Octopus Overlords

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:11 pm Everyone brace yourselves - the carried interest loophole wasn't closed (as promised) with the new tax reform. I wonder how that could have happened with all the careful planning and forethought that went into crafting this?

This week, as senior White House officials acclaimed passage of the tax overhaul in Congress, they also expressed one regret: failing to close the so-called carried interest “loophole” that benefits wealthy hedge fund managers and private equity executives. Despite Mr. Trump’s vows to eliminate a tax rule that allows some rich business leaders to pay lower tax rates than their secretaries, the president in this case was no match for the powerful lobbyists protecting the status quo.

“I don’t know what happened,” said Larry Kudlow, the conservative economist who crafted Mr. Trump’s campaign tax plan. “I don’t know how that thing survived,” he said, adding “I’m sure the lobbying was intense.”

Spoiler:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in an interview published Friday that Republicans “probably went too far” cutting corporate taxes in their just-enacted overhaul of the tax code.

Rubio said he expects corporations to pay out higher dividends to shareholders and buy back shares to increase their stock price with proceeds from the bill.

“You’re going to see a lot of these multinationals buy back shares to drive up the price,” Rubio told the southwest Florida-based News-Press.

“Some of them will be forced, because they’re sitting on historic levels of cash, to pay out dividends to shareholders,” Rubio said. “That isn’t going to create dramatic economic growth.”

Skinypupy wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:43 pm Rubio is now very concerned that this bill "went too far" in helping corporations.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in an interview published Friday that Republicans “probably went too far” cutting corporate taxes in their just-enacted overhaul of the tax code.

Rubio said he expects corporations to pay out higher dividends to shareholders and buy back shares to increase their stock price with proceeds from the bill.

“You’re going to see a lot of these multinationals buy back shares to drive up the price,” Rubio told the southwest Florida-based News-Press.

“Some of them will be forced, because they’re sitting on historic levels of cash, to pay out dividends to shareholders,” Rubio said. “That isn’t going to create dramatic economic growth.”

Gosh, I wish we had some people who actually understand how the economy works warn us that this is exactly what would happen! Oh wait...they all did.

If only there were something Rubio could have done about it, other than feigning concern then voting for the bill anyways.

malchior wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:02 am Hey that isn't fair he totally tried to help address the balance by proposing an amendment to increase the child tax credit. This statement is definitely *not* part of a cynical strategy to survive in an increasingly blue state.

malchior wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:02 am Hey that isn't fair he totally tried to help address the balance by proposing an amendment to increase the child tax credit. This statement is definitely *not* part of a cynical strategy to survive in an increasingly blue state.

El Guapo wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:49 pm
I have such contempt for Rubio. To think he was supposed to be basically the GOP Obama.

Holman wrote:

El Guapo wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:49 pm
I have such contempt for Rubio. To think he was supposed to be basically the GOP Obama.

Yup. I remember when he was hailed as young, brilliant, and unbeatably appealing.

Rubio came to prominence during the brief window of the GOP's self-interrogation after Romney's loss, when the party thought a play for the "naturally conservative" (i.e. Catholic) Latino voting bloc might be possible. Instead, of course, 2016 arrived and the base went all-in for white nationalism and race hatred.

If Trump had somehow stuck to marketing scams and laundering Russian oligarch money, Rubio might have had a shot in 2016. Politics is a funny thing.

Jaymann wrote:How can they call it tax "reform" when it's robbing the poor to pay the rich?

RunningMn9 wrote: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:46 pm They didn’t lie! They just creatively redefined the word “reform” to mean “any change whatsoever”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Skinypupy wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:37 am

malchior wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:02 am Hey that isn't fair he totally tried to help address the balance by proposing an amendment to increase the child tax credit. This statement is definitely *not* part of a cynical strategy to survive in an increasingly blue state.

Read an article yesterday about the hundreds of thousands of displaced Puerto Rican’s settling in Florida. They’re (obviously) pissed at the administration’s handling of the hurricane disaster. This is likely a sorry attempt at CYA for this new voting block that will almost assuredly vote D.

ImLawBoy wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:53 pm

Zarathud wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:01 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:AT&T was one of those proponents doing the trumpeting all along. We actually had a company town hall with our CEO "interviewing" Paul Ryan and Steve Mnuchin about the tax bill during this process. I think you're misreading this.

Not helping your cause. At all.

I'm not in the mood for arguments based on vague statements, so if you want to raise a point (including whatever you think my cause is), please do so.

Isgrimnur wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:29 pm I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that it’s not just because they pay him.

Same goes to you.

Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:38 pm My apologies. It certainly wasn't meant as such.

If you wish to discuss it further, we can do so in PM, as I don't think hashing it out in the thread would be productive.

ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:46 pm I'm willing to accept the apology and move on.

Pyperkub wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:46 pm Looking at upping my withholding this year - looks like the new limit is $18,500/year, but I'm checking with benefits to see if there are any weird caveats with that.

pr0ner wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:26 pm

Pyperkub wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:46 pm Looking at upping my withholding this year - looks like the new limit is $18,500/year, but I'm checking with benefits to see if there are any weird caveats with that.

Why would there be any caveats to upping your retirement account withholding?

Pyperkub wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:33 pm

pr0ner wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:26 pm

Pyperkub wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:46 pm Looking at upping my withholding this year - looks like the new limit is $18,500/year, but I'm checking with benefits to see if there are any weird caveats with that.

Why would there be any caveats to upping your retirement account withholding?

Thinking in terms of other "deductions" and how they may be impacted if we have to itemize for 2018 - there was a lot of noise about caps on various deductions which may work together, and I'm not entirely sure of what ended up in the bill.

Zaxxon wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:54 pm $770.83, you mean!

stessier wrote: Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:40 pm I've been reading that the IRS is adjusting the withholding tables based on the new law and that we could see the change in our paychecks in February.

While they are changing the tables, they aren't making everyone fill out a new W4. Is there some calculator I can use to tell how many exemptions to claim? Do I have to wait for the IRS tables to be finalized? I really don't want to have to owe taxes next year when I'm expecting a modest return.

TheMix wrote: Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:02 pm Local news was just talking about that.

I think they said that the IRS was also going to put out a calculator that you could use.

Q: Should people check their withholding after the new 2018 Form W-4 and the withholding calculator are available?

A: Yes. It’s always a good idea for people to check their withholding status. The IRS encourages all taxpayers to check their withholding when the new information is available in February. The IRS will help educate taxpayers about the new withholding guidelines and the calculator. The effort will be designed to help workers ensure that they are not having too much or too little tax taken out of their pay.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:32 pm So this new tax bill will be in effect for the 2017 tax year, or starting with 2018?

I gave a LOT of stuff to Goodwill this year...hopefully the charitable deduction/itemization change does not affect 2017, or I'm hosed.

Still, Pfizer isn’t hurting for money. The company is set to win big from the tax overhaul, but they’re passing the money on to investors instead of funding research and development. The company plans to spend about $10 billion buying back shares of its own stock, adding to the $6.4 billion it previously greenlit. It will also increase its dividend rate by six percent to 34 cents per share. That money could fund multiple clinical trials.