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

[Gestopft]

Lower corporate taxes does make a country a more desirable place for corporations to HQ in or invest in general. Which may increase jobs but most certainly increases wealth. If you want the tax revenue for government programs then just say that, that's fine for you to have a preference. But you shouldn't imply a correlation-causation that doesn't exist.

And Delaware is a fantastic place to headquarter your corporation, for all the good it does its citizens.

[PC2]

And Delaware is a fantastic place to headquarter your corporation, for all the good it does its citizens.

That's good to be a corporate hub. Even if Delaware doesn't get a lot of direct benefit, the federal government still gets more income tax and capital gains tax when there is more businesses.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I received a few hundred dollars less in my refund, but I received about $40 extra in my paycheck each week, so I ended up ahead. Solidly middle class, according to Pew, which is surprising, but then again I live in the Los Angeles area where cost of living is pretty high.

So you gained $480 and received "A few hundred" dollars less in your return. I've had scratch tickets with bigger wins than your year to year tax gains.

- - - Updated - - -

That's good to be a corporate hub. Even if Delaware doesn't get a lot of direct benefit, the federal government still gets more income tax and capital gains tax when there is more businesses.

I mean, we've already established that paying less taxes does not generate more business. Every corporation moving to the state with the lowest state taxes just adds to their bottom line.

[Fugus]

Nothing changed regarding social security income and federal taxes so I'm not sure what happened here unless his COL (cost of living) increases finally pushed him above the amount where you owe no taxes.

They didn't change the social security taxes directly, they changed the deductions I think so he now actually hits that cap.

[the game]

That's fine. I and just about everyone else on these forums call your statement as bullshit because everyone else we know had higher taxes this year, had to pay for the first time in many many years, or received far less in their refund than they've ever received. You can claim you paid far less in yours (which nobody here believes) but until you prove it, your claim is just a 100% bullshit internet claim by a Trump supporter trying to make Agent Orange sound like a good man.

Don't speak for me or anyone else on this forum. You have no right to tell people what the rest of us think.

[petej0]

That's fine. I and just about everyone else on these forums call your statement as bullshit because everyone else we know had higher taxes this year, had to pay for the first time in many many years, or received far less in their refund than they've ever received. You can claim you paid far less in yours (which nobody here believes) but until you prove it, your claim is just a 100% bullshit internet claim by a Trump supporter trying to make Agent Orange sound like a good man.

That doesnt necessarily mean you paid more in taxes. The IRS changed the withholding rates so less was taken out of your paychecks during the year. This would mean depending on your situation you would receive a lower refund or end up owing at the end of the year.

- - - Updated - - -

So you gained $480 and received "A few hundred" dollars less in your return. I've had scratch tickets with bigger wins than your year to year tax gains.

I am not sure what your point is

[Spectral]

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

Roughly a $5K year-over-year tax break. That's pretty good for the first year. It should be larger for me in coming years as my wife is just starting her first "real" postgraduate job and the share of my income coming from a pass-through entity is increasing.

I'm still concerned about the policy from a federal fiscal responsibility perspective, but if people really want to bang the "support your interests!" drum, I'm going to go ahead and prefer a tax plan that cuts my taxes significantly. I'd like to see fiscal offsets for that, but at this point, federal fiscal politics is almost entirely just smash and grab spoils.

- - - Updated - - -

I received a few hundred dollars less in my refund, but I received about $40 extra in my paycheck each week...

So you gained $480 and received "A few hundred" dollars less in your return. I've had scratch tickets with bigger wins than your year to year tax gains.

He wrote week, not month. Presumably he wound up at ~$1500 net increase.

- - - Updated - - -

Care to show your tax returns for 2016, 2017, and 2018 to prove this? Obviously you could black out any personal information so your identity doesn't get stolen while still proving your claim.....

Depending on your situation, this might not really be all that useful. In my comparison above, the numbers I'm referencing are comparing my 2018 taxes to what I'd have paid with the previous schedule rather than just comparing year over year - my income has changed enough and the sources have changed enough over the course of those years that it's not really all that useful to just compare 2017 to 2018 (2018 had higher W-2 income, higher income from taxable stock investments, but losses from a business as a pass-through entity).

Really though, you can just look at the aggregated data. Most people that earn over $50K got tax cuts, so there's nothing unbelievable about someone saying "I'm middle class and got a cut". For people over $100K the cuts are pretty significant.

To reiterate, that doesn't mean they're a good idea, but from a simple "did I get a cut?" perspective, most people over $50K should be answering yes.

- - - Updated - - -

Roads, bridges, police, immigration officers, the government is also the US's #1 employer by far.

Federal income taxes aren't doing a lot for roads, bridges, and police. Most of the things that people think about when they think of things that their government does that they're pretty happy with are things that are done by state and local governments. The bulk of federal spending is transfers to the elderly, disabled, poor, sick, veterans, and military. That's fine, it's an appropriate function for the federal government (in my view), but the more tangible physical investments that are made in your locale are usually paid for by your city, county, or state.

By extension, if someone wanted to do fiscal offsets for a tax cut, they need to bite the bullet of saying which group they think is getting too much - the elderly, the sick, the poor, or veterans, or some combination thereof. Any other spending cut is a drop in the bucket of the federal government.

[Draco-Onis]

I guess we can't trust New York Times any more.

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

I don't think you read it, nearly half of American workers make under 30K

1 IN 2 WORKING AMERICANS MAKE LESS THAN $30,000 A YEAR

So yes the majority of Americans didn't get a tax cut by your own graph.

[Svifnymr]

Really though, you can just look at the aggregated data. Most people that earn over $50K got tax cuts, so there's nothing unbelievable about someone saying "I'm middle class and got a cut". For people over $100K the cuts are pretty significant.

To reiterate, that doesn't mean they're a good idea, but from a simple "did I get a cut?" perspective, most people over $50K should be answering yes.

Yeah, for myself my tax rate dropped a little, year over year, my refund being a little higher and my paycheck getting a little less taken out, %wise. Likewise, my company DID give a raise to employees that'd been with company over a couple years, 2% per year worked, so I got a nice 18% raise for the trouble. It was like 1/3 of their tax savings, another 1/3 going to pay down debt and another 1/3 going to equipment and stuff. Of course, this year payroll is over in a lot of places so they're cutting hours for those areas, but it's more due to other things than salaries.

Coke is reshuffling for instance, using savings to buy out some older/ higher rate employees and move others around.

I think a bunch of this is due to the "Planned Parenthood" or "Net Neutrality" type deal. It's all well and fine for a company to raise rates and hire more when taxes are cut, unless they can fully expect taxes to go back up in a couple years when Dem's take over. Long term goals in a country where each party has power to wildly swing the work environment means a lot more short term "take what we get" stuff rather than counting on long term savings being there.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think you read it, nearly half of American workers make under 30K

1 IN 2 WORKING AMERICANS MAKE LESS THAN $30,000 A YEAR

So yes the majority of Americans didn't get a tax cut by your own graph.

https://www.wkco.com/2017-vs-2018-fe...-tax-brackets/
I'm sure there's a few that didn't, but most of the ones that didn't save ANYTHING, probably didn't pay anything either.

[Fugus]

I think a bunch of this is due to the "Planned Parenthood" or "Net Neutrality" type deal. It's all well and fine for a company to raise rates and hire more when taxes are cut, unless they can fully expect taxes to go back up in a couple years when Dem's take over. Long term goals in a country where each party has power to wildly swing the work environment means a lot more short term "take what we get" stuff rather than counting on long term savings being there.

What about Planned Parenthood and Net Neutrality?

And the company has zero incentive to hire more when taxes are raised or lowered. Employee wages are tax deductible outside of the payroll tax and is setup expressly to prevent that conflict of interest.

Lets say you lowered taxes on them. Why would they hire more? You didn't do anything to increase consumer demand for their goods and services, you did nothing to make it require more workers to meet their current demand. So they have no reason to hire more workers as that is throwing money away to them for no actual benefit on their part. They aren't making more money hiring those workers, they are just spending more paying them.


Lets say you raised taxes on them. Would they fire more or hire less? You didn't do anything to decrease consumer demand for their goods and services and as such they will still need those workers to provide them otherwise they are leaving money on the table and the taxes are only paid out of their profits, not their net income and the employees wages are, again, tax deductible.

The companies won't hire and fire based on the tax rates, that is a myth that doesn't match the data we have and goes against the way taxes are setup to begin with.

[Draco-Onis]

https://www.wkco.com/2017-vs-2018-fe...-tax-brackets/
I'm sure there's a few that didn't, but most of the ones that didn't save ANYTHING, probably didn't pay anything either.

That is your opinion but the fact is most Americans saw no change, it's obvious that it wasn't a tax cut for everyone so put together by sheer numbers most people saw no change in their taxes. Trump's entire spin was that it was a tax cuts for most Americans that is obviously a lie.

[Hobb]

At the end of the day most Americans see Trump's tax reform as a failure. While 78% of republicans approve, only 32% of the independents and 16% of the democrats approve of the new tax changes.

-40% of Americans approve of Trump tax cuts, 49% disapprove
-Just 14% say their taxes have gone down because of new tax laws
-Record-tying-low 45% say the tax they pay is too high

With Tax Day almost here, support for the 2017 tax overhaul that Trump hailed as an "economic miracle" is steady at its high point, but more still view it negatively than positively. Americans seem to have made up their minds about the law one year ago. If the law is lowering their taxes, Americans aren't feeling it. In fact, more think their taxes have increased rather than decreased as a result, but the plurality remain unsure.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/248681/...ut%2520Benefit

[petej0]

What about Planned Parenthood and Net Neutrality?

And the company has zero incentive to hire more when taxes are raised or lowered. Employee wages are tax deductible outside of the payroll tax and is setup expressly to prevent that conflict of interest.

Lets say you lowered taxes on them. Why would they hire more? You didn't do anything to increase consumer demand for their goods and services, you did nothing to make it require more workers to meet their current demand. So they have no reason to hire more workers as that is throwing money away to them for no actual benefit on their part. They aren't making more money hiring those workers, they are just spending more paying them.


Lets say you raised taxes on them. Would they fire more or hire less? You didn't do anything to decrease consumer demand for their goods and services and as such they will still need those workers to provide them otherwise they are leaving money on the table and the taxes are only paid out of their profits, not their net income and the employees wages are, again, tax deductible.

The companies won't hire and fire based on the tax rates, that is a myth that doesn't match the data we have and goes against the way taxes are setup to begin with.

It isnt as black and white as everyone makes it out to be. If you are lowering rates across the board you can argue that you could be increasing demand by putting more disposable income in the hands of consumers which companies can try to take advantage of by expanding hiring more etc. A similar argument can be made for raising taxes across the board.

As for cutting or raising taxes, it has diminishing returns. Going from 90% to 30% is going to have a great effect on the economy. Going from 30% to 25% less so and again from 25% to 20%.

[Fugus]

It isnt as black and white as everyone makes it out to be. If you are lowering rates across the board you can argue that you could be increasing demand by putting more disposable income in the hands of consumers which companies can try to take advantage of by expanding hiring more etc. A similar argument can be made for raising taxes across the board.

As for cutting or raising taxes, it has diminishing returns. Going from 90% to 30% is going to have a great effect on the economy. Going from 30% to 25% less so and again from 25% to 20%.

Oh yeah, if you are talking about lowering taxes for actual income, that can definitely do it because that actually gives consumers more money to spend and they typically spend most of their income.

It is when you are talking about cutting taxes on corporations to create jobs that falls apart and cutting taxes on the insanely rich whom already have plateaued in what they can really spend on to improve their life and greatly just sit on it and shuffle it around.


But cutting taxes on the working class, that can definitely do it.

[petej0]

At the end of the day most Americans see Trump's tax reform as a failure. While 78% of republicans approve, only 32% of the independents and 16% of the democrats approve of the new tax changes.





https://news.gallup.com/poll/248681/...ut%2520Benefit

"In fact, more think their taxes have increased rather than decreased"

The key word is think. I would venture that if they received a smaller refund most would think that.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh yeah, if you are talking about lowering taxes for actual income, that can definitely do it because that actually gives consumers more money to spend and they typically spend most of their income.

It is when you are talking about cutting taxes on corporations to create jobs that falls apart and cutting taxes on the insanely rich whom already have plateaued in what they can really spend on to improve their life and greatly just sit on it and shuffle it around.


But cutting taxes on the working class, that can definitely do it.

The insanely rich dont just sit on their wealth and shuffle it around. They invest it, they buy favor with it, they bribe colleges or politicians with it. Right or wrong it is still in the economy working its way around. That college bribe probably was used to buy a new car. That investment was used to give a loan to start a new business. That political bribe was used to buy a new home. Its working through the economy, not some number sitting in a bank account.

Not that I necessarily agree with giving tax cuts to the wealthy. I think that money can be better used. If you ask me we could raise the tax on those in the top 10% and eliminate taxes for the bottom 70% which would provide a huge economic boon for the 10%.

[Draco-Onis]

The insanely rich dont just sit on their wealth and shuffle it around. They invest it, they buy favor with it, they bribe colleges or politicians with it. Right or wrong it is still in the economy working its way around. That college bribe probably was used to buy a new car. That investment was used to give a loan to start a new business. That political bribe was used to buy a new home. Its working through the economy, not some number sitting in a bank account.

Not that I necessarily agree with giving tax cuts to the wealthy. I think that money can be better used. If you ask me we could raise the tax on those in the top 10% and eliminate taxes for the bottom 70% which would provide a huge economic boon for the 10%.

We have decades upon decades of data on this giving taxes to the wealthy does not stimulate the economy. Aside from that every economic body from Trump's treasury department to Goldman Sachs stated that the tax cut would not trickle down. If I remember the Goldman Sachs report correctly it said that after a number of years the tax cuts would have a negative affect on GDP growth.

[Hobb]

"In fact, more think their taxes have increased rather than decreased"

The key word is think. I would venture that if they received a smaller refund most would think that.

- - - Updated - - -

Perception is everything. If most think its a failure, then its viewed as a failure.

[petej0]

We have decades upon decades of data on this giving taxes to the wealthy does not stimulate the economy. Aside from that every economic body from Trump's treasury department to Goldman Sachs stated that the tax cut would not trickle down. If I remember the Goldman Sachs report correctly it said that after a number of years the tax cuts would have a negative affect on GDP growth.

Thats nice, but not what I am arguing.

[Beazy]

When I compare my taxes from last year, I got about 250 bucks less, but my monthly tax burden went down like 30 bucks a month.

The whole tax cut thing really didnt net me anything extra, or less. I dont do a lot of claims at the end of the year, so that could be one of the reasons I see little to no difference.

[Svifnymr]

What about Planned Parenthood and Net Neutrality?

PP plans around Dem/ Rep being in charge, Net Neutrality can switch back or forth depending on who is in charge. Granted Tax rules are at least a law that needs passing, but still long term.

And the company has zero incentive to hire more when taxes are raised or lowered. Employee wages are tax deductible outside of the payroll tax and is setup expressly to prevent that conflict of interest.

Money at the end of the day is money, there's plenty of businesses that can increase results with more people, but risks are risks and at the end of the day you need to hit certain numbers.

Lets say you raised taxes on them. Would they fire more or hire less? You didn't do anything to decrease consumer demand for their goods and services and as such they will still need those workers to provide them otherwise they are leaving money on the table and the taxes are only paid out of their profits, not their net income and the employees wages are, again, tax deductible.

They usually do reduce hiring or increase work on current employees when costs change, the death spiral in customer service being when you put more work on employees due to cutting costs, which drives down sales and results in more cuts. Still need to hit the profit numbers. Obviously the shareholders know you got the tax cut and want their cut of it too, so it's a game.

- - - Updated - - -

That is your opinion but the fact is most Americans saw no change, it's obvious that it wasn't a tax cut for everyone so put together by sheer numbers most people saw no change in their taxes. Trump's entire spin was that it was a tax cuts for most Americans that is obviously a lie.

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.