Tax Reform / Non-Profit Executive Pay
- Thread starter jerseyshorejohnny
- Start date
A very slanted piece. Targeting ‘villains’ who benefit from this tax ‘cut’, stopping at Non-Profit ‘pirates’ and not racing to Hedge Fund billionaires who get 20% tax rates, and the 1% who will accrue ~$150,000 in tax cuts through 2027 (while middle income households will see small increases over that timeframe), and barely nudge the economy forward, is a hoot.
I’ll leave it there.
Let’s Go Redmen.
I’ll leave it there.
Let’s Go Redmen.
beast of the east
Active member
Your post is called a deflection, and not a response. There are many aspects to the tax bill, all subject to critical review and commentary, but instead of responding to the article you insist on promoting the far left message of tax cuts for the wealthy and nothing for the middle class. In fact that's a blatant lie. Many wealthy people will pay considerably more, and the middle class will see a bump in the pay checks in a few weeks.
Rather than come to the table with a promise to work with Republicans to create a bill they could support, they continued the divisive politics that attempts to defame and cause gridlock in Washington - all with the goal of gaining party capital for the mid term elections and 2020.
Marco Rubio held out and got an additional tax deduction for the working class, and then was on board. The left wing rhetoric, which most Americans see right through, simply lies about any Republican legislation, with the hopes that the stupidest on the left (and there are a lot of them), simply buy in without coming to independent conclusions.
Keep in mind, the incredibly stupid and oppressive healthcare mandate that penalized perfectly healthy 18-34's if they came to the economic decision that their premiums with high deductibles that would like not get met would do anything for them. So, for this age group that opted out, a little more cash in their pockets as well.
beast of the east
Active member
I know for a fact that some people in the 1% are getting tax increases, especially in NYS, where property taxes deductions are very limited.
Beast.....please provide the profile of a wealthy individual who will pay "considerably more"? Seriously, under this tax plan, any wealthy person paying more needs a new accountant.
On the other hand, middle class families in NY, NJ, CT and CA will get slammed immediately and continue to pay more incrementally over the next 7 years. There is a reason why 11 of 15 republican congressmen from NY, NJ and CA voted no on this bill. It's because the bill SCREWED middle class families in these states. Here is an example how...............
The new tax plan eliminates the personal exemption. That means $16K more taxable income for a family of four. Yes, the child tax credit was doubled and adjusted to impact more folks, but that only makes up $4K of the $16K lost. On top of this, property tax AND state income tax is capped at a COMBINED $10K. My property tax ALONE exceeds $10K. As an example, if you have $20K in property and state income tax combined, you just added another $10K of taxable income.
Yes, many middle class and working class families in rural America (red states) will see a modest tax break that expires over time. In other words they were thrown chump change to pacify them while the big savings goes to the top.
Yes, I think Trump is financially in bed with Russia, a racist, a mysonginst and guilty of both sexual harassment and assault. But now.......he's in my pocket and that is infuriating.
On the other hand, middle class families in NY, NJ, CT and CA will get slammed immediately and continue to pay more incrementally over the next 7 years. There is a reason why 11 of 15 republican congressmen from NY, NJ and CA voted no on this bill. It's because the bill SCREWED middle class families in these states. Here is an example how...............
The new tax plan eliminates the personal exemption. That means $16K more taxable income for a family of four. Yes, the child tax credit was doubled and adjusted to impact more folks, but that only makes up $4K of the $16K lost. On top of this, property tax AND state income tax is capped at a COMBINED $10K. My property tax ALONE exceeds $10K. As an example, if you have $20K in property and state income tax combined, you just added another $10K of taxable income.
Yes, many middle class and working class families in rural America (red states) will see a modest tax break that expires over time. In other words they were thrown chump change to pacify them while the big savings goes to the top.
Yes, I think Trump is financially in bed with Russia, a racist, a mysonginst and guilty of both sexual harassment and assault. But now.......he's in my pocket and that is infuriating.
So, the top 1% had an average household income of $1,200,000 in 2014 (latest figure I could find). Just apply the 2% decrease to their bracket and you quickly get $24,000 in savings. That is not $24K of less taxable income.......that is $24,000 in savings.
That is just one example of the savings that applies and there is no part of the new law (that I know of) that would hurt them in excess of $24K.
The additional advantages that the top 1% will benefit from include deference to pass-through businesses (think the Trump Organization), the estate tax, Carried Interest, and repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax (this is a big one).
Andrew......I agree, punishment for blue states comes through loud and clear on this bill. I am prepaying my 2018 property tax to secure a one year reprieve. Even Chris Christie (Trump pal) acknowledges the assault and just ordered NJ municipalities to accept the prepayments. Hopefully, Trumpsters in these states will make some noise when they realize their tax bill is not "Great Again".
That is just one example of the savings that applies and there is no part of the new law (that I know of) that would hurt them in excess of $24K.
The additional advantages that the top 1% will benefit from include deference to pass-through businesses (think the Trump Organization), the estate tax, Carried Interest, and repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax (this is a big one).
Andrew......I agree, punishment for blue states comes through loud and clear on this bill. I am prepaying my 2018 property tax to secure a one year reprieve. Even Chris Christie (Trump pal) acknowledges the assault and just ordered NJ municipalities to accept the prepayments. Hopefully, Trumpsters in these states will make some noise when they realize their tax bill is not "Great Again".
Beast: "a deflection not a response." Heh? I responded to the article that exulted that 'the enemy' non-profits (i.e., 'Universities' are getting slammed by higher taxes from this tax law while ignoring the 'free lunches' it hands out to mega corps and hedge fund billionaires. And my response "promotes the far left message of tax cuts to the wealthy and nothing to the middle class." Heh?
Just about every non-partisan tax policy expert and most economists have said that this tax law is a massive transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top and will not markedly grow the economy.
I'm not citing "far left" views on the woeful ramifications of this new law, I'm citing non-partisan views of experts, shaped by economic projections--not far left propaganda.
The conclusion is that this tax law will accrue massive tax cuts to the mega wealthy over the next 10 years while the middle class gets a small tax increase over that period and the national debt increases by $1.5TRN (at the least in my view)--at a time when our National Debt is over 100% of GDP, we are entering the 9th year of an economic expansion, labor markets are tight, corporations have nearly $2TRN of cash on their aggregate balance sheets, have ample access to low cost capital for capital projects, and corporate after-tax profits have recorded a Y-O-Y increase of 14%. Howard Silverblatt--noted S&P Industry Analyst--and also no lefty--wonders why, to paraphrase: If corporations intended to invest in new plants and capital projects--flush with cash and access to low cost capital--why have't they already done so?
Also, the law vindictively hits blue states by capping property and state income tax reductions. This law is a creature of the Far Right--and that be the truth.
Dave Rosenberg--no lefty radical--and a noted Wall Street economist states that this tax law "exacerbates income inequality which, until recently, was cited as one of the obstacles to economic growth." He also references The Tax Policy Center's conclusion that: "In total, 80% of taxpayers see a lower tax bill in 2018 but that share shrinks to just 25% by 2027."
This is very bad and irresponsible legislation. Okay, i admit--THAT is my 'far left' view! (I think based on facts.) Thanks.
beast of the east
Active member
From Politifact:
Income Range (single & joint) tax reduction % of taxpayers affected
$50,000 to $75,000 - $23,046 million 9 percent 15 percent
$75,000 to $100,000 - $22,437 million 9 percent 10 percent
$100,000 to $200,000 - $70,372 million 27 percent 17 percent
$200,000 to $500,000 - $65,485 million 25 percent 5 percent
$500,000 to $1,000,000 - $23,947 million 9 percent 0.6 percent
$1,000,000 and over - $36,853 million 14 percent 0.3 percent
the group below $50K pays hardly any taxes now anyway. In our area under $500,000 makes you middle class as a joint incoime.
500K and above are already paying the bulk to federal taxes.
Income Range (single & joint) tax reduction % of taxpayers affected
$50,000 to $75,000 - $23,046 million 9 percent 15 percent
$75,000 to $100,000 - $22,437 million 9 percent 10 percent
$100,000 to $200,000 - $70,372 million 27 percent 17 percent
$200,000 to $500,000 - $65,485 million 25 percent 5 percent
$500,000 to $1,000,000 - $23,947 million 9 percent 0.6 percent
$1,000,000 and over - $36,853 million 14 percent 0.3 percent
the group below $50K pays hardly any taxes now anyway. In our area under $500,000 makes you middle class as a joint incoime.
500K and above are already paying the bulk to federal taxes.
Beastie, I tend to look at a lot of this stuff the way I think about punting, it's not just distance and hang time but net percentage of field position yards. In health care where so much of the game is cost shifting, I am unimpressed with sanctimoniousness about reducing the Federal expenditure. We all need to see just what happens to whom with this tax legislation over time. Regards and Happy New Year.
From that lefty liberal Alan Blinder.
Also, paraphrasing from Dave Rosenberg today: The Fed is set to unwind its Balance sheet by $420BN in 2018 and $600BN in 2019 and slated to raise rates 3 - 4x in 2018, but just 2 rate hikes reduces GDP by $100BN.
Meanwhile, (friendly) consensus forecasts of the tax law's impact in 2018 are $80BN of 'juice' to GDP and increase Corporate profits by $140BN.
Quoting Mr. Rosenberg: "So, at the margin, the Fed's tightening in 2018 will have more than six times the impact on the economy than the fiscal loosening; and three times the impact on corporate profits. And the equity market impact of this liquidity withdrawal will be most evident in a shrinking P/E multiple, which will offset whatever earnings growth we see, leaving the S&P 500 flat on the year, though peppered with a lot more volatility (and more attractive re-entry points) along the way."
DR is saying that the Fed's monetary policy tools have far more impact on the economy than changes in fiscal policy, because" the Fed, via its control over the monetary base, has the power over determining liquidity growth. And it is shifts in liquidity, not taxation or public spending, that exert the greatest effects on bull and bear markets; economic expansions and contractions."
These views and analyses form the bases of my dislike of this tax law--not 'far left' propaganda.
Yes, Dan V, you are right. Historically, tax cuts haven't 'paid for themselves'. They've grown the deficit each time--at least those since 1980. The 1981-2, '86-'87-'88 and the '01-'03 tax cuts all added to the national deficit. And recent corporate tax cuts / holidays haven't worked either to influence corps to invest in their businesses or markedly increase employment--from the early '90s, to the '04 repatriation.
And, if tax cuts didn't work in the 1980s when the economy was in the toilet and baby boomers were in their 30s, it sure the hell ain't going to work this time when we're entering the 9th year of an economic expansion, labor markets are tight, baby boomers are turning 70, the Fed is unwinding its Balance Sheet and raising rates, and corps are flush with profits and cash.
The 1986 tax cut was bi-partisan and simplified the tax code, this one is ideologically-driven and probably the most regressive cut ever enacted by Congress, and it makes the code more opaque.
I view this as atrocious law. We shall see.
Ever wonder why Republicans don't point to historical examples of trickle down economics working? ....It's because there aren't any.
If there were, you know Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnel and the likes would be screaming it from the hilltops. However, they are not providing any historical examples because any insinuation that the trickle effect ever occurred is too easily debunked.
If there were, you know Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnel and the likes would be screaming it from the hilltops. However, they are not providing any historical examples because any insinuation that the trickle effect ever occurred is too easily debunked.
Everyone who is long time poster here knows I have a mind bogglingly sick record of predicting things in the R&P forum even if they thought I wasn't right. Literally the only thing I was definitively wrong on was higher interest rates but that's a world problem but I also predicted here the dollar crash and ever deficit under bush and obama and I've never been wrong on a budget idea yet. Ask the old time posters Lawman,Austour Kranmars etc. I might be wrong in some of my non economic beliefs but thats a matter of personal preference and those guys might be more right than me when it comes to that
That said as I mentioned a month ago as a republican who voted for trump tase tax cuts are the most mind boggling sellout of the middle class on the face of the earth. Yes my taxes went up and I dont even care. If he truly wanted to fix a problem then get rid of individual amt. In You might get some early pr but in a year there almost zero net overalll chance of increasing payroll for publicly traded companies. Worst case sceanario they bring consultants who they laid off and brought back as concultants without benefits into the fold. And more importantly because this is where my reputation lies the most since I wasn't wrong 17 years ago and after there is 0 % chance they ta cuts pay for themselves. 0. This comes from no news channel this comes from every wall street analyst and money manager I speak to
That said as I mentioned a month ago as a republican who voted for trump tase tax cuts are the most mind boggling sellout of the middle class on the face of the earth. Yes my taxes went up and I dont even care. If he truly wanted to fix a problem then get rid of individual amt. In You might get some early pr but in a year there almost zero net overalll chance of increasing payroll for publicly traded companies. Worst case sceanario they bring consultants who they laid off and brought back as concultants without benefits into the fold. And more importantly because this is where my reputation lies the most since I wasn't wrong 17 years ago and after there is 0 % chance they ta cuts pay for themselves. 0. This comes from no news channel this comes from every wall street analyst and money manager I speak to
More commentary from Dave Rosenberg (1 very smart gent). Paraphrasing/ half quoting: “The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that the lift to annual growth rates resulting from this tax legislation over the course of 10 years will be, at most, 0.1%. And no match for the year of the Fed shrinking liquidity: -$420BN balance sheet unwinding, -$100BN for just 2 rate hikes (more projected).”
Contrast that to the $1.5TRN in additional debt (at minimum in my view) this regressive legislation will cost—and the suspicion is strong that we’ve been robbed.
Contrast that to the $1.5TRN in additional debt (at minimum in my view) this regressive legislation will cost—and the suspicion is strong that we’ve been robbed.
The problem is not just the 1.5 trillion in debt which you will add on over 10 years which is ridiculous in itself. You are also accumulation debt because of our deficits so factor that in over the next 10 years on top of all the debt we already have. Now factor in we are still near historic low interest rates. 10 yr 2.25 and 30s at 2.75 roughly. Now imagine what is going to happen if we go back to even remotely normalized interest rates. The interest expense and the pain that we are going to feel well be like nothing we have ever seen before
Yes. No doubt. Rising rates would dramatically exacerbate the pain.It doesn’t look like that risk is imminent, but there’s probably a good possibility we’ll have some stretch of “normalized interest rates” at some point over the next ten years.