Author Topic: Republican Tax Plan 2017  (Read 381024 times)

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1000 on: December 04, 2017, 08:44:07 AM »
As I said before, my taxes going up to support something of value, such as health care, a real tax, permanent tax cut for the middle class, infrastructure, etc. would be fine with me. I am NOT OKAY with paying substantially more in taxes to give it to the idle rich.

Would it be fair to say you have qualms with the spending priority, rather than the level of taxation in the new tax bill?

I don't think I can be any more clear.

And if your next argument is that tax cuts for "job creators" will grow the economy, as has been discussed ad nauseum it has been proven over and over that they don't. Further, there is absolutely no reason to further stimulate the economy.

I also find it absolutely repulsive that this bill provides generous tax breaks for passive pass throughs but specifically excludes those who work for their money.

Wait, what? I wasn't arguing, just trying to reword what you said in a way that made more sense to me. I think we agree, mostly.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1001 on: December 04, 2017, 08:45:05 AM »
You seem to agree with my point and provide ample evidence for it. By dismissing my lived-in experience under a totalitarian system with thought control in place
which seems vaguely similar to what I observe in my own circumstances now, only strengthens my point.

You're comparing living under Stalin to criticism on an internet message forum?!?

I'm dismissing the comparison. It's nonsense.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1002 on: December 04, 2017, 08:46:55 AM »
The hope is that big growth will come from the business side through investment and capital formation. The bill provides incentives for that - lets see those will work.

So the record corporate profits/cash-in-hand up to this point ... that wasn't enough incentive for new capital spending? Why would their previous plan of "hoard cash and buy back shares" change because they're giving less money to the government?

Wrecks

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1003 on: December 04, 2017, 08:59:31 AM »
As I said before, my taxes going up to support something of value, such as health care, a real tax, permanent tax cut for the middle class, infrastructure, etc. would be fine with me. I am NOT OKAY with paying substantially more in taxes to give it to the idle rich.

Would it be fair to say you have qualms with the spending priority, rather than the level of taxation in the new tax bill?

I don't think I can be any more clear.

And if your next argument is that tax cuts for "job creators" will grow the economy, as has been discussed ad nauseum it has been proven over and over that they don't. Further, there is absolutely no reason to further stimulate the economy.

I also find it absolutely repulsive that this bill provides generous tax breaks for passive pass throughs but specifically excludes those who work for their money.

Wait, what? I wasn't arguing, just trying to reword what you said in a way that made more sense to me. I think we agree, mostly.

Sorry, I am extremely aggravated by this whole thing. My apologies.

jean

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1004 on: December 04, 2017, 09:05:28 AM »
One example of benefit (sparked by a conversation with a colleague) - this plan would be of some benefit to a lot of singles who rent - think of our of college grads. They don't itemize usually and don't make tons. So doubling standard deduction is a boon.
I agree with this, and think it is generally a good thing.

Still,  can we stop referring to it as "doubling standard deduction" and just say increasing the standard deduction or "doubling the SD while simultaneously removing the Personal Exemption"

For a single the SD + Personal Exemption (which really functioned like a secondary SD) for 2018 would be 10,400.  The new tax plan increases this to either 12,000 or 12,200. 

I know those here know this. I still think we should frame the potential benefits of  this appropriately. An increase in the SD will have a modest impact on singles.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 38
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1005 on: December 04, 2017, 09:30:03 AM »
+1...they must misunderstand their desire to conform to the one true narrative listed on the pages on the NY Times as the only true version of life. I have seen that somewhere else...under Stalin! 'Conform to what we tell you is good for you'...'yes, comrads!' Is the only acceptable answer. Yes, I saw and heard that in my formative years growing up under socialism....Sad! I am for freedom of though for everyone! Go, wise virgin!

A common alt-right troll tactic is to dismiss all criticism with "stop being thought police" "I thought this was a free country" false equivalence. No one is telling you or Wise what to think, you just have to be able to defend it or you'll continue to be ignored.

You seem to agree with my point and provide ample evidence for it. By dismissing my lived-in experience under a totalitarian system with thought control in place
which seems vaguely similar to what I observe in my own circumstances now, only strengthens my point.

Don't tell others what is good for them...the communist party is usually the one that tells you what is in your best interest. But again, how you would be familiar with that??

Wow, responding to being called out for false equivalence by doing exactly the same thing again is a bold move.

Let's try this again. No one is telling you what to think. Sol and I (and others) have no authority over you in any way whatsoever. Everyone is on equal footing here, and if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say then you (like everyone else) must be able to back it up. With reasoning and evidence, not easily disprovable magical thinking and propaganda.

Metta

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1006 on: December 04, 2017, 09:38:12 AM »
+1...they must misunderstand their desire to conform to the one true narrative listed on the pages on the NY Times as the only true version of life. I have seen that somewhere else...under Stalin! 'Conform to what we tell you is good for you'...'yes, comrads!' Is the only acceptable answer. Yes, I saw and heard that in my formative years growing up under socialism....Sad! I am for freedom of though for everyone! Go, wise virgin!

A common alt-right troll tactic is to dismiss all criticism with "stop being thought police" "I thought this was a free country" false equivalence. No one is telling you or Wise what to think, you just have to be able to defend it or you'll continue to be ignored.

You seem to agree with my point and provide ample evidence for it. By dismissing my lived-in experience under a totalitarian system with thought control in place
which seems vaguely similar to what I observe in my own circumstances now, only strengthens my point.

Don't tell others what is good for them...the communist party is usually the one that tells you what is in your best interest. But again, how you would be familiar with that??

Wow, responding to being called out for false equivalence by doing exactly the same thing again is a bold move.

Let's try this again. No one is telling you what to think. Sol and I (and others) have no authority over you in any way whatsoever. Everyone is on equal footing here, and if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say then you (like everyone else) must be able to back it up. With reasoning and evidence, not easily disprovable magical thinking and propaganda.

I don’t think that the problem with communism was that they told people what to think. Nearly everyone with a philosophy or motivation does that. The difference between followers of Epictetus or Buddha or Jesus telling you what or how to think and Stalinist Russia is that Russian communists backed up their  directives with guns. Very few followers of Plato are willing to back up their recommendations with a gun to the head. And from what I’ve observed, exactly none of the mustachians have that ability or inclination.

SaucyAussie

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • Location: Raleigh, NC
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1007 on: December 04, 2017, 09:40:40 AM »
One example of benefit (sparked by a conversation with a colleague) - this plan would be of some benefit to a lot of singles who rent - think of our of college grads. They don't itemize usually and don't make tons. So doubling standard deduction is a boon.
I agree with this, and think it is generally a good thing.

Still,  can we stop referring to it as "doubling standard deduction" and just say increasing the standard deduction or "doubling the SD while simultaneously removing the Personal Exemption"

For a single the SD + Personal Exemption (which really functioned like a secondary SD) for 2018 would be 10,400.  The new tax plan increases this to either 12,000 or 12,200. 

I know those here know this. I still think we should frame the potential benefits of  this appropriately. An increase in the SD will have a modest impact on singles.

Just to add some numbers to your example, a single making 50K a year would get a tax cut of around $1270 under the Senate bill, same single making 100K a year sees a tax cut of around $2480.

djadziadax

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1008 on: December 04, 2017, 09:41:00 AM »
One example of benefit (sparked by a conversation with a colleague) - this plan would be of some benefit to a lot of singles who rent - think of our of college grads. They don't itemize usually and don't make tons. So doubling standard deduction is a boon.
I agree with this, and think it is generally a good thing.

Still,  can we stop referring to it as "doubling standard deduction" and just say increasing the standard deduction or "doubling the SD while simultaneously removing the Personal Exemption"

For a single the SD + Personal Exemption (which really functioned like a secondary SD) for 2018 would be 10,400.  The new tax plan increases this to either 12,000 or 12,200. 

I know those here know this. I still think we should frame the potential benefits of  this appropriately. An increase in the SD will have a modest impact on singles.

Good point. But also the tax rate would be at 12% rather than 15% for example, and it also include the $300 of flexible  family credit (as I understand it). So a bit bigger benefit than just sheltering an additional $1800 of income, but not really great.

Yes, 2K is not great in a world where the iPhone X is $1000... but it is also equivalent or a little more than our small 2.75% yearly "raise."


sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 38
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1009 on: December 04, 2017, 09:49:14 AM »
I don’t think that the problem with communism was that they told people what to think. Nearly everyone with a philosophy or motivation does that. The difference between followers of Epictetus or Buddha or Jesus telling you what or how to think and Stalinist Russia is that Russian communists backed up their  directives with guns. Very few followers of Plato are willing to back up their recommendations with a gun to the head. And from what I’ve observed, exactly none of the mustachians have that ability or inclination.

Agreed, except that they are two different things with different terminology. Alt-righters intentionally confuse them so that they don't actually have to argue on the merits of facts, but there's no reason we have to concede the point and let them get away with it.

"Telling you what to think" implies force and authority and control. Perhaps a gun to the head, or maybe just a vague implied threat.

What the followers of Epictetus or Buddha or Jesus would do would be "evangelism" or "convincing" or "persuasion" (unless of course we're going back to the dark ages of Crusades and Inquisitions the like. Then yes obviously that would be "telling you what to think"). "Hey I think I know a truth, let me try to convince you that it's true." That's not "telling" someone what to think, and there's no reason we should allow the distinction to be muddled.

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1010 on: December 04, 2017, 10:00:38 AM »

Tech bubbles like the bay look like they have peaked.

We will see how that goes and Eric the current tech bubbles pops...

How many decades can something carry on and still be (usefully characterized as) a bubble?

djadziadax

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1011 on: December 04, 2017, 10:01:42 AM »
+1...they must misunderstand their desire to conform to the one true narrative listed on the pages on the NY Times as the only true version of life. I have seen that somewhere else...under Stalin! 'Conform to what we tell you is good for you'...'yes, comrads!' Is the only acceptable answer. Yes, I saw and heard that in my formative years growing up under socialism....Sad! I am for freedom of though for everyone! Go, wise virgin!

A common alt-right troll tactic is to dismiss all criticism with "stop being thought police" "I thought this was a free country" false equivalence. No one is telling you or Wise what to think, you just have to be able to defend it or you'll continue to be ignored.

You seem to agree with my point and provide ample evidence for it. By dismissing my lived-in experience under a totalitarian system with thought control in place
which seems vaguely similar to what I observe in my own circumstances now, only strengthens my point.

Don't tell others what is good for them...the communist party is usually the one that tells you what is in your best interest. But again, how you would be familiar with that??

Wow, responding to being called out for false equivalence by doing exactly the same thing again is a bold move.

Let's try this again. No one is telling you what to think. Sol and I (and others) have no authority over you in any way whatsoever. Everyone is on equal footing here, and if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say then you (like everyone else) must be able to back it up. With reasoning and evidence, not easily disprovable magical thinking and propaganda.

Right, not on this board. But if you are so confident that we live at the present moment in a free-to-express your opinion society, I dare you to ware a red MAGA hat on the NYC subway or in a bar. No guns, but fist fights have been known to occur...Even if you don't fear for your safety, it will be an extremely uncomfortable experience. Maybe the same for someone wearing a Hillary button in deep red Montana or Idaho...

https://nypost.com/2017/03/19/i-made-150-just-by-wearing-a-trump-hat/




salt cured

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1012 on: December 04, 2017, 10:05:27 AM »
Does anyone know if treatment of 414h plans is addressed in either the house or senate bills? I currently max a 403b, a 457b, and defer 6% of my salary into a 414h (plus an 8% employer match), so I'm wondering what will happen to that latter shelter.

Metta

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1013 on: December 04, 2017, 10:06:57 AM »
+1...they must misunderstand their desire to conform to the one true narrative listed on the pages on the NY Times as the only true version of life. I have seen that somewhere else...under Stalin! 'Conform to what we tell you is good for you'...'yes, comrads!' Is the only acceptable answer. Yes, I saw and heard that in my formative years growing up under socialism....Sad! I am for freedom of though for everyone! Go, wise virgin!

A common alt-right troll tactic is to dismiss all criticism with "stop being thought police" "I thought this was a free country" false equivalence. No one is telling you or Wise what to think, you just have to be able to defend it or you'll continue to be ignored.

You seem to agree with my point and provide ample evidence for it. By dismissing my lived-in experience under a totalitarian system with thought control in place
which seems vaguely similar to what I observe in my own circumstances now, only strengthens my point.

Don't tell others what is good for them...the communist party is usually the one that tells you what is in your best interest. But again, how you would be familiar with that??

Wow, responding to being called out for false equivalence by doing exactly the same thing again is a bold move.

Let's try this again. No one is telling you what to think. Sol and I (and others) have no authority over you in any way whatsoever. Everyone is on equal footing here, and if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say then you (like everyone else) must be able to back it up. With reasoning and evidence, not easily disprovable magical thinking and propaganda.

Right, not on this board. But if you are so confident that we live at the present moment in a free-to-express your opinion society, I dare you to ware a red MAGA hat on the NYC subway or in a bar. No guns, but fist fights have been known to occur...Even if you don't fear for your safety, it will be an extremely uncomfortable experience. Maybe the same for someone wearing a Hillary button in deep red Montana or Idaho...

https://nypost.com/2017/03/19/i-made-150-just-by-wearing-a-trump-hat/





It is even easier to provoke people into hateful acts by being an out and proud gay person in Idaho or a Jew in certain parts of this country or a Muslim just about anywhere in the South or Midwest. Or, if you want to get your beating quick and hard, go to Ohio State and cheer for Michigan's football team.

Individual hooliganism is not the same as Stalinist Russia and you should not diminish the horror of that era by making this comparison. It is vile.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1014 on: December 04, 2017, 10:12:21 AM »
It is even easier to provoke people into hateful acts by being an out and proud gay person in Idaho or a Jew in certain parts of this country or a Muslim just about anywhere in the South or Midwest. Or, if you want to get your beating quick and hard, go to Ohio State and cheer for Michigan's football team.

Individual hooliganism is not the same as Stalinist Russia and you should not diminish the horror of that era by making this comparison. It is vile.

Another important distinction: these are all the actions of private citizens, not the state.

Bumperpuff

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 82
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1015 on: December 04, 2017, 10:34:12 AM »
One example of benefit (sparked by a conversation with a colleague) - this plan would be of some benefit to a lot of singles who rent - think of our of college grads. They don't itemize usually and don't make tons. So doubling standard deduction is a boon.
I agree with this, and think it is generally a good thing.

Still,  can we stop referring to it as "doubling standard deduction" and just say increasing the standard deduction or "doubling the SD while simultaneously removing the Personal Exemption"

For a single the SD + Personal Exemption (which really functioned like a secondary SD) for 2018 would be 10,400.  The new tax plan increases this to either 12,000 or 12,200. 

I know those here know this. I still think we should frame the potential benefits of  this appropriately. An increase in the SD will have a modest impact on singles.

Just to add some numbers to your example, a single making 50K a year would get a tax cut of around $1270 under the Senate bill, same single making 100K a year sees a tax cut of around $2480.

I'm single earning about 60k and have been a standard deduction user.  The tax bill will save me a grand total of $270, and once the sunset clauses kick in I'll be paying substantial more.  I'd rather pay more so that people like my friend who currently makes heavy use of the medical deductions won't be penalized for genetic predispositions.

SaucyAussie

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • Location: Raleigh, NC
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1016 on: December 04, 2017, 10:40:29 AM »
One example of benefit (sparked by a conversation with a colleague) - this plan would be of some benefit to a lot of singles who rent - think of our of college grads. They don't itemize usually and don't make tons. So doubling standard deduction is a boon.
I agree with this, and think it is generally a good thing.

Still,  can we stop referring to it as "doubling standard deduction" and just say increasing the standard deduction or "doubling the SD while simultaneously removing the Personal Exemption"

For a single the SD + Personal Exemption (which really functioned like a secondary SD) for 2018 would be 10,400.  The new tax plan increases this to either 12,000 or 12,200. 

I know those here know this. I still think we should frame the potential benefits of  this appropriately. An increase in the SD will have a modest impact on singles.

Just to add some numbers to your example, a single making 50K a year would get a tax cut of around $1270 under the Senate bill, same single making 100K a year sees a tax cut of around $2480.

I'm single earning about 60k and have been a standard deduction user.  The tax bill will save me a grand total of $270, and once the sunset clauses kick in I'll be paying substantial more.  I'd rather pay more so that people like my friend who currently makes heavy use of the medical deductions won't be penalized for genetic predispositions.

Can you show us how you got that?  It doesn't look right.  I don't think you allowed for the updated tax brackets.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 10:45:05 AM by SaucyAussie »

Malloy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 403
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1017 on: December 04, 2017, 10:40:42 AM »
Whoops!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html

A corporate AMT.  Maybe the Senate accidentally DID close some loopholes.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1018 on: December 04, 2017, 10:55:15 AM »
Whoops!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html

A corporate AMT.  Maybe the Senate accidentally DID close some loopholes.

Summary of that article: after permanently lowering the corporate tax rate to 20%, republicans accidentally included a corporate AMT, with a 20% floor.  This means corporations can pay no more and also no less than 20% on their US earnings.  All corporate loopholes and deductions instantly revoked.  Guaranteed 20% corporate tax rate, and no opportunity for them to itemize. 

They'll probably change it.  The ACA had some glitches at first, too.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1019 on: December 04, 2017, 10:57:05 AM »
Whoops!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html

A corporate AMT.  Maybe the Senate accidentally DID close some loopholes.
This would be amusing if it were not such an indicator of what a terrible process was used to craft and pass the bill. ugh.

Roots&Wings

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1555
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1020 on: December 04, 2017, 11:02:10 AM »
Anyone know if the provision mandating FIFO accounting for fund managers, including index funds, remained? That will increase taxable account capital gains distributions significantly if so.

Bumperpuff

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 82
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1021 on: December 04, 2017, 11:02:41 AM »
One example of benefit (sparked by a conversation with a colleague) - this plan would be of some benefit to a lot of singles who rent - think of our of college grads. They don't itemize usually and don't make tons. So doubling standard deduction is a boon.
I agree with this, and think it is generally a good thing.

Still,  can we stop referring to it as "doubling standard deduction" and just say increasing the standard deduction or "doubling the SD while simultaneously removing the Personal Exemption"

For a single the SD + Personal Exemption (which really functioned like a secondary SD) for 2018 would be 10,400.  The new tax plan increases this to either 12,000 or 12,200. 

I know those here know this. I still think we should frame the potential benefits of  this appropriately. An increase in the SD will have a modest impact on singles.

Just to add some numbers to your example, a single making 50K a year would get a tax cut of around $1270 under the Senate bill, same single making 100K a year sees a tax cut of around $2480.

I'm single earning about 60k and have been a standard deduction user.  The tax bill will save me a grand total of $270, and once the sunset clauses kick in I'll be paying substantial more.  I'd rather pay more so that people like my friend who currently makes heavy use of the medical deductions won't be penalized for genetic predispositions.

Can you show us how you got that?  It doesn't look right.  I don't think you allowed for the updated tax brackets.

You're right, the change in brackets pushes me up to $640 or $880 depending on if they go with the senate or house brackets.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4323
  • Age: 33
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1022 on: December 04, 2017, 11:05:47 AM »
Whoops!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html

A corporate AMT.  Maybe the Senate accidentally DID close some loopholes.
This would be amusing if it were not such an indicator of what a terrible process was used to craft and pass the bill. ugh.
Looks like those clowns in Congress did it again.  What a bunch of clowns.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1023 on: December 04, 2017, 11:13:51 AM »
Whoops!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html

A corporate AMT.  Maybe the Senate accidentally DID close some loopholes.

Summary of that article: after permanently lowering the corporate tax rate to 20%, republicans accidentally included a corporate AMT, with a 20% floor.  This means corporations can pay no more and also no less than 20% on their US earnings.  All corporate loopholes and deductions instantly revoked.  Guaranteed 20% corporate tax rate, and no opportunity for them to itemize. 

They'll probably change it.  The ACA had some glitches at first, too.

Am I right in assuming this would actually lead to increased revenues, given that it would be much harder to play with numbers?

Saving4Fire

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1024 on: December 04, 2017, 11:17:20 AM »
Whoops!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html

A corporate AMT.  Maybe the Senate accidentally DID close some loopholes.

Summary of that article: after permanently lowering the corporate tax rate to 20%, republicans accidentally included a corporate AMT, with a 20% floor.  This means corporations can pay no more and also no less than 20% on their US earnings.  All corporate loopholes and deductions instantly revoked.  Guaranteed 20% corporate tax rate, and no opportunity for them to itemize. 

They'll probably change it.  The ACA had some glitches at first, too.

Am I right in assuming this would actually lead to increased revenues, given that it would be much harder to play with numbers?

No, overall corp taxes rates would go down.

This would discourage R&D, because companies couldn't write it off.

I don't think removing the AMT is an actual mistake.   It was temporary fix to get it past budget reconciliation.   If this gets removed expect individual tax payers to pick up the bill so everyone should hold off on their personal calculations.  This bill is a hot mess.

FIREchiefsr

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 90
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1025 on: December 04, 2017, 11:19:39 AM »
Whoops!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html

A corporate AMT.  Maybe the Senate accidentally DID close some loopholes.

I think the AMT revival was just a last minute placeholder to get the thing through the Senate.  Trump's sudden willingness to entertain a 22% corporate rate is likely the route in commitee for them to again remove AMT and also pay for those other last minute sweetners.

secondcor521

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5503
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1026 on: December 04, 2017, 11:24:29 AM »
+1...they must misunderstand their desire to conform to the one true narrative listed on the pages on the NY Times as the only true version of life. I have seen that somewhere else...under Stalin! 'Conform to what we tell you is good for you'...'yes, comrads!' Is the only acceptable answer. Yes, I saw and heard that in my formative years growing up under socialism....Sad! I am for freedom of though for everyone! Go, wise virgin!

A common alt-right troll tactic is to dismiss all criticism with "stop being thought police" "I thought this was a free country" false equivalence. No one is telling you or Wise what to think, you just have to be able to defend it or you'll continue to be ignored.

You seem to agree with my point and provide ample evidence for it. By dismissing my lived-in experience under a totalitarian system with thought control in place
which seems vaguely similar to what I observe in my own circumstances now, only strengthens my point.

Don't tell others what is good for them...the communist party is usually the one that tells you what is in your best interest. But again, how you would be familiar with that??

Wow, responding to being called out for false equivalence by doing exactly the same thing again is a bold move.

Let's try this again. No one is telling you what to think. Sol and I (and others) have no authority over you in any way whatsoever. Everyone is on equal footing here, and if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say then you (like everyone else) must be able to back it up. With reasoning and evidence, not easily disprovable magical thinking and propaganda.

Right, not on this board. But if you are so confident that we live at the present moment in a free-to-express your opinion society, I dare you to ware a red MAGA hat on the NYC subway or in a bar. No guns, but fist fights have been known to occur...Even if you don't fear for your safety, it will be an extremely uncomfortable experience. Maybe the same for someone wearing a Hillary button in deep red Montana or Idaho...

https://nypost.com/2017/03/19/i-made-150-just-by-wearing-a-trump-hat/





It is even easier to provoke people into hateful acts by being an out and proud gay person in Idaho or a Jew in certain parts of this country or a Muslim just about anywhere in the South or Midwest. Or, if you want to get your beating quick and hard, go to Ohio State and cheer for Michigan's football team.

Individual hooliganism is not the same as Stalinist Russia and you should not diminish the horror of that era by making this comparison. It is vile.

Off topic and I think the comments were made mostly as examples, but I've lived in Idaho for over 43 years, including all of the past 24 years.  Although Idaho is a very conservative state, it is also very much a live and let live state.  Those among us who supported Hillary(*), are gay, or Jewish or Muslim, or even Michigan supporters, are just people who we live and work with who have a different opinion.

The only thing that sometimes - and in actual fact rarely - rises to fistfights is between some Bronco and Vandal fans, and I would describe them as hooligans.

(*) Idaho actually went very hard for Senator Sanders in the Democratic primary last year.  Lines around the block to vote for him, including my son.  But there were also those who supported Secretary Clinton.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1027 on: December 04, 2017, 11:28:33 AM »
Am I right in assuming this would actually lead to increased revenues, given that it would be much harder to play with numbers?

Economy wide, no.  The current effective corporate tax rate is usually reported as higher than 20 percent, though it clearly depends on how you count it.

At a fixed 20%, some firms that currently pay zero (GE) would pay a lot more.  Some firms that currently pay more than 20 (Wal-Mart) would pay less.

I think the AMT revival was just a last minute placeholder to get the thing through the Senate.  Trump's sudden willingness to entertain a 22% corporate rate is likely the route in commitee for them to again remove AMT and also pay for those other last minute sweetners.

Bingo.  It's probably just part off the political theater.  It's more tricks designed to push through such an unpopular bill as quickly as possible.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 38
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1028 on: December 04, 2017, 11:29:27 AM »
This would discourage R&D, because companies couldn't write it off.

To be honest I don't have a problem with this. Corporations currently make some really stupid decisions because of tax-deductible CapEx vs non-deductible OpEx considerations. Sometimes improving and maintaining the old system is better for everyone than reinventing the wheel. Level the tax playing field, corporations will still invest in R&D or they'll passed by their competitors.

I don't think removing the AMT is an actual mistake.   It was temporary fix to get it past budget reconciliation.   If this gets removed expect individual tax payers to pick up the bill so everyone should hold off on their personal calculations.  This bill is a hot mess.

Yeah agreed. This is also the first thing I've seen that really convinces me that they're actually going to go through with the reconciliation process instead of just getting the House to pass it. So everyone get ready for another House / Senate vote in a couple weeks.

Saving4Fire

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1029 on: December 04, 2017, 11:35:32 AM »
To be honest I don't have a problem with this. Corporations currently make some really stupid decisions because of tax-deductible CapEx vs non-deductible OpEx considerations. Sometimes improving and maintaining the old system is better for everyone than reinventing the wheel. Level the tax playing field, corporations will still invest in R&D or they'll passed by their competitors.

On the other hand if this tax bill discourages R&D/investment and further encourages dividends and stock buy backs this bill is even worse for the average working person.   

djadziadax

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1030 on: December 04, 2017, 11:44:02 AM »
+1...they must misunderstand their desire to conform to the one true narrative listed on the pages on the NY Times as the only true version of life. I have seen that somewhere else...under Stalin! 'Conform to what we tell you is good for you'...'yes, comrads!' Is the only acceptable answer. Yes, I saw and heard that in my formative years growing up under socialism....Sad! I am for freedom of though for everyone! Go, wise virgin!

A common alt-right troll tactic is to dismiss all criticism with "stop being thought police" "I thought this was a free country" false equivalence. No one is telling you or Wise what to think, you just have to be able to defend it or you'll continue to be ignored.

You seem to agree with my point and provide ample evidence for it. By dismissing my lived-in experience under a totalitarian system with thought control in place
which seems vaguely similar to what I observe in my own circumstances now, only strengthens my point.

Don't tell others what is good for them...the communist party is usually the one that tells you what is in your best interest. But again, how you would be familiar with that??

Wow, responding to being called out for false equivalence by doing exactly the same thing again is a bold move.

Let's try this again. No one is telling you what to think. Sol and I (and others) have no authority over you in any way whatsoever. Everyone is on equal footing here, and if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say then you (like everyone else) must be able to back it up. With reasoning and evidence, not easily disprovable magical thinking and propaganda.

Right, not on this board. But if you are so confident that we live at the present moment in a free-to-express your opinion society, I dare you to ware a red MAGA hat on the NYC subway or in a bar. No guns, but fist fights have been known to occur...Even if you don't fear for your safety, it will be an extremely uncomfortable experience. Maybe the same for someone wearing a Hillary button in deep red Montana or Idaho...

https://nypost.com/2017/03/19/i-made-150-just-by-wearing-a-trump-hat/





It is even easier to provoke people into hateful acts by being an out and proud gay person in Idaho or a Jew in certain parts of this country or a Muslim just about anywhere in the South or Midwest. Or, if you want to get your beating quick and hard, go to Ohio State and cheer for Michigan's football team.

Individual hooliganism is not the same as Stalinist Russia and you should not diminish the horror of that era by making this comparison. It is vile.

Off topic and I think the comments were made mostly as examples, but I've lived in Idaho for over 43 years, including all of the past 24 years.  Although Idaho is a very conservative state, it is also very much a live and let live state.  Those among us who supported Hillary(*), are gay, or Jewish or Muslim, or even Michigan supporters, are just people who we live and work with who have a different opinion.

The only thing that sometimes - and in actual fact rarely - rises to fistfights is between some Bronco and Vandal fans, and I would describe them as hooligans.

(*) Idaho actually went very hard for Senator Sanders in the Democratic primary last year.  Lines around the block to vote for him, including my son.  But there were also those who supported Secretary Clinton.

Thanks for the insight ;-)

MustachianAccountant

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 433
  • Age: 45
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1031 on: December 04, 2017, 11:44:12 AM »

Well... everyone who makes an income gets taxed. Some people get reductions/exemptions from the tax based on certain variables, including the amount of income they make, but all labor/income is taxed (unless you are getting paid 'under the counter').


False. 45% of Americans pay $0 in income tax. If you pay $0 income tax, you made an income that was not taxed. Period.

I'm not accountant so maybe I'm missing something, but are you saying those 45% of Americans don't have to fill out a W2 form and aren't legally required to claim their income every year to be taxed? My understanding is they do. And of course a significant amount of those people pay a payroll tax (or self employment tax), which makes that 45% completely wrong.

Very few people who inherit estates have to pay estate tax. The only people that do are ones with estates valued more than $11m. So it's not a death tax, and the people who call it that are either confused or are being disingenuous.

If you want to call me disingenuous because I say everyone's income (being paid legally) is taxable although some people are exempt from having to pay tax on their income... I can live with that. We, too, can agree to disagree.

1. My apologies for misunderstanding you, I thought you were talking about INCOME tax, not tax in general, given the subject of this thread. Yes, everyone pays some sort of tax during their lifetimes.

2. Just because you file a W-2, and get a paycheck, and are SUBJECT to income tax, does not mean that you end up PAYING income tax. 45% of Americans do not pay income tax. That's the important point. Who is PAYING, not so much who is subject to it. You originally said "everyone who makes an income GETS taxed," which if we're talking about income tax, is false. Your revision using the word "taxable" isn't even technically correct if we're still talking about income tax, because non-taxable income (whether through deductions, exemptions, or otherwise) doesn't get taxed.

Metta

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1032 on: December 04, 2017, 11:47:43 AM »
+1...they must misunderstand their desire to conform to the one true narrative listed on the pages on the NY Times as the only true version of life. I have seen that somewhere else...under Stalin! 'Conform to what we tell you is good for you'...'yes, comrads!' Is the only acceptable answer. Yes, I saw and heard that in my formative years growing up under socialism....Sad! I am for freedom of though for everyone! Go, wise virgin!

A common alt-right troll tactic is to dismiss all criticism with "stop being thought police" "I thought this was a free country" false equivalence. No one is telling you or Wise what to think, you just have to be able to defend it or you'll continue to be ignored.

You seem to agree with my point and provide ample evidence for it. By dismissing my lived-in experience under a totalitarian system with thought control in place
which seems vaguely similar to what I observe in my own circumstances now, only strengthens my point.

Don't tell others what is good for them...the communist party is usually the one that tells you what is in your best interest. But again, how you would be familiar with that??

Wow, responding to being called out for false equivalence by doing exactly the same thing again is a bold move.

Let's try this again. No one is telling you what to think. Sol and I (and others) have no authority over you in any way whatsoever. Everyone is on equal footing here, and if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say then you (like everyone else) must be able to back it up. With reasoning and evidence, not easily disprovable magical thinking and propaganda.

Right, not on this board. But if you are so confident that we live at the present moment in a free-to-express your opinion society, I dare you to ware a red MAGA hat on the NYC subway or in a bar. No guns, but fist fights have been known to occur...Even if you don't fear for your safety, it will be an extremely uncomfortable experience. Maybe the same for someone wearing a Hillary button in deep red Montana or Idaho...

https://nypost.com/2017/03/19/i-made-150-just-by-wearing-a-trump-hat/





It is even easier to provoke people into hateful acts by being an out and proud gay person in Idaho or a Jew in certain parts of this country or a Muslim just about anywhere in the South or Midwest. Or, if you want to get your beating quick and hard, go to Ohio State and cheer for Michigan's football team.

Individual hooliganism is not the same as Stalinist Russia and you should not diminish the horror of that era by making this comparison. It is vile.

Off topic and I think the comments were made mostly as examples, but I've lived in Idaho for over 43 years, including all of the past 24 years.  Although Idaho is a very conservative state, it is also very much a live and let live state.  Those among us who supported Hillary(*), are gay, or Jewish or Muslim, or even Michigan supporters, are just people who we live and work with who have a different opinion.

The only thing that sometimes - and in actual fact rarely - rises to fistfights is between some Bronco and Vandal fans, and I would describe them as hooligans.

(*) Idaho actually went very hard for Senator Sanders in the Democratic primary last year.  Lines around the block to vote for him, including my son.  But there were also those who supported Secretary Clinton.

I thought a Buckeye would be the first at me for these examples, but they held their fire. (Perhaps they have seen the damage wrought by OSU fans along High Street and wisely chose the path of non-resistance.)

I'm glad to hear your description of Idaho as a tolerant place, especially since my cousin just moved to Boise from Denver. I am a bit worried now about the Vandals vs Broncos issue (which I was unaware of) since I believe that my cousin is a Broncos fan. Hopefully he can find a peaceful solution to this potential dispute with the natives. ;)

My point is that there are people itching to put their fist in something or someone everywhere in the world. Who they choose as their victim depends on who is the outsider in that community, whether that person is an outsider due to politics, religion, gender, or football partisanship isn't particularly important. I am guessing that Idaho is not immune from this universal element in human communities.

Violent people are problems for their local communities but they are not the equivalent of despotic governments that conduct large campaigns of terror and murder against their own people and they are not equivalent to governments denying citizens freedom of speech. That was my point. Apologies for any wounded feelings on the part of Idahoans.

secondcor521

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5503
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1033 on: December 04, 2017, 11:56:07 AM »
I'm glad to hear your description of Idaho as a tolerant place, especially since my cousin just moved to Boise from Denver. I am a bit worried now about the Vandals vs Broncos issue (which I was unaware of) since I believe that my cousin is a Broncos fan. Hopefully he can find a peaceful solution to this potential dispute with the natives. ;)

My point is that there are people itching to put their fist in something or someone everywhere in the world. Who they choose as their victim depends on who is the outsider in that community, whether that person is an outsider due to politics, religion, gender, or football partisanship isn't particularly important. I am guessing that Idaho is not immune from this universal element in human communities.

Violent people are problems for their local communities but they are not the equivalent of despotic governments that conduct large campaigns of terror and murder against their own people and they are not equivalent to governments denying citizens freedom of speech. That was my point. Apologies for any wounded feelings on the part of Idahoans.

99.9% of Bronco and Vandal fans get along just fine.  It's easier now that they don't play each other (different conferences I think).

We're not immune from violence, but around here the violent folks tend to be gang members or meth addicts.  Those kind of people tend to be violent anywhere I think.

And I understand your last point as well.  And no hurt feelings; I'm pretty tolerant. ;-)  Just wanted to clarify.

(We now return you to your regularly scheduled, ahem, discussion, of the tax bill.)

sokoloff

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1191
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1034 on: December 04, 2017, 12:04:20 PM »
Whoops!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html

A corporate AMT.  Maybe the Senate accidentally DID close some loopholes.
Summary of that article: after permanently lowering the corporate tax rate to 20%, republicans accidentally included a corporate AMT, with a 20% floor.  This means corporations can pay no more and also no less than 20% on their US earnings.  All corporate loopholes and deductions instantly revoked.  Guaranteed 20% corporate tax rate, and no opportunity for them to itemize. 

They'll probably change it.  The ACA had some glitches at first, too.
Am I right in assuming this would actually lead to increased revenues, given that it would be much harder to play with numbers?
No, overall corp taxes rates would go down.

This would discourage R&D, because companies couldn't write it off.
What leads you to that conclusion?

AMT doesn't restrict or impact R&D spending's deductibility.

Any elimination of increased R&D credits via corporate AMT would have a modest negative effect, but I can tell you that we go about our normal business and only at the end of the year have a few long, painful meetings with the tax team to understand what was available from the R&D credit. (You could argue that our finance team has previously modeled the likely ranges and therefore set our budgets higher with the R&D credits taken into account than they would be if the R&D credit didn't exist, and I'm sure that's what actually happened, but day-to-day, I don't direct my teams to do X rather than Y because X has an R&D credit attached and Y doesn't.)

ZiziPB

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3417
  • Location: The Other Side
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1035 on: December 04, 2017, 12:05:51 PM »

I don't think removing the AMT is an actual mistake.   It was temporary fix to get it past budget reconciliation.   If this gets removed expect individual tax payers to pick up the bill so everyone should hold off on their personal calculations.  This bill is a hot mess.

Yeah agreed. This is also the first thing I've seen that really convinces me that they're actually going to go through with the reconciliation process instead of just getting the House to pass it. So everyone get ready for another House / Senate vote in a couple weeks.

+1.  I thought for sure the House would just vote to adopt the Senate version but it looks like this is something that they will want fixed. 

FIREchiefsr

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 90
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1036 on: December 04, 2017, 12:10:51 PM »
+2.  I've had the same change in expectations.  I'm actually glad, because that eleventh hour AMT switch was a killer (see earlier posts).

Saving4Fire

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1037 on: December 04, 2017, 12:11:45 PM »
Whoops!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html

A corporate AMT.  Maybe the Senate accidentally DID close some loopholes.
Summary of that article: after permanently lowering the corporate tax rate to 20%, republicans accidentally included a corporate AMT, with a 20% floor.  This means corporations can pay no more and also no less than 20% on their US earnings.  All corporate loopholes and deductions instantly revoked.  Guaranteed 20% corporate tax rate, and no opportunity for them to itemize. 

They'll probably change it.  The ACA had some glitches at first, too.
Am I right in assuming this would actually lead to increased revenues, given that it would be much harder to play with numbers?
No, overall corp taxes rates would go down.

This would discourage R&D, because companies couldn't write it off.
What leads you to that conclusion?

AMT doesn't restrict or impact R&D spending's deductibility.

Any elimination of increased R&D credits via corporate AMT would have a modest negative effect, but I can tell you that we go about our normal business and only at the end of the year have a few long, painful meetings with the tax team to understand what was available from the R&D credit. (You could argue that our finance team has previously modeled the likely ranges and therefore set our budgets higher with the R&D credits taken into account than they would be if the R&D credit didn't exist, and I'm sure that's what actually happened, but day-to-day, I don't direct my teams to do X rather than Y because X has an R&D credit attached and Y doesn't.)

I can't speak to your company's specific scenario, however if something isn't as encouraged as it was before you're going to get less of it.   

djadziadax

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1038 on: December 04, 2017, 12:13:45 PM »
One thing that makes me uncomfortable with long term economic projections is how easily they can be disproved by tweaking just one of the variables in the model. Especially when citing exact numbers rather than giving range of possible outcomes. Economists are wrong all the time, sometimes they are wrong really big.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html

One of those currently is with the deficit projections being thrown around is the 1.5 trillion in deficit.  The CBP/JCT use static scoring for the next 10 years, which seems crazy to me. Using a dynamic scoring is more in line with reality (you have to account for varying growth and just uncertainty in business and individual behavior in the next 10 years). NY Times give a good example of how different models produce different deficit outcomes based on using different assumptions. Economics is not a hard science - economist have been wrong multiple times (refer to Krugman above).

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/28/us/politics/tax-bill-deficits.html


Quoted - "They (Republicans) have argued that economic growth spurred by the cuts would make up for the difference in tax revenue, eventually reducing the deficits. But there is no consensus among economists about the amount of growth that would occur, and few estimate that the bill would generate enough economic growth to offset the drop in tax revenue." This is what gets me to be skeptical of long term economic projections...Also, re-read Krugman above.

If you read the Tax Foundation report, on p15 they address this uncertainty of the future (it being the future!). Quote:

"Uncertainty in Modeling Estimates
There are three primary sources of uncertainty in modeling the provisions of the Senate’s version
of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: the significance of deficit effects, the timing of economic effects, and
expectations regarding the extension of temporary provisions.
Some economic models assume that there is a limited amount of saving available to the United States
to fund new investment opportunities when taxes on investment are reduced, and that when the
federal budget deficit increases, the amount of available saving for private investment is “crowdedout”
by government borrowing, which reduces the long-run size of the U.S. economy. While past
empirical work has found evidence of crowd-out, the estimated impact is usually small. Furthermore,
global savings remain high, which may help explain why interest rates remain low despite rising
budget deficits. We assume that a deficit increase will not meaningfully crowd out private investment
in the United States.5"

We are also forced to make certain assumptions about how quickly the economy would respond to
lower tax burdens on investment. There is an inherent level of uncertainty here that could impact the
timing of revenue generation within the budget window.

Finally, we assume that temporary tax changes will expire on schedule, and that business decisions
will be made in anticipation of this expiration. To the extent that investments are made in the
anticipation that temporary expensing provisions might be extended, economic effects could exceed
our projections.

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 12:15:16 PM by djadziadax »

TheAnonOne

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1039 on: December 04, 2017, 12:23:53 PM »
Being from MN, I for one am a bit displeased with the complete loss of the SALT deduction.

The "property" tax deduction is a side-show, at least for MN. The income tax deduction loss probably means a net tax increase for a large chunk of MN residents(at least in the metro area)

sokoloff

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1191
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1040 on: December 04, 2017, 12:30:38 PM »
I can't speak to your company's specific scenario, however if something isn't as encouraged as it was before you're going to get less of it.
Of course! In this case, I don't see anything in the changes to suggest that R&D expenses are not deductible ("a write-off"). That was all I was claiming.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1041 on: December 04, 2017, 12:40:40 PM »
Being from MN, I for one am a bit displeased with the complete loss of the SALT deduction.

The "property" tax deduction is a side-show, at least for MN. The income tax deduction loss probably means a net tax increase for a large chunk of MN residents(at least in the metro area)

New Jersey, checking in....less than 1% behind MN on income tax combined with the highest property taxes in the country.

I'm glad I don't own here.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 38
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1042 on: December 04, 2017, 01:04:29 PM »
One of those currently is with the deficit projections being thrown around is the 1.5 trillion in deficit.  The CBP/JCT use static scoring for the next 10 years, which seems crazy to me. Using a dynamic scoring is more in line with reality (you have to account for varying growth and just uncertainty in business and individual behavior in the next 10 years).

They did not just do a static analysis. The JCT also released a dynamic analysis that found that the plan would increase the deficit by about $1 Trillion for ten years:
https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5045

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates in their dynamic score that a stronger economy would offset about 1/6th of the $1.5 T deficit (leaving $1.25 T remaining):
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/macroeconomic-analysis-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-passed-senate-finance-committee/full

And the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation found in their dynamic score of the House version that it would add $1.98 T (static) - $0.9 T (new revenue) = ~ $ 1 Trillion dollars in new deficit over ten years.
https://taxfoundation.org/2017-tax-cuts-jobs-act-analysis/

Saying "economics isn't a hard science" and "but they could be wrong" - while true - only goes so far. When all of the estimates from all of the most competent and knowledgeable people are in about the same place, that's probably a pretty good indication that the reality is somewhere around there. What's the alternative? To give up entirely on evidence-based decision making and just choose to believe whatever we want?

And part of the reason that scoring has been rough is because the bill has been changing constantly, on a daily or hourly basis. They passed it at 2AM with hand-written changes in the margins for crying out loud. How is anyone supposed to do an in-depth analysis of that?

One thing that makes me uncomfortable with long term economic projections is how easily they can be disproved by tweaking just one of the variables in the model.

There you go with a Scott Adams-esque incorrect usage of the word "disprove" again. "Tweaking" variables and showing that the models come to different conclusions doesn't "disprove" anything. Often we have very good ideas of what those variables should be, and often we know how the variables tend to related to each other so tweaking one isolation might not be valid. This is the same nonsense that Adams rants on about when he's "disproving" Climate Change.

Your 2009 article is talking about the 2008 housing collapse. Which sure, there were bad economic projections involved. There was also a systemic effort to mislead and defraud the public. Hopefully that's not a great comparison to make to the Republican tax bill.

To me the bottom line though is that "well economists can be wrong so we can just ignore them" cannot be the bottom-line conclusion we jump to. You disagree with their findings? Fine, publish a better paper explaining your methodology and why it's superior. But don't just jump straight into anti-intellectual know-nothingness to justify your party's actions.

sokoloff

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1191
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1043 on: December 04, 2017, 01:12:17 PM »
Being from MN, I for one am a bit displeased with the complete loss of the SALT deduction.

The "property" tax deduction is a side-show, at least for MN. The income tax deduction loss probably means a net tax increase for a large chunk of MN residents(at least in the metro area)
New Jersey, checking in....less than 1% behind MN on income tax combined with the highest property taxes in the country.

I'm glad I don't own here.
You're still paying the NJ property tax (as part of your rent).
In your case though, it will remain deductible on your landlord's schedule E, line 16.

ZiziPB

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3417
  • Location: The Other Side
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1044 on: December 04, 2017, 01:14:12 PM »
One of those currently is with the deficit projections being thrown around is the 1.5 trillion in deficit.  The CBP/JCT use static scoring for the next 10 years, which seems crazy to me. Using a dynamic scoring is more in line with reality (you have to account for varying growth and just uncertainty in business and individual behavior in the next 10 years).

They did not just do a static analysis. The JCT also released a dynamic analysis that found that the plan would increase the deficit by about $1 Trillion for ten years:
https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5045

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates in their dynamic score that a stronger economy would offset about 1/6th of the $1.5 T deficit (leaving $1.25 T remaining):
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/macroeconomic-analysis-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-passed-senate-finance-committee/full

And the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation found in their dynamic score of the House version that it would add $1.98 T (static) - $0.9 T (new revenue) = ~ $ 1 Trillion dollars in new deficit over ten years.
https://taxfoundation.org/2017-tax-cuts-jobs-act-analysis/

Saying "economics isn't a hard science" and "but they could be wrong" - while true - only goes so far. When all of the estimates from all of the most competent and knowledgeable people are in about the same place, that's probably a pretty good indication that the reality is somewhere around there. What's the alternative? To give up entirely on evidence-based decision making and just choose to believe whatever we want?

And part of the reason that scoring has been rough is because the bill has been changing constantly, on a daily or hourly basis. They passed it at 2AM with hand-written changes in the margins for crying out loud. How is anyone supposed to do an in-depth analysis of that?

One thing that makes me uncomfortable with long term economic projections is how easily they can be disproved by tweaking just one of the variables in the model.

There you go with a Scott Adams-esque incorrect usage of the word "disprove" again. "Tweaking" variables and showing that the models come to different conclusions doesn't "disprove" anything. Often we have very good ideas of what those variables should be, and often we know how the variables tend to related to each other so tweaking one isolation might not be valid. This is the same nonsense that Adams rants on about when he's "disproving" Climate Change.

Your 2009 article is talking about the 2008 housing collapse. Which sure, there were bad economic projections involved. There was also a systemic effort to mislead and defraud the public. Hopefully that's not a great comparison to make to the Republican tax bill.

To me the bottom line though is that "well economists can be wrong so we can just ignore them" cannot be the bottom-line conclusion we jump to. You disagree with their findings? Fine, publish a better paper explaining your methodology and why it's superior. But don't just jump straight into anti-intellectual know-nothingness to justify your party's actions.

In fact, Republicans went out of their way to discredit the Joint Committee on Taxation just because they didn't like the results of their analysis:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/us/politics/republicans-joint-committee-on-taxation-estimate.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1045 on: December 04, 2017, 01:16:42 PM »
Being from MN, I for one am a bit displeased with the complete loss of the SALT deduction.

The "property" tax deduction is a side-show, at least for MN. The income tax deduction loss probably means a net tax increase for a large chunk of MN residents(at least in the metro area)
New Jersey, checking in....less than 1% behind MN on income tax combined with the highest property taxes in the country.

I'm glad I don't own here.
You're still paying the NJ property tax (as part of your rent).
In your case though, it will remain deductible on your landlord's schedule E, line 16.

Of course (and 18% of my rent is deductible from my state taxes as a property tax allowance). I can't deduct it from my federal taxes so the loss of the deduction doesn't matter to me.

sokoloff

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1191
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1046 on: December 04, 2017, 01:29:50 PM »
Of course (and 18% of my rent is deductible from my state taxes as a property tax allowance).
There's a similar provision in MA. I'm pretty sure it's designed to catch landlords who might otherwise "forget" that they had a rental property... ;)

Wrecks

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1047 on: December 04, 2017, 01:40:07 PM »
Being from MN, I for one am a bit displeased with the complete loss of the SALT deduction.

The "property" tax deduction is a side-show, at least for MN. The income tax deduction loss probably means a net tax increase for a large chunk of MN residents(at least in the metro area)
New Jersey, checking in....less than 1% behind MN on income tax combined with the highest property taxes in the country.

I'm glad I don't own here.
You're still paying the NJ property tax (as part of your rent).
In your case though, it will remain deductible on your landlord's schedule E, line 16.

Of course (and 18% of my rent is deductible from my state taxes as a property tax allowance). I can't deduct it from my federal taxes so the loss of the deduction doesn't matter to me.

Unless you work for an active pass through that has to cut expenses to pay excess federal tax.

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1048 on: December 04, 2017, 01:49:41 PM »
One report I read of last minute amendments said that there is an exemption from the endowment tax that is specific to one (well connected) college in Michigan.

Well, not exactly: http://thefederalist.com/2017/12/02/senate-democrats-blatantly-lied-hillsdale-college/.
Quote
Section 13701 of the Senate tax bill (at pages 288 to 292), imposes a 1.4-percent excise tax on the yearly earnings of large private college endowments. An amendment by Sen. Toomey and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas applied the tax only to schools that have more than 500 students and an endowment worth at least $500,000 per student, and which take federal money. Those last four words are key. Despite having nearly 1,500 students, like the other half-dozen schools, Hillsdale does not take federal money.

Not that senate republicans don't also blatantly lie.... ;)

djadziadax

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1049 on: December 04, 2017, 01:57:36 PM »
One of those currently is with the deficit projections being thrown around is the 1.5 trillion in deficit.  The CBP/JCT use static scoring for the next 10 years, which seems crazy to me. Using a dynamic scoring is more in line with reality (you have to account for varying growth and just uncertainty in business and individual behavior in the next 10 years).

They did not just do a static analysis. The JCT also released a dynamic analysis that found that the plan would increase the deficit by about $1 Trillion for ten years:
https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5045

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates in their dynamic score that a stronger economy would offset about 1/6th of the $1.5 T deficit (leaving $1.25 T remaining):
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/macroeconomic-analysis-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-passed-senate-finance-committee/full

And the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation found in their dynamic score of the House version that it would add $1.98 T (static) - $0.9 T (new revenue) = ~ $ 1 Trillion dollars in new deficit over ten years.
https://taxfoundation.org/2017-tax-cuts-jobs-act-analysis/

Saying "economics isn't a hard science" and "but they could be wrong" - while true - only goes so far. When all of the estimates from all of the most competent and knowledgeable people are in about the same place, that's probably a pretty good indication that the reality is somewhere around there. What's the alternative? To give up entirely on evidence-based decision making and just choose to believe whatever we want?

And part of the reason that scoring has been rough is because the bill has been changing constantly, on a daily or hourly basis. They passed it at 2AM with hand-written changes in the margins for crying out loud. How is anyone supposed to do an in-depth analysis of that?

One thing that makes me uncomfortable with long term economic projections is how easily they can be disproved by tweaking just one of the variables in the model.

There you go with a Scott Adams-esque incorrect usage of the word "disprove" again. "Tweaking" variables and showing that the models come to different conclusions doesn't "disprove" anything. Often we have very good ideas of what those variables should be, and often we know how the variables tend to related to each other so tweaking one isolation might not be valid. This is the same nonsense that Adams rants on about when he's "disproving" Climate Change.

Your 2009 article is talking about the 2008 housing collapse. Which sure, there were bad economic projections involved. There was also a systemic effort to mislead and defraud the public. Hopefully that's not a great comparison to make to the Republican tax bill.

To me the bottom line though is that "well economists can be wrong so we can just ignore them" cannot be the bottom-line conclusion we jump to. You disagree with their findings? Fine, publish a better paper explaining your methodology and why it's superior. But don't just jump straight into anti-intellectual know-nothingness to justify your party's actions.

Sherr, why do you read so much Scott Adams? You dont have to ignore economist, just remember that they are not hard scientist. They don't deal with the laws of physics, and with repeatable phenomenon.

Have have you read anything by Nassim Taleb? I would recommend his books for a just a different point of view. He specifically addresses economics as a discipline that is guilty of much sin with examples which may satisfy you. But it just takes perusing the news circa Sept 2008, as Krugman points out, to see how wrong economic predictions could be. That is what I want to point out. Some skepticism about a profession which has been wrong on multiple occasion, is healthy.

My SO is a physical science researcher, that deals with models and academic papers on a daily basis on topics of the immutable laws of physics. Stuff you read about in the newspapers, like front page.  He care naught for politics. He is constantly complaining of how papers get published in NATURE where data is used to fit a model, not the other way around, on a REGULAR basis. In the hard sciences...I have little hope for social sciences like economics.

If you know someone like that ask them about how models are build. It may be eye opening.