Octopus Overlords

Ah K I get you point. I'm just trying to say at the end of the day your taxable income is going to go up because of the removal of the personal exemption. If you itemize or not is based off of the standard obviously. For most itemizing over 24K isn't going to happen especially when they remove some of the main things that would get you that high. So at the end of the day the taxable income will go up. This doesn't mean taxes are going up because of child credits and rate changes it could go down. Mine looks like I could get a sweet sweet 10-20 bucks a month! WOOOOOOOO MAGA

pr0ner wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:13 pm

El Guapo wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:09 pm

Kurth wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:06 pm This is going to be crushing for charities.

Awesome. What does this do to charities? I assume that kicking puppies is now deductible but giving to charities is not?

Maybe he's saying that if people aren't easily able to deduct their charitable contributions from their taxes due to the increase in the standard deduction, they will be less likely to donate?

Exactly that. Some donations will certainly continue because people are deeply committed to the charitable organization and want to contribute to its mission. But there are a ton of donors who can only afford to donate (or to donate at their current levels) because the itemized deduction they can claim come tax time makes that donation much more palatable.

If most households will be simply claiming the standardized deduction, that will go up in smoke.

My situation is a two working parent household with 3 kids and a sizable mortgage. Using the Market Watch calculator, based on last years numbers, we would pay:

$712 more in taxes under the House bill if we took the standard deduction (tax rate before child tax credits at 19.3%)
$934 less in taxes under the House bill if we itemized (tax rate before child tax credits at 19.1%)
$1,754 less in taxes under the Senate bill if we took the standard deduction (tax rate before child tax credits at 18.7%)
$1,102 less in taxes under the Senate bill if we itemized (tax rate before child tax credits at 18.7%)

So, if what passes ends up looking more like the Senate bill than the House bill, I guarantee our charitable donations are going to take a haircut. We just won't be able to justify giving as much without the tax incentive. And I'm pretty sure we won't be alone in that.

How are you owing so much more in the house bill? The child credits?

*edit*
Never mind. I see you mention the child credits right in your description.

Octavious wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:54 pm How are you owing so much more in the house bill? The child credits?

Two factors: (1) we're getting $400 less per kid for a total of $1200 less in credits; and (2) the tax brackets under the House bill jump right up to 25% after the first 90K, where the remainder of our income from last year would fall under the 22% and 24% brackets in the Senate bill.

Just for shits and giggles, I went back and ran our 2015 numbers through the calculator. Wow. I had forgotten that my wife didn't have a full time job for much of 2016, but in 2015, she was employed and I made significantly more money. All told, our income was over 30% more in 2015. Using those numbers, under the current tax reform bills, we would have paid:

$4,363 less in taxes under the House bill if we took the standard deduction (tax rate before child tax credits at 22.9%)
$8,255 less in taxes under the House bill if we itemized (tax rate before child tax credits at 22.5%)
$17,867 less in taxes under the Senate bill if we took the standard deduction (tax rate before child tax credits at 20.5%)
$18,156 less in taxes under the Senate bill if we itemized (tax rate before child tax credits at 20.5%)

Unless I'm doing something wrong with the calculator, this seems like it paints a pretty clear picture of where the benefits are flowing under these tax plans, but especially so for the Senate version.

I think this is almost entirely due to the graduated brackets in the Senate plan. Under the House bill, for our 2015 income, the majority of our income is taxed at 25% and we even have a pretty significant spillover into the 35% bracket. Under the Senate plan, we never pay more than 24%.

JCT report just came out. Net delta of new debt versus current policy is $1T over 10 years. #MAGA.

malchior wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:08 pm JCT report just came out. Net delta of new debt versus current policy is $1T over 10 years. #MAGA.

But hey, John McCain takes the debt concerns SO SERIOUSLY. His brow is SO FURROWED right now.

1T is actually better than the 1.5! Progress! I wonder what the impact would have been to the cost if they just cut the rate to say 25% instead of 20%. I know I know. Crazy it HAS to be 20%! Hell it should be 15%!

El Guapo wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:10 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:08 pm JCT report just came out. Net delta of new debt versus current policy is $1T over 10 years. #MAGA.

But hey, John McCain takes the debt concerns SO SERIOUSLY. His brow is SO FURROWED right now.

He's also glad to see that this one followed 'regular' procedure. Even though we (and the Senate) still don't know what's in the bill they're presumably voting for tomorrow.

From one of the inventors of supply side economics...

https://twitter.com/BruceBartlett/statu ... 58882?s=17

For the past several years we've been borderline between itemizing and taking the standard deduction. Presumably this will tip us into standard permanently. If so, I'll stop paying a CPA to do our returns, so that'll save a few hundred bucks. I also shifted Wife's 1099 income to Kraken Enterprises, further simplifying our personal return. Her teaching checks still go under personal, but those are W-2 income with taxes withheld. So the only real wildcard going forward will be our K-1 income, for which I still need my CPA.

As I understand it without drilling down (because it's not a done deal until the House and Senate reconcile), most of us can expect a small tax cut in the first year, which gradually turns into a tax increase in subsequent years. But the deltas are fairly trivial. This bill isn't about ordinary taxpayers.

More drama. This is totally not a rush job just to pass something.

So this bill will add $1.5 trillion to the deficit. The promised economic growth is an illusionary gimmick that only Republicans get to use.

Apparently Corker's idiotic trigger is off the table due to a ruling by the parliamentarian so now they are kicking around ridiculous ideas like stair stepping rate increases for the corporate rate up over the next 6 years. This is how these fuckheads think we should run the world's biggest economy. Random ideas on the back of an envelope constitute national economic and revenue policy.

Not just random ideas, but random ideas shoehorned in at the last minute. I saw a Cornyn comment tonight that the D proposal to send the bill back to committee was 'to kill the bill.'

No. Sending back to committee is literally the only sane, rational choice at this point. So of course that won't happen.

Zaxxon wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:09 pmNo. Sending back to committee is literally the only sane, rational choice at this point. So of course that won't happen.

On the one hand, this sounds crazy. Note - it was written last week, long before the "Tax Reform" bill actually started moving forward:

And here we lie at the interconnected horror of the Trump administration's autocratic manoeuvres. Consider this scenario for 2018: The repeal of net neutrality will stem the flow of information, making voter suppression harder to document. The packing of the courts will make the voter suppression that is documented harder to challenge. And the long-standing solution to purveyors of unpopular policies – vote them out – will be, by definition, impossible, since the election is rigged and the rigging uncontestable. This carefully constructed web of repression is how democracy dies.

...

Gutting net neutrality is one of the most unpopular proposals the Republicans have made this year, along with Trumpcare and the proposed tax hike for all but the wealthiest Americans. Normally, there would be risk in proposing such widely loathed policies, but the GOP appears unconcerned with public approval – a strong indicator to me that the elections are indeed a fait accompli.

And then again...it's exactly what's happening - the GOP is indeed seemingly unconcerned with the horrific proposals they're shoving through.

Net neutrality will have little to no impact on anything but prices and consumer choice.

They'll bundle their services or tier capacity, but they won't control information. The idea is pretty ludicrous.

However, step 2 onward seems reasonable.

noxiousdog wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:37 am They'll bundle their services or tier capacity, but they won't control information. The idea is pretty ludicrous.

Pretty much, although I can think of a few situations where controlling the information might positively affect their revenue, so it's only mostly ludicrous.

What's really ludicrous is that the population is ALREADY limiting their access to information of their own accord. Whether that's through selective media choices or simply ignoring information they don't like, this past election it has become clear that there are many people who are more than willing limit the amount of information they receive.

Alabama is going to elect a man who preyed on and sexually assault minors while a member of justice system. Worse, this was common knowledge at the time.

People are losing their jobs for fake boob grabs and extra marital affairs, because they are being held responsible for their actions. Yet we see that if everyone decides to ignore actions or simply not implement repercussions, these morally corrupt individuals are free to do as they please.

If Obama had said or done a 100th of what Drumpf has said and done, the conservatives of the country would have gone apoplectic. Hannity might have actually died on camera.

Drumpf is objectively a bad person, objectively a bad president, and objectively a bad conservative. Yet he's getting a free pass.

What the fuck is going on down there?

GreenGoo wrote:

noxiousdog wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:37 am They'll bundle their services or tier capacity, but they won't control information. The idea is pretty ludicrous.

Pretty much, although I can think of a few situations where controlling the information might positively affect their revenue, so it's only mostly ludicrous.

What's really ludicrous is that the population is ALREADY limiting their access to information of their own accord. Whether that's through selective media choices or simply ignoring information they don't like, this past election it has become clear that there are many people who are more than willing limit the amount of information they receive.

Alabama is going to elect a man who preyed on and sexually assault minors while a member of justice system. Worse, this was common knowledge at the time.

People are losing their jobs for fake boob grabs and extra marital affairs, because they are being held responsible for their actions. Yet we see that if everyone decides to ignore actions or simply not implement repercussions, these morally corrupt individuals are free to do as they please.

If Obama had said or done a 100th of what Drumpf has said and done, the conservatives of the country would have gone apoplectic. Hannity might have actually died on camera.

Drumpf is objectively a bad person, objectively a bad president, and objectively a bad conservative. Yet he's getting a free pass.

What the fuck is going on down there?

+1

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:30 am

Zaxxon wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:09 pmNo. Sending back to committee is literally the only sane, rational choice at this point. So of course that won't happen.

On the one hand, this sounds crazy. Note - it was written last week, long before the "Tax Reform" bill actually started moving forward:

And here we lie at the interconnected horror of the Trump administration's autocratic manoeuvres. Consider this scenario for 2018: The repeal of net neutrality will stem the flow of information, making voter suppression harder to document. The packing of the courts will make the voter suppression that is documented harder to challenge. And the long-standing solution to purveyors of unpopular policies – vote them out – will be, by definition, impossible, since the election is rigged and the rigging uncontestable. This carefully constructed web of repression is how democracy dies.

...

Gutting net neutrality is one of the most unpopular proposals the Republicans have made this year, along with Trumpcare and the proposed tax hike for all but the wealthiest Americans. Normally, there would be risk in proposing such widely loathed policies, but the GOP appears unconcerned with public approval – a strong indicator to me that the elections are indeed a fait accompli.

And then again...it's exactly what's happening - the GOP is indeed seemingly unconcerned with the horrific proposals they're shoving through.

Even with all those balls in the air, I don't think they'll have time to lock it down by next November, so there should be one more round of real elections. A Democratic wave could still derail the coup. If that doesn't happen, they'll sew it up before the '20 election. I really think the midterms are going to be either our last hope or our dying gasp. We need a Jesus roll.

Some are already pivoting in the House to entitlement cuts to make this giveaway revenue neutral. Politics is only for sociopaths now. Public service is dead.

Lindsey Graham sent my wife an email asking if he should vote for the Tax Cut package. Options were Yes, No, I don't know Enough.

She sent No, but this sure seems like an easy way for him to say his constituents told him to do it even though there is no possible way for them to know what is in the bill at the time of the email since we STILL don't know what is in the bill.

stessier wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:34 am Lindsey Graham sent my wife an email asking if he should vote for the Tax Cut package. Options were Yes, No, I don't know Enough.

She sent No, but this sure seems like an easy way for him to say his constituents told him to do it even though there is no possible way for them to know what is in the bill at the time of the email since we STILL don't know what is in the bill.

Yeah, I got that too, and was surprised to see a one question survey, since the intro made it sound like he wanted much more. Ah well, at least he is doing this...his garbage counterpart, Tim Scott, is absolutely terrible (and I could just end the sentence there) regarding communications with constituents in comparison.

The same Lindsey Graham who just yesterday was complaining that the media was constantly portraying Trump as 'a kook who isn't fit for the Presidency?' An idea that was 'Trump'eted by none other than Lindsey Graham, in the same terminology, just last year?

I'm shocked... shocked that he's running a poll with less than straightforward goals. Let me get my clutching pearls.

malchior wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:04 pm Apparently Corker's idiotic trigger is off the table due to a ruling by the parliamentarian so now they are kicking around ridiculous ideas like stair stepping rate increases for the corporate rate up over the next 6 years. This is how these fuckheads think we should run the world's biggest economy. Random ideas on the back of an envelope constitute national economic and revenue policy.

Here's the thing. Republicans are stuck in a feedback loop. Reduce/delay the tax reductions and the supposed economic benefits go down so the deficit still gets bigger. In addition, if rates are going to increase, why invest now when the power of the tax deduction will be greater in out years? This is just going to delay investment which further reduces the economic benefits. They are stuck chasing their tail. All of which shows how half assed this thing really is.

Of course, the whole thing is insanity. They should literally do nothing. If they wanted to spend money maybe infrastructure would be the best use of debt based spending. At least it'd be an investment in the country. But even then unemployment is very low so any infrastructure spending is going to distort the labor market. Even then is there even capacity to complete the work--which is another horror story we are facing? So anyway, doing nothing is the best option. There is no need for economic stimulus right now. This is pure ideology/donor fan service which is what makes this double horrible.

But apparently everyone is on board save for a few holdouts. Corker and Flake are worried about the deficit and looking for a "trigger" alternative, and Susan Collins has been positive about the bill but not a hard yes yet. They lock down Collins and they don't need the first two.

The more time goes on, the more people will wise up to who much of a grift this is and the it will get harder to pass. Which is why they'll try to pass it today, and probably succeed.

Captain Caveman wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:33 am But apparently everyone is on board save for a few holdouts. Corker and Flake are worried about the deficit and looking for a "trigger" alternative, and Susan Collins has been positive about the bill but not a hard yes yet. They lock down Collins and they don't need the first two.

The more time goes on, the more people will wise up to who much of a grift this is and the it will get harder to pass. Which is why they'll try to pass it today, and probably succeed.

They may indeed - they know that losing this weekend and facing the weekend news cycle will not increase odds of passage and likely will decrease them. Plus they run head on into the Government funding train wreck next week.

malchior wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:39 am Plus they run head on into the Government funding train wreck next week.

Train wreck? No, not at all. Someone believes it could be a good thing... for him.

Captain Caveman wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:33 am The more time goes on, the more people will wise up to who much of a grift this is and the it will get harder to pass. Which is why they'll try to pass it today, and probably succeed.

The fact that they're have the responsibility of voting for it and somehow don't already know this is absurd

Skinypupy wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:45 am

Captain Caveman wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:33 am The more time goes on, the more people will wise up to who much of a grift this is and the it will get harder to pass. Which is why they'll try to pass it today, and probably succeed.

The fact that they're have the responsibility of voting for it and somehow don't already know this is absurd

They know what it is and what it does. And what it is and what it does is destined to be hugely unpopular. But the GOP doesn't work for them, it works for its donors and business interests. So the only way to get something like this passed is to deny objective analysis, lie about its intentions, and rush it through before the gig is up.

They must figure they're fucked either way so they might as well do what gives them wet dreams at night while they have the chance.

Using the calculator linked earlier in the thread my taxes would go down slightly based on my 2016 return. However, I started a business in 2017 so I have no idea how that's going to change everything.

malchior wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:48 am Some are already pivoting in the House to entitlement cuts to make this giveaway revenue neutral. Politics is only for sociopaths now. Public service is dead.

This is actually good though, IMO. If this causes enough pain, it will be rejected, whether that be short term or long term.

Captain Caveman wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:33 am But apparently everyone is on board save for a few holdouts. Corker and Flake are worried about the deficit and looking for a "trigger" alternative, and Susan Collins has been positive about the bill but not a hard yes yet. They lock down Collins and they don't need the first two.

The more time goes on, the more people will wise up to who much of a grift this is and the it will get harder to pass. Which is why they'll try to pass it today, and probably succeed.

I really don't see how Murkowski and Collins could vote for this (though they probably will). This is an effective semi-repeal of Obamacare.

Murkowski is already a yes. She's getting drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in exchange for her vote.

So yeah, she is a Republican after all.

Captain Caveman wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:12 am Murkowski is already a yes. She's getting drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in exchange for her vote.

So yeah, she is a Republican after all.

Oh, I knew that, I was just saying that it made no sense given her prior stand.

WaPo reporting that they have the votes. Will likely pass today.

Grifman wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:06 am

malchior wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:48 am Some are already pivoting in the House to entitlement cuts to make this giveaway revenue neutral. Politics is only for sociopaths now. Public service is dead.

This is actually good though, IMO. If this causes enough pain, it will be rejected, whether that be short term or long term.

In the past I would have agreed. Now that all rules of normal governance have broken down, I'm not so sure this is true anymore.

Seems like they need to rush this through before everyone ends up in jail.

Yeah, I was just about to post that. No time for collusion news, there's "tax reform" that needs to pass. Quickly, hurry up and vote. A-holes.

Plus, since this is going to have to go through a House-Senate conference, passing it today allows the weekend shows to be focused on Flynn - Trump and not on the tax bill.