Wise One wrote:
They are simply transfers of wealth from poor and middle income people, to the uber-wealthy. The last thing we need.
So, when you said the above, you were SIMPLY WRONG.
Crux wrote:DOUBLING of standard tax deductions ...This will also bring much needed tax relief for the middle class, don't you think?
Yes a crumb was thrown to poor/middle class, WAY smaller than the boatloads of cash going to super-wealthy, and overwhelmed by ...
The truth is in fact the opposite. The Senate tax bill increases the amount of taxes paid by the rich and, according to the liberal Tax Policy Center, 93 percent of taxpayers would see a tax cut or no change in 2019. They found similar results for the House bill.
Both tax bills would actually increase the progressivity of the U.S. tax code. That means fewer people at the bottom will pay income taxes, and people at the top will see their share of taxes paid increase.
The Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards notes that the Senate tax bill cuts income taxes for people making $40,000 to $75,000 a year by about 37 percent. People making over a million dollars see a cut of only 6 percent.
Health insurance costs and insurance premiums will certainly rise, walloping those at the low end. This bill and everything Republicans do is aimed at wiping out health coverage.
Tax reform will likely repeal Obamacare’s individual mandate, which imposes a tax penalty anywhere from $695 to upward of $10,000 for not purchasing the type of health insurance mandated by the federal government.
Depending on income and available health insurance options, the federally mandated health insurance comes with subsidies paid to the insurance company that can range from no more than a few dollars to over $12,000 a year per individual, and upward of $20,000 per year for families.
Repealing the mandate would not force anyone to give up their coverage or forego their current tax credits. It would just make the Obamacare insurance optional, and thus increase health care choices.
Eliminating the Obamacare individual mandate will not reduce any taxpayer’s income by a single cent. It will, however, reduce the tax bills of many individuals and families—based on their own choices—by hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars.
The individual mandate with its penalties is also not the “glue” that holds Obamacare together, as some have claimed. It never was.
“The lifeblood of the law is the generous taxpayer insurance subsidies, which attract and maintain the historically sluggish enrollment,” explains senior Heritage research fellow Robert Moffit. Repealing the mandate will not precipitate doomsday for insurance premiums.
While it is extremely difficult to predict how insurance premiums would change without the individual mandate penalty, we do know that eliminating the penalty will prevent low- and middle-income individuals and families from having to subsidize the high medical costs of others.
Republicans are adding a huge new debt burden that must be covered either by new taxes to pay interest on that debt, or by inflation that will erode the purchasing power of low and middle income people. (no, magical pixie dust will not cause compensating economic growth to appear, it's trickery)
The bulk of the money flows to rich people who do not need it, simultaneously making it impossible for the US to address long overdue infrastructure investment. Our decaying infrastructure degrades business efficiency and world competitiveness.
At the higher end of middle income, the $10K cap on deductibility of state & Local taxes will wipe out some tax "reduction."
In future reforms, Congress should eliminate all state and local tax deductions, as well as the exemption for municipal bond interest. Allowing taxpayers to write off the cost of state and local taxes benefits only a minority of taxpayers and maintains a federal subsidy for the expansion of government at the state level. This forces people in low-tax states to subsidize big government in states like California, Illinois, and New York. The full elimination of these deductions could allow federal tax rates to decline further than they would under the current Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.8
Promised, time after time, was "you can fill out your tax return on a postcard. LIE. Essentially no deductions, preferences, complexities have been removed. All of the complex tax fiddles Republicans promised they'd eliminate to pay for the reduction from 35% to 20% in the corporate tax rate are still there. Again they lied.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has the potential to unleash higher wages, more jobs, and untold opportunity through a larger and more dynamic economy. The bill’s pro-growth components include a deep reduction in the corporate tax rate, a scaled-back state and local tax deduction, full (albeit temporary) expensing, and lower individual tax rates. The bill also repeals Obamacare’s individual mandate, expands college savings accounts, and increases some non–growth-enhancing tax credits and deductions.
The conference report demonstrates a serious effort to reform a complex and badly broken system that provides significant relief to the vast majority of taxpaying Americans. While Congress surrendered to the pressures of special interests in several areas, eroding many of the boldest components of their original proposals, the conference agreement nevertheless reflects a critical step in the right direction.
$2,000 Child Tax Credit. The child tax credit (CTC) is doubled from a current-law level of $1,000 to $2,000 per child
The most politically sensitive itemized deductions and exclusions for medical expenses, tuition compensation, private activity bonds, student loan interest, and teacher spending are all retained
Among the surviving subsidies are tax credits for electric vehicles, wind-energy production, energy-efficient buildings, historic rehabilitation, orphan drugs, new market investments, and employer-provided child care. The conference report also adds a new tax credit for employers who provide paid family and medical leave.
This is just the first wave. Now that they've caused a blowout in the deficit/debt, Republicans will next attack Social Security and all other elements of the safety net, saying "we have no choice."
If you are a billionaire and care nothing about all the Americans who are not,
If you are not a billionaire but nevertheless feel that more of your money should be transferred to those who are,
if you are healthy and wealthy and don't give a damn about people who are not,
The core element of the liberals’ dishonesty over the bill is their deceitful arithmetic. They tally the dollar amount of tax cuts and show how most of the benefits go to the wealthy. What they don’t show is the percentage tax cut by income level. If person A pays $1 million in taxes and person B pays $100 in taxes, of course person A will “benefit” enormously relative to current law from even a small rate cut, while person B won’t get a massive dollar cut even from a much larger percentage cut. Anyone who learned math before the advent of Common Core understands this.[url][/url]
As for individual rates, this bill takes a progressive tax code and makes it even more progressive. Anyone earning under $200,000 will get a tax cut, while those with dependent children will get a significant cut. In addition, much to the chagrin of many conservatives like myself, the refundable portion of the child tax credit was expanded, thereby ensuring that more people pay no income taxes and many more actually make money off the tax code.
n reality, the only ones who will see a tax increase under this bill are certain millionaires who don’t earn their income through pass-through entities and who earn a significant amount of their income from capital gains and dividends. Given that investment taxes were not decreased and the deductions for those with many large homes throughout the country were limited, some of the wealthiest will see a tax increase (while others will get a significant decrease). These are the people Democrats lamented for years were supposedly fleecing America with clever “loopholes” that have now been closed under this bill — a bill they oppose.
if you live in a bubble that is somehow immune from are, water, and toxics pollution,
if you don't give a damn that millions of people's lives are about to be disrupted by sea level rise caused by fossil fuel combustion,
The current practice is to assume that every adverse climate event is somehow the result of the rather smallish increases in carbon dioxide levels over the past 65 years. In order to reach that result, however, it is necessary to exclude other explanations for the adverse events.
An observed rise in sea level in Florida, for example, is more likely attributable to the draining of local aquifers than to increases in global temperature. Indeed, sea level rises have, if anything, slowed down in recent years, notwithstanding increases in carbon dioxide levels.
In a similar vein, the rapid melting of ice on the western part of the Antarctic is more likely attributable to underground volcanic activity, particularly given that the overall ice levels in the Antarctic are up and not down.
And highly variable adverse events are probably more closely associated with changes in water vapor patterns, the recent El Niño, active sunspots, aerosol levels, and a host of other factors, some of which are well known and others of which are only dimly understood.
The situation is even more complex if one looks to the long run. Climate variability has been a constant long before human beings inhabited this earth.
Of course, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that can trap energy. But so is water vapor, and its levels are far harder to track because its amount and distribution are not constant across the earth’s surface.
Most crucially, observed cyclical patterns of temperature change do not correlate with slow but steady increases in carbon dioxide. Recent work by climate scientists Richard Lindzen and others shows that during the so-called Holocene period (roughly covering the last 11,000 years), there was a negative correlation between temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations—strongly suggesting that carbon dioxide levels cannot be the main driver of temperature changes.
It should, therefore, come as no surprise that recent climate models that have predicted sharp temperature increases have consistently run “hot,” so much so that observed increases are less than 50 percent of those predicted. As climate scientist Judith Curry points out, the uncertainties involved are large and the role of natural forces in driving temperature change are systematically underestimated.
if none of your friends or family are LGBT and you don'g give a damn about most of your fellow citizens who are ....
if you, your family, your friends are not African American or Muslim, and you don't give a damn about injustices visited upon those people
then, yes Trump is the president for you.
The rest of us have a different view. Trump is the worst president in my lifetime and possibly in the full history of the United States.