As predicted, tax breaks fuck over employees while making rich richer....

[Fugus]

@Svifnymr

Net Neutrality is a free market protection. Without it, they have even less incentive to hire or invest in their infrastructure as they have nothing to really compete against in those areas and are a natural monopoly without regulations.

And consumer demand is still consumer demand, and these businesses are charities that hire people just to do it. If you did nothing to increase the demand for their goods/services, you did nothing to actually require them to hire more people. So they won't hire them. And those risks exist regardless of tax rate.

If a company made a billion dollars that year but spent $999 million on running it and paying their workers, they would only be paying taxes on that last remaining 1 million and probably not even that much after deductions. And this is the same regardless of whose plan you are on as their tax system, at its base, is setup to prevent that conflict of interest.

And it isn't that they reduce hiring or increase work when costs change unless it is the costs of the materials which is a tax deductible expense for the company or increases/decreases in consumer demand where they either hire more to meet an increase in demand or fire/layoff to reduce excess labor that they don't need because they can meet the current demand with less labor. Raising or lowering their tax rates don't change that.

Sorry man, but taxes don't work like you assume they do.

[Svifnymr]

@Svifnymr

Net Neutrality is a free market protection. Without it, they have even less incentive to hire or invest in their infrastructure as they have nothing to really compete against in those areas and are a natural monopoly without regulations.

The point I was after with Net Neutrality is that with it, X companies have it easier, without it, Y companies have it easier. In either case, they must plan for the rules in play. Changing those rules whenever there's a regime change every 4/ 8 years makes it harder for those companies and their investers to plan long term under the assumption that those rules will be in place for a while.

And consumer demand is still consumer demand, and these businesses are charities that hire people just to do it. If you did nothing to increase the demand for their goods/services, you did nothing to actually require them to hire more people. So they won't hire them. And those risks exist regardless of tax rate.

If a company made a billion dollars that year but spent $999 million on running it and paying their workers, they would only be paying taxes on that last remaining 1 million and probably not even that much after deductions. And this is the same regardless of whose plan you are on as their tax system, at its base, is setup to prevent that conflict of interest.

And it isn't that they reduce hiring or increase work when costs change unless it is the costs of the materials which is a tax deductible expense for the company or increases/decreases in consumer demand where they either hire more to meet an increase in demand or fire/layoff to reduce excess labor that they don't need because they can meet the current demand with less labor. Raising or lowering their tax rates don't change that.

Sorry man, but taxes don't work like you assume they do.

Once AI's take over, perhaps it'll all be numbers. As we stand now, when taxes increase, there will be cuts where there probably shouldn't be cuts. Granted that when costs decrease, it's rarely going to be pumped back into increasing assets. Work costs and other costs are all before taxes, but they're still costs and at the end of the day an increase in profit allows you to spend more. Obviously it varies by market as well.

[Fugus]

The point I was after with Net Neutrality is that with it, X companies have it easier, without it, Y companies have it easier. In either case, they must plan for the rules in play. Changing those rules whenever there's a regime change every 4/ 8 years makes it harder for those companies and their investers to plan long term under the assumption that those rules will be in place for a while.

Understood, and now they are massive flux on that because Ajit wants to screw the nation for his former employer so we have them being fought in court while now have multiple states trying to implement their own fragments versions of it and so on.

But without NN, it only benefits the ISPs who can abuse their monopoly status to extract money from others and help their other interests in other areas.

Once AI's take over, perhaps it'll all be numbers. As we stand now, when taxes increase, there will be cuts where there probably shouldn't be cuts. Granted that when costs decrease, it's rarely going to be pumped back into increasing assets. Work costs and other costs are all before taxes, but they're still costs and at the end of the day an increase in profit allows you to spend more. Obviously it varies by market as well.

I think I understand what you are getting at, but no business with any iota of knowledge will actually function like that.

When their taxes raise, they will try and redo their paperwork to shuffle profits to another area on paper and expenses to another to try and minimize it. But they don't allow it to impact labor at all because their labor is tax deductible outside of the payroll tax and doesn't really factor in.

What causes them to hire people is when demand for their stuff goes up and they need more people to meet that demand or if something happens where their current labor force can't be as productive to meet the current demand and it would lose them money overall if they didn't. What the tax rate is doesn't factor into that, what factors into it is basically this method of thought, "Do I leave money on the table without new workers and can I get by with the current workforce effectively?".

The actual taxes don't factor into that thought process unless they change the taxes to the point where labor isn't a deduction anymore.

Same when it comes to firing them, they fire them whenever they can and still meet the demand for their stuff. If they can find a way to safely fire them, they will every time because it is an unneeded expense from their point of view if they have workers they can afford to do without.

[Draco-Onis]

That's not my opinion, that's the tax tables...
Though I'm sure there's deductions that got lost, I doubt most folks under 30k are itemizing deductions.

So the flaw is apparent the tax cuts were not designed for them either way my point is made pretty sure most people under 30K aren't going to have a long list of deductions to begin with.

[Rasulis]

So the flaw is apparent the tax cuts were not designed for them either way my point is made pretty sure most people under 30K aren't going to have a long list of deductions to begin with.

The new tax laws heavily favored those that received non-salary & pass through compensations.

We only pay the standard tax rate on approximately one-third of our income. The rest is in tax-deferred accounts or taxed at a flat rate of 21% (effective tax rate of 16.8% after the 20% deduction).

If you are converting standard 401k and IRA to Roth, the next few years, while taxes are low, will be the best time to do that. I was not going to convert my accounts till I am 59, but ended up starting to do the conversion last year.

[Draco-Onis]

The new tax laws heavily favored those that received non-salary & pass through compensations..

Which is pretty much the rich and people at the top especially when you consider that 83% of the 1.5 trillion dollars is going to the top 1% and corporations.

[Fahrenheit]

My wife and I just about broke even. We got about $1500 more throughout the year, but when we did our taxes our refund was $1300 less. We're middle, maybe upper middle class (combined gross of about $180k) in NJ. So, it really didn't have much of an impact on us.

But hey, the federal deficit is back up over 1T$, and this time not during the worse recession in generations!

FiSCal CoNSerVAtisM

[Fugus]

The number of job openings this year is much greater than ever. I'd rather have a job than a tax break or worry whether businesses are getting tax cuts or not. The issue is that media tend to focus on few popular companies that increased or decreased hiring rather than the total job openings. A lot more people would have been jobless without this tax cut I'm very sure about that. The real issue with tax breaks is government debt. It's going out of control ever since Obama approved removing the debt ceiling. I am not a financial expert but I think one day we will have to answer for this large debt. Maybe we won't ... maybe the government will just print the money to pay it back.

The tax cuts didn't help with jobs. Have been discussed repeatedly it doesn't.

Tax cuts for the middle class and poor help create jobs due to increased consumer demand, the middle class mostly broke even and was a wash. So that doesn't qualify here.

Tax cuts for businesses don't create jobs period as they are taxed on their profits, not gross income and worker pay is tax deductible outside of the payroll tax. That is myth, that is a lie. Stop lying and repeating that myth.

Tax cuts for the mega rich don't typically create jobs either as they are already have about all they want and don't get more just because they have more money and tend to just throw it into stocks other means to stashing or investing money which don't create jobs otherwise they could invest it into actual businesses which would create jobs and be tax deductible anyways.

And with the debt, that ceiling gets raised as a routine almost every time and did under Bush too, the Republicans tried to weaponize it under Obama to make him look bad. The problem with the debt is increased with these tax cuts and was created due to Bushes tax cuts along with his unfunded wars and made worse by Trump while Obama actually cut our deficit in more than half slowing our debt.

Your entire post was nothing but lies.

[Draco-Onis]

Well man, the thing is, job openings did grow last year. I'm not sure who the "rich" are but many business owners were able to hire more. Yeah the ultra billionaires probably don't care but that's probably related to our naiive tax bracket classification not to tax reductions.

We've been at nearly full employment for years now the problem is not there it's with wage growth, labor participation and other metrics.

[Fugus]

Well man, the thing is, job openings did grow last year. I'm not sure who the "rich" are but many business owners were able to hire more. Yeah the ultra billionaires probably don't care but that's probably related to our naiive tax bracket classification not to tax reductions.

Well, the thing is job growth has been going on for NINE YEARS NOW. So that isn't surprising. And the tax cuts had zero to do with it this entire time.

[voxnor]

Can you feel the trickle down working? Please ignore that it looks, feels, and tastes like urine. Corporations totally aren't taking the money while pissing on the middle class.

Winner of the thread.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know why you insist on this. I've been searching for a job for a while and I know what I'm talking about. Two years ago there was a huge drought in hiring in my field (computer engineering). This year it was so much better and I couldn't keep up with the interviews and openings. I finally landed a job which I should start soon and I doubt I could have done that without the tax breaks.

While I am saddened by your tale of woe, please try to remember that personal experience =/= data. You have a hard time finding a job could be due to 100's of factors other than the market. (Were you willing to move? How far? How qualified are you? Where you going for stretch positions? etc etc etc).

I Am so tired of people thinking their personal experience should effect policy on a national level. It's ridiculous and a 7th grader should be able to discern why.

[vindicatorx]

So did you see your taxes raise or lower this year?

$2000 higher this year and my $9k in what would have been tax deductible expenses out of pocket no longer count. My brother paid $3k more as well. I'm glad the middle class can ensure overly rich assholes can get even more money...

[Draco-Onis]

I don't know why you insist on this. I've been searching for a job for a while and I know what I'm talking about. Two years ago there was a huge drought in hiring in my field (computer engineering). This year it was so much better and I couldn't keep up with the interviews and openings. I finally landed a job which I should start soon and I doubt I could have done that without the tax breaks.

Your personal experience is irrelevant in a face of data, I would assume a computer engineer would grasp that concept rather easily.

- - - Updated - - -

Was the tax break good for the economy? Yes it was.

Not even Trump's treasury department's report says that.

[Fugus]

Well it's amazing how statistics are disregarded as well. "Oh the job market would have grown anyways ...". Really? How would you know that? Since when increasing taxes have a good effect on the economy as a whole? I admit there is undertaxation for super profitable companies but currently our tax brackets don't distinguish between them and just large companies that are not necessarily making obscene amount of money, the tax rate caps way way before we start reading astronomical numbers. Do we need tax reforms? Yes. Was the tax break good for the economy? Yes it was.

Can't still if trolling or honestly believes what he is saying......

[Paranoid Android]

I saw where we lost 30% in corporate tax revenue helping balloon our deficit. I mean even in the fantasy of supply side economics or tax cuts whatever; there is no way we are making that revenue back by hiring and someone thinking job creation. But of course we know this is for the Republicans to bitch about deficits when the other party is in office and how we must cut programs that they don't like.

[zenkai]

Congrats on being the exception to the rule. By comparison my father has been on a fixed income for over a decade and this is the first year he ever had to pay taxes on his social security.

Maybe your dad is bad at math? Everyone got a tax cut, people are more angry because rich people also got a tax cut.

[Draco-Onis]

Maybe your dad is bad at math? Everyone got a tax cut, people are more angry because rich people also got a tax cut.

That is factually incorrect.

[zenkai]

That is factually incorrect.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/b...e-tax-cut.html

[Rasulis]

Which is pretty much the rich and people at the top especially when you consider that 83% of the 1.5 trillion dollars is going to the top 1% and corporations.

Mostly true. Although, technically it helps freelancers and independent contractors also. I received 12k from doing side consulting for a friend, and received 2,400 in deduction (20% of 12k) in addition to our itemized deduction. It was a pleasant surprise.

[Zan15]

Maybe your dad is bad at math? Everyone got a tax cut, people are more angry because rich people also got a tax cut.

That is factually incorrect.

Tell that to the top 10 income states and their residents which includes my ex-wife who now owns our old house.

and she is bad at math, but her accountant/tax professional is not.


Hell even the white house admits that some people will see a tax increase.

You seem smart and generally clear headed (even though people don't like what you have to say) why would you lie about this?