Fraggle Rock
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2017
- Messages
- 960
- Reaction score
- 384
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
And you say nothing.
But at least I am not afraid to say what positions and political leanings I fall under. :lamo
And you say nothing.
Quote from the same link you provided "This would be good news for everyone currently in the top two brackets (35% and 40%). These taxpayers would see their effective rate drop down to 33%, by 2 and 7 percentage points respectively. Conversely, the simplification would bad news for the taxpayers in the lowest bracket (10%). These would see their effective tax rate go up by 2 percentage points, to 12%.
But even in the middle, where many would stay in the same bands as before (25% and 33%), there would be losers as well as winners. Most people in the 15% bracket would drop down to a 12% rate. But a tiny sliver of top earners in this bracket (earning between $37,500 and $37,650) would have the misfortune of seeing their effective tax rate go up by 10 percentage points, to 25%.
A similar thing would happen to the old 28% bracket: taxpayers with incomes between $91,150 and $112,500 would drop three percentage points to 25%, while those between $112,500 and $190,150 would see their tax rate go up 5 percentage points to 33%.
All income amounts quoted here apply to single filers (left side of the graph); but the graph also shows the changes for joint filers (on the right). The calculation is pretty easy – double the amounts for the single filers.
The graph does not take into account other aspects of the Trump tax plan not directly related to the changes to income tax bands, such as the increase of standard deductions and a cap on itemized deductions, although of course these would also have an impact on net incomes." Hardly a tax cut when millions upon millions are not seeing a decrease. This is why this is called a 1% tax cut. People living in NY, Conn, Mass NJ, Virginia (especially Northern) Ohio Florida California. etc etc will see a substantial increase mainly due to the loss of itemized deductions.....
But at least I am not afraid to say what positions and political leanings I fall under. :lamo
Why are the corp rates permanent, but ours temporary then?
And the Bush tax cuts were only partially extended. The top rate reverted back.
Thank you! This article clearly explains what net neutrality means. Why it’s called that, I’ll nevderstand. From the link, for others...
I still don’t quite understand it. But I do think the Internet should be regulated just as a utility is, because, in effect, it IS. Does that mean I’m FOR net neutrality or AGAINST it? I’m so confused.
The article does say no one’s seen the proposed legislation though. Cart! Get behind horse!
How man times do you cry wolf?
So how much are my taxes going to be raised? I make almost $100k annual.
With net neutrality, Comcast is free to offer multiple different speeds of internet access for sale, however, for each speed all content is delivered equally. So let's say you have a 50 mbps download speed line. Fox News videos, NYT articles, and Netflix streaming is all delivered at that 50 mbps speed.
Without Net Neutrality, Comcast can sell you a 50mbps line, but if they want to hurt Netflix, they can keep your Fox Video download speed at 50 mpbs, but drop your Netflix to 1 mbps (aka, you won't be able to watch it). Further, they could do that but then charge you an extra $20 "Netflix access fee" to let you get Netflix at the 50 mpbs speed.
Getting rid of net neutrality just a handout to the Comcasts of the world. It will **** the consumer and it will allow them greater means to abuse monopoly power. That, of course, is why they try to sell the idea by saying that getting rid of net neutrality gets rid of "stifling regulation."
Well yeah, the regulation stifles Comcast's ability to screw you even more than they already can.
Thanks. And I wonder why they did that....? Perhaps it is designed to give them a problem to solve and beat drums about during future election campaigns. I’m so cynical about BOTH sides of the aisle as to make this seem likely. It follows an old saying that I will most definitely massacre here, but here’s a lame attempt anyhow: “Just remember, every problem campaigners, especially incumbents, claim they want to solve was probably created by them in the first place.”
What's your reason for supporting the plan? How much do you expect that your taxes are going to be reduced?
Thank you! This article clearly explains what net neutrality means. Why it’s called that, I’ll nevderstand. From the link, for others...
I still don’t quite understand it. But I do think the Internet should be regulated just as a utility is, because, in effect, it IS. Does that mean I’m FOR net neutrality or AGAINST it? I’m so confused.
The article does say no one’s seen the proposed legislation though. Cart! Get behind horse!
Said quite a lot. You refuse to acknowledge. Your loss.do you actually have anything or no? so far i guess not so have an nice day.
And I recognize your right to speak for yourself. But many respectfully disagree with this tax bill.I'm perfectly content getting a tax cut for 6 - 10 years.
It seems one impetus might be the procedural requirement of not using the regular legislative process. They can't exceed the new debt number provided in their recent budget proposal (1.5B), so the use of temporary cuts to individuals effectively shows their new 1.5B deficit prediction is bogus.Thanks. And I wonder why they did that....? Perhaps it is designed to give them a problem to solve and beat drums about during future election campaigns. I’m so cynical about BOTH sides of the aisle as to make this seem likely. It follows an old saying that I will most definitely massacre here, but here’s a lame attempt anyhow: “Just remember, every problem campaigners, especially incumbents, claim they want to solve was probably created by them in the first place.”
B.S.It isn't my fault you have abandoned reasoned discussion. It isn't a generic insult. It is a condition where people that were reasonable in discussion have ceased to be reasonable due to the election of Donald trump.
You know my argument is also speaking to Trump in the larger sense, but it indeed is specifically applicable here as well.However your link has nothing to do with what the OP mentioned or argued.
There is a reason that the OP didn't link anything because here is nothing out here that supports his argument.
I don't buy this argument, because the GOP chose which group to prioritize, and we see the result.As I said, this is not the end of the federal income tax code modification by any means. The rate for the top (1.4%?) tax bracket was raised yet the bulk (the remaining 98.6%?) of the tax payers saw no bracket rate impacts when "Obama" altered the "Bush" tax rates. When (if?) the "Trump" tax rates (and other modifications) are passed that in no way limits future congress critters (or POTUS "mandates") from changing the federal income tax code in the near (or far) future. Just as we saw with "10 year" budget bills they do not last anywhere near ten years before congress critters change those "permanent" spending levels.
I don't buy this argument, because the GOP chose which group to prioritize, and we see the result.
But even going along with your argument, this shows their 1.5B deficit prediction is bull****. They're kicking the can down the road, expiring the tax cut, and adding to the deficit. And you & I get stuck with the bill. Quite frankly, you're hoping the future Congress'es will bail this mess out. And that's a hope I surely am not willing to base my personal finances upon!
Meanwhile the corps and Trump are gold. Their cuts are permanent.
Each person's share of the current national debt is now about $60K (meaning that a family of four's share is about $240K) and nobody seems to much care. $1.5T added to the debt over ten years is "only" $150B/year which is not much out of the $4T of annual federal spending. After seeing Obama running average annual deficits of $1T it is hard to believe that adding $150B to the annual deficit is going to be seen as a big deal. Nothing that congress critters do as far as budgeting is "permanent" - if the demorats get back to having the congressional majority then they can raise taxes on "the rich" and corporations as much as they care (dare?) to.
If you'd like to justify increasing the deficit and debt in a rising rates environment, be my guest.Each person's share of the current national debt is now about $60K (meaning that a family of four's share is about $240K) and nobody seems to much care. $1.5T added to the debt over ten years is "only" $150B/year which is not much out of the $4T of annual federal spending. After seeing Obama running average annual deficits of $1T it is hard to believe that adding $150B to the annual deficit is going to be seen as a big deal. Nothing that congress critters do as far as budgeting is "permanent" - if the demorats get back to having the congressional majority then they can raise taxes on "the rich" and corporations as much as they care (dare?) to.
$150B is a 15% increase in the deficit, are you kidding?!After seeing Obama running average annual deficits of $1T it is hard to believe that adding $150B to the annual deficit is going to be seen as a big deal.
And I recognize your right to speak for yourself. But many respectfully disagree with this tax bill.
And that's amongst many other anti-middle-class items. There's a lot to detest in this bill.Count me in.
As if the overall direction wasn't totally partisan and focused on benefit for the wealthy enough already ...
... the bill targets graduate students for thousands of dollars each.
They are changing the rules such that tuition waivers (for which grad students pay off by working for the school for low wages as teachers, lab conductors, test graders, etc.) are to be considered income.
Thus students must pay income tax on tuition waivers:
- thousands of dollars
- due immediately each year (as per the IRS)
- exceeding any rational concept of having students be able to pay.
- not covered by guaranteed student loan programs or other methods of covering or at least delaying payment.
Basically, they are raising a barrier to block students from middle and lower income families from considering this level of education.
B.S.
It's an insulting generic ad hominem tossed out by those devoid of argument and evidence.
You know my argument is also speaking to Trump in the larger sense, but it indeed is specifically applicable here as well.
Trump associates himself with a cesspool of fraud artists and criminals.
He pulled something similar here, when he licensed his name to a failed Toronto condo project, where many lost their shirts. No different than his university.
Are you even on the right thread?thank you for supporting my original argument.
your link has nothing to do with what the OP posted. why cannot you not address that fact.
you then go on some red herring tangent about donald trump which is irrelevant to the discussion.
do you have anything that would support the OP or not so far you haven't posted anything to do so.
this last post is a clear sign of TDS. why? it is devoid of any and all reasonable discussion and irrelevant tangent about DT.