Tax Cuts - how'd it affect your check?

Got a nice $380 bump. But that’s going to go to the higher mortgage interest rates as I’m closing next month. My timing has never been good.

People making $30-50K are most likely not itemizing if they are straight W2 workers. To those that say the low earners get less of a break, it’s a simple function of paying much less in the first place.

My check went up about $325, so $7800 per year. Nearly everyone is getting a bump in pay. In theory I’m okay with tax cuts if we can also eventually get to govt spending cuts.

I don’t itemize now that the standard deduction will be $24K (married). I already max my 401K so this will all be gravy. There Are very few people who should be legitimately complaining about the tax cuts.

I am about 1000$/month worse off, thanks to our beloved "tax break". About 90% of this money goes to my boss, that is millions of dollars better off. The remainder goes to pay for the wall, I guess.

Rainy Day wrote:

There Are very few people who should be legitimately complaining about the tax cuts.

Really?

My take home went down a couple hundred per pay period. Start there and tell me I should not be complaining.

Rainy Day wrote:

In theory I’m okay with tax cuts if we can also eventually get to govt spending cuts.

Brah, the important part of your statement is highlighted above. This is the major problem with tax cuts. They NEVER “get to govt spending cuts”.

How dumb are people? Why do they forget so quickly? The modern GOP is NOT fiscally conservative. They have cut taxes before—several times in most of our lifetimes—and they NEVER get to cutting spending.

I suppose a tax cut would be fine IF they passed a legislation slashing government spending FIRST. In other words, cut spending by X amount so they know how much less revenue they’l be taking in and then give X amount back to tax payers. But that’s not what happens. We’ve seen this playbook before—recently.

The GOP controlled both houses of Congress AND the had a GOP POTUS for 6 of the 8 Bush II years—this was not that long ago, the early 2000s. They passed a massive tax cut. What else did they do? Well they 1) said the tax cuts would “pay for themselves by driving economic growth 2) they then MASSIVELY INCREASED government spending!

What happened? We had a short term boom followed by a MASSIVE economic collapse AND a MASSIVE increase in the national debt. But since the economic collapse happened several years later dumb people with short attention spans that are obsessed with tax cuts who think that the minute tax legislation is passed the full effect of said tax legislation is felt—are and where mentally unable to connect the collapse to very bad tax & spend policies of the GOP.

So, what is happening now? 1) the GOP is saying the same thing about “tax cuts paying for themselves” by driving economic growth 2) CEOs are smart and know if they throw peons short term benefits (peanuts) that they can connect that to the tax cuts and say “see trickle down works! What’s good for corporations is good for individuals”...meanwhile the pocket > 90% of the benefit from the cut 3) the GOP proposes MASSIVE increases in defense spending, infrastructure spending, and spending for a border wall with no plan to pay for any of it.

These tax cuts will have the same effect as prior cuts—a huge increase in the national debt and an eventual economic collapse that disproportionately effects individuals (who, yeah, got a short term increase in $) while corporations make out like bandits (their cuts are permanent). Plus, all the benefits (short term) will be attributed to the current admin, while the long term effects will be blamed on whomever is in office when the $hit hits the fan in several years.

Why do you tax obsess Morans not understand that at this point the ONLY rational approach is an INCREASE in taxes coupled with a DECREASE in spending. We owe too much already to get tax cuts, they are a bad idea.

Um, but history tells us... wrote:

... The modern GOP is NOT fiscally conservative. They have cut taxes before—several times in most of our lifetimes—and they NEVER get to cutting spending.

I agree and they havent been fiscally conservative for years. They choose to spend the same or more on other things like unwinable wars. I'd rather they spend the money at home.

About $40.00 a week, I make 59k a year.

I think I'll pay off my massive debt!!! or maybe buy a dinner for my girlfriend and myself at a cheap restaurant.

Thanks Trump that oughta stimulate the economy and maybe create a job.

Rainy Day wrote:

There Are very few people who should be legitimately complaining about the tax cuts.

Good point.

Then they should make another deep tax cut next year, right?

Or go ahead and amend this latest cut and make it bigger right now.

Any argument against that?

If these low taxes are good, then lower taxes should be better.

Mine went up, but probably not a great representation since my w4 isn't ever filled in correctly. Since it seemed like my wife's income would chance dramatically for a few years when she went from school to working and back multiple times and one year I was hit with a big tax bill due to not enough withholding, I just had both of us put down married - withhold at single rate. I should probably fix that so we get smaller refunds, but since they took away exemptions for the kids and fixed some of the marriage penalties in the tax brackets, it probably doesn't matter much now.

The effect on my wife's was sort of ambiguous since she had started contributing to a HSA, but it would have been nicely up, otherwise.

I never said the GOP would reduce spending. I said in theory if the govt does. I’m not a Republican or a Democrat.

Remember the federal deficit grew more under Obama than anyone in history. I think 98% of politicians are acting in their own self interest.

I do believe a short term tax cut for the vast majority of Americans and corporations is a good thing. Let the multi billion $ companies bring profits back into the US ( Facebook, Google, Apple, etc.)

X-Runner wrote:

Good point.

Then they should make another deep tax cut next year, right?

Or go ahead and amend this latest cut and make it bigger right now.

Any argument against that?

If these low taxes are good, then lower taxes should be better.

Look, no doubt the government needs revenue, but approaching 40% tax rates for corporations and the highest earners begins to reduce incentive to earn, or figure out tax shelters in some form.

The true problem is spending. I think we spend way too much on government programs including welfare, pointless regulatory bodies, but also defense spending.

I think building the wall is a waste of tax revenue as much as the war on drugs. We will never keep all terrorists out of the country if they really want in just like we won’t keep people from doing meth. I’m all for increased scrutiny in immigration but the wall is a pointless symbol.

Rainy Day wrote:

Remember the federal deficit grew more under Obama than anyone in history. I think 98% of politicians are acting in their own self interest.

Actually, the deficit mostly shrank under Obama.

His first year had the highest deficit due to the large recession, Bush tax cuts and the bailouts. Then more stimulus followed the next year.

Deficit

2009 - $1.4 T - 9.8% of GDP

2010 - $1.3 T

2011 - $1.3T

2012 - $1.1 T

2013 - $680 B

2014 - $490 B

2015 - $440 B - 2.4% of GDP

2016 - $590 B - 3.1% of GDP

But with these Trump cuts, the annual deficit is projected to go back over $1 T by 2019 or 2020.

And that is with a healthy economy.

Rainy Day wrote:

Look, no doubt the government needs revenue, but approaching 40% tax rates for corporations and the highest earners begins to reduce incentive to earn, or figure out tax shelters in some form.

To be clear, the corporate tax rate wasn't approaching 40%. It was 35%, so why didn't you write that number?

And the effective rate for most was near 20% or lower for many. Certainly not approaching 40%.

And they had plenty of incentive to earn. And they did earn.

They didn't really figure out tax shelters. They lobbied for them. They funded congressional campaigns (for both sides) to get tax breaks.

Then they got them to lower the rates and keep the tax shelters.

X-Runner wrote:

Rainy Day wrote:

Remember the federal deficit grew more under Obama than anyone in history. I think 98% of politicians are acting in their own self interest.

Actually, the deficit mostly shrank under Obama.

His first year had the highest deficit due to the large recession, Bush tax cuts and the bailouts. Then more stimulus followed the next year.

Deficit

2009 - $1.4 T - 9.8% of GDP

2010 - $1.3 T

2011 - $1.3T

2012 - $1.1 T

2013 - $680 B

2014 - $490 B

2015 - $440 B - 2.4% of GDP

2016 - $590 B - 3.1% of GDP

But with these Trump cuts, the annual deficit is projected to go back over $1 T by 2019 or 2020.

And that is with a healthy economy.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fiscal/u-s-budget-deficit-to-top-1-trillion-in-2019-budget-experts-idUSKBN1FI2P2

Someone mentioned short term memory loss earlier in the thread. I remember the huge debate over TARP, a nice little $700 billion bailout signed by Bush. I think people have completely forgotten the 2008 crash at this point

Beautiful Day wrote:

And tuition is raised at the college I'm paying, as of next week. Eff a tax "cut," I need reduced cost in real stuff.

This is just blowing smoke.

Less of your (and my money) is being confiscated by the government. You should be the one paying for your Sociology degree, not me.

Saywhat2 wrote:

Corporate FTW wrote:

Personal: negligible

My corporate business taxes: Massive saving. Literally tens of thousands of dollars.

Thanks toTrump and you working Chumps for this beautiful gift that just increased the value of my company! I planned on selling in a few years and this may accelerate my retirement plans so I can cash out early.

And no, I haven’t increased my total payroll to my employees.

You should cause those tax breaks shoot up in a few years...

When those come back youre going to hear the massive outrage..

Due entirely to the Democrats. Hey clowns, why not make those cuts permanent?! Then you'll hear the Dems stammering away ... bbbbbut ....

I live in good ole Commiefornia and have $12K/year in property taxes alone. Never mind what I pay in state income tax. So, of course, I'm an itemizer. I claim zero deductions on my W4 and actually have extra money held from my paycheck to pay the federal and state bills. So I don't give two shits about whether my check goes up or down today ... I'll know next year when I do my taxes. It ain't all bad though, as I've been being absolutely KILLED by the AMT which as far as I can tell won't hit me this year (thanks Trump). Overall, even though I might pay a little more this year I like these tax cuts. It's always good when the amount of income confiscation is lowered. When I retire next year to someplace in Nevada I'll eliminate the state tax to Cali and the ridiculous property tax to Santa Clara County (F U Cali) and be sitting fat dum and happy in retirement.

got enough + to get a new pair of racing flats next month for this summer, but am reviewing a major change in investments to cover the future economic fall to occur only 2 years into my retirement

X-Runner wrote:

Rainy Day wrote:

Look, no doubt the government needs revenue, but approaching 40% tax rates for corporations and the highest earners begins to reduce incentive to earn, or figure out tax shelters in some form.

To be clear, the corporate tax rate wasn't approaching 40%. It was 35%, so why didn't you write that number?

And the effective rate for most was near 20% or lower for many. Certainly not approaching 40%.

I mean, 39.6% for the highest earners seems reasonable to describe as "approaching 40%"