Octopus Overlords

YellowKing wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:55 pm If you had asked me 8 years ago how long it would take a Republican President, a Republican-majority Senate, and a Republican-majority House to propose and pass a tax cut bill, I'd have said "Ehhh..maybe 2 weeks if they drag their feet?"

I swear this complete fucktard of a GOP Congress can't even do the ONE thing they're actually good at.

They have this problem that even the gullible dupes that buy their "Black is White" rhetoric will notice when they have to pay an extra $5-10k a year to help subsidize TrumpCuts.

tjg_marantz wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:59 pm

hepcat wrote:Our HR person just stopped by my desk to complain rather passionately about a proposed reduction in 401k contribution limits and other issues he sees as problematic should Trump get his way.

...he voted for Trump.

Tell him to go fuck himself? Or would that be uncouth?

People who realize and admit that they were conned should be welcomed back to reality and shown sympathy.

Yeah, I think apathy is a far bigger problem than Trump supporters.

Trump voters didn't elect Trump. People who couldn't be bothered to take 30 minutes out of their day once every four years to cast a vote elected Trump.

Kraken wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 6:53 pm

tjg_marantz wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:59 pm

hepcat wrote:Our HR person just stopped by my desk to complain rather passionately about a proposed reduction in 401k contribution limits and other issues he sees as problematic should Trump get his way.

...he voted for Trump.

Tell him to go fuck himself? Or would that be uncouth?

People who realize and admit that they were conned should be welcomed back to reality and shown sympathy.

I'm of two minds on this. I don't think you (we) can move forward if retribution is our only tool, nor even simply go to tool in the tool box. But at the same time, I'm not Jesus. I don't know how to always turn the other cheek when the only time them is willing to engage me in a discussion is when them can see their their personal livelihood is going to suffer in the clear light of the sun. I don't have it in me. And there's the religious right. I want to show them compassion and engage in discussion but they are as them as it gets. You hope to engage their next generation but they know this and they're actively combating it and they are winning a lot of battles. Fanaticism is wholly foreign concept to me. While I enjoy sports, I can't even glimpse in to fanaticism there.

YellowKing wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:39 pm Yeah, I think apathy is a far bigger problem than Trump supporters.

Trump voters didn't elect Trump. People who couldn't be bothered to take 30 minutes out of their day once every four years to cast a vote elected Trump.

This is partially accurate. He won because people were too lazy or arrogant to get out and stop him from doing so but his voters did elect him.

Sounds like the Trump Cut Cut Cuts bill is likely to be unveiled today.

It's interesting. With the healthcare bill I thought early on that there was probably like a 5% - 10% chance that they eventually passed the bill or something like it. I raised those odds to closer to 50% by the end as the party continued to embrace madness. With the tax cut bill it's the reverse - I started figuring that there's a 90% - 95% chance of them passing a major (regressive) tax bill. All the fumbling and the embrace of absurdly unpopular ideas, I've now moved that back to like 60%. Which is crazy low given that the modern GOP exists to pass tax cut bills.

We'll see, anyway. Should be a fun ride!

And here we go.

Mortgage interest deductions capped for new mortgages of less than $500k.

Can still deduct property taxes, but capped at $10k.

Child tax credit grows from $1k to $1.6k.

Family standard deduction grows from $12,700 to $24,000. Eliminates personal exemptions.

State income tax deduction eliminated.

I'm just waiting to see how absurd and byzantine it is. They've had years to dream of unified government and these hypocrites manage to still fuck it up. We truly live in the dumbest time.

malchior wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:18 am I'm just waiting to see how absurd and byzantine it is. They've had years to dream of unified government and these hypocrites manage to still fuck it up. We truly live in the dumbest time.

Now is?

Not when we managed to fight a war amongst ourselves?

Not the time we let the Nazis take over much of Europe and try to wipe out an entire ethnicity?

Not the time we tried to eliminate the entire native american population?

Not when we were burning witches at stakes?

This thread is for tax reform, not your usual drive-by nonsense, Rip.

Looking at the WaPo piece it is still apparent this is designed to quiet some of the people in opposition but it doesn't change the math. Unless the rate drops significantly then most people who can claim the property tax piece but not the state piece won't get over the standard deduction anymore. It is likely still a massive tax hike for the high tax states. Especially dropping the personal exemption.

I'll say the mortgage cap is half way clever because they'll say they aren't protecting the rich anymore which is true in the sense that they'll take back 1 cents of the regressive tax reform to get them 99 in return. However it'll bang on people in CA and NY/NJ very hard which makes me wonder if they'll get the votes still.

Edit: This looks like a huge fucking scam. The language is *new* mortgages of $1M. These assholes are going to grandfather in existing folks. I was wondering how this made any sense. They appear to be bribing the blue state GOP members with loopholes that'll expire eventually. But for regular folks...fuck them. I just ran the quick numbers. Capping it at $10K and allowing mortgage interest gets me to exactly $24K at the same-ish rate I pay now. I deducted something like $34000 because of NY/NJ state taxes on top. That is about $10K of deduction I lose on top of the personal exemptions. So still $5K or so for me. They moved the chairs around on the deck. Hopefully people aren't stupid enough not to figure this shit out.

Rip wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:25 am Not the time we let the Nazis take over much of Europe and try to wipe out an entire ethnicity?

I'm pretty sure that there were plenty of other people that were in a better position to try and stop them, and failed either to act or succeed. We didn't "let" them do anything.

Rip wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:25 am Not when we were burning witches at stakes?

We didn't burn witches. We hung them. And that was before we were a country.

I've always thought the mortgage interest deduction was dumb, because subsidizing large mortgages doesn't seem to have a clear public purpose. I never really understood the point of SALT deduction, either. It makes it "cheaper" for state and local gov'ts to raise taxes, which gives them bad incentives to do so.

But these are both tax increases. The key question is what these extra taxes are going to be used to fund. If it's a cut in the top rate, I'm against it. If it's a cut to corporate taxes, I'm fine with that, as long as it's coupled with increasing in the top tax rate to keep the overall progressivity at least as steep.

malchior wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:35 am Edit: This looks like a huge fucking scam. The language is *new* mortgages of $1M. These assholes are going to grandfather in existing folks. I was wondering how this made any sense. They appear to be bribing the blue state GOP members with loopholes that'll expire eventually. But for regular folks...fuck them. I just ran the quick numbers. Capping it at $10K and allowing mortgage interest gets me to exactly $24K at the same-ish rate I pay now. I deducted something like $34000 because of NY/NJ state taxes on top. That is about $10K of deduction I lose on top of the personal exemptions. So still $5K or so for me. They moved the chairs around on the deck. Hopefully people aren't stupid enough not to figure this shit out.

I was channel surfing a couple nights ago and stumbled upon an interview on Kennedy on FBN where a Republican Congressman from Kentucky was saying he was in favor of the tax bill because it removes the "social engineering" pressure to be a homeowner that the current tax structure provides. Which is really backwards, because in some places, owning is cheaper on a monthly basis than renting, even before the tax incentives.

PLW wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:48 am I've always thought the mortgage interest deduction was dumb, because subsidizing large mortgages doesn't seem to have a clear public purpose. I never really understood the point of SALT deduction, either. It makes it "cheaper" for state and local gov'ts to raise taxes, which gives them bad incentives to do so.

The SALT deduction means you're not getting double taxed on that money, though.

PLW wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:48 am I've always thought the mortgage interest deduction was dumb, because subsidizing large mortgages doesn't seem to have a clear public purpose. I never really understood the point of SALT deduction, either. It makes it "cheaper" for state and local gov'ts to raise taxes, which gives them bad incentives to do so.

Fun fact. The SALT deduction pre-dates the current tax code (it goes back to the 1800s) and prevents double taxation. But the hypocrites only complain about double taxation that affects the ultra-wealthy nowadays.

But these are both tax increases. The key question is what these extra taxes are going to be used to fund. If it's a cut in the top rate, I'm against it. If it's a cut to corporate taxes, I'm fine with that, as long as it's coupled with increasing in the top tax rate to keep the overall progressivity at least as steep.

What I care about is that these tax cuts are being born by NY/NJ/CA in large part and NJ in particular gets far less back from the Federal government than we pay. Remember when we had these very same assholes complaining about funding Sandy relief? Or transportation improvements in particular cutting tunnels into NY? Or underfunding Amtrak to the point that trains started derailing in Penn Station? If they are going to rob our pockets we at least deserve some spending coming our way but fat chance of that. This is complete and utter horseshit.

https://twitter.com/scottwongDC/status/ ... 5518592000

Looks like it doesn't mess with the 401(k) deduction, at least.

Also seeing some commentary saying that it looks like the bill will blow through the budget restrictions, and leave for the Senate to figure out. Imagine they may try to wand-wave the different with "dynamic scoring" fairy dust.

Also not mentioned. It appears you won't be able to deduct medical expenses any longer which hurts a lot of folks not in employer plans. A backdoor attack on the ACA to boot. What a nice touch.

pr0ner wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:52 am

PLW wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:48 am I've always thought the mortgage interest deduction was dumb, because subsidizing large mortgages doesn't seem to have a clear public purpose. I never really understood the point of SALT deduction, either. It makes it "cheaper" for state and local gov'ts to raise taxes, which gives them bad incentives to do so.

The SALT deduction means you're not getting double taxed on that money, though.

Consider two cities, one of which buys everyone a pony (A), though taxes, and one of which doesn't (B). Ponies cost $1000 to produce/buy, the federal income tax is 10%, and you love ponies and earn $10000.

Without SALT deduction, a public pony and a private pony cost you the same, in terms of forgone consumption. $1000. So a pony-loving citizen in A ends up with $8000 and a pony, as does a pony-loving citizens in B.

With SALT deduction, a public pony and private pony cost different amounts. A pony-loving citizen in A ends up with $8100 and a pony, while a pony-loving citizen in B ends up with $8000 and a pony.

Thus, under SALT deductions, cities have a stronger incentive to provide ponies than they do without it. Furthermore, citizens who only value a pony at $950 will demand their public provision under SALT, even though they are not efficient to consume.

I haven't heard anything about medical expense deductions. Are those gone or untouched? It's already a high bar; only the amount in excess of 15% of your income is deductible (your insurance premiums count toward this). But people who do reach those huge medical bills really need help.

I hope eliminating the SALT deduction will doom this.

Rip wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:25 am

malchior wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:18 am I'm just waiting to see how absurd and byzantine it is. They've had years to dream of unified government and these hypocrites manage to still fuck it up. We truly live in the dumbest time.

Now is?

Not when we managed to fight a war amongst ourselves?

Not the time we let the Nazis take over much of Europe and try to wipe out an entire ethnicity?

Not the time we tried to eliminate the entire native american population?

Not when we were burning witches at stakes?

you're right. Trump is just as bad as those.

PLW wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:07 am

pr0ner wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:52 am

PLW wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:48 am I've always thought the mortgage interest deduction was dumb, because subsidizing large mortgages doesn't seem to have a clear public purpose. I never really understood the point of SALT deduction, either. It makes it "cheaper" for state and local gov'ts to raise taxes, which gives them bad incentives to do so.

The SALT deduction means you're not getting double taxed on that money, though.

Consider two cities, one of which buys everyone a pony (A), though taxes, and one of which doesn't (B). Ponies cost $1000 to produce/buy, the federal income tax is 10%, and you love ponies and earn $10000.

Without SALT deduction, a public pony and a private pony cost you the same, in terms of forgone consumption. $1000. So a pony-loving citizen in A ends up with $8000 and a pony, as does a pony-loving citizens in B.

With SALT deduction, a public pony and private pony cost different amounts. A pony-loving citizen in A ends up with $8100 and a pony, while a pony-loving citizen in B ends up with $8000 and a pony.

Thus, under SALT deductions, cities have a stronger incentive to provide ponies than they do without it. Furthermore, citizens who only value a pony at $950 will demand their public provision under SALT, even though they are not efficient to consume.

And this addresses the issue of double taxation how, exactly?

pr0ner wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:54 am

PLW wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:07 am

pr0ner wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:52 am

PLW wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:48 am I've always thought the mortgage interest deduction was dumb, because subsidizing large mortgages doesn't seem to have a clear public purpose. I never really understood the point of SALT deduction, either. It makes it "cheaper" for state and local gov'ts to raise taxes, which gives them bad incentives to do so.

The SALT deduction means you're not getting double taxed on that money, though.

Consider two cities, one of which buys everyone a pony (A), though taxes, and one of which doesn't (B). Ponies cost $1000 to produce/buy, the federal income tax is 10%, and you love ponies and earn $10000.

Without SALT deduction, a public pony and a private pony cost you the same, in terms of forgone consumption. $1000. So a pony-loving citizen in A ends up with $8000 and a pony, as does a pony-loving citizens in B.

With SALT deduction, a public pony and private pony cost different amounts. A pony-loving citizen in A ends up with $8100 and a pony, while a pony-loving citizen in B ends up with $8000 and a pony.

Thus, under SALT deductions, cities have a stronger incentive to provide ponies than they do without it. Furthermore, citizens who only value a pony at $950 will demand their public provision under SALT, even though they are not efficient to consume.

And this addresses the issue of double taxation how, exactly?

Also it completely ignores that the states buying ponies pay a lot of tax that pays for ponies in the other states. Those states then don't need to have high taxes to buy ponies.

pr0ner wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:54 am And this addresses the issue of double taxation how, exactly?

Double taxation isn't an "issue", it's a "rhetorical strategy." What matters is final allocations of goods and services.

malchior wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:03 pm Also it completely ignores that the states buying ponies pay a lot of tax that pays for ponies in the other states. Those states then don't need to have high taxes to buy ponies.

So you are against federal taxes, in general? I'm confused.

PLW wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:27 pm

pr0ner wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:54 am And this addresses the issue of double taxation how, exactly?

Double taxation isn't an "issue", it's a "rhetorical strategy." What matters is final allocations of goods and services.

When it comes to what I directly pay in taxes, it's an issue, because I have zero control over how that money is actually spent by governments.

pr0ner wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:42 pm

PLW wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:27 pm

pr0ner wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:54 am And this addresses the issue of double taxation how, exactly?

Double taxation isn't an "issue", it's a "rhetorical strategy." What matters is final allocations of goods and services.

When it comes to what I directly pay in taxes, it's an issue, because I have zero control over how that money is actually spent by governments.

Get your lance, Don Quixote, because that's always been and always will be a thing.

pr0ner wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:42 pm When it comes to what I directly pay in taxes, it's an issue, because I have zero control over how that money is actually spent by governments.

I understand not liking high taxes. I don't understand why it matters whether it comes from losing "(t_state+t_fed) x Income" or comes from losing "(t_state+(1-t_state)t_fed) x Income". What makes one legitimate and the other not?

Because the federal government shouldn't get to tax me on taxes paid to my state.

pr0ner wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:04 pm Because the federal government shouldn't get to tax me on taxes paid to my state.

And my State shouldn't get to tax me on taxes paid to my stupid town.

Isgrimnur wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:45 pm

pr0ner wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:42 pm

PLW wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:27 pm

pr0ner wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:54 am And this addresses the issue of double taxation how, exactly?

Double taxation isn't an "issue", it's a "rhetorical strategy." What matters is final allocations of goods and services.

When it comes to what I directly pay in taxes, it's an issue, because I have zero control over how that money is actually spent by governments.

Get your lance, Don Quixote, because that's always been and always will be a thing.

I guess I should rephrase it in that double taxation is an issue because it directly impacts my bottom line and that is all I care about here.

pr0ner wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:04 pm Because the federal government shouldn't get to tax me on taxes paid to my state.

But WHY? You just restated your position. You didn't give any reasons.

You choose to live in a high-tax state, which (hopefully) provides high levels of public goods. I choose to live in a low-tax state. Why do you pay lower federal taxes than I do, when we make the same levels of income? We both get the same levels of national defense, EPA enforcement, etc.

And why is it ok that they tax you on money that is paid to the state when you pay sales taxes?

Sales tax is deductible on your federal return. Well, it's either sales or income - you can't do both. But I've always thought that was stupid and you should be able to deduct both.

PLW wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:11 pm

pr0ner wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:04 pm Because the federal government shouldn't get to tax me on taxes paid to my state.

But WHY? You just restated your position. You didn't give any reasons.

You choose to live in a high-tax state, which (hopefully) provides high levels of public goods. I choose to live in a low-tax state. Why do you pay lower federal taxes than I do, when we make the same levels of income? We both get the same levels of national defense, EPA enforcement, etc.

And why is it ok that they tax you on money that is paid to the state when you pay sales taxes?

There's some real irony in your argument when you have a "But Her Emails" avatar.

And I shouldn't have to pay taxes to the feds on taxes I pay to Virginia because that money is never part of my adjusted gross income.

On the flip side to your argument, why should someone who has kids pay lower federal taxes than I do, assuming all other circumstances are the same? If we're taking SALT away, we might as well take tax credits away for having children, too. Or get rid of the mortgage interest deduction entirely, because it's not fair that I get to pay less in taxes because my mortgage is bigger than yours. Or any other deduction that makes things "unfair".

stessier wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:20 pm Sales tax is deductible on your federal return. Well, it's either sales or income - you can't do both. But I've always thought that was stupid and you should be able to deduct both.

+1. Though when the option has been available (like when I bought my current car), I've definitely taken advantage of the deduction.

PLW wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:11 pm You choose to live in a high-tax state, which (hopefully) provides high levels of public goods. I choose to live in a low-tax state. Why do you pay lower federal taxes than I do, when we make the same levels of income? We both get the same levels of national defense, EPA enforcement, etc.

If that was all the federal government did, you'd have a case. But it also includes welfare programs and block grants that bolster services low income tax states lack. At that point your argument falls apart.

stessier wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:20 pm Sales tax is deductible on your federal return. Well, it's either sales or income - you can't do both. But I've always thought that was stupid and you should be able to deduct both.

Bonus for states without a state income tax. But you have to itemize your deductions to do it, which isn't always advantageous, not to mention tracking 12 mos of receipts.

PLW wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:28 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:03 pm Also it completely ignores that the states buying ponies pay a lot of tax that pays for ponies in the other states. Those states then don't need to have high taxes to buy ponies.

So you are against federal taxes, in general? I'm confused.

I am not against federal taxes at all and I don't see how that is what is being read here. You made an argument that totally ignores a major reason why taxes are lower in the other states.

PLW wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:11 pm

pr0ner wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:04 pm Because the federal government shouldn't get to tax me on taxes paid to my state.

But WHY? You just restated your position. You didn't give any reasons.

You choose to live in a high-tax state, which (hopefully) provides high levels of public goods. I choose to live in a low-tax state. Why do you pay lower federal taxes than I do, when we make the same levels of income? We both get the same levels of national defense, EPA enforcement, etc.

And why is it ok that they tax you on money that is paid to the state when you pay sales taxes?

Again you are completely missing that the Federal government is pouring more money into the lower tax states. That is part of why they have lower taxes. Some states get twice as many dollars back as they pay out and the high tax states almost all get less than a dollar back on their dollar.

pr0ner wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:23 pm There's some real irony in your argument when you have a "But Her Emails" avatar.

I don't understand the irony. Everyone who supports Hillary over Trump is supposed to support SALT deduction?

pr0ner wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:23 pm
And I shouldn't have to pay taxes to the feds on taxes I pay to Virginia because that money is never part of my adjusted gross income.

That's still not a reason. The policy proposal is exactly to make it part of you adjusted gross income. You are literally saying "We shouldn't change the policy because it would change the policy".

pr0ner wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:23 pm On the flip side to your argument, why should someone who has kids pay lower federal taxes than I do, assuming all other circumstances are the same? If we're taking SALT away, we might as well take tax credits away for having children, too. Or get rid of the mortgage interest deduction entirely, because it's not fair that I get to pay less in taxes because my mortgage is bigger than yours. Or any other deduction that makes things "unfair".

Again, you are the one needs to make an argument about why "double taxation" is bad. I don't have to make an argument for that claim, because I don't believe it. I did make an argument for why a SALT deduction is bad.. it distorts consumption decisions (see ponies, above). Your comments quoted here to speak to that argument at all.