- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: GOP tax document reveals plan for massive tax cuts, preserves key deductions
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:36 am to frogtown
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:36 am to frogtown
quote:
The only fix is getting the economy moving more then a 3% GDP growth rate. Once that happens then work on the budget deficit and federal spending.
Do you think that these tax reforms will work to achieve that 3% growth rate?
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:37 am to GFaceKillah
This is a very good plan.
One key component that will kickstart investment in the USA is the expensing of capital spending. THIS WILL BE HUGE. The bill will allow it for five years. They should just allow it forever. It doesn't really reduce over all taxes it just matches the taxes with the cash flow. A business spending a million dollars on a machine can immediately expense that machine for tax purposes when it pays the money instead of expensing it over 5 or 7 years as we do now.
I think it is stupid to continue the mortgage interest deduction---lower the rates even more and eliminate this deduction. Our population is getting older and lots of people have less mortgage interest to deduct and would be better with a lower rate. I should not have to pay more taxes because my house is paid for.
One key component that will kickstart investment in the USA is the expensing of capital spending. THIS WILL BE HUGE. The bill will allow it for five years. They should just allow it forever. It doesn't really reduce over all taxes it just matches the taxes with the cash flow. A business spending a million dollars on a machine can immediately expense that machine for tax purposes when it pays the money instead of expensing it over 5 or 7 years as we do now.
I think it is stupid to continue the mortgage interest deduction---lower the rates even more and eliminate this deduction. Our population is getting older and lots of people have less mortgage interest to deduct and would be better with a lower rate. I should not have to pay more taxes because my house is paid for.
This post was edited on 9/27/17 at 10:39 am
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:38 am to GFaceKillah
quote:What the frick is taking them so longquote:I don't think that has been made public yet, but I will update the OP if it comes out.
Do we know where the 15, 25, 35 brackets will fall?
None of the shite in this document means anything without knowing where the brackets are set
This post was edited on 9/27/17 at 10:39 am
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:39 am to GFaceKillah
quote:
Honest question: Would you support these tax cuts knowing that they will increase the federal deficit?
Sure because those changes will grow the economy and there will be more taxes paid to the government (even at the lower rate).
I expect when the GDP is over 4% that the deficits will reduce, unless the swamp dwellers (on both sides of the isle) increase spending...
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:41 am to alphaandomega
I don't give a crap about the deficit any more. Nobody else does. The republicans want more defense spending and the democrats want more welfare.
I want more of my money.
That said this proposal will put money to work in the economy resulting in growth.
I want more of my money.
That said this proposal will put money to work in the economy resulting in growth.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:42 am to GFaceKillah
quote:
* preserves mortgage and charitable deductions, but promises to gut many others
quote:
* the document does not mention eliminating carried interest tax benefits used by hedge fund managers
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:42 am to I B Freeman
quote:
I don't give a crap about the deficit any more. Nobody else does.
i do
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:43 am to GFaceKillah
quote:
do not identify the numerous tax breaks that they say will be removed in order to offset some of the trillions of dollars in revenue lost by cutting tax rates.
Well until we know this, we don't really know anything.
The bullet points are dessert, we need to see the vegetables.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:46 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
quote:
I don't give a crap about the deficit any more. Nobody else does.
i do
Can you point to me of some examples of how you believe it is correlated in any way to the overall tax structure?
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:46 am to 90proofprofessional
Well you should advocate for less spending. I do care about the spending.
If the choice put to me is "lower taxes with a higher deficit" or what we have now "higher taxes with a deficit" I am going to take the lower tax choice every time.
It would not bother me not one second if this tax cut is passed and spending is reduced to balance the budget. Pick whatever spending you want to reduce and I am for it.
Given the reality that spending will not be reduced I still favor the money in my pocket instead of my money in DC.
If the choice put to me is "lower taxes with a higher deficit" or what we have now "higher taxes with a deficit" I am going to take the lower tax choice every time.
It would not bother me not one second if this tax cut is passed and spending is reduced to balance the budget. Pick whatever spending you want to reduce and I am for it.
Given the reality that spending will not be reduced I still favor the money in my pocket instead of my money in DC.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:49 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Can you point to me of some examples of how you believe it is correlated in any way to the overall tax structure?
wait what
you want me to confirm my belief that the way we raise government revenue has a correlation with our government's budget posture?
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:51 am to I B Freeman
quote:
Well you should advocate for less spending.
i do. my current method of doing so heavily includes pointing out the bullshite rhetoric that comes from many who pretend to want less spending. i also think the "starve the beast" approach is utter bullshite.
if spending won't be cut, i want the spending paid for. people actually having to feel the pain of taxes in proportion with our spending more and more seems like the only realistic long-term thing that will ever lead to a real fix
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:53 am to fouldeliverer
quote:
Edit: To be clear, this is sarcasm. It was a complete and utter failure in Kansas. Their debt skyrocketed and it did not bring in nearly the estimated jobs.
Don't waste your time here. These people are convinced that trickle down economics really works and that businesses hire based on their tax rate and not ROI.
This post was edited on 9/27/17 at 11:05 am
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:53 am to 90proofprofessional
Yeah. Another example of too much House Republican influence. Carried interest is ordinary income, not a gain. It's ordinary income based on a gain, so I understand how this managed to get done, but it is distasteful that House Repubs, who are essentailly establishment liberals, watered this entire bill down.
This said, Trump will compromise on this. But I will be paying particular close attention to see if he maes an attempt to restore some of what was in the original, extremely detailed version. Not that large parts of this would ever be pubic, but we'll see I guess.
The brackets previously released are also somewhat concerneing.
But it is nice that as much detail has been released on this. Proably more so than any other recent tax legislation in my memory at least.
Somewhat confused about people talking about the brackets. They've already been relased. Frankly the brackets are meaningless. How you get to the brackets (adjusted gross, MAGI and taxable) are sigificantly more important for people that actaully pay attention to what is critical.
This said, Trump will compromise on this. But I will be paying particular close attention to see if he maes an attempt to restore some of what was in the original, extremely detailed version. Not that large parts of this would ever be pubic, but we'll see I guess.
The brackets previously released are also somewhat concerneing.
But it is nice that as much detail has been released on this. Proably more so than any other recent tax legislation in my memory at least.
Somewhat confused about people talking about the brackets. They've already been relased. Frankly the brackets are meaningless. How you get to the brackets (adjusted gross, MAGI and taxable) are sigificantly more important for people that actaully pay attention to what is critical.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:54 am to GFaceKillah
quote:
Honest question: Would you support these tax cuts knowing that they will increase the federal deficit?
The deficit should not reflect the tax rate. The tax rate should influence the budget. Less government programs is a good start to reducing the deficit on current taxation plans. This is a simple concept. Defund all the wasted bullshite. We should pay for federal programs that boost infrastructure and military and thats about it. Cant control your pecker? Not our problem.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:55 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Guess the fed gov will just have to cut spending.
That’ll happen
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:56 am to GFaceKillah
quote:
plan for massive tax cuts
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:56 am to Iowa Golfer
quote:
Somewhat confused about people talking about the brackets. They've already been relased. Frankly the brackets are meaningless. How you get to the brackets (adjusted gross, MAGI and taxable) are sigificantly more important for people that actaully pay attention to what is critical.
Sure. I've said before that pretending the # of brackets we have is the actual source of our code's complexity is absurd spin. But clearly it's a focal point for a shitload of people. It ought to be a sideshow
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:57 am to Haughton99
Haughton99, the tax plan adds a surcharge to he wealthiest American and doesn't touch the top income rate
It's a plan based on businesses and middle class
Seriously, are you kidding me dude? You literally said that if the tax plan focused on corporate tax rates you would support it
Dude, this is what you voted for. What kind of tax plan did you want???
It's a plan based on businesses and middle class
Seriously, are you kidding me dude? You literally said that if the tax plan focused on corporate tax rates you would support it
Dude, this is what you voted for. What kind of tax plan did you want???
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News