Trump

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

We live on pensions, social security, and income from investments which are guaranteed for life, independent of what happens in the stock market. If the market goes up and the investments go up, my heirs benefit and I do not.

I do not feel unfortunate. Our family income is 6 figures. Guaranteed for life. The average household income for retirees is about $48,000 a year.

who cares about your family. what's your income?

if you don't mind me askin' ..

oh and it sounds like Ken Fisher hates you. He hates annuities and apparently you have a bunch of them, right???

BAHAAAA


and if i include my family i'd be getting 7 figures.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

I pay somewhat less in taxes than in prior years, so I do benefit from that. Especially since I don't live in a state with high SALT (no income tax in Texas).


Also, I think most of us benefit from the economic gains accruing from a lightening of the regulatory onslaught, which many people felt would be not only continued intact but even expanded under the hildebeest.


And there's the corporate tax cut, which removes the strong incentive of US firms to move operations offshore or to engage in maneuvers such as inversions in order to lessen their tax liabilities. Prior to that act, the US rate was no longer competitive, since European countries have been aggressively cutting corporate tax rates over the last 20 years or so.


Tariffs? Trade wars? Big expansions of the fiscal deficit? Those are certainly concerns, and it will be a few years before we'll see how all that shakes out. But for now, the sailing looks pretty good.

Very well put, and why I’d favor Donald Trump over at least half of the Democratic candidates for president, even though Trump’s character is terrible. About taxation of offshore income, there was collateral damage. I have an interest in a foreign busines. As a result of Trump’s “tax cut” we’re paying foreign and USA taxes totaling about 60% of income on it. That’s in addition to a one time tax of about 12% of equity. This will not have the result you might anticipate, causing us to onshore the business, which can’t be magically transported to the USA. Instead it means we shut down parts of the business.

It’s beyond me why reasonable, logical people like Speed Racer believe the tax cuts were a sop to the rich. A sop to special interests maybe. And the average 40% income tax rate (federal plus state) on corporations was ridiculous. It was much higher than the rest of the world, and had negative effects on jobs,
economic growth and our ability to compete. Obama wanted to lower the corporate rate. If he had, MSNBC and CNN would have fallen right in line.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

who cares about your family. what's your income?

if you don't mind me askin' ..

oh and it sounds like Ken Fisher hates you. He hates annuities and apparently you have a bunch of them, right???

BAHAAAA


and if i include my family i'd be getting 7 figures.

The right annuities were great 15 years ago. Now with interest rates bottomed out...

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

who cares about your family. what's your income?

if you don't mind me askin' ..

oh and it sounds like Ken Fisher hates you. He hates annuities and apparently you have a bunch of them, right???

BAHAAAA


and if i include my family i'd be getting 7 figures.

I met with my financial advisor right before retirement and he set up a plan for us. Since then I have met with 2 other financial advisors, out of courtesy, and they both agreed that the financial plan laid out for me was the best way to go. Sorry if Ken Fisher does not agree. I am content with it. Each person's retirement strategy is different depending on their financial circumstances.

I did not try to say in any way that MY, or OUR, retirement income is superior to anyone else's, including your own. You asked questions and I answered them. I am very happy that your retirement income is, or will be, so high. I'm sure others on this forum will have higher retirement incomes than me. No problem. There are many who retire with little more than a small Social Security check each month. I feel blessed.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Very well put, and why I’d favor Donald Trump over at least half of the Democratic candidates for president, even though Trump’s character is terrible. About taxation of offshore income, there was collateral damage. I have an interest in a foreign busines. As a result of Trump’s “tax cut” we’re paying foreign and USA taxes totaling about 60% of income on it. That’s in addition to a one time tax of about 12% of equity. This will not have the result you might anticipate, causing us to onshore the business, which can’t be magically transported to the USA. Instead it means we shut down parts of the business.

It’s beyond me why reasonable, logical people like Speed Racer believe the tax cuts were a sop to the rich. A sop to special interests maybe. And the average 40% income tax rate (federal plus state) on corporations was ridiculous. It was much higher than the rest of the world, and had negative effects on jobs,
economic growth and our ability to compete. Obama wanted to lower the corporate rate. If he had, MSNBC and CNN would have fallen right in line.

Tiny, the reason I believe the Trump tax cuts definitely favored the rich is the percentage increase in net income for those with higher incomes is substantially more than those with lower incomes. The higher the income, the greater the percentage increase in net income.

There have been several articles written on this difference. If you scroll down in the following article, you will find a chart that points out that for those households with income of less than $50k, the average increase in income is less than 1%. For those in the $500k-1 million income group, the increase in income is greater than 5%. This is consistent with every estimate I've seen on the subject. Fair?

ttps://www.cnn.com/2019/04/15/economy/trump-tax-cuts-impact-economy/index.html

I most certainly agree with you that the corporate tax rate was much too high. I think it could have been lowered less than it was though.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Tiny, the reason I believe the Trump tax cuts definitely favored the rich is the percentage increase in net income for those with higher incomes is substantially more than those with lower incomes. The higher the income, the greater the percentage increase in net income.

There have been several articles written on this difference. If you scroll down in the following article, you will find a chart that points out that for those households with income of less than $50k, the average increase in income is less than 1%. For those in the $500k-1 million income group, the increase in income is greater than 5%. This is consistent with every estimate I've seen on the subject. Fair?

ttps://www.cnn.com/2019/04/15/economy/trump-tax-cuts-impact-economy/index.html

SpeedRacer, CNN in my opinion used to be unbiased, and I'd watch it in preference to MSNBC or Fox. That's not the case any more, and this is an example. The CNN article references a report by the Joint Committee on Taxation, Distributional Effects of Public Law 115-97. You can find it here:

https://www.jct.gov/publications.htm...rtdown&id=5173

If you go to Table 1 on page 5, you'll see people making $20,000 to $30,000 per year saw a 13.5% decrease in their federal taxes on average. The savings go down progressively to 5.9% for those making over $1 million per year, although admittedly the majority of taxpayers, making between $50,0000 and $999,999 saved about the same, around 8% or 9% of what they were paying.

Can you trust the Joint Committee on Taxation's work? I'm not sure. An alternative is to look at tax rates before and after the Tax Cuts and Jobs act. You can find those here:

https://taxfoundation.org/final-tax-...ails-analysis/

On marginal income, single filers making $200,000 to $424,950 actually saw their tax rates go up, from 33% to 35%. People making over $500,000 are saving 1- (37%/39.6%) = 6.5%.

On the other hand, for middle class taxpayers, the savings on taxes on marginal income are 12% for those making $38,700 to $82,500*, and 14% for those making $93,700 to $157,500**.

Also, upper income individuals who were formerly able to partly deduct state income taxes and investment expenses had those deductions thrown out the window.

Yes, there were certain wealthy people, like owners of rental real estate, who will do very well as a result of the tax cuts for pass through entities. Again, I'd consider this to be a sop to certain special interests, not to the wealthy.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I most certainly agree with you that the corporate tax rate was much too high. I think it could have been lowered less than it was though.

Agreed


Footnotes

* 1-(22%/25%) = 12% decrease in marginal tax rate
** 1-(24%/28%) = 14% decrease in marginal tax rate

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Tiny, the reason I believe the Trump tax cuts definitely favored the rich is the percentage increase in net income for those with higher incomes is substantially more than those with lower incomes. The higher the income, the greater the percentage increase in net income.

There have been several articles written on this difference. If you scroll down in the following article, you will find a chart that points out that for those households with income of less than $50k, the average increase in income is less than 1%. For those in the $500k-1 million income group, the increase in income is greater than 5%. This is consistent with every estimate I've seen on the subject. Fair?

ttps://www.cnn.com/2019/04/15/economy/trump-tax-cuts-impact-economy/index.html

I most certainly agree with you that the corporate tax rate was much too high. I think it could have been lowered less than it was though.

The reason why Tax cuts may have favored the Rich is because they are the ones running the country,not the middle class or poor people. I am not saying it's right but it's just simply the case. The average American is a slave to these people.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

The reason why Tax cuts may have favored the Rich is because they are the ones running the country,not the middle class or poor people. I am not saying it's right but it's just simply the case. The average American is a slave to these people.

Glad Im not a slave like you. Trump supporters love their King and Savior because they cant take care of themselves. Lol. The King wont be around long. Enjoy

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

The reason why Tax cuts may have favored the Rich is because they are the ones running the country,not the middle class or poor people. I am not saying it's right but it's just simply the case. The average American is a slave to these people.

Yes, And this is something that Donald Trump will fix, so the corporations and the elite Rich do not run the country. Except of course for real estate tycoons with lots of rental properties, who shall be highly favored by any tax cuts.

Have you started watching MSNBC, and if so why are you still a big Trump fan?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Tiny

SpeedRacer, CNN in my opinion used to be unbiased, and I'd watch it in preference to MSNBC or Fox. That's not the case any more, and this is an example. The CNN article references a report by the Joint Committee on Taxation, Distributional Effects of Public Law 115-97. You can find it here:

https://www.jct.gov/publications.htm...rtdown&id=5173

If you go to Table 1 on page 5, you'll see people making $20,000 to $30,000 per year saw a 13.5% decrease in their federal taxes on average. The savings go down progressively to 5.9% for those making over $1 million per year, although admittedly the majority of taxpayers, making between $50,0000 and $999,999 saved about the same, around 8% or 9% of what they were paying.

On marginal income, single filers making $200,000 to $424,950 actually saw their tax rates go up, from 33% to 35%. People making over $500,000 are saving 1- (37%/39.6%) = 6.5%.

On the other hand, for middle class taxpayers, the savings on taxes on marginal income are 12% for those making $38,700 to $82,500*, and 14% for those making $93,700 to $157,500**.

Also, upper income individuals who were formerly able to partly deduct state income taxes and investment expenses had those deductions thrown out the window.

Tiny, I certainly did not try to cherry pick an article with statistics that supported my statements. I don't disagree that CNN can certainly be biased.

There are many ways to look at the impact of the tax reform. When you use percentages in the way your cited article did, it does not mention the actual dollars saved by those with lower incomes compared to higher incomes. Saving 13.5% on taxes owed on $20-30,000 will amount to a lot less than saving 5.9% on taxes owed by those making over $1 million.

As I said, every article I've read on the subject states that lower income families will see less of a percentage increase in their income than those at higher level of income. Here is such an article and please read the first 4 paragraphs under "V. Distribution", with emphasis on paragraphs 3 and 4.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...aper_final.pdf

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by themystic

Glad Im not a slave like you. Trump supporters love their King and Savior because they cant take care of themselves. Lol. The King wont be around long. Enjoy

You're a bigger slave than you realize. Not of course if you're related to the Rothschild or the Rockefeller's.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Yes, And this is something that Donald Trump will fix, so the corporations and the elite Rich do not run the country. Except of course for real estate tycoons with lots of rental properties, who shall be highly favored by any tax cuts.

Have you started watching MSNBC, and if so why are you still a big Trump fan?

The only reason I support Trump is because I am hoping he'll weed out the criminals in Washington because that place is loaded with them on both sides of the aisle. If he doesn't he's no different than any other bum in Washington.

[Hotrod511]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman(I'm on the sauce again)

It couldn't be easier. Obama is a cocksucking liar. Which is the side of the rock that I live on?

Duh.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Tiny, I certainly did not try to cherry pick an article with statistics that supported my statements. I don't disagree that CNN can certainly be biased.

There are many ways to look at the impact of the tax reform. When you use percentages in the way your cited article did, it does not mention the actual dollars saved by those with lower incomes compared to higher incomes. Saving 13.5% on taxes owed on $20-30,000 will amount to a lot less than saving 5.9% on taxes owed by those making over $1 million.

As I said, every article I've read on the subject states that lower income families will see less of a percentage increase in their income than those at higher level of income. Here is such an article and please read the first 4 paragraphs under "V. Distribution", with emphasis on paragraphs 3 and 4.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...aper_final.pdf

SpeedRacer, The Brookings Institute is to the left what the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute is to the right. It's biased.

In what you pointed me toward, they're cherry picking by looking at the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) of taxpayers. This is going to include a lot of students, housewives with part time jobs, as well as people who just get paid a lot less than they probably should. They pay very little tax. And as such they didn't get much of a tax cut.

That said, what I wrote is not inconsistent with the paragraphs you pointed me towards.

My first link, shows federal taxes decrease from an average of a 13.5% cut for people making $20,000 to $30,000 per year, down to a 5.9% cut for people making over $1,000,000 per year. Yes, they do show people making less than $10,000 as only receiving a 5.6% cut. And they also don't show any cut for people making between $10,000 and $20,000 per year, because that group was receiving money back from the federal government before the tax cut, and a little more money back after the tax cut.

My second link shows the single filers got no cut on their first $9525 in income and married filers got no cut on the first $19,050.

In other words, what your source is saying is that people who essentially paid no tax didn't get a tax cut. If you look at the middle class and upper income earners, the argument that this was a regressive tax cut doesn't wash, at all. Yes, if you're talking in dollar terms, the rich saved more. What do you expect in a country with the most progressive tax system in the developed world, where the top 1% pay 40% of the income tax and the top 10% pay 70%?

The other point in the 3rd or 4th paragraph was that people making over $1 million per year benefited most from the tax cuts for pass through entities. Absolutely true. But how many of them actually got significant benefit from that? The only people who benefited own companies with either huge depreciation compared to income (like Donald Trump) or very large labor expenses as a % of income. That's the way the the law was written. That's again why I say this was a sop to certain special interests, not "the rich."

Please note that my first source, the Joint Committee on Taxation, presumably is not biased and was quoted in the CNN article. The second source, I have no idea, but you could get the same information from IRS tax tables.

[Hotrod511]

Originally Posted by Tiny

SpeedRacer, The Brookings Institute is to the left what the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise is to the right. It's biased.

In what you pointed me toward, they're cherry picking by looking at the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) of taxpayers. This is going to include a lot of students, housewives with part time jobs, as well as people who just get paid a lot less than they probably should. They pay very little tax. And as such they didn't get much of a tax cut.

That said, what I wrote is not inconsistent with the articles you pointed me towards.

My first link, shows federal taxes decrease from an average of 13.5% for people making $20,000 to $30,000 per year, down to 5.9% for people making over $1,000,000 per year. Yes, they do show people making less than $10,000 as only receiving a 5.6% cut. And they also don't show any cut for people making between $10,000 and $20,000 per year, because that group was receiving money back from the federal government before the tax cut, and a little more money back after the tax cut.

My second link shows the single filers got no cut on their first $9525 in income and married filers got no cut on the first $19,050.

In other words, what your source is saying is that people who essentially paid no tax didn't get a tax cut. If you look at the middle class and upper income earners, the argument that this was a regressive tax cut doesn't wash, at all. Yes, if you're talking in dollar terms, the rich saved more. What do you expect in a country with the most progressive tax system in the developed world, where the top 1% pay 40% of the income tax and the top 10% pay 70%?

The other point in the 3rd or 4th paragraph was that people making over $1 million per year benefited most from the tax cuts for pass through entities. Absolutely true. But how many of them actually got significant benefit from that? The only people who benefited own companies with either huge depreciation compared to income (like Donald Trump) or very large labor expenses as a % of income. That's the way the the law was written. That's again why I say this was a sop to certain special interests, not "the rich."

Please note that my first source, the Joint Committee on Taxation, presumably is not biased and was quoted in the CNN article. The second source, I have no idea, but you could get the same data from IRS tax tables.