AU64 10,122 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Thanks for all the detail....I'll take some time to go through it....but just a few comments general comment....seems logical to me that those who pay the most taxes, if there is a reduction would get the most benefit in terms of absolute dollars.....but not percentage of taxes paid. And for those paying no income tax which is nearly half the population....why would they get a tax "reduction:"....on zero? . Now if you want to create more credits....that is a different thing in my view and those credits are paid for by the middle class or even the wealthy. And many if not most people in that 45% of non-tax payers also receive many valuable benefits from state and federal agencies that are not taxed as to their values...food stamps, Medicaid, subsidized housing and others. As for the disparity of income, the tax system does not create that condition …..it just reflects the reality of our economy and I don't think you can change those disparities with the tax codes. JMO You can give it a try ….take from the haves and give to the have nots I guess but redistribution of income in my views should not be the purpose of the tax system. Taxes are supposed to raise the funds needed to pay for the operation of the government though over the years the codes have been adjusted to try and achieve social goals of one sort or another....home ownership for example or retirement, etc. . We've gotten used to those deductions and they are hard to talk away. As for double taxation....that's been a factor of life for as long as I've been paying taxes. PS...thanks for all the research. .I'm afraid you have outstripped my ability to deal with all of it.....I just come to the issue on the basis of a business school degree and 60 years of paying income taxes in this country...and trying to legally avoid them where I could find a way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,396 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 3 hours ago, AU64 said: Thanks for all the detail....I'll take some time to go through it....but just a few comments general comment....seems logical to me that those who pay the most taxes, if there is a reduction would get the most benefit in terms of absolute dollars.... "Logical" as determined by what objective ? If the objective is to address inequality, debt obligation, or even economic stimulus, this tax act was not logical at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU64 10,122 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 12 minutes ago, homersapien said: "Logical" as determined by what objective ? If the objective is to address inequality, debt obligation, or even economic stimulus, this tax act was not logical at all. who said those were the objectives? How about just allowing people to keep a bit more of the money they earn and were paying to the government? and do so on a proportional basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,396 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 11 hours ago, AU64 said: who said those were the objectives? How about just allowing people to keep a bit more of the money they earn and were paying to the government? and do so on a proportional basis. No one. I am simply pointing out that the "logic" of the strategy depends on the objective. You alluded to the fact it was "logical" to give the highest taxpayers a proportional decrease in taxes without specifying the strategic objective of the tax change. Tax reductions on a "proportional basis" are not necessarily in the countries interest - the logical think to do - if wealth disparity, debt accumulation, or even economic stimulus are the concerns at issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU64 10,122 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 18 minutes ago, homersapien said: No one. I am simply pointing out that the "logical" strategy depends on the objective. You alluded to the fact it was "logical" to give the highest taxpayers a proportional decrease in taxes without specifying the strategic objective of the tax change. Tax reductions on a "proportional basis" are not necessarily in the countries interest - the logical think to do - if wealth disparity, debt accumulation, or even economic stimulus are the concerns at issue. It was a tax cut bill....that was the objective.....and basically that is what it did. If congress wanted to accomplish other objectives such as you mention, it would have included some provisions to do that or could pass other legislation. Allowing tax payers to keep a bit more of their paychecks was the objective so why muddy the water? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ATX 13,654 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 13 hours ago, channonc said: They are temporary based on the definition of the word. They expire, the corporate breaks do not. As to whether Congress will do anything else, it's hard to say. It took nearly a decade for anything new, and in terms of major tax reform, nothing had really happened since the late 80s. Important to note as well that the tax tables will slightly increase throughout those 10 years and when the cuts expire, about 25% of people will actually pay a higher rate than they were before the bill passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,396 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 11 hours ago, AU64 said: It was a tax cut bill....that was the objective.....and basically that is what it did. If congress wanted to accomplish other objectives such as you mention, it would have included some provisions to do that or could pass other legislation. Allowing tax payers to keep a bit more of their paychecks was the objective so why muddy the water? . Cutting taxes is not a strategy, it's a tactic. It's not an ends but a means to an end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 6 hours ago, Brad_ATX said: Important to note as well that the tax tables will slightly increase throughout those 10 years and when the cuts expire, about 25% of people will actually pay a higher rate than they were before the bill passed. Very true! Thank you for noting that. Let's be very clear about this bill. It was a corporate tax cut. In fact, if you look back on early conversations as this bill was coming together, Speaker Ryan and W&M Chair Brady were actually pushing for two separate bills: one corporate-- which would go first, and a second to address individuals. Republicans in swing districts pushed hard for individual tax reform to be included because they couldn't go home and campaign on just cutting corporate taxes. Individual taxes were really only thrown in there as a way to win over the votes of the Republican caucus as the corporate package alone didn't have enough votes. Ironically, it looks like it didn't matter as many of those moderate swing Republicans either retired or lost re-election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jared52 4,354 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 I didn't vote because the answer is "it's complicated". I saw a bump in my take home pay like most did and figured I'd take a roughly similar cut in my refund. It turned out it, I got more than I expected. It was less than last year with little change in income, but adding back the amount that was added after the withholding decreased, I took home more. What's interesting is looking 2017 and 2018 returns, the amount of tax I owed was a good bit more than last year, but again, after all the math, I paid less taxes overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mims44 1,882 Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 Got 3,000 less on our return. Household income had increased by slightly over 10,000. 😖 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.