Author Topic: Republican Tax Plan 2017  (Read 173892 times)

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7330
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1200 on: December 12, 2017, 10:22:03 AM »
Talk about painting a fucking one-dimensional picture...

Technically, I think it was a two dimensional picture.  Two camps, with competing interests, bound together to form a somewhat paradoxical ruling party.  But a party that holds all of the power in this country right now, so at least it's effective.

Quote
keyboard sociologists and psychologists such as Sol

As a general rule, on this forum we try to constrain ourselves to attacking arguments instead of attacking people.  There's no need to be petty or personally insulting.  You may notice I will not call you any names in this post, and I would ask that you do the same in the future.  Also, consider editing your previous post before you get moderated for violating the forum rules.

Quote
“They’re too fucking stupid to vote for their own interests because they are all misogynic homophobes who care more about culturally defeating the ‘others’”.

I said nothing of the sort, but I recognize your faux outrage over what you heard, instead of what was said.  This is a common tactic on right wing talk radio, too, where discussions of registering mentally ill people who try to buy semi auto rifles with bump stocks immediately turned into "libtards are gunna take our guns!"  No, that's not the topic at hand, and your immediate overreaction into extreme interpretations does not help advance the discussion we need to have.  You're just stifling honest debate with such ridiculousness.

Quote
But its too fucking hard for people like Sol to imagine there are competent, rational people who vote libertarian or right-leaning for any other fucking reason than that they have been brainwashed and misled by billionaires into voting against their own interests. 

Did you even read what I wrote?

I said nothing about "every voter" and I said nothing about you.  I described the party's coalition of disparate interests.

It was a post about the lie behind trickle down economics, and why I think the party has so fully embraced that lie despite so many decades of evidence that it is indefensible.

Quote
corporate tax should be as low as feasible- since all of the money eventually falls into someone’s hands

This is the lie of trickle down economics.  Thank you for proving my point, I guess?

If the republicans actually wanted to help the middle class, they could have given the middle class a tax cut.  They chose not to.  It's not like it's a hard bill to write.  Reagan and Bush BOTH passed tax cuts that actually lowered taxes on the middle class, so I'm pretty sure they know how to do it.  This time they choose to write a bill that instead raises taxes on the middle class, to partially offset the debt created by their giant, permanent, tax cut for corporations and the wealthy.  Sure, they phased in the tax increases on the middle class slowly, to soften the blow, but they still raise taxes on the middle class. 

You don't need to believe in the trickle down fairy tale.  If you want to help the middle class, then actually help the middle class.  Don't help billionaires and claim it will then secondarily maybe help the middle class, even though that has never worked before.  It's silly.

Quote
The political conversation in this country  is not going to go anywhere until people stop painting with single-stroke brushes. 

Do you think your post is helping?  I see an awful lot of name calling, gross exaggeration, strawman arguments, and belittling of opposing viewpoints and the people who hold them.  I don't think you're exactly elevating the discourse.

Quote
If I called the Democratic party out

I would encourage you to offer your personal views on the democratic party, at length, maybe in a thread devoted to that topic.  I would discourage you from continuing to make antagonistic personal attacks on fellow forum members, by name.

I agree that the democratic party has it's own coalition and internal conflicts, but this isn't a thread about them, or about parties in general, or about the social divide in our country.  It's a thread about the republican tax plan, the economic lie it is based on, and how clearly it betrays the ideals the president campaigned on.  Democrats have no role in it.  Trump sold us down the river.

Quote
But apparently dude can tell half the forum Fuck You and not get banned so why not try it…

I didn't even swear!

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2026
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1201 on: December 12, 2017, 10:22:39 AM »
It's a testament to the success of those billionaires' strategy that their lackeys so vociferously assert their own agency.
Fuck You.
You are incredibly silly.
In (right) before the lock...
Yes, let's please try and keep this mostly civil.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 802
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1202 on: December 12, 2017, 10:25:25 AM »
It's a testament to the success of those billionaires' strategy that their lackeys so vociferously assert their own agency.
Fuck You.
You are incredibly silly.
In (right) before the lock...
Yes, let's please try and keep this mostly civil.
Sorry.

simonsez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Age: 32
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1203 on: December 12, 2017, 10:26:34 AM »
Lower corporate taxes will make us more competitive with other countries. Our corporations will sell more creating jobs.     
Hard to chat when we have this disconnect.  I disagree with your point.  I think executives and shareholders (yay 401k, IRA, taxable accounts) will be better off but can't see how it will create any meaningful number of jobs besides a handful in R&D and that's a maybe. 

In terms of corporate profits, what country is outpacing us currently?

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 802
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1204 on: December 12, 2017, 10:28:43 AM »
But apparently dude can tell half the forum Fuck You and not get banned so why not try it…

I didn't even swear!

I was specifically referencing dude.  Sorry that wasn't clear.  Should have linked the post.

The smart ultra rich ( Ray Dalio, Warren Buffet to name but a few) are keenly aware that unless income inequality is improved in this country you will eventually see a shrinking economy which does not bode well for those of us wishing to live off investments.

This tax plan increases income inequality by shuttling the savings disproportionately to the top.

That folks at the bottom are so easy to manipulate with notions of religion/guns/whatever the trend seems bound to continue.
For better and for worse, America is weird. I'll just keep on increasing my allocation of VEA as a hedge.

With the GOP assault on public education, from Betsy Devoss' Dept. of Education right down to the GOP tax plan -- removing the SALT deductions effectively means your local tax dollars that go to public schools are now going to be taxed federally -- the trend will not only continue, it will worsen. In case I haven't said it lately . . . oh nevermind.

[MOD NOTE:  F-bombs, sure.  F-U bombs toward other forum members are just going to escalate to the point where I have to lock the thread.]


TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 802
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1205 on: December 12, 2017, 10:34:56 AM »
No one could think Obamacare is bullshit because to do so means you hate poor people…  Despite the fact that Obamacare increased the taxes on the lower middle class 50-fold (if you factor in insurance premiums as a ‘tax’ as it was defended in SCOTUS).

Costs were increased on the middle class (and upper class) via Obamacare . . . and they were increased in order to pay for poor people having health care.  You might not hate poor people . . . but it sounds like you're willing to let them go uninsured to save a few bucks from people who need the money less.  Is that correct, or a misreading of your position?

My position onObamacare is largely summed up based on the Family Glitch and Obama's blatant refusal to fix it.

And yes, It has been stated that I hate poor people for hating Obamacare, I would have to find the post.

1.  Gutting of ACA and how it effects your FIRE plans...
I fall into the "Family Glitch" that Obama blatantly refused to fix even though he had the ability, so F#%$ ACA and Obamacare.  My premiums rose 382% across three years and I wasn't eligble for subsidies.  Burn ACA to the ground and lets build something completely from scratch (I know thats a pipe dream).  (FYI, My family and I are currently Cash Payments for medical without insurance.  I paid over 60,000$ in the last 5 years in insurance premiums but only used 28,000$ worth of benefits, including a (1) car wreck, (2) MRI of DW's lower back when we might have found a tumor, (3) couple of stomach X-rays (because kids, thats why), and (4) a broken collarbone.  Had I made cash payments, I would have been at least 25,000$ ahead.)

If you don't know about the family glitch, it really is something that you should understand if you support ACA:  https://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/2016/04/27/family-trapped-aca-glaring-family-glitch-life-gets-harder

Scortius

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1206 on: December 12, 2017, 10:47:10 AM »
I'm not concerned if the wealthy don't get a tax reduction, but I do want the corporations to get cuts.

Could you explain to me why tax cuts for corporations is a good idea again. No, really. Spell it out for me. Maybe I'm just completely missing something that's really obvious.

 
 Lower corporate taxes will make us more competitive with other countries. Our corporations will sell more creating jobs.

Why are we competing in a rush to the bottom with other countries? There's a reason VTSAX is a 'global' index and there is a reason why the world's most educated people fight to come to the US for jobs. Also, the effective corporate tax rate is already in line with other developed countries.

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will lower the cost of goods which is equivalent to giving people a raise.

Good prices are driven by supply and demand, so yes a cheaper supply may drop certain prices, but only in competitive and price-elastic markets. That means cheaper luxury goods for people who have disposable income but likely not cheaper essentials for those living closer to the edge.

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will help keep inflation in check even as the economy booms.

Except this will also balloon the deficit which could possibly lead to greater inflation.

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will boost business investment, creating a larger tax base in the future.

It's been said many times before. Corporations are already sitting on record amounts of cash. This is just bogus.

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will reduce shifting of profits overseas.

True, but the reason profits are being held overseas right now is that 1) corporations are already sitting on record amounts of cash already, and 2) this allows them to simply sit on the foreign profits patiently waiting for a repatriation event companies know the Republicans will eventually grant them. If they needed it they could always bring it back at current rates, which again shows that they don't need it at the moment.

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will  decrease the tax avoidance that companies use thru legal loopholes

So just close the loopholes instead?

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will decrease time and money spent avoiding taxes.

Why would this be true? Effort to minimize taxes is independent of the tax rate when you're taking about tax filings at the corporate level.

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will help small companies compete with big companies that hire teams of lawyers to exploit loopholes to reduce their tax bill, small companies can't afford the lawyers needed.

No, closing loopholes will.

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will increase employee wages.

No, corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash.  They could afford to give out higher salaries right now, yet they don't. Unskilled labor is over-supplied and is wage-inelastic.

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will increase stockholder dividends

Oh yes, yes they will.

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will increase foreign investment in the US

Possibly. Are our corporations hurting for foreign investments enough to justify such a squeeze on the middle class?  Seems like they're sitting on record amounts of cash, not investing it.

Quote
  Am I positive all these will happen? There will be several that happen, some will take time to develop,
and many will add their small part to the economic competitiveness and economic growth we want.

          Thanks for asking.       

I just don't see how the supposed benefits outweigh the squeeze this puts on the lower and middle classes, not to mention the impending hit to the deficit/debt.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1207 on: December 12, 2017, 10:47:59 AM »
No one could think Obamacare is bullshit because to do so means you hate poor people…  Despite the fact that Obamacare increased the taxes on the lower middle class 50-fold (if you factor in insurance premiums as a ‘tax’ as it was defended in SCOTUS).

Costs were increased on the middle class (and upper class) via Obamacare . . . and they were increased in order to pay for poor people having health care.  You might not hate poor people . . . but it sounds like you're willing to let them go uninsured to save a few bucks from people who need the money less.  Is that correct, or a misreading of your position?

My position onObamacare is largely summed up based on the Family Glitch and Obama's blatant refusal to fix it.

And yes, It has been stated that I hate poor people for hating Obamacare, I would have to find the post.

1.  Gutting of ACA and how it effects your FIRE plans...
I fall into the "Family Glitch" that Obama blatantly refused to fix even though he had the ability, so F#%$ ACA and Obamacare.  My premiums rose 382% across three years and I wasn't eligble for subsidies.  Burn ACA to the ground and lets build something completely from scratch (I know thats a pipe dream).  (FYI, My family and I are currently Cash Payments for medical without insurance.  I paid over 60,000$ in the last 5 years in insurance premiums but only used 28,000$ worth of benefits, including a (1) car wreck, (2) MRI of DW's lower back when we might have found a tumor, (3) couple of stomach X-rays (because kids, thats why), and (4) a broken collarbone.  Had I made cash payments, I would have been at least 25,000$ ahead.)

If you don't know about the family glitch, it really is something that you should understand if you support ACA:  https://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/2016/04/27/family-trapped-aca-glaring-family-glitch-life-gets-harder

I meant to return to this and forgot, thanks for bring it back up.

You lay the blame squarely on Obama, but I'm not clear on whether the fix was attainable through agency rule-making or if it required legislative action. Do you have a source that clarifies this?

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1797
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1208 on: December 12, 2017, 10:58:55 AM »
As someone who identifies as center-left and votes Dem 99% of the time only because the GOP has gone bug-shagging INSANE since GH Bush, I also want to state that THIS Dem voter does not actually subscribe to the over-simplification of "GOP voters are too stupid to understand they are voting against their own self-interest". 

Voters of all stripes define self-interest differently, and financial self-interest is only one element among many.  Voter self-interest includes tribal affiliation, family and social-circle harmony/approval, religious/other 'moral' convictions, civil liberties of value (which differ from person to person), short-term financial interest (tax cuts, competition from immigrants for jobs, protectionist policies that protect their job or industry, funding of entitlement or safety net programs that reduces their paycheck), long-term financial interest (deficit spending, funding of safety net and entitlements they are likely to need in the future, negative effects of protectionism on long term GDP growth and jobs, etc.), and any particular pet issues that they feel strongly about.

Any particular voter might prioritize ANY of these issues, and it would be in some way in their 'self-interest'. And most voters have some conflicts taking votes in their own self interest.

So it's totally reasonable to expect that some middle and lower income voters, who will most certainly need to rely on SS and Medicare at some point in the future, to nevertheless vote consistently for a party that wants to dismantle them as long as that party keeps fighting for 'bringing back jobs' (short term financial interest) or supporting gun rights, or restricting abortion, etc.  All that indicates is that those voters value gun rights or stopping abortion MORE at any given voting moment than their long-term financial concerns.

Likewise, as an upper-middle class voter,  it is consistent for me to vote for a party that (historically and rhetorically) believes in raising my taxes to fund the social safety net and health care for all.  I value those things MORE than my personal household's short-term financial gain, so I vote consistently against my short-term financial 'interest'.

Disclaimer 1: I think Sol's 100% accurate about how the GOP holds together its two largest constituencies. Those constituencies do not necessarily encompass all GOP voters.

Disclaimer 2: I am leaving out the inevitable  low-information or just plain stupid voters who really do not know their party's position on issues (which I remember reading somewhere is actually a fairly high percentage of people).




« Last Edit: December 12, 2017, 11:02:23 AM by wenchsenior »

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 526
  • Age: 33
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1209 on: December 12, 2017, 11:01:27 AM »
No one could think Obamacare is bullshit because to do so means you hate poor people…  Despite the fact that Obamacare increased the taxes on the lower middle class 50-fold (if you factor in insurance premiums as a ‘tax’ as it was defended in SCOTUS).

This is blatantly wrong. The Supreme Court upheld the "fine for not having insurance" as a legal tax, not insurance premiums themselves. The fine is 2.5% of your household income, so no that's not going to come anywhere near "increasing taxes on the lower middle class 50-fold". If you're really dedicated to not having insurance, fine don't have it and pay the 2.5% fine.

1.  Gutting of ACA and how it effects your FIRE plans...
I fall into the "Family Glitch" that Obama blatantly refused to fix even though he had the ability, so F#%$ ACA and Obamacare.  My premiums rose 382% across three years and I wasn't eligble for subsidies.  Burn ACA to the ground and lets build something completely from scratch (I know thats a pipe dream).  (FYI, My family and I are currently Cash Payments for medical without insurance.  I paid over 60,000$ in the last 5 years in insurance premiums but only used 28,000$ worth of benefits, including a (1) car wreck, (2) MRI of DW's lower back when we might have found a tumor, (3) couple of stomach X-rays (because kids, thats why), and (4) a broken collarbone.  Had I made cash payments, I would have been at least 25,000$ ahead.)

If you don't know about the family glitch, it really is something that you should understand if you support ACA:  https://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/2016/04/27/family-trapped-aca-glaring-family-glitch-life-gets-harder

I did read your article but nothing in there explains your "Obama did nothing to fix it even though he had the ability" position. The 19 states that did not expand Medicaid referenced in the article are all Republican states (including mine). The House has been held by the Republicans since 2011, and the Senate since 2015. The Republican obstructionism of anything related to Obamacare (or anything Obama tried to do at all, really) has been so well documented and is so obvious I don't feel I really have to spell it out.

It seems completely obvious to me that it was the Republican Party that has refused to do anything to fix the problems with Obamacare and done everything they could to cause people pain to get them riled up over it, not Obama. Obama and Democrats in general were begging the Republicans to work with them during the drafting process, and they have always said they were willing to work with the Republicans on fixes to make things better. The Republicans have simply been more interested in obstructing, sabotaging, propagandising, and pushing for an eventual complete repeal.

I'm sure your anger is valid, but I think it is misplaced.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 850
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1210 on: December 12, 2017, 11:09:43 AM »
1. Lower corporate taxes will make us more competitive with other countries. Our corporations will sell more creating jobs.
2. Lower corporate taxes will lower the cost of goods which is equivalent to giving people a raise.
3. Lower corporate taxes will help keep inflation in check even as the economy booms.
4. Lower corporate taxes will boost business investment, creating a larger tax base in the future.
5. Lower corporate taxes will reduce shifting of profits overseas.
6. Lower corporate taxes will  decrease the tax avoidance that companies use thru legal loopholes
7. Lower corporate taxes will decrease time and money spent avoiding taxes.
8. Lower corporate taxes will help small companies compete with big companies that hire teams of lawyers to exploit loopholes to reduce their tax bill, small companies can't afford the lawyers needed.
9. Lower corporate taxes will increase employee wages.
10. Lower corporate taxes will increase stockholder dividends
11. Lower corporate taxes will increase foreign investment in the US

  Am I positive all these will happen? There will be several that happen, some will take time to develop,
and many will add their small part to the economic competitiveness and economic growth we want.

          Thanks for asking.       

Numbering mine for clarity of discussion.
1. How much more room is there to grow? Employment rate is low. Economy is good.
2. I don't think the cost of goods will really come down. I think corporations are going to bank it or give to shareholders.
3. Again, I don't know how much better our economy can get, the ends not justifying the means. And that was with a 35% tax rate.
4. I don't know, but doubtful. How many more corporations will actually be created? Maybe more individuals will get into forming their own corporations? I'm not really sure how that would work, but if there's a will, there's a way.
5. Loopholes
6. We are closing some loopholes.... only to create others.
7. Stop avoiding taxes for whom? There will always be complaining about taxes. When we get to 20%, then that will be too high. Then the argument will be that we're not competitive enough with other countries, so we'd better lower it to 10%.
8. What's a small company vs. a large company? You're either a small business (< 200 employees, <25.5 mil in revenue) or you're not. I have a hard time feeling sorry for a business that makes that much money that is unable to hire a good tax accountant and lawyer. Like..boo hoo, we can't afford to hire staff to hide all of our profits?
9. Trickle down theory at its finest. I would be interested to see if the likes of Walmart and Amazon start to pay their employees a living wage with benefits. But not counting on it.
10. This is a point I can agree with. I see shareholders gaining more money.
11. Oh yeah. Wealthy foreign investors get a better deal than the US middle class.

To summarize: I don't quite follow the logic that if the tax rate is 35% and economy is good, then a tax rate of 20% will make it a lot better. This especially when knowing that companies right now NEVER pay a 35% corporate tax rate, most likely less than 20%, some pay nothing, and a few actually get a tax credit.

12. (this is mine) Lower corporate taxes will increase our national debt.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 802
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1211 on: December 12, 2017, 11:11:59 AM »
There is no possible way that someone could rationally think that a white person and a black person should be admitted to college based on merit and not on race, because to do so is apparently fucking racist?????.....  Come again? 

This is a tricky topic.

At one point I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you.  Admissions to college, police forces, fire departments, and hiring should be totally based on merit.

There's kinda a catch 22 that institutionalize racism has built up over the years regarding certain minorities though.  Inequality regarding incarceration rates, education, geographic location, available schooling, and wealth mean that fewer black kids will perform as well as white kids.  This all means that fewer black kids will have good role models and families supportive/able to fund higher education, which spirals over and over again.  The idea behind inequality in acceptance practices is to slowly try to fix the inequality that currently exists.

Currently, I'm kinda torn on the issue.  I see the inherent unfairness in affirmative action.  You're choosing people who are less qualified because of skin colour.  But I also see the inherent unfairness in the current system . . . where there are greater obstacles for people of a particular skin colour to overcome and it's not a level playing field.

When we're discussing racism, there are certainly some folks who fight affirmative action because they don't like minorities.  I wouldn't tar everyone on the 'no affirmative action' side as racist though, and Sol didn't in his post.

I agree that Sol didn't directly state it, but his 'Two Camps' mentality clearly paints a picture that the lower portion is motivated/persuaded by 'cultural issues' and I was choosing to highlight several of those issues and why they are not, in fact, proof of his two camp statement...  Namely that people can be opposed to many of the cultural things on totally non-racist / bigoted / whatever grounds.

Example of the mentality I was addressing:

Its mind boggling why any thinking individual would vote for this shitbag....this coming from someone who has voted GOP.

Hey....Im still waiting to meet a trump voter who's not racist.

Didn't vote for him but woo boy...reading these responses.  People are bending over backwards to try to justify the *****-grabber in Chief.  And apparently buried their heads in the sand on the Muslim tweets last week, white supremacist crap WRT Charlottesville, etc.

If you vote for a racist candidate running a racist campaign based on racist policies, I have little sympathy for your claims that you're being unfairly tarred as racist.

If I were going to "be fair" to them, I'd say something like, "Well, they're just falling for racist dog whistles.  They don't know they're being racist because it's not explicit."

...but there's no way around the fact that every single Trump voter saw a campaign that was racist, Islamophobic, anti-disability, and misogynistic, and still voted for him. That's a tacit endorsement of those beliefs.

You hopefully get the point...


It is not possible that anyone on the right that isn’t a billionaire thinks that corporate tax should be as low as feasible- since all of the money eventually falls into someone’s hands (and can be taxed at that time).

This I do flat out disagree with.  Large corporations are very good at moving money around to avoid taxation.  The money will eventually fall into someone's hands, but those hands aren't necessarily ever going to be taxed by your countries tax system.

I'm very interested in your opinion on this.  How exactly would a corporation move money out of the coffers into the hands of the individual without it being taxed?...  Offshore accounts?  Discreet benefits?  Some ridiculously high Per Diem?

It seems to me that if (1) we could get the H&R Block lobbyists to stop crusading against the IRS pre-filling the data, we could free up a lot of audits and blanket statement all individuals above XXX threshhold will get audited?

Thanks


Its not possible that anyone could think NAFTA is a fucking terrible deal simply because Mexico has almost nothing as a minimum wage and no environmental regulation that is enforced, and yet can bring products into the US duty free.  “To be against NAFTA is racist because you hate brown-skinned people!!!!”

Again, at one point I was totally on your side regarding NAFTA.  Tariffs sound like a great idea to protect a countries businesses.  There is the argument that we don't want to be protecting the type of low wage, low education assembly jobs that are lost due to NAFTA though . . . and that a country benefits more from the lower prices of goods created elsewhere than the higher prices/slight increase in unskilled jobs that ending it would bring.  Both arguments have valid points.

Does anyone say that disliking NAFTA is racist though?  I've honestly never heard that before.  Sol certainly didn't say it.

Why, exactly, would we "don't want to be protecting the type of low wage, low education assembly jobs that are lost due to NAFTA"?  Do you have something against manual labor or assembly line workers?

Had those jobs stayed here the last 15-30 years, we could now be reaping the benefits of more automation and advanced machinery within our own country.  The average jobs would have flowed towards more skilled work fluidly and naturally instead of being ripped out of the country.  Those jobs were sacrificed on the alter of corporate profits, despite the odd turning-of-tables as of late.  Now many are claiming the upper-middle is being gutted for the corporations and its a problem?...

No one could think Obamacare is bullshit because to do so means you hate poor people…  Despite the fact that Obamacare increased the taxes on the lower middle class 50-fold (if you factor in insurance premiums as a ‘tax’ as it was defended in SCOTUS).

Costs were increased on the middle class (and upper class) via Obamacare . . . and they were increased in order to pay for poor people having health care.  You might not hate poor people . . . but it sounds like you're willing to let them go uninsured to save a few bucks from people who need the money less.  Is that correct, or a misreading of your position?

I addressed this in this post, just keeping it here to remain consistent.

My position on Obamacare is largely summed up based on the Family Glitch and Obama's blatant refusal to fix it.

And yes, It has been stated that I hate poor people for hating Obamacare, I would have to find the post.

1.  Gutting of ACA and how it effects your FIRE plans...
I fall into the "Family Glitch" that Obama blatantly refused to fix even though he had the ability, so F#%$ ACA and Obamacare.  My premiums rose 382% across three years and I wasn't eligble for subsidies.  Burn ACA to the ground and lets build something completely from scratch (I know thats a pipe dream).  (FYI, My family and I are currently Cash Payments for medical without insurance.  I paid over 60,000$ in the last 5 years in insurance premiums but only used 28,000$ worth of benefits, including a (1) car wreck, (2) MRI of DW's lower back when we might have found a tumor, (3) couple of stomach X-rays (because kids, thats why), and (4) a broken collarbone.  Had I made cash payments, I would have been at least 25,000$ ahead.)

If you don't know about the family glitch, it really is something that you should understand if you support ACA:  https://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/2016/04/27/family-trapped-aca-glaring-family-glitch-life-gets-harder


Contrary to what many apparently think, not all Trump supports are Racist Misogynic Homophobic Idiot Assholes who only support lower corporate taxes because it comes with “Law against the other people”.

Not all Trump supporters fall into this category.  What's disturbing though, is that the ones who obviously do appear to be happily tolerated by the ones who don't.  Look at the full Trump/republican support of a candidate like Roy Moore . . . a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, pedophile.  Stop supporting these people, and I suspect that many of the claims of racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc. will stop coming up.  But you can't have a president who says that marching neo-nazis are good people and then pretend to be confused by cries of racism.

Now following his election so not sure what I can add.  The issue is, those cards have been pulled so many times that they have lost their redeeming value...  Every candidate has been called those things, generally without strong evidence, which has made the accusation a moot point....

Not saying you are wrong, just highlighting an issue.


(Editing to fix brackets.... my bad)
« Last Edit: December 12, 2017, 11:36:49 AM by TexasRunner »

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1212 on: December 12, 2017, 11:24:56 AM »
My position onObamacare is largely summed up based on the Family Glitch and Obama's blatant refusal to fix it.

And yes, It has been stated that I hate poor people for hating Obamacare, I would have to find the post.

1.  Gutting of ACA and how it effects your FIRE plans...
I fall into the "Family Glitch" that Obama blatantly refused to fix even though he had the ability, so F#%$ ACA and Obamacare.  My premiums rose 382% across three years and I wasn't eligble for subsidies.  Burn ACA to the ground and lets build something completely from scratch (I know thats a pipe dream).  (FYI, My family and I are currently Cash Payments for medical without insurance.  I paid over 60,000$ in the last 5 years in insurance premiums but only used 28,000$ worth of benefits, including a (1) car wreck, (2) MRI of DW's lower back when we might have found a tumor, (3) couple of stomach X-rays (because kids, thats why), and (4) a broken collarbone.  Had I made cash payments, I would have been at least 25,000$ ahead.)

If you don't know about the family glitch, it really is something that you should understand if you support ACA:  https://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/2016/04/27/family-trapped-aca-glaring-family-glitch-life-gets-harder

Man do I feel you on the family glitch.  I probably would have been able to get insurance for my family a few years earlier if not for that problem.  But I'm not sure why you think Obama could have fixed it, I thought it would have required a legislative fix.  Can you elaborate?

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 802
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1213 on: December 12, 2017, 11:30:36 AM »
I meant to return to this and forgot, thanks for bring it back up.

You lay the blame squarely on Obama, but I'm not clear on whether the fix was attainable through agency rule-making or if it required legislative action. Do you have a source that clarifies this?

Yes.  The President has full situational authority over the IRS when nessecary, and the glitch was created (and intentionally not closed) by an IRS ruling:  https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-01/pdf/2013-02136.pdf (second page, middle column § 1.36B–2 Eligibility for premium tax credit)

As such, it was possible for intervention to occur, and as the chief executive of the IRS is a presidential nomination, there is precedence for at least some collaboration.  Regarding whether he knew or not initially, it became a VERY big deal after implementation and could have been corrected.

Quote
Health Affairs explains that this was not an accident or oversight – it was carefully considered and the final regulation was delayed while the Government Accountability Office and the IRS analyzed the impact of the decision. There were concerns that employers would increase the contributions required to enroll family members, which would push more people off employer plans and into the exchanges, driving up the total cost of subsidies. Ultimately, those concerns prevailed and the “family glitch” was born.

Source: https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/no-family-left-behind-by-obamacare/

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12022
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1214 on: December 12, 2017, 12:33:38 PM »
There is no possible way that someone could rationally think that a white person and a black person should be admitted to college based on merit and not on race, because to do so is apparently fucking racist?????.....  Come again? 

This is a tricky topic.

At one point I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you.  Admissions to college, police forces, fire departments, and hiring should be totally based on merit.

There's kinda a catch 22 that institutionalize racism has built up over the years regarding certain minorities though.  Inequality regarding incarceration rates, education, geographic location, available schooling, and wealth mean that fewer black kids will perform as well as white kids.  This all means that fewer black kids will have good role models and families supportive/able to fund higher education, which spirals over and over again.  The idea behind inequality in acceptance practices is to slowly try to fix the inequality that currently exists.

Currently, I'm kinda torn on the issue.  I see the inherent unfairness in affirmative action.  You're choosing people who are less qualified because of skin colour.  But I also see the inherent unfairness in the current system . . . where there are greater obstacles for people of a particular skin colour to overcome and it's not a level playing field.

When we're discussing racism, there are certainly some folks who fight affirmative action because they don't like minorities.  I wouldn't tar everyone on the 'no affirmative action' side as racist though, and Sol didn't in his post.

I agree that Sol didn't directly state it, but his 'Two Camps' mentality clearly paints a picture that the lower portion is motivated/persuaded by 'cultural issues' and I was choosing to highlight several of those issues and why they are not, in fact, proof of his two camp statement...  Namely that people can be opposed to many of the cultural things on totally non-racist / bigoted / whatever grounds.

Example of the mentality I was addressing:

Its mind boggling why any thinking individual would vote for this shitbag....this coming from someone who has voted GOP.

Hey....Im still waiting to meet a trump voter who's not racist.

Didn't vote for him but woo boy...reading these responses.  People are bending over backwards to try to justify the *****-grabber in Chief.  And apparently buried their heads in the sand on the Muslim tweets last week, white supremacist crap WRT Charlottesville, etc.

If you vote for a racist candidate running a racist campaign based on racist policies, I have little sympathy for your claims that you're being unfairly tarred as racist.

If I were going to "be fair" to them, I'd say something like, "Well, they're just falling for racist dog whistles.  They don't know they're being racist because it's not explicit."

...but there's no way around the fact that every single Trump voter saw a campaign that was racist, Islamophobic, anti-disability, and misogynistic, and still voted for him. That's a tacit endorsement of those beliefs.

You hopefully get the point...

What words would you user to describe someone who supports a racist or misogynist for public office?  Donald Trump has a long history of both racist and misogynist words and actions.



It is not possible that anyone on the right that isn’t a billionaire thinks that corporate tax should be as low as feasible- since all of the money eventually falls into someone’s hands (and can be taxed at that time).

This I do flat out disagree with.  Large corporations are very good at moving money around to avoid taxation.  The money will eventually fall into someone's hands, but those hands aren't necessarily ever going to be taxed by your countries tax system.

I'm very interested in your opinion on this.  How exactly would a corporation move money out of the coffers into the hands of the individual without it being taxed?...  Offshore accounts?  Discreet benefits?  Some ridiculously high Per Diem?

It seems to me that if (1) we could get the H&R Block lobbyists to stop crusading against the IRS pre-filling the data, we could free up a lot of audits and blanket statement all individuals above XXX threshhold will get audited?

Thanks

Yes.  Offshore accounts, discreet benefits are both ways that this can happen.  Or they can pay a few of their wealthiest employees in stock options to avoid taxes.  They can choose to spend the money paying employees in other countries, where it will never be taxed by the US.  There's also the problem that corporations don't necessarily spend the money that they do have.  They often will just sit on giant cash reserves for strategic purposes.


Its not possible that anyone could think NAFTA is a fucking terrible deal simply because Mexico has almost nothing as a minimum wage and no environmental regulation that is enforced, and yet can bring products into the US duty free.  “To be against NAFTA is racist because you hate brown-skinned people!!!!”

Again, at one point I was totally on your side regarding NAFTA.  Tariffs sound like a great idea to protect a countries businesses.  There is the argument that we don't want to be protecting the type of low wage, low education assembly jobs that are lost due to NAFTA though . . . and that a country benefits more from the lower prices of goods created elsewhere than the higher prices/slight increase in unskilled jobs that ending it would bring.  Both arguments have valid points.

Does anyone say that disliking NAFTA is racist though?  I've honestly never heard that before.  Sol certainly didn't say it.

Why, exactly, would we "don't want to be protecting the type of low wage, low education assembly jobs that are lost due to NAFTA"?  Do you have something against manual labor or assembly line workers?

Had those jobs stayed here the last 15-30 years, we could now be reaping the benefits of more automation and advanced machinery within our own country.  The average jobs would have flowed towards more skilled work fluidly and naturally instead of being ripped out of the country.  Those jobs were sacrificed on the alter of corporate profits, despite the odd turning-of-tables as of late.  Now many are claiming the upper-middle is being gutted for the corporations and its a problem?...

I don't have anything against assembly line workers.  I do have a thing against assembly line work.  Assembly line work is teetering on the edge of extinction.  As you mentioned, it is about to be completely wiped out by the next generation of automation.  The benefits that people are reaping of more automation is the benefit of not needing to pay expensive humans to do things any more.

Those jobs that went away 15 - 30 years ago?  That was a conscious choice to be proactive about things, and to start the slow/painful transition to the work needed by the modern economy.  What you're proposing would end up hurting a lot more people in the long run.



No one could think Obamacare is bullshit because to do so means you hate poor people…  Despite the fact that Obamacare increased the taxes on the lower middle class 50-fold (if you factor in insurance premiums as a ‘tax’ as it was defended in SCOTUS).

Costs were increased on the middle class (and upper class) via Obamacare . . . and they were increased in order to pay for poor people having health care.  You might not hate poor people . . . but it sounds like you're willing to let them go uninsured to save a few bucks from people who need the money less.  Is that correct, or a misreading of your position?

I addressed this in this post, just keeping it here to remain consistent.

My position on Obamacare is largely summed up based on the Family Glitch and Obama's blatant refusal to fix it.

And yes, It has been stated that I hate poor people for hating Obamacare, I would have to find the post.

1.  Gutting of ACA and how it effects your FIRE plans...
I fall into the "Family Glitch" that Obama blatantly refused to fix even though he had the ability, so F#%$ ACA and Obamacare.  My premiums rose 382% across three years and I wasn't eligble for subsidies.  Burn ACA to the ground and lets build something completely from scratch (I know thats a pipe dream).  (FYI, My family and I are currently Cash Payments for medical without insurance.  I paid over 60,000$ in the last 5 years in insurance premiums but only used 28,000$ worth of benefits, including a (1) car wreck, (2) MRI of DW's lower back when we might have found a tumor, (3) couple of stomach X-rays (because kids, thats why), and (4) a broken collarbone.  Had I made cash payments, I would have been at least 25,000$ ahead.)

If you don't know about the family glitch, it really is something that you should understand if you support ACA:  https://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/2016/04/27/family-trapped-aca-glaring-family-glitch-life-gets-harder

Why do you believe that the responsibility for the issues you've outlined above rest squarely on Obama's shoulders?


Contrary to what many apparently think, not all Trump supports are Racist Misogynic Homophobic Idiot Assholes who only support lower corporate taxes because it comes with “Law against the other people”.

Not all Trump supporters fall into this category.  What's disturbing though, is that the ones who obviously do appear to be happily tolerated by the ones who don't.  Look at the full Trump/republican support of a candidate like Roy Moore . . . a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, pedophile.  Stop supporting these people, and I suspect that many of the claims of racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc. will stop coming up.  But you can't have a president who says that marching neo-nazis are good people and then pretend to be confused by cries of racism.

Now following his election so not sure what I can add.  The issue is, those cards have been pulled so many times that they have lost their redeeming value...  Every candidate has been called those things, generally without strong evidence, which has made the accusation a moot point....

Not saying you are wrong, just highlighting an issue.

There's pretty strong evidence against Roy Moore on all counts.  This is a very good example of Republican voters in a Republican state choosing to support someone who is all of the things that you're telling us most Republicans are not.  How does that statement go?  If you lie down with dogs, you're bound to get fleas?  If you tolerate all of this stuff in your elected officials, you're probably going to get called racist, misogynistic, and homophobic.

To take a slightly different approach . . . how do you feel about the Catholic church and the rampant pedophilia/sexual abuse that it actively hid / tacitly supported over the years?  Even though not all Catholics are pedophiles, and it was never a majority of priests . . . how did the support that the church gave it's priests who were pedophiles make you feel about the organization as a whole?

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4340
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1215 on: December 12, 2017, 12:40:59 PM »
Stock options are taxed as regular income.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1216 on: December 12, 2017, 02:50:56 PM »
Stock options are taxed as regular income.

it never ceases to amaze me the number of people that genuinely think there are easy and costless ways to just not pay taxes, as long as you are rich enough or are a big enough corporation. 

Certainly there are some ridiculous tax treatments, but it's not as easy as "just pay with stock options". 

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1217 on: December 12, 2017, 03:01:11 PM »
I'm not concerned if the wealthy don't get a tax reduction, but I do want the corporations to get cuts.

Could you explain to me why tax cuts for corporations is a good idea again. No, really. Spell it out for me. Maybe I'm just completely missing something that's really obvious.

 
 Lower corporate taxes will make us more competitive with other countries. Our corporations will sell more creating jobs.

Why are we competing in a rush to the bottom with other countries? There's a reason VTSAX is a 'global' index and there is a reason why the world's most educated people fight to come to the US for jobs. Also, the effective corporate tax rate is already in line with other developed countries.

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will lower the cost of goods which is equivalent to giving people a raise.

Good prices are driven by supply and demand, so yes a cheaper supply may drop certain prices, but only in competitive and price-elastic markets. That means cheaper luxury goods for people who have disposable income but likely not cheaper essentials for those living closer to the edge.

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will help keep inflation in check even as the economy booms.

Except this will also balloon the deficit which could possibly lead to greater inflation.

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will boost business investment, creating a larger tax base in the future.

It's been said many times before. Corporations are already sitting on record amounts of cash. This is just bogus.

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will reduce shifting of profits overseas.

True, but the reason profits are being held overseas right now is that 1) corporations are already sitting on record amounts of cash already, and 2) this allows them to simply sit on the foreign profits patiently waiting for a repatriation event companies know the Republicans will eventually grant them. If they needed it they could always bring it back at current rates, which again shows that they don't need it at the moment.

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will  decrease the tax avoidance that companies use thru legal loopholes

So just close the loopholes instead?

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will decrease time and money spent avoiding taxes.

Why would this be true? Effort to minimize taxes is independent of the tax rate when you're taking about tax filings at the corporate level.

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will help small companies compete with big companies that hire teams of lawyers to exploit loopholes to reduce their tax bill, small companies can't afford the lawyers needed.

No, closing loopholes will.

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will increase employee wages.

No, corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash.  They could afford to give out higher salaries right now, yet they don't. Unskilled labor is over-supplied and is wage-inelastic.

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will increase stockholder dividends

Oh yes, yes they will.

Quote
Lower corporate taxes will increase foreign investment in the US

Possibly. Are our corporations hurting for foreign investments enough to justify such a squeeze on the middle class?  Seems like they're sitting on record amounts of cash, not investing it.

Quote
  Am I positive all these will happen? There will be several that happen, some will take time to develop,
and many will add their small part to the economic competitiveness and economic growth we want.

          Thanks for asking.       

I just don't see how the supposed benefits outweigh the squeeze this puts on the lower and middle classes, not to mention the impending hit to the deficit/debt.
 

You are confused on how corporations decide to invest money.  How much money they have is obviously important, but not the driving factor.  If a firm has an investment that it expects to return 25%, if they have no money, they'll try to go borrow money and still make the investment.  If  firm has $100B in cash, they're not going to invest $100k on something that isn't expected to meet their minimum target return.  Right now, some firms have a lot of money.  They don't have anything they want to invest in.  Sending the money to the shareholders would result in a haircut for most of the shareholders.  So the option value of sitting on the money is the best use for it.  If you cut the corporate tax rate in half, that's going to make a lot of previously questionable investments suddenly look good.  Doesn't matter that they already had the money available before the tax cut.  What matters is that the pre-tax return they need to meet for an investment to be attractive just got a lot lower.

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 684
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1218 on: December 12, 2017, 03:08:24 PM »
Now following his election so not sure what I can add.  The issue is, those cards have been pulled so many times that they have lost their redeeming value...  Every candidate has been called those things, generally without strong evidence, which has made the accusation a moot point....

Not saying you are wrong, just highlighting an issue.

The accusations of making passes at young girls not being bad enough I don't think are the issue. No matter the accusation you can always find a large portion of either base that can be convinced that maybe its just a smear. It seems like the swing voters who actually don't just vote for their team are simply forced to decide between policies they hate and a person who seems to be a know pervert of the worst kind...

Its easy to take the moral high ground except when it involves voting for someone who doesn't share your political views. I personally think Roy More's politics have a great deal of other flaws even from a conservative benchmark. But we are in an age of numerous single issue voters.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12022
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1219 on: December 12, 2017, 07:18:34 PM »
Stock options are taxed as regular income.

My mistake.  I was confusing different taxation for gains from stocks with being granted stock options.

Joeko

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1220 on: December 12, 2017, 08:30:34 PM »
AP declares Jones the winner

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1221 on: December 12, 2017, 08:55:26 PM »
AP declares Jones the winner

Blink. Blink. Pinch.

Bateaux

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: Port Vincent
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1222 on: December 12, 2017, 09:06:23 PM »
I haven't felt this good in a long time.  There is hope.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7330
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1223 on: December 12, 2017, 09:52:57 PM »
Wait, you mean republicans in Alabama didn't elect a pedophile to congress?

This is the low bar that counts as victory, in these times.

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1075
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1224 on: December 12, 2017, 10:10:11 PM »
Wait, you mean republicans in Alabama didn't elect a pedophile to congress?

This is the low bar that counts as victory, in these times.

Moore carried 91% of the vote among registered Republicans. Maybe some decent ones stayed home.

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1225 on: December 12, 2017, 10:20:34 PM »
Moore only lost because black people voted. 96% of blacks voted against him; 68% of whites voted for him. Thank you black people. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/alabama-exit-polls/?utm_term=.334dbeed66c8

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1226 on: December 13, 2017, 06:08:24 AM »
I meant to return to this and forgot, thanks for bring it back up.

You lay the blame squarely on Obama, but I'm not clear on whether the fix was attainable through agency rule-making or if it required legislative action. Do you have a source that clarifies this?

Yes.  The President has full situational authority over the IRS when nessecary, and the glitch was created (and intentionally not closed) by an IRS ruling:  https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-01/pdf/2013-02136.pdf (second page, middle column § 1.36B–2 Eligibility for premium tax credit)

As such, it was possible for intervention to occur, and as the chief executive of the IRS is a presidential nomination, there is precedence for at least some collaboration.  Regarding whether he knew or not initially, it became a VERY big deal after implementation and could have been corrected.

Quote
Health Affairs explains that this was not an accident or oversight – it was carefully considered and the final regulation was delayed while the Government Accountability Office and the IRS analyzed the impact of the decision. There were concerns that employers would increase the contributions required to enroll family members, which would push more people off employer plans and into the exchanges, driving up the total cost of subsidies. Ultimately, those concerns prevailed and the “family glitch” was born.

Source: https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/no-family-left-behind-by-obamacare/

That sucks really hard, and absolutely should've been solved.

It's also one of the (many) frustrating aspects of our employer-focused health insurance system. We give employers/business way too much clout in making healthcare decisions for people. Winning the employer lottery could mean the difference between timely access to high quality care and waiting too long because it's expensive.

Follow up question for you personally: is this the main reason for your stance on ACA, or are you opposed to the law more generally as well?

dude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1227 on: December 13, 2017, 10:10:09 AM »
Moore only lost because black people voted. 96% of blacks voted against him; 68% of whites voted for him. Thank you black people. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/alabama-exit-polls/?utm_term=.334dbeed66c8

More specifically, black women. Overwhelmingly so. Not hard to see why when you consider Moore's words and actions.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 802
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1228 on: December 13, 2017, 10:13:37 AM »
I meant to return to this and forgot, thanks for bring it back up.

You lay the blame squarely on Obama, but I'm not clear on whether the fix was attainable through agency rule-making or if it required legislative action. Do you have a source that clarifies this?

Yes.  The President has full situational authority over the IRS when nessecary, and the glitch was created (and intentionally not closed) by an IRS ruling:  https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-01/pdf/2013-02136.pdf (second page, middle column § 1.36B–2 Eligibility for premium tax credit)

As such, it was possible for intervention to occur, and as the chief executive of the IRS is a presidential nomination, there is precedence for at least some collaboration.  Regarding whether he knew or not initially, it became a VERY big deal after implementation and could have been corrected.

Quote
Health Affairs explains that this was not an accident or oversight – it was carefully considered and the final regulation was delayed while the Government Accountability Office and the IRS analyzed the impact of the decision. There were concerns that employers would increase the contributions required to enroll family members, which would push more people off employer plans and into the exchanges, driving up the total cost of subsidies. Ultimately, those concerns prevailed and the “family glitch” was born.

Source: https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/no-family-left-behind-by-obamacare/

That sucks really hard, and absolutely should've been solved.

It's also one of the (many) frustrating aspects of our employer-focused health insurance system. We give employers/business way too much clout in making healthcare decisions for people. Winning the employer lottery could mean the difference between timely access to high quality care and waiting too long because it's expensive.

Follow up question for you personally: is this the main reason for your stance on ACA, or are you opposed to the law more generally as well?

Its one of the primary factors.

Another is the individual mandate.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/how-obama-broke-his-promise-on-individual-mandates/259183/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/20/barack-obama/obama-flip-flops-requiring-people-buy-health-care/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoSnqofelsQ

Quote
“If a mandate was a solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house. The reason they don’t have a house is that they don’t have the money.”

-Barack Obama 2008


Finally, the primary issue I have with ACA is that it did nothing to actually reduce inflated healthcare costs, and didn't just stick my generation with the bill for the boomers, but stuck us with a bill that was drastically inflated!

Also, If you are going to mandate that everyone have health insurance...  Wouldn't that make health insurance a utility?  Shouldn't we be setting profit caps and transparent financing requirements on an industry that will become a 'forced product'? 

It had several problems and, in my opinion, was a method of putting our (then) current system on steroids instead of actually creating a system that works- IE pulling employers out of the equation, setting requirements for open billing, requiring insurance companies to actually pay a significant portion of what they are billed (or all of it), etc.  Not taking a shitty patchwork system and applying it 'universally'.

Thoughts?

I know this is a bit of a tangent, start a new thread or find a mothballed one and we can jump over there to discuss if anyone likes.

BigRed

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 199
  • Age: 42
  • Location: NJ
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1229 on: December 13, 2017, 10:19:54 AM »

Also, If you are going to mandate that everyone have health insurance...  Wouldn't that make health insurance a utility?  Shouldn't we be setting profit caps and transparent financing requirements on an industry that will become a 'forced product'? 

They did set profit caps as part of the ACA.  80% of premium dollars must go to actual medical expenses, only the remaining 20% is allowable for marketing, administration and profit. 

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2026
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1230 on: December 13, 2017, 10:22:29 AM »
Back on topic, it appears that the Republicans have reached an internal deal on reconciliation and will be moving to a vote.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/us/politics/tax-bill-republicans-deal.html

It will be interesting to see how the details and horse trading that went on.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4593
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1231 on: December 13, 2017, 10:37:37 AM »
No one could think Obamacare is bullshit because to do so means you hate poor people…  Despite the fact that Obamacare increased the taxes on the lower middle class 50-fold (if you factor in insurance premiums as a ‘tax’ as it was defended in SCOTUS).

Costs were increased on the middle class (and upper class) via Obamacare . . . and they were increased in order to pay for poor people having health care.  You might not hate poor people . . . but it sounds like you're willing to let them go uninsured to save a few bucks from people who need the money less.  Is that correct, or a misreading of your position?

My position onObamacare is largely summed up based on the Family Glitch and Obama's blatant refusal to fix it.

And yes, It has been stated that I hate poor people for hating Obamacare, I would have to find the post.

1.  Gutting of ACA and how it effects your FIRE plans...
I fall into the "Family Glitch" that Obama blatantly refused to fix even though he had the ability, so F#%$ ACA and Obamacare.  My premiums rose 382% across three years and I wasn't eligble for subsidies.  Burn ACA to the ground and lets build something completely from scratch (I know thats a pipe dream).  (FYI, My family and I are currently Cash Payments for medical without insurance.  I paid over 60,000$ in the last 5 years in insurance premiums but only used 28,000$ worth of benefits, including a (1) car wreck, (2) MRI of DW's lower back when we might have found a tumor, (3) couple of stomach X-rays (because kids, thats why), and (4) a broken collarbone.  Had I made cash payments, I would have been at least 25,000$ ahead.)

If you don't know about the family glitch, it really is something that you should understand if you support ACA:  https://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/2016/04/27/family-trapped-aca-glaring-family-glitch-life-gets-harder
Exactly how was President Obama suppose to change this law when it is Congress that writes the laws?  Did I somehow miss that the GOP controlled congress sent President Obama a bill that fixed the family glitch and he refused to sign it?  Because he is required to follow and enforce the laws passed by Congress so no, your IRS statement is false.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2017, 10:44:27 AM by Gin1984 »

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 802
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1232 on: December 13, 2017, 11:05:10 AM »
...

See this post.

I meant to return to this and forgot, thanks for bring it back up.

You lay the blame squarely on Obama, but I'm not clear on whether the fix was attainable through agency rule-making or if it required legislative action. Do you have a source that clarifies this?

Yes.  The President has full situational authority over the IRS when nessecary, and the glitch was created (and intentionally not closed) by an IRS ruling:  https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-01/pdf/2013-02136.pdf (second page, middle column § 1.36B–2 Eligibility for premium tax credit)

As such, it was possible for intervention to occur, and as the chief executive of the IRS is a presidential nomination, there is precedence for at least some collaboration.  Regarding whether he knew or not initially, it became a VERY big deal after implementation and could have been corrected.

Quote
Health Affairs explains that this was not an accident or oversight – it was carefully considered and the final regulation was delayed while the Government Accountability Office and the IRS analyzed the impact of the decision. There were concerns that employers would increase the contributions required to enroll family members, which would push more people off employer plans and into the exchanges, driving up the total cost of subsidies. Ultimately, those concerns prevailed and the “family glitch” was born.

Source: https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/no-family-left-behind-by-obamacare/

OurTown

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1233 on: December 13, 2017, 11:22:17 AM »
Supposedly they are revealing the conference version today. 

dougules

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
  • Location: AL
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1234 on: December 13, 2017, 11:24:41 AM »
Moore only lost because black people voted. 96% of blacks voted against him; 68% of whites voted for him. Thank you black people. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/alabama-exit-polls/?utm_term=.334dbeed66c8

I'm guessing it was probably higher amongst gay people given that he wanted to throw us all in prison.  You're welcome...

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1235 on: December 13, 2017, 11:29:32 AM »
Supposedly they are revealing the conference version today.

They said they would reveal it to GOP reps; no news on when they might reveal it to the voting public.

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4340
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1236 on: December 13, 2017, 12:10:21 PM »
Anything revealed to Representatives is as good as public. Congress leaks.

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2239
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1237 on: December 13, 2017, 01:29:54 PM »
Wait, you mean republicans in Alabama didn't elect a pedophile to congress?

This is the low bar that counts as victory, in these times.

Moore carried 91% of the vote among registered Republicans. Maybe some decent ones stayed home.

 Not all democrats are using the ACA, I guess a few decent ones don't want to have most of there healthcare bill paid out of the pocket of hardworking taxpayers.
At least some will work for what they want.  ;-/

Wrecks

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1238 on: December 13, 2017, 01:38:29 PM »
Can someone help me understand the 100%+ marginal rate on high-earning service passthroughs?

If you can see the WSJ, here:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-taxman-cometh-senate-bills-marginal-rates-could-top-100-for-some-1512942118

Like where does this kick in for a single person?

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1797
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1239 on: December 13, 2017, 01:48:31 PM »
Moore only lost because black people voted. 96% of blacks voted against him; 68% of whites voted for him. Thank you black people. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/alabama-exit-polls/?utm_term=.334dbeed66c8

I'm guessing it was probably higher amongst gay people given that he wanted to throw us all in prison.  You're welcome...

Belated thanks from me.

GnomeErcy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 98
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1240 on: December 13, 2017, 01:53:45 PM »
Can someone help me understand the 100%+ marginal rate on high-earning service passthroughs?

If you can see the WSJ, here:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-taxman-cometh-senate-bills-marginal-rates-could-top-100-for-some-1512942118

Like where does this kick in for a single person?

With them reconvening to make changes and us not knowing those details yet I think it'd be worked out, but not sure.

FWIW that seemed to only be the case for high SALT locations as well from what I could read.

dandarc

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3173
  • Age: 36
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1241 on: December 13, 2017, 02:29:50 PM »
Can someone help me understand the 100%+ marginal rate on high-earning service passthroughs?

If you can see the WSJ, here:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-taxman-cometh-senate-bills-marginal-rates-could-top-100-for-some-1512942118

Like where does this kick in for a single person?
Looks like $250K of specified-service pass-through business income for an individual.

The issue is the way the phase-out works.  Senate plan is acheiving the "lower taxes on small businesses" goal by allowing a 20% (17.4%?  I've seen a bunch of different numbers for this) deduction on your pass-through's income.  For the "specified services" businesses, this deduction phases out over only a 50K range.  So say your business income is $250K - you're getting a $50,000 deduction, and you're in the 24% bracket.  I don't have the full text to work from, but the basic idea is this:  your next dollar, the phaseout starts - you're paying tax not only on that $1, but on another $1.00 ($50K / $50K) where the deduction is phasing out.  so you earned 1 more dollar, but you're paying tax on 24% of $2 = $0.48.  48% marginal rate is quite high  Plus state, FICA, etc.  You get a very high total tax rate on that $1.

The numbers get really galling for MFJ, where the phase out comes in at $500K and goes over $100K.  I get 70% marginal federal income taxes alone by the method described above.  Apparently the formula for the phase-out is somewhat convoluted, so the exact numbers aren't quite what I've shown here, but the idea is in this certain income range, the federal income tax is computed on a much larger number than you might think.  Combined with state, local, and FICA and what-not, the marginal rate can be more than 100%, which is a problem - making $600K should net you more than $550K, but it won't necessarily.

Also note - this is not unique to the new tax plan.  With current law, you can get shockingly high marginal tax rates even at quite low incomes.  An example is the saver's credit - if you earn $1 more than the top of the 50% bracket for that particular credit, you're paying a whole lot more tax than if you're under the limit.

That being said, who knows what, if anything, they're actually going to pass.  This is a well publicized issue, so maybe it will have been fixed.

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 684
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1242 on: December 13, 2017, 04:58:00 PM »
@TexasRunner I have sympathies for some of the views you expressed.

Obamacare is a tax.
The safety net shouldn't create a dependency.
Taxes should be low (but a flat tax is a terrible idea).
Environmental regulations are important.
UBI is a pipe dream.
I have some doubts about affirmative action.
Voter ID laws aren't a ditch worth dying in, a view for which I've been called a racist both online and offline.

But none of this excuses the absolute garbage that the GOP of the last decade wraps what remains of their conservative views in order to get the votes of the batshit insane. Sol's view is pretty fucking on point there. The GOP as it currently stands is the party of idiots, and those who think the ends justifies the means, even if it means waging war on common sense.

Knock off the religious bullshit, stop giving a platform to conspiracy theorists of all stripes, get your house in order, and you may have a shot at luring back rational people. Until then, enjoy the company you have.

I think if government was working well all government funded programs would do that following:

1. Have clear measurable results they end to achieve
2. Establish a time limit for the program over which goals or milestones should be met.

That way failed programs just expire and don't create a drag even when they never delivered on there intended goals.

I am all for government programs if they can prove they meet expectations and provide their intend effect. I think most people would like to see a few presidents stop adding new stuff and start doing a fair evaluation and cleanup of existing programs.

The Republican approach tends to be a jack hammer to anything that isn't defense or that their corporate buddies have been bitching about. As opposed to doing a fair evaluation of each programs usefulness versus cost.

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1973
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1243 on: December 13, 2017, 05:08:13 PM »
Is there a thread to discuss how mustachians should adjust their plans on the tax plan that will pass? I would like to focus on how to optimize my finances on the actual plan that is going to pass rather than discuss the politics behind it. I think this thread has turned into more of a political discussion and it's hard to find the optimizing techniques. I think it started out that way, but now it is not providing this information.

I'm not complaining, just trying to find the relevant information. Thanks.

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1244 on: December 13, 2017, 05:21:21 PM »
Is there a thread to discuss how mustachians should adjust their plans on the tax plan that will pass? I would like to focus on how to optimize my finances on the actual plan that is going to pass rather than discuss the politics behind it. I think this thread has turned into more of a political discussion and it's hard to find the optimizing techniques. I think it started out that way, but now it is not providing this information.

I'm not complaining, just trying to find the relevant information. Thanks.

We haven't even seen the new plan yet, unless something happens while I was sewing just now.

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1973
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1245 on: December 13, 2017, 05:26:00 PM »
Is there a thread to discuss how mustachians should adjust their plans on the tax plan that will pass? I would like to focus on how to optimize my finances on the actual plan that is going to pass rather than discuss the politics behind it. I think this thread has turned into more of a political discussion and it's hard to find the optimizing techniques. I think it started out that way, but now it is not providing this information.

I'm not complaining, just trying to find the relevant information. Thanks.

We haven't even seen the new plan yet, unless something happens while I was sewing just now.

True. I thought I read that the House and Senate reconciled their differences, but nothing has been signed yet. OK, I guess I will wait for it to pass to try and figure out what to do.

I already started my DAF (thanks to this thread) to maximize itemized deductions this year. I guess  for next year (newly FIREd), I'd like to know the new tax brackets and if the 0% capital gains tax remains in the lowest tax bracket.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8679
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1246 on: December 13, 2017, 06:09:06 PM »
Is there a thread to discuss how mustachians should adjust their plans on the tax plan that will pass? I would like to focus on how to optimize my finances on the actual plan that is going to pass rather than discuss the politics behind it. I think this thread has turned into more of a political discussion and it's hard to find the optimizing techniques. I think it started out that way, but now it is not providing this information.

I'm not complaining, just trying to find the relevant information. Thanks.

We haven't even seen the new plan yet, unless something happens while I was sewing just now.

True. I thought I read that the House and Senate reconciled their differences, but nothing has been signed yet. OK, I guess I will wait for it to pass to try and figure out what to do.

I already started my DAF (thanks to this thread) to maximize itemized deductions this year. I guess  for next year (newly FIREd), I'd like to know the new tax brackets and if the 0% capital gains tax remains in the lowest tax bracket.

There is some justification for the Bogleheads' policy not to spend (waste?) time speculating about possible legislation: Political comments and proposed tax plan remain off-topic - Bogleheads.org

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4593
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1247 on: December 13, 2017, 07:35:50 PM »
...

See this post.

I meant to return to this and forgot, thanks for bring it back up.

You lay the blame squarely on Obama, but I'm not clear on whether the fix was attainable through agency rule-making or if it required legislative action. Do you have a source that clarifies this?

Yes.  The President has full situational authority over the IRS when nessecary, and the glitch was created (and intentionally not closed) by an IRS ruling:  https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-01/pdf/2013-02136.pdf (second page, middle column § 1.36B–2 Eligibility for premium tax credit)

As such, it was possible for intervention to occur, and as the chief executive of the IRS is a presidential nomination, there is precedence for at least some collaboration.  Regarding whether he knew or not initially, it became a VERY big deal after implementation and could have been corrected.

Quote
Health Affairs explains that this was not an accident or oversight – it was carefully considered and the final regulation was delayed while the Government Accountability Office and the IRS analyzed the impact of the decision. There were concerns that employers would increase the contributions required to enroll family members, which would push more people off employer plans and into the exchanges, driving up the total cost of subsidies. Ultimately, those concerns prevailed and the “family glitch” was born.

Source: https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/no-family-left-behind-by-obamacare/
I read that post, nothing in it at ALL says that the president may change laws to do what he wants instead of enforcing the laws written by Congress.  Even your own link disagrees with you.  Senator Frankin did propose a fix according to that link, the GOP controlled congress refused to pass it.

Joeko

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1248 on: December 13, 2017, 07:46:54 PM »
How is adding 1 Trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years a good thing?

How is widening the income inequality a good thing?


sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7330
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1249 on: December 13, 2017, 07:55:32 PM »
How is widening the income inequality a good thing?

It's good for you if you're one of the ultra-wealthy donors who funds the republican party.