When it comes at the expense of personal exemptions, it doesn't help many middle class taxpayers. I had 5 personal exemptions ($20,750). My standard deduction was $13,000 (though I sometimes itemize). So I went from the first $33,750 tax free, to $24,000. The expanded child tax credit will make up the difference, but not once they turn 17. It really sucks for people that itemized in the past, who likely won't now. Here in GA it double sucks because our standard deduction is $2,300 or $3,000 for couples, and we have to use the same for federal and GA. None of this would even be a big deal to me if we weren't going through massive deficits year after year, or if the plan was remotely revenue neutral. Instead it just makes it worse.
Uhh, do you understand what exactly Goldman is talking about here? You realize everyone - both Dems and GOP - agree that it's a massive handout to corporations, right? That was the whole purpose of it - to give a massive tax cut to business. The difference is the GOP believes the massive handout will leads to jobs and wealth for everyone else, while Dems don't. Also, from the same article you posted but didn't actual bother to read: Scores of large companies, including other big banks such as Citigroup (C.N) and JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), have socked away an estimated $2.8 trillion overseas in recent years. The one-time tax on those earnings is expected to raise $339 billion in federal revenues over the coming decade, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), a nonpartisan research arm of the U.S. Congress. ... But these negatives should be more than offset in the long run by other changes under the law, analysts said. Foremost among these profit-enhancing changes will be a deep cut in the overall U.S. corporate income tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. That will cut U.S. corporations’ federal tax bills by more than $1.3 trillion over the next decade, based on JCT research. Instead of googling headlines and reposting them without thinking, perhaps you'd fare a lot better if you just read them. I'm not even asking you to read other random articles - just the ones you post.
You do realize that he proposed an amendment to the bill to raise the corporate tax rate and increase the child tax credit? It was shot down...by both parties. Remind me: is 15% greater than 0%? I think it is, but I could be wrong.
Walmart announces wage increase due to trump's tax cut. Yay trump tax cuts! https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...u-s-hourly-wage-to-11-in-wake-of-tax-overhaul Walmart closes stores, lays off people... wait what? https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/11/walmart-to-shutter-some-of-its-sams-club-locations.html So Steve Mnuchin, what's this all mean?
"... and those 10%, well, they don't vote for trump anyway. And please, no questions about why the rich and corporations get the overwhelming portion of these tax cuts... it will trickle down to all."
Duh. Now I can make the occasional burrito "super" all while benefits to the most vulnerable get slashed and the national budget has less resilience for our obviously more regular natural disasters. #sosmart
You realize the full value of TARP was paid back by those companies plus interest (at a rate higher than the government borrows at), right? TARP was *profitable* for the US taxpayer while also saving the economy from going into a depression and costing taxpayers billions more while sending them into poverty. It was an unqualified success and anyone who opposed or opposes that legislation should be nowhere near government. TARP was done for the greater good in a strategic way that, if successful, would be fully paid for by the people that caused the problem. This tax cut is strictly a handout to the wealthy for no purpose other than to give money to the wealthy.
i do and i think the bailout was good. but why did they give billions to bailout wallstreet & auto? do you think obama thought it would "trickle down?"
No it wasn't going to "trickle down". It was literally to prevent imminent bankruptcy and utter collapse. It was a direct injection of capital into a failing business (in Wall Street's case, failing for paper accounting reasons only; in auto's case, failing for structural reasons) with conditions to use it to prop up the businesses. That's completely different than giving money to wealthy people in the hopes that they might create more jobs for no reason at all. Trickle down theory has shown to never work in practice. But IF it would work in theory, it would be in a situation when businesses are constrained on capital and/or can't meet current demand - that's what would justify them investing in their new money into expansion. The opposite of those things is true right now.
It's not different, it's literally the same thing. Give corporations money to help workers and both Bush and Obama were FOR it.
Goldman, Citi and most other banks immediate loss taken is due to their deferred tax assets that were worth 35 cents on the dollar and are now worth 21 cents on the dollar. On the contrary and public companies with deferred tax liabilities (taxes owed if an appreciated security is sold) that carry them on the balance sheet as a liability write down the deferred tax liability from 35% of the gains in the securities to 21% of the securities. The banks will immediately have to change these on their balance sheets creating the shortfall, while companies that own highly appreciated securities will have a surplus and therefore an immediate gain in book value.
Again you never answered what happens when a public corporation gets a tax cut? I answered it for you in the last thread that you never returned to.
What’s the average increase for the middle class? Seems like you would need to dig further to get an accurate measure... or you can just put rosy stats...
Its ironic that more liberals don't appreciate the long term implications for housing by removing these artificial subsidies to the industry. Capping mortgage interest at the lower amount and capping the ability to deduct property taxes over 10,000 is a tax on the wealthy. It removes artificial stimulus that should drive down the cost of housing as most people look at payment net of tax benefits. As this goes into affect the cost of housing should decrease and it is a tax on the wealthy homeowner. Buying an overpriced home locks up capital at long term low rates of return and also limits people's ability to move quickly for jobs and opportunities and not sure why the government allows any deductibility on mortgage interest. I can understand some property tax deductions and think the up to $10,000 number is quite fair.
It’s not. A lot of those auto workers and bank employees would have gotten public unemployment benefits if we hadn’t done what we did. It was a risk since if those companies went bankrupt the US would be on the hook for unemployment money and the bailout money. We have had a good economy for several years, giving corporations money during good times isn’t the same under an economic crisis. You don’t have to agree but this is how it was.
eh... i don't see it as different. both give/gave billions to corporations and trusted them to spend it wisely. some will some won't but that happens now anyway so again eh...
Um, it could not be more different. If you want to change the tax cuts to interest bearing loans, I am 100% on board.
