are retirees whose income is too low to owe income tax.) Of those who work, two-thirds will have payroll tax liability in excess of any refundable income tax credits. Thus, only about 9 percent of households have their payroll tax fully (or more than fully) offset by those refundable credits.
A Closer Look At Those Who Pay No Income Or Payroll Taxes | Tax Policy Center

 

[Geoist]

First the analogy is self serving nonsense and it has nothing to do with wealth, if the doctor has the same wealth and is not so stupid that he doesn't invest it then he will have investment returns and those will be taxed at the same rate as the investment returns of the "heir". Second the vast majority of the "wealth" also have earned income and pay the same earned income rate as the doctor.

No one said anything about investing. Look at the chart again.

 

[Geoist]

Ahhhh those are state and local taxes and have nothing to do with federal taxes

My response was to those who claimed the poor pay NO TAXES... PERIOD.

 

[Geoist]

This thread has been ENTIRELY about federal taxes and Trumps federal income tax reform, you falsely injected state and local taxes because you were losing your point. If you want to discuss your particular states tax system start a thread on it because the vary stated by state.

Perhaps you need to reread the thread and what posts I was responding to.

 

[Geoist]

The person made no such claim

"Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
I would love to cut taxes for the poor. But the poor would actually have to start paying taxes to actually get a cut in them."

The two are connected. Unless you are skirting the system and working for cash, then you are paying taxes. Vast majority of poor work, therefore, the vast majority of poor pay taxes.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The two are connected. Unless you are skirting the system and working for cash, then you are paying taxes. Vast majority of poor work, therefore, the vast majority of poor pay taxes.

In Texas (as in many other states) you pay sales tax and excise taxes no matter where the funds you spent came from. Even those working for cash, like myself, still pay some taxes even if paying no income tax.

 

[Geoist]

So you do NOT believe such things should be negotiated between the political parties and can you convince me you voted for Republicans in order to sustain these vetoes? Regan requested LESS spending every year than Congress authorized and they failed to pass all the spending recessions he sent to them. It was the Democrats who pushed for higher taxes while Reagan pushed for lower spending, not the other way around.

Ford and Carter Administrations did a better job of 'cutting government' and they had more Dems in Congress than Reagan. Republicans even controlled the Senate during part of Reagan's Administration. While Reagan certainly wanted to cut certain federal programs, he also wanted to increase federal spending for other programs like foreign aid and even pushed an $8.4 billion increase to the IMF.
https://mises.org/library/sad-legacy-ronald-reagan-0

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.

Gee, that doesn't sound like much of a fiscal conservative. Time to face the reality of your saint.

 

[jaeger19]

What college/med school has students that snicker at other students for being 'nerdy?' :lol:

.

DUH.. high school. those guys in high school who got C's are the ones making 25,000 dollars. Seriously.. you are trying to be obtuse.

Hard work should be rewarded with high salary. And while higher earners would pay a higher percent, they would still be making more money than the average citizen so the incentive is still there.

Except you are making me pay a higher percentage because of my salary.. that's punishment form making more.

In a flat tax.. I will be paying the same percentage as everyone else.. but of course because I make more.. that actually amount of money will be more paid in... but I don't get penalized percentage wise.

As I mentioned before, if we are to have an income tax it should be determined by the burden it imposes on the taxpayer. 20% is a far greater burden to someone making $25K per year than it is to someone making $2.5 million a year. You are going to disagree, and that is fine, but that is just the way I see it

Exactly... so I have to pay more in percentage because I worked harder than my classmates.. and I have to subsidize them because they chose to goof off in high school.. while I did not.

And you think that is "fair".

By the way, wealth does not always determine 'how hard' someone works, and not every low-earner was a 'C' student

Very true. But wealth does not always determine how "easy" someone had it.. nor that they should be punished for hard work.

 

[Kushinator]

Yes they are

Misinterpretation of reality at best... partisanship is the more likely explanation.

"On December 19, 2014, the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining holdings of Ally Financial, essentially ending the program. TARP recovered funds totaling $441.7 billion from $426.4 billion invested.

I am well aware. Government intervention in the form of capital injections into the banking system was crucial in maintaining confidence in our financial system. Certainly not a supply-side solution!

Yes they do and as shown demand side economics fail.

TARP was a failure? :lol:

we are 8 years passed the end of the recession with the last two, after the Republicans taking control of the Congress marking the turn around into a recovery and not just a whimpering.

Republicans in Congress have impeded the recovery for political gain, at the expense of the American people. Now that they control the WH, deficits and debt are no longer an issue.

Strawman, never made that claim so why should I argue it?

Here is your statement:

The fact remains the Democrats ran on a huge expansion of government and spending, put that in place and the deficits soared and the economy suffered.

I have no reason to wonder why you've failed to mention what policies Democrats put in place.

Yes high growth normally comes at the start of a strong recovery, what's your point?

That your intent is to point fingers at Democrats, and not make coherent statements.

 

[MTAtech]

Let's take the wayback machine to 2009, when the usual suspects, who now blame President Barack Obama for a slow recovery were warning back then of imminent disaster, and have been wrong every step of the way. They predicted soaring interest rates and soaring inflation, which didn't happen. They declared that the Affordable Care Act would be a huge job-killer; the years after the act went into full effect were marked by the best private-sector job creation since the 1990s.

Now that they were consistently wrong in their predictions, they whine that growth -- which has been positive, hasn't been strong enough. Let's also remember that Trump's job creation numbers aren't better than Obama's.

 

[Fenton]

Let's take the wayback machine to 2009, when the usual suspects, who now blame President Barack Obama for a slow recovery were warning back then of imminent disaster, and have been wrong every step of the way. They predicted soaring interest rates and soaring inflation, which didn't happen.

The Fed discount rate is and has always been a significant economic indicator and the FED discount rate under Obama hovered right around zero throughout Obama's Presidency. The FED lowers its discount rate to incentivize lending and increase economic activity in a slow economy. Apparently the FED wasn't as impressed as the average Obama supporter when it came to his economy. The Obama and the Media figured the average Obama supporter was too unsophisticated to notice the discount rate, and they were right

They declared that the Affordable Care Act would be a huge job-killer; the years after the act went into full effect were marked by the best private-sector job creation since the 1990s.

Ill go ahead and just defer to Donna Brazille's 2016 analysis of Obama's economy....:lamo

“I think people are more in despair about how things are—yes new jobs but they are low wage jobs. HOUSING is a huge issue. Most people pay half of what they make to rent "

Now that they were consistently wrong in their predictions, they whine that growth -- which has been positive, hasn't been strong enough. Let's also remember that Trump's job creation numbers aren't better than Obama's.

When Trump isn't presiding over Obama's economy and job killing policies and regulations, and is presiding over his own, then its fair to compare Trumps economy to Obama's

 

[Stinger]

Ford and Carter Administrations did a better job of 'cutting government' and they had more Dems in Congress than Reagan. Republicans even controlled the Senate during part of Reagan's Administration. While Reagan certainly wanted to cut certain federal programs, he also wanted to increase federal spending for other programs like foreign aid and even pushed an $8.4 billion increase to the IMF.
https://mises.org/library/sad-legacy-ronald-reagan-0

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.

Gee, that doesn't sound like much of a fiscal conservative. Time to face the reality of your saint.

What don't you understand? He requested less spending every year than Congress authorized and Congress failed to pass all the spending recessions he sent them to cut spending. Had they accepted his spend levels and cuts the deficits would have fallen to under $100B heading to surplus.

 

[Stinger]

Misinterpretation of reality at best... partisanship is the more likely explanation.



I am well aware. Government intervention in the form of capital injections into the banking system was crucial in maintaining confidence in our financial system. Certainly not a supply-side solution!

Nothing misinttepreted except on your part. TARP was no a supply or demand side program. It was a series of bridge loans and weeding out of bad assets and tbe government made money off of it.

TARP was a failure? :lol:

See above. Obama's huge demand side stimulus was.

Republicans in Congress have impeded the recovery for political gain, at the expense of the American people. Now that they control the WH, deficits and debt are no longer an issue.

Obama got his stimulus it was not blocked, he got his Obamacare. He and the Democrats got their huge deficit spending and it failed. And yes the more power the rephblicans got the lower the deficits.

Here is your statement:

And as I said I didn't blame them for the recession.

I have no reason to wonder why you've failed to mention what policies Democrats put in place.

See above that's just some.

That your intent is to point fingers at Democrats, and not make coherent statements.

That you can't provide and intellectual response is not my problem,

 

[Stinger]

They declared that the Affordable Care Act would be a huge job-killer; the years after the act went into full effect were marked by the best private-sector job creation since the 1990s.

Well we didnt need a lot of job creation since the 1990's because everyone was working. That s why incomes rose during that time. That's why businesses concentrated on increasing productivity. Thanks in part to the Democrats failure to put in plafe policies to mitgate the slowdown and then recession we had record job losses and then this "record job" creation which of course did mot keep up woth population growth and while we have full employment now we also still have low LFPR.

 

[oneandrew]

Why you’ll pay for Trump’s tax cut

When Trump demands tax reform ... it's not for your benefit.

That is correct. People need to realize who benefits from this tax break. Well, one of the people that certainly does is $T himself. Isn't that the real reason he wants Obamacare repealed and put that money to fund the tax break for the wealthy. But it's easy to show that those tax breaks really don't work at all. Here's why, Cons will tell you that Reagan cut taxes for the 1% and a lot of jobs got produced. Bush jr. lowered taxes for the 1% and unemployment went down again by 0.5%. Here's the swindle: both of those Presidents doubled the Defense budget and that indeed creates jobs, but the GOP counts them as tax-break jobs so you will continue to give them license to do that in the future.

Ok, so you cut taxes for the 1% now what happens? It's very simple -- nothing happens. That's because 1% spends on a nifty condo on a tropical island, or a 2-masted ocean going sail boat made of teak. None of those things increase GDP and result in no new jobs. Now, the 1% will invest money if they think they have a good product in a growing economy. That may produce jobs but it's not a seed that makes jobs happen. I would be the first to agree that American corporations a due a tax break, but not the way GOP does it. All that would happen is the 1% put the money in their pockets and you never see it. They don't invest money just because of a big tax break, they invest it because it's a good investment. And they have the resources to do it without the tax break. For tax reform, we could offer a higher deduction for capital spending, advertising, and anything else that increases GDP, that creates jobs, but the open-ended tax break does not.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why you’ll pay for Trump’s tax cut

When Trump demands tax reform ... it's not for your benefit.

If we made corporate taxes zero, we would export more products, and import less.

Taxing productivity was always a bad idea and needs to stop anyway.

 

[Lord of Planar]

We're supposed to believe that "The Heir" contributes so much more to the economy than "The Doctor" simply by parking their inherited wealth somewhere.

The question shouldn't be why is the heir only paying 14%, the question should be why should the doctor pay 34%!