- 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 10:59 am to 90proofprofessional
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:59 am to 90proofprofessional
Are you disappointed in this like I am? For either the reasons I cited, or any other reasons?
Yes, the brackets angst is pretty funny given it is coming from someone who holds themselves up to be an economic expert on here. I'm no economic expert, but I do know how taxable income is derived.
Yes, the brackets angst is pretty funny given it is coming from someone who holds themselves up to be an economic expert on here. I'm no economic expert, but I do know how taxable income is derived.
1
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:59 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Y.A. Tittle
I don't know the answer to the following question and maybe you don't either but you're pretty level-headed in my book.
quote:
* cut corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent
On the above statement, if this was instituted with the caveat that in order to get this new tax rate your company has to bring its oversea's accounts back to the states.
My question, would it make any difference to our growth here in the states if they did? Thanks.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 11:03 am to Iowa Golfer
quote:
Are you disappointed
Of course not, I feel I had no reason to expect anything I'd be impressed with from this admin or congress. That's because it's been clear for a while that they weren't actually seeking any "reform", they just wanted a tax cut. Which isn't inherently bad or good, but depends on the circumstances. And my view of the circumstances is that our long-term deficit picture is a bigger problem right now than taxes (on either households OR businesses) being too high. With no intent of any type of meaningful spending reform in sight, the outcome of this was always likely to look like shite to me
This post was edited on 9/27/17 at 11:05 am
Posted on 9/27/17 at 11:05 am to GFaceKillah
Average families have got to be loving the standard deduction being doubled
Posted on 9/27/17 at 11:09 am to 90proofprofessional
I didn't expect reform either. Amnd I advocated a deeper cut, targeted more specifially.
But that the House Republicans pulled out "taxes on a postcard", right in this "cucked" document, is extremely disappointing to me.
"Taxes on a postcard", and "brackets". Watch, people will pee themselves over those platitudes.
Anyway, if pass through goes to 25%, this will be my cut. Even the playng field between job creators and large, publically traded corporations that generall never reinvent in new employees, or salary increases unless forced. Where as a lot of us smaller guys will gladly give pay raises, and try to grow. Not tnat all large publically traded corporations fit my description above, but many do. In some ways, they are similair to government.
But that the House Republicans pulled out "taxes on a postcard", right in this "cucked" document, is extremely disappointing to me.
"Taxes on a postcard", and "brackets". Watch, people will pee themselves over those platitudes.
Anyway, if pass through goes to 25%, this will be my cut. Even the playng field between job creators and large, publically traded corporations that generall never reinvent in new employees, or salary increases unless forced. Where as a lot of us smaller guys will gladly give pay raises, and try to grow. Not tnat all large publically traded corporations fit my description above, but many do. In some ways, they are similair to government.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 11:09 am to Mr Meeseeks
quote:
Average families have got to be loving the standard deduction being doubled
Most families don't take the standard deduction. This means nothing really, unless they eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, which is why average families itemize.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 11:10 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Seriously, are you kidding me dude? You literally said that if the tax plan focused on corporate tax rates you would support it
I did? I would support a drop in the corporate rate if it were accompanied by a major reduction in corporate tax loopholes. If any major corporation today is paying anywhere close to the current rate then they should fire their accountants today. The actual rate paid by corporations is close to zero in many cases.
quote:
Dude, this is what you voted for. What kind of tax plan did you want???
I voted against Hillary. I don't think there is a problem with our current tax levels honestly. Some simplification would be helpful.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 11:15 am to Iowa Golfer
if we were going to cut a rate deficit-neutrally, the one i'd want cut first would be payrolls. i know that's way less "business friendly" but it does confer some benefit to employers both directly and indirectly
Posted on 9/27/17 at 11:18 am to TBoy
quote:
Most families don't take the standard deduction. This means nothing really, unless they eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, which is why average families itemize.
Not true. According to publication 1304 it is 2 to 1 in favor of standard deduction.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 11:19 am to TBoy
quote:
Most families don't take the standard deduction. This means nothing really,
Convince people with no house payments of that. There are probably as many people that rent or people who don't have a house note any longer that would disagree that this means nothing.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 11:23 am to GFaceKillah
quote:
Honest question: Would you support these tax cuts knowing that they will increase the federal deficit?
Dishonest question is dishonest.
When Reagan did this in the early 80s, tax revenues DOUBLED.
Dem Congress couldn't help themselves.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 11:35 am to Y.A. Tittle
You need him to teach you that tax revenue impacts the budget deficit?
Posted on 9/27/17 at 11:36 am to udtiger
quote:lol
Dishonest question is dishonest. When Reagan did this in the early 80s, tax revenues DOUBLED.
Yes they DOUBLED... 20 years later, after Reagan went back and instituted the AMT in '86 and Bush Sr hiked taxes in '90
Posted on 9/27/17 at 11:37 am to Old Hellen Yeller
quote:
Guess the fed gov will just have to cut spending
quote:
That’ll happen
Perhaps you should consider why that doesn't bother you, but tax cuts for the middle class do.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 11:38 am to Iosh
Iosh, what are your ideological views on taxes? What do you think is a fair rate for ilhighest earners?
Posted on 9/27/17 at 11:38 am to Iosh
Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP is the figure we should all be looking at.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 11:39 am to Iosh
quote:
DOUBLED... 20 years later, after Reagan went back and instituted the AMT in '86 and Bush Sr hiked taxes in '90
oof.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 11:42 am to 90proofprofessional
90proof, you spent months on here 4 years ago arguing in favor of Romney's tax plan
You and Rex used to argue in threads that were 10+ pages long over taxes
What happened?
You and Rex used to argue in threads that were 10+ pages long over taxes
What happened?
Posted on 9/27/17 at 11:42 am to NikolaiJakov
quote:
Yes.
ETA: If the Democrats aren't worried about the deficit, why should we? At least the economy will grow with this plan.
Does this mean that you will no longer complain when the next dem POTUS / Congress increase deficit spending?
Posted on 9/27/17 at 11:43 am to Iosh
quote:You and 90proof are the two biggest party-poopers on the p-board.
Yes they DOUBLED... 20 years later, after Reagan went back and instituted the AMT in '86 and Bush Sr hiked taxes in '90
:(
Page 3 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News