5 ms·
Maybe check Amazon's tax rate before "this Republican tax policy" went into effect prior to blaming low corporate tax rates on one party. If you think lobbyist
by skrowl 9y ago
Maybe check Amazon's tax rate before "this Republican tax policy" went into effect prior to blaming low corporate tax rates on one party.
If you think lobbyist-driven tax policy in America is ONLY done by Republicans, you should probably expand your reading beyond CNN / WashPo. You're right that the federal government that creates the tax policy is for sale, but it's not just the Republicans.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- aphextron 9y agoIt's not just corporate rates. Doubling the standard deduction is the most reckless thing that has ever been done to our federal tax code for individuals. The fact that I am going to pay an effective 15% this year on a $100k salary is absolutely insane.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- cobookman 9y agoIsh, this really benefits renters and penalizes property owners.
- votepaunchy 9y agoDoubled the standard deduction but eliminated exemptions but doubled the child tax credit (with much higher phase-out).
- dlp211 9y agoBut didn't make the child tax credit fully refundable which hurts middle class families. I on the other hand am going to make out like a bandit with an approximate $6k tax cut, but I don't really need it. I'm going to dump it into the market and forget about it for 20 years.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dindumuffin 9y agoHow can you have a 15% effective tax rate yet benefit from the standard deduction? Your taxable income after the standard deduction is $88,000 after which your state plus federal tax rate is applied to. To have an effect tax rate of 15% on $100,000 you would have to pay only $15,000 in taxes on $88,000 of taxable income. That would mean your state plus federal tax rate is 15000/88000 = 17%, which does not exist anywhere in the United States. You are lying.
- Rebelgecko 9y agoCould be lying, or maybe they contribute 12% to their 401k, or pay for daycare with pretax dollars, or have an HSA and an IRA, etc. There's lots of causes for taxable income ≠ salary- there's no need to make baseless accusations
- liveoneggs 9y agodaycare max is only $5000
- Rebelgecko 9y agoYeah. Although when I looked at the math[1] it's a moot point since if you make $100k/year you're only paying 15% _without_ any of those mitigations. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2018/03/07/new-irs-announces-2018-tax-rates-standard-deductions-exemption-amounts-and-more/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2018/03/07/new...
- aphextron 9y ago>You are lying. No, I'm not. Do the calculations yourself. https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/trump-tax-reform-calculator https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/trump-tax-reform-calcula... I get that it's hard to believe at first how insane this new bill is. I was in absolute disbelief when I first did the numbers. A single person earning $100,000, claiming the standard deduction, will have a total federal tax liability of $15,410 for 2018, or an effective rate of 15.4%.
- briandear 9y agoSo send a check to the Treasury. Nobody is stopping you. You could even organize a bunch of like minded people to send checks to the Treasury. I needed the tax cut. If you don’t, you don’t have to keep it. I am a better steward of my money than the government, especially when it comes to saving and investing for my family’s future.
- dlp211 9y agoIf you needed the tax cut, you likely didn't get much of a tax cut.
- ryanlol 9y agoHow can you expect him to afford to keep his ferraris going without the tax cut? Heartless.
- megablast 9y ago> I am a better steward of my money than the government, Really, ok what have you done with your money? How many buses do you run? How many schools, roads, armies?
- cycrutchfield 9y agoThis argument is so lazy and seems to crop up every time income tax is discussed. It's perfectly fair to criticize tax policy while also acknowledging that you (and others like you) are paying a lot less than what you should be paying.
- ralusek 9y agoWhy would that person necessarily acknowledge that? I suspect they don't agree with you. It's not as if there is an objectively correct amount of taxation, the matter is up for debate. To the founders of the country, for example, the federal tax rate in the US as it is today would constitute an obscene violation of their expectations.
- 9y ago
- drak0n1c 9y agoWith the new tax reform the top 20% of income earners will still pay more than 87% of income taxes. https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-americans-will-pay-87-of-income-tax-1523007001 https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-americans-will-pay-87...
- s2g 9y agoYeah, not nearly enough for that top few percentage points.
- okreallywtf 9y agoOP might be exaggerating, but they are not talking about who lobbies, they are talking about the politicians who pass the bills and implement the tax cuts. In that they are right. In the house, 191 democrats voted against the tax overhaul, 0 voted for it. 227 republicans voted for it, 12 against it [0]. The senate was much the same [1]. You can say what you want, but this is a republican tax bill no matter who it benefits. It was supposed to benefit the rich, and thats what it does (I'm sure if it was possible to isolate by party they would have done so). It won't discriminate in who it hurts in the long run either (the middle class and the poor, like usual). The wealthy are going to take 90% of whatever economic gains result, they won't end up in schools or in communities, again like usual. Unemployment is already low and cant go much lower without even more illegal immigrants and wages will probably continue on their current trajectory and we'll be arguing for the next decade about who is to blame. My guess is some hidden variable will be scapegoated to explain why it didn't work. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/politics/tax-bill-house-live-vote.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/politics/t... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/politics/tax-bill-senate-live-vote.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/politics/t...
- mcintyre1994 9y ago> I'm sure if it was possible to isolate by party they would have done so It actually does seem to do that fairly effectively from my understanding, by restricting the deductions those in high tax states (ie Democrat) can claim.
- stochastic_monk 9y agoCorrect, the bill benefited lower-tax (that is, Republican-controlled) states very disproportionately.
- okreallywtf 8y agoGood points, I forgot about that.
- 9y ago
- s2g 9y agoIt exists but you're either delusional or a shill if you think "both sides" are the same on this.