Tax Bill Calculator: Will Your Taxes Go Up or Down?

[Threegoofs]

You've taken my list way more seriously than you should have. But you do you.

In reality I would suggest that if you can't think of anything in the $760 range you need then you should just start investing it.

In a quick back of envelope calculation, if you took that $760 a year and invested it and got a 2.5% return, in 10 years you'd have $8500... if you carried that habit out for 20 years you'd end up with nearly $20,000.

You're welcome.

Good point. He should be saving this for 10 years so he can afford to pay the taxes that will spike in 2027 to subsidize the wealthy as a result of this ****ty bill.

 

[jmotivator]

Good point. He should be saving this for 10 years so he can afford to pay the taxes that will spike in 2027 to subsidize the wealthy as a result of this ****ty bill.

And by "Spike" you mean "are not extended by the Democrats that you hope are in charge by then".

 

[ttwtt78640]

Good point. He should be saving this for 10 years so he can afford to pay the taxes that will spike in 2027 to subsidize the wealthy as a result of this ****ty bill.

Hmm... did the federal income tax rates "spike" after the "Bush" tax bracket rate cuts expired? Nope, Obama kept 98.6% of them intact and the "Obama" tax rates went up (back to the year 2000 level) only for the top 1.4%.

 

[SirGareth]

Well, you just can't trust the NY Time to give honest answers. So they produced a simple interactive chart so you can see for yourself how badly you are being screwed by the Republicans! Easy- peasy!



https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/17/upshot/tax-calculator.html

Why didn't this estimator list the estimates in percentages of income tax reductions.

One would expect that those who pay no taxes at all would not be getting more money back, but then they would be wrong about that too wouldn't they?

If this were a realistic estimator how would it show that my negative income taxes just increased from minus $5,000 to minus $10,000 a year.

For vast numbers of of Americans (and illegals too,) Federal taxes are negative; that is the IRS sends out "gift cards" that can be redeemed at any bank that can go as high as $20,000 year all paid for by the suckers who work to earn the money taken from them.

 

[Threegoofs]

And by "Spike" you mean "are not extended by the Democrats that you hope are in charge by then".

Oh yeah. Look- we passed such a ****ty bill, Democrats will HAVE to fix it!

 

[Threegoofs]

Hmm... did the federal income tax rates "spike" after the "Bush" tax bracket rate cuts expired? Nope, Obama kept 98.6% of them intact and the "Obama" tax rates went up (back to the year 2000 level) only for the top 1.4%.

Yep. I remember that year. Got slammed in April.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Oh yeah. Look- we passed such a ****ty bill, Democrats will HAVE to fix it!

Yep, like Obama fixed the "Bush" tax bracket rate cuts by keeping 98.6% of them and raising (returning to the year 2000 level) the tax bracket rate for the top 1.4%. I welcome the demorats to run based on fixing (raising) the income tax bracket rates for 75% of all taxpayers.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yep, like Obama fixed the "Bush" tax bracket rate cuts by keeping 98.6% of them and raising (returning to the year 2000 level) the tax bracket rate for the top 1.4%.

Right.

Pass such a ****ty bill, you can always expect the grownups to bail you out eventually.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Right.

Pass such a ****ty bill, you can always expect the grownups to bail you out eventually.

Yep, the same fiscally responsible, grownups that doubled the national debt. We can be assured that they would never do that again - just ask them.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yep, the same fiscally responsible, grownups that doubled the national debt. We can be assured that they would never do that again - just ask them.

You realize that these tax cuts will..add substantially to the national debt, right?

And the reason the ****ty Bill has to be fixed is so the GOP can pretend it won’t add even more to it. And you’re cheering that fix on.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You realize that these tax cuts will..add substantially to the national debt, right?

And the reason the ****ty Bill has to be fixed is so the GOP can pretend it won’t add even more to it. And you’re cheering that fix on.

You are simply spewing (bolded above) nonsense - the republicants acknowledged that the tax changes will likely add $1.5 trillion to the national debt over the next decade (even with rosy GDP growth projections) if no spending cuts are made.

What causes deficits, which add to the national debt, is federal spending in excess of federal tax revenue. The same folks that cheered the economic policy of Obama, which doubled the national debt in 8 years, now profess to be quite concerned about deficit spending yet can find absolutely nothing that can be cut in a $4 trillion (and growing) federal "budget". The simple truth is that taxing 22% of GDP (to cover that level of federal spending) would wreck the economy which is why even the "fiscally responsible" demorats dare not do so.

 

[Threegoofs]

You are simply spewing (bolded above) nonsense - the republicants acknowledged that the tax changes will likely add $1.5 trillion to the national debt over the next decade (even with rosy GDP growth projections) if no spending cuts are made.

What causes deficits, which add to the national debt, is federal spending in excess of federal tax revenue. The same folks that cheered the economic policy of Obama, which doubled the national debt in 8 years, now profess to be quite concerned about deficit spending yet can find absolutely nothing that can be cut in a $4 trillion (and growing) federal "budget". The simple truth is that taxing 22% of GDP (to cover that level of federal spending) would wreck the economy which is why even the "fiscally responsible" demorats dare not do so.

Can’t see bold on my phone.

But the economic times are quite different.

And the biggest issue is the design of the cuts- disproportionately increasing income inequality.

 

[ludin]

Supposedly getting a $760 cut, and I don't want it. $760 split over 24 pay periods works out to about $31 dollars every two weeks. That's nothing. I might buy a nicer bottle of bourbon with it, but not more of it. This will result in no meaningful change whatsoever in my quality of life, nor will I create any jobs with it. Meanwhile this will drive massive deficits, and then Republicans will try and use those deficits as an excuse to make cuts to welfare, foodstamps, education, and subsidies for health care and programs like CHIP.

I will happily pay an extra $760 per year to make sure millionaires and billionaires aren't getting more giveaways, and that these programs stay in place. If Republicans wanted to do something that would truly benefit me they'd eliminate student loan debt instead of getting rid of the tax credits I receive for the interest I'm paying on it.

You are free to send your back to the federal government.

 

[jmotivator]

Oh yeah. Look- we passed such a ****ty bill, Democrats will HAVE to fix it!

And by "fix" you mean not extend it and spike everyone's tax burden.

 

[ludin]

Apparently, you missed the second part of my statement where it says "to make sure millionaires and billionaires aren't getting more giveaways, and that these programs stay in place." My tax cut isn't going to be any good, and my one check won't do didly to help the poor. We use tax money to solve these problems because they belong to the entire society. Particularly those who have benefitted the most from the society. If you benefit exponentially from a society, then you should be paying exponentially more to maintain it.

If it isn't going to be any good then give it back.
Then you can help someone else.

Somehow I know you won't do it.
Just like every other liberal I know when told they can send all the money hey want to the federal government refuses to do.
When it comes to someone else's hard earned money they are very giving. When it comes to their own not so much.

 

[Threegoofs]

And by "fix" you mean not extend it and spike everyone's tax burden.

Right. The thing the GOP wouldn’t do.

I’ve rarely seen a party pass a bill knowing it’s crap, with the express idea that, because it’s crap, the other party will HAVE to fix it eventually.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Can’t see bold on my phone.

But the economic times are quite different.

And the biggest issue is the design of the cuts- disproportionately increasing income inequality.

Income inequality has been increasing for decades and is not going to be fixed by raising income taxation rates. States with higher taxation rates do not have lower income inequality but they do have a higher cost of living which puts even more pressure on lower wage workers. Taxing the Walmart CEO (managers or stockholders) more does not help the Walmart greeter or cart return worker get ahead but it may well raise the cost of everything on the shelves of Walmart.

 

[MrWonka]

If it isn't going to be any good then give it back.
Then you can help someone else.

Sorry, but I'm not going to solve your problems for you.

Somehow I know you won't do it.
Just like every other liberal I know when told they can send all the money hey want to the federal government refuses to do.
When it comes to someone else's hard earned money they are very giving. When it comes to their own not so much.

I'm happy to invest my own money, but when we share the benefits of the outcome equally it only makes sense for us to both invest equally. If I'm the only one doing the investing then I'm going to spend it on something that only benefits me.

Why would I spend all the money to build a road, and then let you drive on it for free? Now, maybe if the road radically benefits me more than you, I might consider investing more than you. Maybe if you having access to the road benefits me more than you, then I'd consider contributing more for the road than you, but if you and I each benefit from the road equally we should be forced to split the cost of the road equally.

Whether you are intelligent enough to grasp it or not welfare, food stamps, unemployment, roads, the military, investments in science..... They benefit us all equally. At least if you're making the same salary I am that is.

There are a lot of things in this world that you can't buy on your own, and even if you could it doesn't make sense to restrict access to you alone. When something benefits us all, we should all contribute to it. If we can't agree to do that, nothing gets done.

It's called a Nash Equilibrium. Sometimes the only way to make the optimal choice is to force cooperation among all relevant parties.

Just ask yourself something. Would you be okay with allowing the liberals of this country to stop funding the military while still being protected by it?

You think that because you'll never need welfare that it doesn't benefit you. You are mistaken.

 

[MrWonka]

States with higher taxation rates do not have lower income inequality but they do have a higher cost of living which puts even more pressure on lower wage workers.

That's why you don't tax the lower wage workers. You see if you're doing this correctly the income inequality will still exist, but it is balanced out via taxes. Also, higher cost of living is driven by the fact that tons of people want to live there. It's a good thing. It means your state is a highly desirable place to live.

Taxing the Walmart CEO (managers or stockholders) more does not help the Walmart greeter or cart return worker get ahead but it may well raise the cost of everything on the shelves of Walmart.

Yes, actually it does because you take the money you took from the CEO in taxes, and you give it to the greeter so he can buy health care despite making diddly squat. The CEO might like to try and raise the cost of everything on the shelves to make up for it, but he can't. You see there's this place called Target down the street and if Walmart tries to raise their prices they'll start losing market share.

 

[Threegoofs]

Income inequality has been increasing for decades and is not going to be fixed by raising income taxation rates. States with higher taxation rates do not have lower income inequality but they do have a higher cost of living which puts even more pressure on lower wage workers. Taxing the Walmart CEO (managers or stockholders) more does not help the Walmart greeter or cart return worker get ahead but it may well raise the cost of everything on the shelves of Walmart.

I didn’t say taxation rates will fix it.

I said the current bill will make inequality worse.

 

[MrWonka]

You are free to send your back to the federal government.

Okay, but then you don't get to drive on my roads, or call my police since I'm the one paying for them.

 

[ludin]

Sorry, but I'm not going to solve your problems for you.

Way to not address it. It has noting to do with me.
If you don't like your return give it back. Pretty simple.
Nothing is stopping you from doing it

Yet you won't that much is pretty obvious.

I'm happy to invest my own money, but when we share the benefits of the outcome equally it only makes sense for us to both invest equally. If I'm the only one doing the investing then I'm going to spend it on something that only benefits me.

Has nothing to do with what I said. You demand that other people pay more to the federal government. Yet you refuse to do it with your own money. So you have 0 right to demand that of other people.

Why would I spend all the money to build a road, and then let you drive on it for free? Now, maybe if the road radically benefits me more than you, I might consider investing more than you. Maybe if you having access to the road benefits me more than you, then I'd consider contributing more for the road than you, but if you and I each benefit from the road equally we should be forced to split the cost of the road equally.

Strawman has nothing to do with what I said at all.

Whether you are intelligent enough to grasp it or not welfare, food stamps, unemployment, roads, the military, investments in science..... They benefit us all equally. At least if you're making the same salary I am that is.

again nothing to do with what I said.

There are a lot of things in this world that you can't buy on your own, and even if you could it doesn't make sense to restrict access to you alone. When something benefits us all, we should all contribute to it. If we can't agree to do that, nothing gets done.

Again has nothing to do with what I said yet another strawman.

It's called a Nash Equilibrium. Sometimes the only way to make the optimal choice is to force cooperation among all relevant parties.

Just ask yourself something. Would you be okay with allowing the liberals of this country to stop funding the military while still being protected by it?

You think that because you'll never need welfare that it doesn't benefit you. You are mistaken.

Again nothing to do with what I said.

What I said was is.

You are free to send as much money as you want to the federal government.
When it comes to someone else's hard earned money you have no problem with it.
When it comes to your own money there is a huge objection. Don't feel bad your not the only liberal that refuses to do it.
Pretty much all of them do.

Just back off the other people should pay more because I think they have too much rhetoric and you will be ok.

 

[ludin]

Okay, but then you don't get to drive on my roads, or call my police since I'm the one paying for them.

Those are mostly funded through local taxes. Your the one complaining about the cut not me.
We are talking federal taxes please stay on topic instead of nonsense that doesn't apply.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's why you don't tax the lower wage workers. You see if you're doing this correctly the income inequality will still exist, but it is balanced out via taxes. Also, higher cost of living is driven by the fact that tons of people want to live there. It's a good thing. It means your state is a highly desirable place to live.



Yes, actually it does because you take the money you took from the CEO in taxes, and you give it to the greeter so he can buy health care despite making diddly squat. The CEO might like to try and raise the cost of everything on the shelves to make up for it, but he can't. You see there's this place called Target down the street and if Walmart tries to raise their prices they'll start losing market share.

I see, so you can take money from the Walmart CEO and give it to the medical insurance CEOs, medical care CEOs and pharma CEOs and say that it was done on behalf of the poor Walmart greeter. That is a sure fire way of controlling insurance, medical care and drug prices - adding more customers at full fare (plus profit) while using public funds to do so.

Meanwhile:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/3979002-went-wrong-target

 

[jmotivator]

Right. The thing the GOP wouldn’t do.

Precisely. Since the GOP lowered just about everyone's taxes and every Democrat voted against lowering those taxes I think it is a safe bet that if the tax spikes come it will be the Democrats making it happen.

There is still a slim chance the Democrats will come to their senses in the next 10 years, though.