• 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!

How You're Not Really Getting a Tax Cut

ksu_aviator said:
You don't adjust percentages for inflation. :roll::roll:
Click to expand...

Why, yes you can. .. if you take a look at brackets. Each bracket is a monetary range.

For example,, if Bracket 1 is 1 to 10,000 in 1955's money at 10%,then thein 2017, that 10,000 is 91000, so bracket 1 would be 91000. that affectively means (rouned out), that a 1955 dollar is worth 9 dollars in someone in 2017.

SO, If the highest tax bracket in 1955 was 400,000 (It actualliy was), the highest tax bracket should be adjusted to 3.6 million.
 
calamity said:
More than 95% of the people here make and probably more than what 75% of you all and your wives make combined, judging by published US income statistics.
Click to expand...

You must have some astronomically high itemized deductions to not be coming out ahead.
 
NonConformer said:
The problem with this tax thingy is that it does not address SPENDING, which is a far bigger problem. The federal budget is ... what is it now? Nearly $4 Trillion, and growing. And the RATE of growth is growing, too.

A tax cut without a corresponding spending cut does no good. Every dime the government spends has to come from someplace. They can get it via taxes, or they can print up pieces of paper with pictures of dead presidents, but either way, we citizens get stuck paying for it all.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

Unfortunately, the only way we're ever going to get back to fiscal responsibility at the federal level is to institute primary taxation at the state level. That just isn't going to happen until the people decide to grab their pitchforks and torches and march on the Potomac.
 
Seems like calamity doesnt have a job.

Sorry calamity, most are getting a TAX cut. Sounds like you don't have a job to me. Move out of your mothers basement. I have ran the numbers on myself and I will be paying in over $4000 less under PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TAX PLAN. GOD BLESS PRESIDENT TRUMP, TRUMP 2020
 
BlackMatters said:
Seems like calamity doesnt have a job.

Sorry calamity, most are getting a TAX cut. Sounds like you don't have a job to me. Move out of your mothers basement. I have ran the numbers on myself and I will be paying in over $4000 less under PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TAX PLAN. GOD BLESS PRESIDENT TRUMP, TRUMP 2020
Click to expand...

Not at all likely. But do continue blowing that smoke. It's rather entertaining.
 
ksu_aviator said:
It says you are liberal. Shouldn't you want to pay more in taxes? Isn't that what your side wants? Stop complaining when you get what you ask for.
Click to expand...

It says you are very conservative. Shouldn't you oppose increasing the deficit as this new tax bill does? Isn't that what your side wants?
 
Winchester said:
You must have some astronomically high itemized deductions to not be coming out ahead.
Click to expand...

It doesn't take astronomically high, just regular old deductions over $12K, to lose out because the yanked your exemption. I showed the math, twice. Obviously math isn't a strong suit among Trump supporters.
 
tres borrachos said:
It says you are very conservative. Shouldn't you oppose increasing the deficit as this new tax bill does? Isn't that what your side wants?
Click to expand...

I don’t by the premise of your question. However, the tax bill is half the loaf of bread. The other half is spending constraints.

“Give me half a loaf today and I’ll get the other half tomorrow”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ksu_aviator said:
I don’t by the premise of your question. However, the tax bill is half the loaf of bread. The other half is spending constraints.

“Give me half a loaf today and I’ll get the other half tomorrow”.


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

Spending constraints? Wrong.
 
calamity said:
It doesn't take astronomically high, just regular old deductions over $12K, to lose out because the yanked your exemption. I showed the math, twice. Obviously math isn't a strong suit among Trump supporters.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
calamity said:
It doesn't take astronomically high, just regular old deductions over $12K, to lose out because the yanked your exemption. I showed the math, twice. Obviously math isn't a strong suit among Trump supporters.
Click to expand...

First, I'm not sure how much of a Trump supporter Winchester is. Second, he's a professional who does this kind of thing for a living. He's not speculating. His commentary, like mine, isn't based in politics. It's based in experience and knowledge of how these things work.
 
Lutherf said:
First, I'm not sure how much of a Trump supporter Winchester is. Second, he's a professional who does this kind of thing for a living. He's not speculating. His commentary, like mine, isn't based in politics. It's based in experience and knowledge of how these things work.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe he should show the math. No one here other than me has even tried.
 
ksu_aviator said:
It says you are liberal. Shouldn't you want to pay more in taxes? Isn't that what your side wants? Stop complaining when you get what you ask for.
Click to expand...

It says you are very conservative. Shouldn't you want to lower the deficit? Isn't that what your side wants? Stop congratulating yourself for being a hypocrite.
 
If half of people aren't paying federal tax as is, then there is no reason half the people would benefit from any tax cuts. Accordingly, this will only benefit those who are paying and hurt those who are paying.
 
ksu_aviator said:
I don’t by the premise of your question. However, the tax bill is half the loaf of bread. The other half is spending constraints.

“Give me half a loaf today and I’ll get the other half tomorrow”.


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

How about you go get the other half today, and I'll give you this half tomorrow.

The spending cuts should have been the first priority. Otherwise, only 1 of 2 things will happen : either they'll never show up, or they'll be the worst possible spending cuts.
 
Single individual under the age of 65, no dependents, does not itemize -

2017 AGI - $45000
Standard deduction + personal exemption - $10,400
Taxable income - $34,600
Tax due - $4,728

2018 AGI - $45,000
Standard deduction - $12,000
Taxable income - $33,000
Tax due - $3,769

Savings, $959
 
ksu_aviator said:
All this was disclosed in the numerous press conferences. Almost 70% of households don't itemize and the people that do itemize tend to be "rich". So, I'm guessing you'd support that. Are there some that do itemize and aren't rich? Sure. But the negative impact is far below the positive impact.
Click to expand...

I itemize. I'm far from rich. Just own a home and pay state income taxes like many people who itemize.
 
Married taxpayers under the age of 65 w/ 2 dependents under the age of 16. Wage income of $80,000. Itemized deductions of $18,000.

2017 AGI - $80,000
Standard deduction + personal exemptions - $28,900
Taxable income - $45,800
Tax due - $5,941
Child Tax Credit - $2,000
Net tax due - $3,941

2018 AGI - $80,000
Standard deduction - $24,000
Taxable income - $56,000
Tax due - $6,339
Child tax credit - $4,000
Net tax due - $2,339

Savings - $1,602
 
calamity said:
Show the math; prove me wrong
Click to expand...

The break even AGI for your hypothetical married taxpayers who currently have $24,000 in itemized deductions and 2 personal exemptions totalling $8,100 is approx $83,167, just below that they pay more in tax with the new law, above that they start winning.

Old Law 83,167 - 24,000 - 8,100 = 51,067 taxable income. 2017 rates (51,067 - 18650)*.15+1865 = $6,728

New Law $83,167 - 24000 = 59,167 taxable income. 2018 rates (59,167 - 18650)*.12+1865 = $6,727

Now you tell me how many hypothetical people out there have AGI of $83,167 or less and $24,000 in itemized deductions... not very god damn many.

Edit:

More than likely it will look like this:

Old Law $83,167 - 12,600 - 8,100 = $62,467. 2017 (62,467 - 18650)* .15 + 1865 = $8,438

New Law see above = $6,727.

Savings $1,711

Maybe being I'm not a ****ing Trump supporter I can do math, I'm not sure what your excuse is.
 
Last edited:
HOH filer w/ 1 dependent under the age of 16. Wages of $30,000. Does not itemize

2017 AGI - $30,000
standard deduction + personal exemptions - $$17,450
Taxable income - $12,550
Tax due - $1,258
Child tax credit - $1,000
EITC - $3,155
Net tax due - ($2,897)

2018 AGI - $30,000
Standard deduction - $18,000
Taxable income - $12,000
Tax due - $$1,200
Child tax credit - $2,000
EITC (should be roughly the same as 2017) - $3,150
Net tax due - ($3,950)

Savings - $1,053
 
Oh calamity, do you want to do the math on which tax brackets got the higher percentage cut?
 
Lutherf said:
HOH filer w/ 1 dependent under the age of 16. Wages of $30,000. Does not itemize

2017 AGI - $30,000
standard deduction + personal exemptions - $$17,450
Taxable income - $12,550
Tax due - $1,258
Child tax credit - $1,000
EITC - $3,155
Net tax due - ($2,897)

2018 AGI - $30,000
Standard deduction - $18,000
Taxable income - $12,000
Tax due - $$1,200
Child tax credit - $2,000
EITC (should be roughly the same as 2017) - $3,150
Net tax due - ($3,950)

Savings - $1,053
Click to expand...

You show a savings for 2017 ($2897) and an increase for 2018 ($3950).
 
calamity said:
You show a savings for 2017 ($2897) and an increase for 2018 ($3950).
Click to expand...

The brackets indicate a negative tax rate. In both cases the taxpayer receives a "refund" (actually, since no tax was due it's more "free money"). In 2018 that "refund" would be $3,950 as opposed to a refund of $2,897 in 2017.

I apologize for the confusion, based on your apparent expertise I simply assumed that you would be familiar with the convention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom