Do you BELIEVE that someone making 100k a year needs to pay at least 50k in taxes?

[Felya]

The issue with High taxes is it incentives Tax avoidance. Lower corporate taxes with far less loopholes would be more advantageous.

Any taxes creates incentives to avoid them. Even the risk is mitigated by the tax payer. How many times has the tax payer bailed out Trump? How many years did a billionaire pay nothing in federal taxes, without any loopholes or anything that's blocked in Trump's plan? This is such bullshit... How much do you pay in taxes? Sure you don't want to incorporate?

[Minikin]

The OP treats 100k as a fortune... his premise is flawed from the get go...

yea 100k will give a dealable life but not a lavish one in ontario canada. even that not for long. Right now I would say 100k a year would be on the middle edge of middle class in ontario canada. But the way expenses here are going, I suspect in about a year and a half that will go from middle class average to lower spectrum middle class.

[Linkedblade]

Trickle down is stupid and takes advantage of the same sort of people that would abuse their credit card, because they expect to earn more money by the time it's due. It's the same exact logic. You cut your funding, in hopes that for no reason, but the desire of the wealthy to liquidate their earnings. It doesn't make any sense... you don't pull out your safety net savings, because you think giving it to a rich guy will make him give it back with a bonus. That's illogical... without demand, there is no reason to produce more... while with demand, you already have the earnings to reinvest.

That's how that works... otherwise you are creating another bubble. Even at the suggestion of the tax code, the stock market has skyrocketed. Both Nasdaq and Dow are reporting record numbers, because corporate earnings might go up by 20% without any reinvestment or risk. If a corporation, now takes that money and reinvests, without the demand to project additional earnings, their value will drop. Corporations that do take risk, that do reinvest, are at risk at losing their value. In order to maintain the 20% growth they would earn as a result of this tax cut, they need to do nothing. Any spending, will decrease their value. There is nothing to encourage spending in a tax cut to corporations, while their valuation is at stake if their spending fails to meet demand.

They may have made taxes better for the rich, but by doubling the standard deduction [for a married couple] to $25,400 the have essentially given all money paid in by anyone making less than $25.4k back to them, and that's before other deductions and credits. Not to mention a flat rate on taxable income makes it quite easy to the individual to do their own taxes, no tables involved.

[Felya]

Why does government need so much money? And the income tax isn't the only form of revenue for the government

Because it represents more than 321 million people in the wealthiest nation in the world.

[Deleted]

Any taxes creates incentives to avoid them. Even the risk is mitigated by the tax payer. How many times has the tax payer bailed out Trump? How many years did a billionaire pay nothing in federal taxes, without any loopholes or anything that's blocked in Trump's plan? This is such bullshit... How much do you pay in taxes? Sure you don't want to incorporate?

http://corporatetax.procon.org/view....stionID=001879

You think raising the Taxes will stop ANY of that?

There are pros and cons to all of this, we need to find which we want. Lower taxes are always better for development and investment.

[Perkunas]

Jaylock, you're smarter than this... Not even Socialists like myself believe a person making 100k a year should pay 50% taxes. 100k a year is not even in the top 10% income.

[Felya]

They may have made taxes better for the rich, but by doubling the standard deduction to $24,000 the have essentially given all money paid in by anyone making less than $24k back to them, and that's before other deductions and credits.

You are talking about savings of around 1 k, for those who made 24k exactly. At the cost of losing social programs that would be worth thousands more to them. That is not a fair trade. Someone needing to pay for insurance, but having to pay 1k less in taxes, isn't saving a dime, but most likely losing 100s. How exactly does that make sense as savings? The less you make, the less you already paid in taxes, but now... you will lose the social programs that made your life as livable as it is. What an absurd trade... why would you accept it?

That same top, does not lose a single program that they may be depended on and are serving far more than 1k a year.

Not to mention a flat rate on taxable income makes it quite easy to the individual to do their own taxes, no tables involved.

This is bullshit. Most people use the EZ form. TurboTax is reporting record profits on their mobile platform. I did my taxes in 15 min, an hour before the due date. Retired geriatrics do people's taxes at H&R Block. People who tell you they need a tax cut, because your taxes are too difficult. Are explicitly calling you stupid... don't agree with them...

[Karfal]

You need to make over 1M to pay 13% CA income tax. Also, all Federal deductions apply to your CA income calculation. Between my wife and I we do quite well, and our effective tax rate (Fed & CA combined) for last year was under 21%.

Before making all this wild claims, it pays to play around with some free tax calculators out there. Even if you only use a modest 15% deduction, you will come to the realization that even in CA, hitting the 50% effective tax rate is not easy.

What about gas tax, sales tax, Obamacare premium increase or penalties for those with no insurance?

I listen to a certain individual who I believe pays 65-70% in California.

Considering the cost of living if your salary is 1m. And lose 65-70% in taxes you're not living much better than someone making 80k in Tennessee or mississippi.

- - - Updated - - -

Two ways to lower debt: raise taxes or lower expenses.

Or lower taxes (which increases revenue looks at the 20s 80s and 2000s) AND cut spending. Removing the useless and lazy off welfare and such programs would be a great start considering that takes up SIXTY PERCENT OF THE BUDGET.

[Linkedblade]

The OP treats 100k as a fortune... his premise is flawed from the get go...

That's quite a livable wage in the US for must non-urban areas. But if your total income was 100k you don't get taxed on that, you get taxed on your agi, which is after exemptions and deductions. So right now with just a single exemption and the standard deduction you would be taxed on 100k-6300(deduction)-4050(exemption) = 89,650
The tax on that is $18,215.

Say we double the deduction like proposed, agi= 83,350, tax would be $16,615.

The new tax rules would mean rather than the tables we use 10% or 25%, I'm excluding 35% because I'm assuming that used for replacing the AMT.
So agi=83,350 so tax is either 8,335 or 12,468 (35%->20,803) Which is an improvement for the individual. Families with eic could benefit massively from this.

[Felya]

http://corporatetax.procon.org/view....stionID=001879

You think raising the Taxes will stop ANY of that?

There are pros and cons to all of this, we need to find which we want. Lower taxes are always better for development and investment.

Stop it? No... Make it more difficult to accomplish due to needing to hide more? Absolutely... it's completely illogical to claim that giving them less money to need to hide or subvert, will make it magically stop. Here is a reality check... it will make it easier to avoid paying taxes, because the sum they need to subvert is 20% smaller.

If they had a choice to pay taxes, how much do you think they would pay? If you think anything other than 0, you are delusional. The goal is to pay 0 in taxes. If you lower the tax penalty, it makes reaching 0 easier, not more difficult. Corporations are not altruistic...

- - - Updated - - -

That's quite a livable wage in the US for must non-urban areas. But if your total income was 100k you don't get taxed on that, you get taxed on your agi, which is after exemptions and deductions. So right now with just a single exemption and the standard deduction you would be taxed on 100k-6300(deduction)-4050(exemption) = 89,650
The tax on that is $18,215.

Say we double the deduction like proposed, agi= 83,350, tax would be $16,615.

The new tax rules would mean rather than the tables we use 10% or 25%, I'm excluding 35% because I'm assuming that used for replacing the AMT.
So agi=83,350 so tax is either 8,335 or 12,468 (35%->20,803) Which is an improvement for the individual. Families with eic could benefit massively from this.

And what programs do the lose? How much will they need to spend out of pocket?

[Macaquerie]

Or lower taxes (which increases revenue looks at the 20s 80s and 2000s) AND cut spending. Removing the useless and lazy off welfare and such programs would be a great start considering that takes up SIXTY PERCENT OF THE BUDGET.

Cutting entitlements is effectively equivalent to a tax hike, since people who receive them already paid into those programs during their working years, and there's hardly any justification for stiffing them now.

[Karfal]

Cutting entitlements is effectively equivalent to a tax hike, since people who receive them already paid into those programs during their working years, and there's hardly any justification for stiffing them now.

What about the thousands that never work? You know God damn well a majority are just milking the system. Well there comes a time a mother must stop letting her child suck on the titty. Time for some major reform to our "entitlement" programs. Too many useless and lazy pieces of third world garbage think they're God damn entitled to mooch off the government.

[Linkedblade]

And what programs do the lose? How much will they need to spend out of pocket?

Not many as most organs are state run. What federal programs are there? WIC?

And not to be condescending but usually taxes are paid by the individual through their payroll. And depending on if they filled out their w4 intelligently, they wouldn't see any difference but in the amount of their return being more.

- - - Updated - - -

Cutting entitlements is effectively equivalent to a tax hike, since people who receive them already paid into those programs during their working years, and there's hardly any justification for stiffing them now.

I'm not sure which entitlements we are taking about as most food stamp or welfare programs are either state ran or do not have the government's hands in them like social security

- - - Updated - - -

What about the thousands that never work? You know God damn well a majority are just milking the system. Well there comes a time a mother must stop letting her child suck on the titty. Time for some major reform to our "entitlement" programs. Too many useless and lazy pieces of third world garbage think they're God damn entitled to mooch off the government.

Thousands? That's nothing for a country with over 300,000,000 people. Not to mention there are no programs for the unemployed who have not worked. TANF is state funded.

[Macaquerie]

I'm not sure which entitlements we are taking about as most food stamp or welfare programs are either state ran or do not have the government's hands in them like social security

Well I'm talking about Medicare and Social Security - the programs that actually take up a significant share of the budget, unlike food stamps which are a drop in the bucket by comparison.

What about the thousands that never work? You know God damn well a majority are just milking the system. Well there comes a time a mother must stop letting her child suck on the titty. Time for some major reform to our "entitlement" programs. Too many useless and lazy pieces of third world garbage think they're God damn entitled to mooch off the government.

What exact programs are you referring to there?

[Barnabas]

Well I'm talking about Medicare and Social Security - the programs that actually take up a significant share of the budget, unlike food stamps which are a drop in the bucket by comparison.

Those programs are mandatory spending

[Linkedblade]

Well I'm talking about Medicare and Social Security - the programs that actually take up a significant share of the budget, unlike food stamps which are a drop in the bucket by comparison.

I think your confusing Medicare/Social security with Medicaid/SSI. We pay into Medicare/Social Security separate from income tax. Medicaid/SSI are paid for by the federal income tax.

[Khuros]

Two ways to lower debt: raise taxes or lower expenses.

You could run a whole other USA on just the defense budget.

[Macaquerie]

I think your confusing Medicare/Social security with Medicaid/SSI. We pay into Medicare/Social Security separate from income tax. Medicaid/SSI are paid for by the federal government.

I was responding to a post that mentioned how entitlements take up 60% of the budget, with the implication that they somehow could be cut which they cannot be.

[kamuimac]

If a person making $20k a year spends 90% of his income on basic necessities (food/shelter) and somebody making $100k a year spends 30% of income in the same necessities, why should the poor people pay the same percentage in taxes when they are more dependent on whatever's left on a regular basis?

because poor people should find a better job instead of leeching from succesfull people.

but i guess all Trump votes are exthatic that he is lovering taxes for his corporate buddies while they wont make even single $ of it thats what they voted for wasnt it

he is making america great gain for your corporation overlords

[Barnabas]

The people that get screwed in the trump tax plan are people that live in democrat controlled states. The way they handle taxes doesn't play well with this bill.