Started By
Message

re: Does Trumps tax plan help middle class?

Posted on 10/23/17 at 11:41 am to
Posted by fjlee90
Baton Rouge
Member since Nov 2016
7834 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 11:41 am to
quote:

Does it not include a part that will limit IRA contributions to something like $3,000?


First I'm hearing of this. Very uncool if true.

Source?
Posted by Wtodd
Tampa, FL
Member since Oct 2013
67482 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 11:41 am to
quote:

Hurts me if I can't itemize state tax and mortgage interest

Not if the standard deduction compensates for it but only you would know that
Posted by Jorts R Us
Member since Aug 2013
14787 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 11:41 am to
quote:

Hurts me if I can't itemize state tax and mortgage interest


Even with the beefed up standard deduction?
Posted by DabosDynasty
Member since Apr 2017
5177 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 11:43 am to
The rumor was $2,400, supposedly a long discussed rule change. He tweeted 401k will not be changed FWIW. IMO that rumor would have been a tremendous mistake to have been true. Could still be, but I don’t think they do that.
Posted by The Spleen
Member since Dec 2010
38865 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 11:43 am to
quote:

Why not take the $1k right now, invest it, let compounding take over, then use that money for insurance when you get older?



Because I'm already contributing to Medicare and I'd rather enjoy that money in retirement for something else. I do plan on paying for a supplemental health insurance plan during retirement.
Posted by mmcgrath
Indianapolis
Member since Feb 2010
35374 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 11:44 am to
quote:

Does Trumps tax plan help middle class?
Of course. That's why they are keeping it so hush hush and only spreading rumors about how awesome it will be.
Posted by SSpaniel
Germantown
Member since Feb 2013
29658 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 11:47 am to
quote:


Source?


One of the shows on Fox News yesterday. Not sure which one. I was flipping channels and could have mis-heard or misunderstood.
This post was edited on 10/23/17 at 11:48 am
Posted by Obtuse1
Westside Bodymore Yo
Member since Sep 2016
25579 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 11:48 am to
quote:

quote:
Does it not include a part that will limit IRA contributions to something like $3,000?


First I'm hearing of this. Very uncool if true.

Source?


This came out over the weekend and the number was $2400, but via tweet Trump says it is not going to happen.

Posted by Obtuse1
Westside Bodymore Yo
Member since Sep 2016
25579 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 12:02 pm to
I think the real question is how will trickle down economics work given the top tax rates are half what they were when Reagan cut them.

Further, if they can't show an offset for the 5 trillion in tax cuts then you need 60 votes.
Posted by Quarterite
The Lower Quarter
Member since Oct 2016
959 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 12:06 pm to
No.

It's a giveaway to the 1%.
Posted by pcolatiger28
Pensacola, Fl
Member since Apr 2009
1284 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 12:13 pm to
Makes sense that job and wage growth would be a benefit. I guess I was looking more along the lines of filing my taxes each year. Even if the standard deduction vs itemized is a wash, I suppose I still gain if my company now has more cash and adds more jobs because they aren’t paying as many taxes. I’m good with it just tired of the gov nickel and dining is with taxes.
Posted by Homesick Tiger
Greenbrier, AR
Member since Nov 2006
54203 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 12:20 pm to
quote:

Why not take the $1k right now, invest it, let compounding take over, then use that money for insurance when you get older?


It's called not trusting all individuals in being able to do that. Need a new $1,000 iPhone - well, it's not in our budget but we got this $1,000 sitting in our Medicare account that we can "borrow" from.

I hope you see my point, for many people that want what you espouse about "keeping my own money", many of them would fail.

Suppose you're 30 years old and you save that thousand a year. So you save $35,000 for 35 years, plus interest. You would have less than @100,000 for medical purposes to last you the rest of your life after 65. That doesn't go very far when you have one operation much less two or three. So when you use up that 100 grand, what do you do then if you have eliminated yourself from the Medicare pool?
Posted by fjlee90
Baton Rouge
Member since Nov 2016
7834 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 12:34 pm to
quote:

No.

It's a giveaway to the 1%.


Meh. We are all lying if we want to say that the top 1% of earners don't benefit the most (volume wise). But no shite. They pay the most volume wise.

Any tax break to them is going to surpass (in volume) the tax breaks given to lower earners.

That being said, there is no reason either group deserves a break less than the other.
Posted by Maytheporkbewithyou
Member since Aug 2016
12603 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 12:37 pm to
The standard deduction is doubling. The child tax credit is going up too. Not sure if there is anything else, but that's a lot of money right there.
Posted by DabosDynasty
Member since Apr 2017
5177 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 12:43 pm to
quote:

It’s called not trusting all individuals in being able to do that.


What if people like myself, who’s 27 with a long career of paying into these programs ahead of him, don’t trust the govt to properly manage and implement such a program so they can receive the benefit they’ve supposedly paid into one day?

Why does everyone have to be responsible for the ignorance of others? I have no desire to live in a bigger nanny state than we already do.
Posted by BeefDawg
Atlanta
Member since Sep 2012
4747 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 1:56 pm to
quote:

Only a little bit. It's not enough help to justify the massive cuts to Medicare and Medicaid that have been proposed in the budget to help fund the tax cuts, IMO. I'd rather have my Medicare when I retire than an extra $1k right now.

This is a fallacy that you clearly don't understand.

Look, the CBO does an annual report on Medicaid and Medicare, and in that report, they estimate and project the growth rate of Federal and State subsidy outlays for the next 10 years. And then they add up the total projected outlays for those 10 years and spit out an estimated number spent.

Well BEFORE Obamacare, Medicaid and Medicare growth rates very closely mimic'd the true inflation rate. Somewhere around 3% on average.

AFTER Obamacare, and it's absurd expansion of Medicaid and Medicare, that average blew up to around 5.7%. And that was after Medicaid and Medicare had three straight years of between 11% to 16% actual expansion growth.

Trump's budget is not actually "cutting" Medicaid and Medicare. It's simply reducing the growth rate, which is producing a lower 10-year CBO projection.

For example, lets illustrate out just the Medicaid changes. He's going from the 2016-2017 projection of 5.7% growth rate down to a 3.0% growth rate.

Medicaid in 2016 cost $576 BILLION of the budget. The estimate for 2017 is $608 billion. So let's start there and project out 10 years with a 5.7% compounding growth rate.

$608B x 1.057 (5.7%) = $644B (now do this 9 more times).

608 + 644 + 680 + 718 + 760 + 803 + 849 + 898 + 949 + 1,003 = $7.912 TRILLION spent on Medicaid over the next 10 years if the 5.7% Obamacare expansion rate were to stay in effect.

Now lets do this same thing but with only Trump's 3.0% growth rate. $608B x 1.03 (3.0%) = $626B (now 9 more times)

608 + 626 + 645 + 664 + 684 + 705 + 726 + 748 + 770 + 793 = $6.969 TRILLION spent on Medicaid


So look right there. The current CBO projection says we will spend $7.912 trillion on Medicaid over the next 10 years.

Trump's projection says we will spend $6.969 trillion over the next 10 years.

THERE is your $1 trillion of Medicaid "cuts" that the Left is whining about and misrepresenting.

As you can see, he's not really cutting Medicaid. If we spend $608 billion in 2017 and $793 billion in 2027, there's no "cut" there. It's just not at the absurd growth rate projected with Obamacare expansion.


Do you get it now?
This post was edited on 10/23/17 at 1:58 pm
Posted by gamatt53
Member since Nov 2010
4934 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 2:05 pm to
quote:

Not if the standard deduction compensates for it but only you would know that


At 24k per couple it won't make it up
Posted by 50_Tiger
Dallas TX
Member since Jan 2016
40038 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 2:07 pm to
This proposal still panders to mouth breathers who breed.

Sticks it to working single folks trying to ascend.

So to put it short, SSDD.
Posted by Jorts R Us
Member since Aug 2013
14787 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 2:08 pm to
What state are you in?
Posted by gamatt53
Member since Nov 2010
4934 posts
Posted on 10/23/17 at 2:18 pm to
quote:

What state are you in?


NC. 5.75 % State Tax rate. Property tax also high here
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram