Octopus Overlords

Then I apologize - it seemed like completely unnecessary framing and came across badly to me. Sure there is always something worse but I wasn't arguing it was the absolute worst. I was arguing that the trend is bad - it is verging into Hitler/Stalin bad (in the propaganda/gas lighting sense only because you can't get away with mass executions). But it is about as bad as we thought was possible in an age of transparency. We are finding out that transparency isn't a bar to absolutely wretched conduct. And this is conduct that isn't a difference of opinion but is objectively bad conduct at that. This is a massive regression from even last year.

El Guapo wrote:

malchior wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:07 pm

El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:04 pm

malchior wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:54 pm

El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:46 pm Well, even with that limit you had the Great Depression, Japanese internment, and apartheid enforced under color of law, not to mention wartime atrocities like the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo.

And on disunity... there was the time before then that U.S. governance failed so completely that the country split into two warring sides, killing millions of Americans.

Thanks for the condescending history lessons. Believe what you want but even during those periods you didn't have elected officials in the US telling verifiable falsehoods and being cheered on by the ignorants masses. I merely said it is *trending* badly. Worse than Mccarthy for sure and could be massive deterioration in progress. It might end up being worse than the Depression years here. We have movements in multiple states depending on who is in charge with 30-40% support to secede from the union such as what we see in Texas and California. These are not normal times.

Shrug. Thank you for your unnecessary hostility.

Wait - you don't think your post came across as condescendingly hostile?

I mean, obviously it did come across that way to you given the response, but no, that was not my intention.

It didn't read at all like the reaction.

malchior wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:15 pm Then I apologize - it seemed like completely unnecessary framing and came across badly to me. Sure there is always something worse but I wasn't arguing it was the absolute worst. I was arguing that the trend is bad - it is verging into Hitler/Stalin bad (in the propaganda/gas lighting sense only because you can't get away with mass executions yet). But it is about as bad as we thought was possible in an age of transparency (ha). We are finding out that transparency isn't (existent in the face of)a bar to absolutely wretched conduct. And this is conduct that isn't a difference of opinion but is objectively bad conduct at that. This is a massive regression from even last year.

Added several fixes for you.

malchior wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:15 pm Then I apologize - it seemed like completely unnecessary framing and came across badly to me. Sure there is always something worse but I wasn't arguing it was the absolute worst. I was arguing that the trend is bad - it is verging into Hitler/Stalin bad (in the propaganda/gas lighting sense only because you can't get away with mass executions). But it is about as bad as we thought was possible in an age of transparency. We are finding out that transparency isn't a bar to absolutely wretched conduct. And this is conduct that isn't a difference of opinion but is objectively bad conduct at that. This is a massive regression from even last year.

No worries. I think my overall point is that almost everything has a reasonable historical comp of sorts, and that there is some comfort in the horrible events of the past, in that we went through periods of extreme hardship and suffering and horrible events, and (collectively) came out the other side stronger as a country. That gives me some comfort that we will do so again, although no doubt with at least some significant human suffering in the meantime.

My main worry really is that our constitutional system is poorly designed for tackling problems in a partisan political environment. And certainly there have been periods of extreme partisanship before, but it seems like the governing norms that grease our system and make it work at least somewhat well are degrading, which is leading to an ever expanding situation of paralysis. Like, I worry less about the government instituting bad policies in response to problems - bad policies can be revisited and reversed - and more about degrading our capacity to respond to major problems at all.

In that I 100% agree - I have argued for years our system hasn't scaled with the modern world. We have a document that we could fix theoretically. However the founders didn't account for a world where we couldn't agree on anything despite having all the information at our fingertips. I can't help but think they'd be very disappointed at the lack of integrity in our current political world.

Worse it is very corrupt but we pretend it isn't. Even though Trump is blowing the lid off it and exposing it. Despite theobvious apparently the populace is nearly powerless to prevent it. It appears we will have to go off the cliff and pick up the pieces down the road. My frustration ultimately lies there when we could stop it if our system wasn't this un-Democratic mess.

You guys have gone way off the rails from tax reform.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:53 pm Smaller 401k/IRA limits incoming?

Republicans are looking for ways to generate revenue to support broad reductions in individual tax rates. One idea is to limit the amount of pretax money households can sock away for retirement saving. Such a move would likely generate significant political blowback but it hasn’t been explicitly ruled out, stirring worry among industry lobbyists.

....

Lobbyists and others in the retirement and financial services industries who have spoken to congressional staff and committee members say lawmakers are looking at proposals that would allow 401(k) participants to contribute significantly less than what is currently allowed in a traditional tax-deferred 401(k). An often mentioned amount is $2,400 a year. It isn’t clear whether that would only apply to 401(k)s or IRAs or both.

Another hit to the middle class that has virtually no effect on the 1%.

Wow - that's just nuts. I guess that will make Roth IRAs a lot more attractive.

stessier wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:24 pmWow - that's just nuts. I guess that will make Roth IRAs a lot more attractive.

Sure, for anyone that has money sitting around after getting hosed on changes to the standard and state income tax deductions.

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:25 pm

stessier wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:24 pmWow - that's just nuts. I guess that will make Roth IRAs a lot more attractive.

Sure, for anyone that has money sitting around after getting hosed on changes to the standard and state income tax deductions.

Ahhh, that is their game then. They are showing you where the money is to pay for all the added taxes. Very sly.

stessier wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:24 pm Wow - that's just nuts. I guess that will make Roth IRAs a lot more attractive.

Roth IRAs have income limits, too. After a certain point, you can't make any contributions to one.

pr0ner wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:19 pm You guys have gone way off the rails from tax reform.

Another sign of how badly our political system and discourse have degraded!

GreenGoo wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:40 pm

Kraken wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:01 pm

Octavious wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:44 am Corporate lives matter! Seriously though, we almost totally collapsed the country because of the Bush tax cuts and were thinking of not only doing it again, but more extreme? I saw screw it, let it burn to the ground at this point.

It really does feel like things are deteriorating at a faster rate on more fronts than I can even follow, and that it's only going to keep getting worse. Every generation thinks it's living in the end times...but how many have this much evidence to back it up?

The MacArthy era, the cuban missile crisis both seem to have been much worse than what's happening now. The great depression was within the last century, too.

I'll withold my judgment until after Drumpf is out of office. Whether that's tomorrow, 2020 or 2024. What happens after that will determine where the country is headed more fully.

Even within my own lifetime, the Vietnam War brought us to the brink of revolution, as the Ken Burns series is reminding me. We still have a lot farther to fall. But we're plainly falling and seemingly powerless to stop it. I wonder if ordinary people on the brink of past calamities felt the same way.

(On topic, sort of) What's different this time is that the middle class is losing economic and political ground to the oligarchs, as this tax plan clearly demonstrates. We are near a point of no return. Government policies built up the middle class after WW2, and government policies can tear it back down.

El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:52 pm

pr0ner wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:19 pm You guys have gone way off the rails from tax reform.

Another sign of how badly our political system and discourse have degraded!

It's kind of gone from a DC bubble thing to a nationwide thing in many ways!

I agree we are near or at a point of no return. These guys are flat out lying and when confronted with those lies - are doubling down. There hasn't been any time in our history this happened. When you put this level of dishonesty in context by looking at other places this happened over the last century...there is a purpose to it. And it always a bad purpose for the populace.

That is why I think this is an extremely dangerous time for us. The lying is a leading indicator of the danger. We can only hope some institutions resist it but even the CIA director just blatantly lied. At least his spokesperson partially walked it back to some degree but he still did it. This is doubleplusungood.

Edit: Chris Murphy knows what's up

Trump claims that the 401k tax deferral is not going away. But I'll believe it when I see it.

In other news, I did a bit of math with the proposed tax brackets and where I would be under Trump's plan. Not taking into account any deductions, what I would owe on my gross salary remains, more or less, the same under the new tax code. There's no telling what all the changes to deductions and the capital gains rate will mean for my actual tax bill, but I still get the feeling it means an increase for me.

https://twitter.com/franklinleonard/sta ... 3175818240

Seriously.

America needs a lesson about how means are deceiving when examining skewed distributions. That 4k average cited by Sarah Huckabee Sanders is totally driven by the 100K+ tax cuts for the uber-wealthy. Most people won't get anywhere near $4000. The mean is not the "average" in a skewed distribution.

What's the median tax cut, Ms. Sanders? Probably less than 100 bucks, I imagine. Which is why you're going with the mean.

Edit: Say one household somehow lucks into a billion dollar tax cut while 250,000 households get zero bucks out of the deal. That's a mean of $4000, and the administration can say, "the average tax cut will be $4000" while knowing it's all going to a Walton.

Oh, and the median in that example is of course zero.

For me the rate is the big unknown - if I use the one from the one pager then I'm up $5-6K from loss of state and local tax deduction. If they gut the 401(k) to $2K as discussed it'd be another $4-5K on top. To fund a Corporate and top 1% giveaway. That isn't chump change and it'll severely undermine saving for retirement. I guess it could be worse but along with the way the country is trending - this is thinking about emigration level of craziness. Kidding...kidding. On a serious note I wanted to get out of NJ anyway and this is unfortunately more incentive. Which would be a fun side effect - push blue into red and even out or flip some states.

malchior wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:11 pm For me the rate is the big unknown - if I use the one from the one pager then I'm up $5-6K from loss of state and local tax deduction. If they gut the 401(k) to $2K as discussed it'd be another $4-5K on top. To fund a Corporate and top 1% giveaway. That isn't chump change and it'll severely undermine saving for retirement. I guess it could be worse but along with the way the country is trending - this is thinking about emigration level of craziness. Kidding...kidding. On a serious note I wanted to get out of NJ anyway and this is unfortunately more incentive. Which would be a fun side effect - push blue into red and even out or flip some states.

Yeah, that's a regressive bonus effect for the rich. Eliminating the SALT deduction to fund high end tax breaks is both regressive in and of itself, and it also incentivizes states to go from income to sales taxes, which would be further regressive.

Here's an interesting calculator you can play with, which shows how taxes will change for the average homeowner in any zip code in the US with the elimination of SALT deduction.

Newsflash: your taxes are going up.

pr0ner wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:09 pm Here's an interesting calculator you can play with, which shows how taxes will change for the average homeowner in any zip code in the US with the elimination of SALT deduction.

Newsflash: your taxes are going up.

Based on the averages it puts in, my zip has an average of $5.5K increase.

FWIW - I had to hunt around to find a town in my state with an AGI and tax/mortgage deduction near my own but I found it and my envelope calcs square up with the calculator's numbers. There have to be enough GOP Reps who want to be re-elected to stop this madness. If this passes, people would see this in a few weeks from implementation as the payroll companies adjust withholding. It would be obvious and immediate. It isn't something that'll sneak up on people.

Edit: The cynic in me thinks they'll delay implementation until tax year 2018 to give breathing room to these guys. We'll have to see the machinations and understand how far the GOP is willing to go with this insanity.

No, no, no, check this out. Brilliant plan right here. Delay implementation until immediately after the next presidential election "to give companies time to adjust their planning". If results of next presidential election are favorable, continue delaying. Otherwise, let 'er rip and blame "the dirty liberals" for raising taxes.

NickAragua wrote:No, no, no, check this out. Brilliant plan right here. Delay implementation until immediately after the next presidential election "to give companies time to adjust their planning". If results of next presidential election are favorable, continue delaying. Otherwise, let 'er rip and blame "the dirty liberals" for raising taxes.

Nah, that's how we nominate Supreme court
Judges.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

pr0ner wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:09 pm Here's an interesting calculator you can play with, which shows how taxes will change for the average homeowner in any zip code in the US with the elimination of SALT deduction.

Newsflash: your taxes are going up.

50% in my zip code for the average folks in my position. For me it will likely be more.

pr0ner wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:09 pm Here's an interesting calculator you can play with, which shows how taxes will change for the average homeowner in any zip code in the US with the elimination of SALT deduction.

Newsflash: your taxes are going up.

$1500 increase here, but I'm fine with that because I know the money's going to combat global warming, build infrastructure, and improve healthcare.

A guy I know whose sole issue is taxes held his nose and voted for Trump. He doesn't work but fishes, eats, and drinks all day while driving around vintage muscle cars. His wife makes a lot of money that allows this lifestyle.

He's still going to get hit by the proposed tax reform but he stubbornly refuses to admit that he was had. He blames Obama and Bush with some seriously flawed thinking.

Sweet! My tax cut will only cost me another $500 per month!!

Is it a good thing I have about no deductions to take away from me?

Oh yeah, I've deferred taxes to a time when I'll have virtually no income in the future by maxing my 401k. Thanx Obama. Man the PiC really understand what how much hatred they are fostering, do they? Or perhaps they do.

pr0ner wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:09 pm Here's an interesting calculator you can play with, which shows how taxes will change for the average homeowner in any zip code in the US with the elimination of SALT deduction.

Newsflash: your taxes are going up.

Of course, I'm not sure how it calculates (if at all) the Itemized Deductions. Are they static for everyone - if so, it's going to be a very biased tool as the whole tax cut portion of the package is based upon people who don't itemize.

For us, TurboTax has recommended itemized about 50% of the time lately, though we didn't have a mortgage interest deduction for most of those years (not sure how this year will play out).

I don't know why anyone would take the standard deduction if itemizing will clearly put them over it.

My guess is if you're a homeowner with a mortgage, you're itemizing. Especially if you're single like I am.

A few times I itemized and the standard ending up being better off. I think the people that don't do it are just being lazy or don't understand how it works.

Here's the data on the Itemized deductions and other info:

All imported information is average data for all taxpayers within the zip code:

Average Adjusted Gross Income
Average State and Local Income Tax Paid (Schedule A:5A)
Average Sales Tax Paid (Schedule A:5B)
Average Property Tax Amount (Schedule A:6)
Average Mortgage Interest Paid (Schedule A:15)
Average Charitable Giving (Schedule A:19)

Pyperkub wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:13 pm Here's the data on the Itemized deductions and other info:

All imported information is average data for all taxpayers within the zip code:

Average Adjusted Gross Income
Average State and Local Income Tax Paid (Schedule A:5A)
Average Sales Tax Paid (Schedule A:5B)
Average Property Tax Amount (Schedule A:6)
Average Mortgage Interest Paid (Schedule A:15)
Average Charitable Giving (Schedule A:19)

Does this factor in that the plan also involves doubling the standardized deduction?

El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:32 pm

Pyperkub wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:13 pm Here's the data on the Itemized deductions and other info:

All imported information is average data for all taxpayers within the zip code:

Average Adjusted Gross Income
Average State and Local Income Tax Paid (Schedule A:5A)
Average Sales Tax Paid (Schedule A:5B)
Average Property Tax Amount (Schedule A:6)
Average Mortgage Interest Paid (Schedule A:15)
Average Charitable Giving (Schedule A:19)

Does this factor in that the plan also involves doubling the standardized deduction?

The calculator I linked shows the doubled standardized deduction and the elimination of personal exemptions.

yeah, that's from the description on the calculator page, I just didn't re-link it, but quoted, because I had skipped over it initially.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:32 pm

Pyperkub wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:13 pm Here's the data on the Itemized deductions and other info:

All imported information is average data for all taxpayers within the zip code:

Average Adjusted Gross Income
Average State and Local Income Tax Paid (Schedule A:5A)
Average Sales Tax Paid (Schedule A:5B)
Average Property Tax Amount (Schedule A:6)
Average Mortgage Interest Paid (Schedule A:15)
Average Charitable Giving (Schedule A:19)

Does this factor in that the plan also involves doubling the standardized deduction?

Yes, those numbers are for the "before" calculation, the doubled standardized deduction is part of the "after" calculation (which was 50% higher for our family in our zip code).

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:30 pm A guy I know whose sole issue is taxes held his nose and voted for Trump. He doesn't work but fishes, eats, and drinks all day while driving around vintage muscle cars. His wife makes a lot of money that allows this lifestyle.

He's still going to get hit by the proposed tax reform but he stubbornly refuses to admit that he was had. He blames Obama and Bush with some seriously flawed thinking.

I'd love to know how he spins the details to blame Obama and Bush if you're willing to share.

pr0ner wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:01 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:30 pm A guy I know whose sole issue is taxes held his nose and voted for Trump. He doesn't work but fishes, eats, and drinks all day while driving around vintage muscle cars. His wife makes a lot of money that allows this lifestyle.

He's still going to get hit by the proposed tax reform but he stubbornly refuses to admit that he was had. He blames Obama and Bush with some seriously flawed thinking.

I'd love to know how he spins the details to blame Obama and Bush if you're willing to share.

I'm always fascinated by leaps of logic like that. Today some random person commented in some random facebook thread that Obama was the worst president by far in his 68 years of life, and that includes Carter. Let's see...Bush inherited a country at peace with a budget surplus and left it with two wars and the Great Recession and record deficits. Obama slowly cleaned most of that mess up and left the thriving economy that Trump is taking credit for now; after eight scandal-free years the current administration is buried in slime after just nine months. Yet even though his presidency is bookended by two disastrous administrations, somehow Obama's the great Satan. It takes some serious mental gymnastics to reach such a fact-free conclusion.

pr0ner wrote:I don't know why anyone would take the standard deduction if itemizing will clearly put them over it.

My guess is if you're a homeowner with a mortgage, you're itemizing. Especially if you're single like I am.

Married, no kids, with a mortgage. I tried like hell to take the itemized deduction. I put everything I could think of on there, but the standard deduction still ended up being better off for us.

I was a little shocked by that. I always thought having a mortgage meant I would be better off itemizing.

msteelers wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:00 pm

pr0ner wrote:I don't know why anyone would take the standard deduction if itemizing will clearly put them over it.

My guess is if you're a homeowner with a mortgage, you're itemizing. Especially if you're single like I am.

Married, no kids, with a mortgage. I tried like hell to take the itemized deduction. I put everything I could think of on there, but the standard deduction still ended up being better off for us.

I was a little shocked by that. I always thought having a mortgage meant I would be better off itemizing.

I'm sure not having a state income tax helps keep you, being married with no kids, under the standard deduction.