Hmm, because you don’t call it class warfare, it’s never that? I see class warfare all over this bill, and the reactions to it.
“I am with @3puppies . The loss of the personal exemptions is going to hurt us. Not huge as we started using the standard deduction a few years ago as our mortgage interest began to lessen. You reach a point when the deductions become less than the standard. We basically lose $16,000 in personal exemptions and gain $12,000 is standard deduction. So a $4,000 Taxable income increase. Not exactly the massive, massive tax cut our president promised. Nor a very good Christmas present.”
Offset by a rate reduction. You need to figure the other half of the equation.
Yes, because it’s all been rhetoric. Income inequality has increased significantly under their control. You can try to divide and blame certain groups as much as possible, but if your hands are wide open grabbing for donations and speaker fees, no matter what you claim, you aren’t really going to go after your big donors.
Not for subsidized people or people on expanded Medicaid. Most of the people who get ACA subsidies are eligible for cheap policies with low deductibles. Or they can have very cheap or free policies with high deductibles. The people who are now eligible for expanded Medicaid have no deductibles.
Do not try to explain the ACA to me. I know more than you do about it.
AT&T also benefits from the net neutrality rollback. They are currying favor with this administration and hoping to convince their employees that voting R is a good thing. But watch their sleight of hand and future actions. They will pocket far more than they will pay employees, and execs in particular will get payoffs both via the company and in personal breaks that are huge.
I agree the AT&T one is interesting given the potential merger but they are not the only company announcing one time bonuses and investments in their employees. Just saw that now Wells Fargo is also increasing minimum wage to $15 an hour and doing a bonus. The one time bonus is a bit of a PR stunt in my opinion but now two major companies coming out with wage increases to $15 per hour makes me wonder how many more will follow. Wasn’t minimum wage increases one of the big talking points in the last election?
Obviously these aren’t snap decisions and companies had these actions planned based on which way the vote went on the bill.
perhaps over the line
I hope those AT&T workers hang on to their bonuses since many will be losing their jobs after the merger.
This tax cut is unpopular. I believe it’s likely to remain so. Most households will get a tax cut, to be sure, temporarily, but people hate hate hate it when they perceive that largess is distributed unfairly, with other people getting a lot more. Even monkeys hate that; some kind of fairness is evidently hardwired. https://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals
Dem policies may have slowed the growth of income inequality but not stopped it. However, GOP policies appear intended to increase income inequality and hence the risk of more destructive types of class warfare.
Also, the Dems have had less time recently with full control of the government (since 2000, only 2 years, versus 6 years for the GOP through the next midterm election, assuming special elections before the next midterm election do not change things).
@yourmomma - the rate reduction does not offset the loss of the personal exemptions in my situation. The loss of personal exemptions (and/or the limit on SALT) will actually push some folks’ marginal rate in to a higher bracket. I have figured out the other part of the equation and I will be paying significantly more - almost $3k more, in taxes next year.
I don’t disagree that the rate reduction part of this tax plan will be good for some people.
Married couples with no kids, or single filers, who don’t itemize, may be better off, but not much. Families get hurt, particularly families who itemize. But large families who don’t itemize - those with a lot of dependents used to not pay all that much in taxes due to the personal exemptions, will likely find they are much worse off.
It is clear who this bill benefits. Many of the people on this forum will find they are modestly better off because of it. I am hit hard. The $3000 difference I expect will be difficult to find. And lets face it, $3000 probably means a lot more to our $85K household than it does to families earning $200K. There were reasons we have not paid much in federal taxes over the past several years. Those reasons don’t seem to matter any more with a new party in power.
I can accept the argument that many of the people in the upper quartile of wage earners have been paying an awful lot of taxes over the years, and also that the corporate tax rates were out of whack compared to other countries.
But the way this was rammed through, without discussion, debate, or both parties having the ability to read and comment on it, reeks of unfairness.
I don’t expect sympathy from anyone getting a tax cut. Even those who break even.
I don’t expect anyone who gets a significant tax cut to care about the millions who will lose health coverage in the coming decade.
Wells Fargo doesn’t exactly have the best morale right now… also currying favor, hoping to avoid more trouble with regulators. I also think the $15/hour changes are just responding to the political handwriting on the wall for a future minimum wage hike that many Dems think is needed as a living wage (not trying to start a debate on the pros and cons of it, merely pointing out why companies are grabbing that # out of the air).
Wells Fargo is headquartered in California. California will soon have a $15 minimum wage anyway, in two or three years.
I think many of us are concerned about the costs short and long-term to the individuals and government of some many new millions of uninsured folks. This is from a family who currently is fortunate to have all of our nuclear family covered by good medical insurance.
We CAN and many DO care even if we may get some financial benefit from this tax change that many of us OPPOSE. I personally feel that bad things occur in societies with growing separation between ultra wealthy and everyone else.
Wells Fargo may also want its name in the news associated with something other than the recent scandals and controversies around it.
Interesting… another handful of crumbs to the high earners:
"PEASE LIMITATION REPEALED
Beyond changes to just the tax brackets themselves, Section 11046 of TCJA repeals IRC Section 68, commonly known as the Pease limitation (named for the Senator who originated the rule). The Pease limitation phased out 3% of a taxpayer’s itemized deductions once income crossed a certain threshold (in 2017, those with more than $261,500 of AGI as individuals, or $313,800 as married couples).
Notably, while the Pease limitation was literally a phaseout of itemized deductions, because the magnitude of the phaseout was based on an individual’s income (not their deductions, as it was based on the amount of income over the threshold), the Pease limitation was effectively a 1% to 1.2% surtax for upper income individuals. Accordingly, the removal of the Pease limitation effectively provides a further reduction in marginal tax rates for upper-income individuals."
From the link provided in one of the posts earlier today. Sorry I missed who posted it - the thread moves fast
“Are you saying that the correct thing for an economist to do for a 16 year forecast is to put in zero wars and no economic downturns of any type, then be surprised when they happen? Not buying it.”
No. What I am saying is all of these “it’s going to cost x” or “raise the deficit by Y” is simple speculation based on their “models” and assumptions. People then repeat their “conclusions” as if they are certainty. Nobody ever looks at their track record – how accurate have they been? Fact remains, nobody can accurately predict the future with certainty in something as complex as the American economy.
Or the climate :((