• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Trump tax calculator — will you pay more or less?

MaggieD said:
It was my understand that all of the personal changes sunset in seven years. The business ones remain. Why are you insinuating they last only a year and only middle class and poor disappear? All the personal ones disappear in seven, I believe. No wonder people don’t like the bill. They dont even understand it. And it MUST be bad ‘cause it wasn’t put up by their party.
Click to expand...

I wasn't insinuating that at all. I'm insinuating that this calculator is for the first year only. Actually I was asking if it were calculating more than just the first year. Because that bill seems to front load the tax cuts then sunset them on all but the rich... which I seriously doubt is a part of the calcuator's math.
 
poweRob said:
I wasn't insinuating that at all. I'm insinuating that this calculator is for the first year only. Actually I was asking if it were calculating more than just the first year. Because that bill seems to front load the tax cuts then sunset them on all but the rich... which I seriously doubt is a part of the calcuator's math.
Click to expand...

In seven years. Not one. And not just for the rich. For all personal changes.
 
maxparrish said:
"Why is he insinuating"? Most likely because he picked up some confirmation bias from his partisan readings and swallowed the rubbish whole.
Click to expand...

Really? So some tax cuts don't expire? That's all a fantasy? Yeah... speaking of confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias doesn't have me crying to the ****ing moon about deficits when it's a dem in the whitehouse then hand waiving an extra trillion in debt when it's a repub in the whitehouse as you are doing right now.
 
Last edited:
dobieg said:
You can worry about year 11 or be happy as hell at the near $50k you'll save in the meantime.
Click to expand...

Which will be ate up by the giant premium hikes that are coming... that then dont' pay your medical bills because of rescission being legal again.
 
MaggieD said:
In seven years. Not one. And not just for the rich. For all personal changes.
Click to expand...

By definition perhaps. But most of us nonrich folk don't divert our income through stock dividends and any other back channel that called anything other than what our taxes is called.
 
poweRob said:
By definition perhaps. But most of us nonrich folk don't divert our income through stock dividends and any other back channel that called anything other than what our taxes is called.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I don’t understand your post.
 
MaggieD said:
Sorry. I don’t understand your post.
Click to expand...

For the 99 percent of taxpayers making less than $500,000, salaries and wages account for 75 percent of their adjusted gross income for 2012, the latest period available from Internal Revenue Service returns. Of the remaining income, about half came from retirement programs such as pensions, annuities and Individual Retirement Accounts.

For taxpayers making $500,000 to $1 million, salaries and wages account for more than half of earnings.

But for those making $10 million or more, salaries and wages only account for around 15 percent of their income. Their real money comes from capital gains, with capital gains accounting for about half of their earnings. Another 15 percent to 20 percent came from interest and dividends. About 25 percent of their income came from business income, which means they owned or held a stake in a private company.

It's no surprise that the really rich make their money from, well, money. But Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center said the data doesn't mean that all of the wealthy are just sitting around making millions from the stock market every year. Many of the people in that $10 million-or-more group don't repeat their mega-earnings every year. Their income came from a one-time sale of a business or asset, leading to a capital gain.

link...​

The bolded shows why personal income tax sun-setting on the bulk of us doesn't really effect the true income on the rich. Their income isn't wages they pay tax on so sun-setting theirs has little to no effect. Now check out the bolded red... I know you recall the GOP's constant bashing of the so-called "death taxes" which is capital gains tax. That's the tax they really want to kill. It's because of that last line. It has nothing to do with being forced to pay taxes on inheritance being handed down after they die as they always portray it to be... it has to do with carving out a different tax standard the rich get so that they don't pay taxes on their true income.

In short. We pay income tax. The rich pay capital gains tax.
 
Last edited:
Republicans have busted their asses for decades now to create a completely separate tax system and standard for the rich than for the rest of us. So when they say, "All income taxes will get this or that..." they are talking about our income. Rich people's taxes is just called something else. They leave that out.

Here's some reconciliation between the senate and house bills.

House:
Eliminated entirely, starting in 2024. Before being fully repealed, the estate tax exemption will double. Those inheriting and then selling shares of stocks would also not be required to pay capital gains taxes on those sales.

Senate:
Dramatically limited, but not repealed entirely. Currently, up to $5.5 million can be passed down tax-free. The Senate bill would allow up to $11 million to be passed on tax free.

link...​

Rich people problems.

To pass the bill in the house the GOP has to squabble over how much tax free income to give the rich because according to Republicans... that kind of money is not "income" because it ddin't come in the form of a paycheck.
 
Last edited:
I'd save $1,917 under the House plan and $2,708 under the Senate. Glad the government is finally going in the right direction.
 
digsbe said:
I'd save $1,917 under the House plan and $2,708 under the Senate. Glad the government is finally going in the right direction.
Click to expand...

And that right direction is $1 Trillion more in deficit? Because deficits don't matter... but only when republicans are in control.

You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. - Dick Cheney​
 
poweRob said:
And that right direction is $1 Trillion more in deficit? Because deficits don't matter... but only when republicans are in control.

You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. - Dick Cheney​
Click to expand...

Please... Obama added 1.4 trillion in his first year. The predicted deficit you speak of is over 10 years and if it generates economic opportunity (more total wealth to be taxed) it has the chance of being deficit neutral or even bring in more tax.

Regardless though, the government needs to lower both taxes and spending. We need to shrink the fed.
 
Saving money on both the House and Senate bill!

Strange not one single solitary democrat voted for this?
People across the country are going to be happy with a few more bucks in their pocket!
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Saving money on both the House and Senate bill!

Strange not one single solitary democrat voted for this?
People across the country are going to be happy with a few more bucks in their pocket!
Click to expand...

They'd rather cling to partisanship and try to lie and paint this as some kind of abuse of the lower/middle class with the GOP funneling their wealth up to the rich. To be fair the GOP was like that regarding the ACA though with the death panel talk
 
digsbe said:
Please... Obama added 1.4 trillion in his first year.
Click to expand...

And why was that again. Let me provide the context you are leaving out... to bail us out of a dead republican economy GW left us with. I suppose your memory of that is lost amirite? Then he decreased the deficit by two thirds after stabilizing the republican economic debacle.

digsbe said:
The predicted deficit you speak of is over 10 years and if it generates economic opportunity (more total wealth to be taxed) it has the chance of being deficit neutral or even bring in more tax.
Click to expand...

A false narrative trickle down proponents always tout but doesn't come true in any long term sense. It runs the economy hot for a year or two and then flops and the deficit sky-rockets.

digsbe said:
Regardless though, the government needs to lower both taxes and spending. We need to shrink the fed.
Click to expand...

Nope... we need to stimulate the economy with demand. The only true ingredient that stimulates economies.
 
poweRob said:
By definition perhaps. But most of us nonrich folk don't divert our income through stock dividends and any other back channel that called anything other than what our taxes is called.
Click to expand...

Dividends are taxed as ordinary income. Most normal people shelter their income through 401k/IRA’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Pay a little more with house plan, save a little with the Senate plan. Would prefer to know what the rates are at my retirement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Dividends are taxed as ordinary income. Most normal people shelter their income through 401k/IRA’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You are right. It's the sales of stock that are considered capital gains if I'm not mistaken.
 
poweRob said:
You are right. It's the sales of stock that are considered capital gains if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...

Yes, short term if help less than a year or long term if held more than a year. No guarantees as with a paycheck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Saving money on both the House and Senate bill!

Strange not one single solitary democrat voted for this?
People across the country are going to be happy with a few more bucks in their pocket!
Click to expand...

Since this plan will cost me about 1000 bucks I am very happy my representatives did not vote for it. But glad it works for you.

Also since some GOP members have been quite candid that they intend to make cuts to Soc. Sec. and Medicare to pay for the lost revenue, hard to see how this is good for middle and lower class people.
 
I'd save $1550 under house plan and $1283 under the senate plan
 
JMR said:
Since this plan will cost me about 1000 bucks I am very happy my representatives did not vote for it. But glad it works for you.

Also since some GOP members have been quite candid that they intend to make cuts to Soc. Sec. and Medicare to pay for the lost revenue, hard to see how this is good for middle and lower class people.
Click to expand...

You mean lower income people, right?
 
If I bump my income to $1.325 Million I pay roughly $31k more under the House bill and roughly $12k more under the Senate plan.

Looks like I'm going to have to turn that raise down.:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom