How is allowing people to keep more of their money looting?
Be angry all you want but don’t act on it by disrespecting people posting here. We are not your enemy, even if some opinions don’t align 100% with yours.
Or have you gone down the “if you don’t agree with me you are stupid and evil” path?
And who says I’m not? But insulting people on an internet board isn’t going to change anything, so why go there?
“Those guys need to get out and get real jobs. What is their track record? Probably pretty bad. If you could predict the future you would be wealthy beyond belief.”
They have real jobs.
Are you an economist that you know as much or have more expertise than they do?
The last time (2004) there was a repatriation of corporate overseas profits in a tax bill it failed to increase job hires or business expansion. Instead, they just did stock buy backs and increased dividends. This is exactly what is going to happen this time, too. CEO’s even admitted as much when asked by Gary Cohn. http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-tax-plan-gary-cohn-bill-2017-11
In addition, the CBO and The Joint Committee on Taxation have said the bill will increase the deficit by $1 Trillion to $1.4 Trillion before the final bill (which added more tax cuts) has even been scored.
Looks like the tax changes have gotten dh all hot and bothered about our charitable giving plans. Sigh… I’m okay with writing some more checks before year end in lieu of donating next year, but I have no interest in setting up a “Giving” account with Fidelity in order to maintain control of the funds for years to come.
Every time someone at work comes up with a plan to micromanage how other people will use potential gifts, whether charities or their adult children, dh and I get into a “discussion” about letting go of control.
As for tax planning, we have no idea what next year may bring. Changes at work could mean anything from a promotion and raise to a request that dh retire with a nice farewell gift. I refuse to worry about something over which I have no control.
Probably, but I think it’s better than having the money sit in a tax haven somewhere overseas.
Lots of people own stocks or use dividends to supplement (or provide) their income, this money will eventually get recycled into the economy, even if it’s not until the next generation inherits it.
“Who do you think wins the public opinion battle if they did this (if they even can, doesn’t the budget just require a majority vote?)?”
Trump hasn’t even submitted his budget for FY 2018 to Congress yet. This spending bill is to keep the govt funded until a budget is (if) passed.
The spending bill needs 60 votes in the Senate. They will need Democrats to vote yes on it for it to pass.
There are several things that I won’t go into on this thread for various reasons, that the D’s will ask for in exchange for their votes.
“Probably, but I think it’s better than having the money sit in a tax haven somewhere overseas.”
But the R’s are promising this will send the economy roaring and create jobs, jobs, jobs.
Also, in this bill as written it makes it more advantageous to offshore jobs/manufacturing more, not less. There afe already several posts on this thread outlining the provision in the bill that will lead to this.
Most people do not even have $300 for an emergency. Most people have no stock investments at all.
How does it make it more advantageous to offshore jobs? Right now all a US corp has to do is form a foreign sub and move operations/jobs to that foreign sub. Profits of the foreign sub are not subject to US tax unless repatriated to the US parent. That is what is happening (and has been happening for decades). How does the current bill make that easier?
^ Go back through this thread. It is mentioned several times w/articles.
@sailakeerie, I’ll take a shot at trying to explain my position and the technicalities since I’ve taken some flack over calling the authors of this part either malicious or stupid. (For the record, I wasn’t referring to anyone on this thread or anyone who votes a particular way. I was referring to the authors of the bill, especially this provision, and those who are selling it.)
Forgive some of the excess quoting here.
Early on there was talk, if not an actual provision, of including a per country tax to incentivize keeping investment and jobs here in the US. It was similar to a plan proposed by the Obama administration so in the article, it’s called the Obama plan:
The part of the bill that incentivizes moving jobs overseas is the global averaging of profits:
Here’s the kicker that seems to me to be “one of the two choices”
Here is where the author comes down on that subject.
As always there is a chance I’m suffering from confirmation bias or not seeing a benefit in this policy, but I stand by what I said earlier. Well, with the small exception of apologizing to anyone who thought I was personally insulting them.
Actual middle class family. Like middle income.
Taxes are either staying the same or going up slightly.
yourmomma I assume you’ll happily pay for any increase in my tax bill, yes?
I’m a bitter millennial watching my future and my future children’s future get thrown into more turmoil because donors need their ROI.
That said, one of my students told me while turning in his final that he was happy that the grad tax was cut out. He didn’t want me to drop out of my program. It was oddly sweet. (No, I never talked about the bill in class. It’s a politics class though so most of the students are very plugged in.)
I am curious at why you believe your taxes are going up or staying the same, romani. Did you have large tax deductions, or is Michigan a high tax state? Even with the loss of two exemptions and itemizing, $24,000 standard deduction goes a ways with lower tax deductions. Have you run it through a current calculator?
Sorry. My taxes are staying put for the short term.
Up in the long term.
And if I ever go back on the health insurance market… 
Frankly, @busdriver11, I don’t think @romanigypsyeyes or any of us is going to share our finances with you, but, yes, I have run mine, and the limits on SALT are going to cost me a chunk of change so that those Republican thieves in Congress can pay back the Koch brothers and their ilk.
@Dave_N I looked at the article you posted. Currently, as noted in the article if a US company forms a separate foreign sub, none of the profits of the foreign sub will be subject to US tax unless the funds are repatriated to the US (most obvious way is through a dividend paid by foreign sub to US parent – though deemed repatriation can occur if foreign sub guarantees debt of US parent or provides collateral for US parent’s debts). As long as the profits are reinvested in the foreign sub’s business (or just sit in foreign sub’s bank account) and are not repatriated to the US parent, no US tax is due on the foreign sub’s profits. That current system has resulted in a lot of money being “stuck” in foreign subs rather than coming back to the US parent (because US tax would then be due).
There are people who believe that US companies should be taxed (like US citizens) on worldwide income. So in the case above, US parent would owe US taxes on foreign sub’s income even if its not repatriated to the US parent. To me that is short sighted. It creates the incentive for US parent to form a holding company (likely in a jurisdiction with little to no taxes (Cayman Islands were at one time the jurisdiction that was used in examples talking about such jurisdictions though I am not sure if that is still the case)). Holding company then holds US entity and foreign sub as brother/sister companies. At that point, the only income that would be subject to US tax is that of the US entity as the foreign sub is no longer a sub of the US entity. So the worldwide tax plan really doesn’t net any additional taxes. And that really hurts smaller companies who often do not have the resources to reorganize.
The minimum tax that was talked about was just a variant of taxing US companies on worldwide income. It just allowed for credits for taxes paid in foreign countries. It would create the same incentives to reorganize into non-US holding companies with all US entities on one side and all non-US entities on the other.
Any system you create which will increase the US taxes that entities will pay will create incentives for them to go offshore and/or to reorganize to avoid the additional US taxation. That is true if you have a flat minimum tax or a country by country minimum or a global minimum. So to me, any of those create incentives for companies to offshore.
Though decreasing the delta’s between tax rates of various countries can impact that decision. Greater the delta means greater tax savings which makes reorganization more likely.
Now one issue with offshoring that doesn’t get talked about a lot is the fact that a lot of “offshoring” is the result of US companies building where their customers are. In particular, India and China are growing markets. Makes sense to have products made there rather than in the US and shipped there. Just like foreign badged automakers have built assembly plants in the US (more than domestic badged makers have over the past 20-30 years). Tax policy will not change that. Labor and regulatory environments also play a role in location decisions.
Anyone else remember the rhetoric and predictions from our last highly regressive tax cut and getting deja vu? It was 2001; the prediction we were being sold was that any immediate deficit would be temporary and the government would be sitting on vast piles of surplus cash by 2017. Yep, way wrong.
Given that we are getting a similar tax cut, I am going to trust the PhD economists’ prognosis for this one and not hold their horrendous projection for the last one against them.
Hey, here’s an idea. All of those so very upset about an increase in taxes - just apply those massive ACA savings and call it a day.
Since this bill also gets rid of the mandate - people who have to buy individual insurance and don’t qualify for subsidies will see their premiums increase by at least 10% more next year and probably keep increasing every year after that. Winning!
Then there will be the eejits who decide to not get insurance now and find themselves with huge medical bills because they were healthy when they chose to opt out. Too bad their $5 a week increase in pay from their taxes being cut, won’t help one bit paying their medical bills. I expect a huge increase in Go Fund Me sob stories.
I have no idea how we are going to shake out with our taxes. DH is self employed, we own commercial and residential rental property in our retirement vehicle, so it gets complicated at times. I read how we may come out good in one area, only to read where we won’t do so well in another. Our private insurance plan is not going to be offered next year (this is the fourth year in a row this has happened). We will be paying $33K for our family of three next year in private insurance, with pretty high deductible. Just unreal.