ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 18 of 23
« First < 81415161718 19202122 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Fox News Poll: 54% of Republicans, 70% of all voters support raising taxes on $10m+
EmojiMania 05:14 PM 02-01-2019
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox...estic-spending

Overall voters:



Republicans in particular:

Originally Posted by :
Republicans are less sure where the sweet spot is for tax hikes. A majority of 59 percent opposes tax hikes on incomes over $250,000, while a 54 percent majority favors increases on incomes over $10 million. For incomes over $1 million, GOP views split: 47 favor vs. 43 oppose.
Sounds like AOC's ideas are more popular in your party than any of you care to admit!
:-):-):-):-):-):-)
[Reply]
cosmo20002 04:42 PM 02-10-2019
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
Anyone who makes triple the median US wage can shut the **** up about getting less back on their tax returns, IMHO.
:-) Commie!
[Reply]
vailpass 04:44 PM 02-10-2019
Originally Posted by suzzer99:
Lol you're just going to keep doubling down on the "embarrassing for you" thing, even after being called out, aren't you? I guess it's your brand now.

Here's a programmer buddy of mine from another site:





Republicans, the party of entrepreneurs. Glad I went straight W-2 this year.

It's gonna be funny when any of you who have 1099s start doing your taxes and realize how badly you got hosed. Rs want you captive to corporations - for heath care, to avoid taxes, etc. They want proles and owner class and nothing in-between.
“Programmer”? Is this 1995?
Cool story bro. It’s a lie.
[Reply]
vailpass 04:46 PM 02-10-2019
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
The above is bullshit and thanks for proving it with your screen shot...:-)

More info, would help, but I will use the worse case scenario for your friend based on he limited info. Based on the screen shot he he's married, and with the new tax law, is now unable to deduct $8556 that he was able to in 2017. This most likely is correct. Your buddy's comments say his withholding and I assume income the same. If the only change is the deduction in tax brackets and his loss of $8556 in deductions he is feeding you a line of Bullshit to say he paid $10,000 more in taxes. The difference would be the $8556 in taxable income. It appears based on his state withholding, that family taxable income is somewhere between $125k and $200k most likely, but we don't know. Assuming it's $200k he would be paying an additional $2737 in 2018 than he would have paid in 2018 if his deductions were the same as 2017. This is assuming this $8556 of income was taxed at the 32% bracket. Now let's look at the savings he received with the tax cut in 2018 over 2017. With the new tax brackets for 2018, compared to 2017, with a taxable income of $200k he would have saved $6345. This is looking a 200k of taxable income with taxes of $41019 when applied to the 2017 tables and $34674 when applied to the 2018 tables. If his income was the same in 2017 compared to 2018 he would receive a tax cut in 2018 of $3608. Your "buddy" is lying his ass off. If he paid $10000 more in taxes he would have had to have substantially more income. If he is saying he had $2000 refund and this year owes $8000 then he didn't have the same withholding.

On top of the above, if he was a 1099 employee, not clear, he would also have been able to take advantage of the 20% pass through provision of the new bill...

Finally, yes, you are embarrassing yourself. Especially if you went from 1099 to W-2 and you were below the exemption for the pass through...
Kill shot.

Too, why wouldn’t this individual have an accountant?
[Reply]
HonestChieffan 04:54 PM 02-10-2019
Originally Posted by vailpass:
Kill shot.

Too, why wouldn’t this individual have an accountant?

Democrat. Not a smart person. Even TV Tax Prep would help.

Sad how many people vote thinking they are doing good for themselves when they are getting it in the ass cause they are stupid.
[Reply]
patteeu 05:07 PM 02-10-2019
Originally Posted by RodeoPants2:
Steve Scalise and Scott Walker based on their statements.

Of course, the other explanation is that they don't actually believe that, and are just lying to the American people.
Getting back to this canard, the simplified analogy from Scalise is actually better for illustrating his key point than the more complete description of progressive taxation that you demand. Marginal tax rates affect behavior because the last dollar of income faces the full rate (in this case 70%), not the taxpayers annual effective rate. The pushback against the 70% proposal is based on its effect as a marginal rate, not based on the amount to which it raises the effective rate.
[Reply]
RodeoPants2 05:36 PM 02-10-2019
It's better because it's inaccurate, as is his key point.

He's simply lying, by playing into the confusion among the electorate between effective and marginal tax rates
[Reply]
patteeu 05:46 PM 02-10-2019
Originally Posted by RodeoPants2:
It's better because it's inaccurate, as is his key point.

He's simply lying, by playing into the confusion among the electorate between effective and marginal tax rates
He’s illustrating an important point. No lies included.
[Reply]
chiefzilla1501 06:06 AM 02-11-2019
Originally Posted by HonestChieffan:
There is a consistent observation across the leftists who post in these tax issue threads. They do not understand how taxes work. They do not understand a balance sheet, what constitutes gross vs net income or what are allowable deductions.

The other thing is they are not embarrassed by their rants and posts. They will always fall back on the talking points and buzzwords, retreat for a time then once again, rise and launch off again on the income disparity and evils of profitable business, free markets, and the dire need for government to control and take as they will.
Free market and limited govt? What a joke. You are the biggest apologist for corporate welfare and deny how big that is. Corporate welfare = massive government. And it is the exact opposite of a free market. Pro business? Lol. Corporate welfare is a small business killer.

As for the tax issue, I'm not sure either party has it right. First I don't understand why we'd want to raise taxes to increase government when we have a huge "credit card" bill... Our national debt. We should raise tax revenue to balance our budget. Secondly, I don't know why we're talking about raising tax on income that will ultimately be dodged anyway. The super rich are mostly getting taxed primarily on investments, not income. The bigger issue among the super rich is tax evasion and shady as hell tax avoidance. Let's start first with getting the super rich to pay legitimate taxes at the current rates before we talk about taxing at 70%. Because they clearly aren't and it don't take Sherlock holmes to understand why that is.
[Reply]
patteeu 07:58 AM 02-11-2019
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Free market and limited govt? What a joke. You are the biggest apologist for corporate welfare and deny how big that is. Corporate welfare = massive government. And it is the exact opposite of a free market. Pro business? Lol. Corporate welfare is a small business killer.

As for the tax issue, I'm not sure either party has it right. First I don't understand why we'd want to raise taxes to increase government when we have a huge "credit card" bill... Our national debt. We should raise tax revenue to balance our budget. Secondly, I don't know why we're talking about raising tax on income that will ultimately be dodged anyway. The super rich are mostly getting taxed primarily on investments, not income. The bigger issue among the super rich is tax evasion and shady as hell tax avoidance. Let's start first with getting the super rich to pay legitimate taxes at the current rates before we talk about taxing at 70%. Because they clearly aren't and it don't take Sherlock holmes to understand why that is.
Revenue isn’t the problem, and if it was, raising taxes on the poor and middle class is the most effective way to raise it. That is, if revenue is really your goal.

There is nothing shady about tax avoidance.
[Reply]
chiefzilla1501 08:29 AM 02-11-2019
Originally Posted by patteeu:
Revenue isn’t the problem, and if it was, raising taxes on the poor and middle class is the most effective way to raise it. That is, if revenue is really your goal.

There is nothing shady about tax avoidance.
Im assuming you agree tax evasion is flat out wrong. Seems a given. For shady tax avoidance.... I'm not talking about making use of tax deductions and things of that nature. Some tax avoidance is gaming loopholes which is more the fault of the tax code vs the taxpayer exploiting the loophole. But with creative accounting, there is a ton that becomes borderline to blatantly unethical especially in terms of exploiting offshore tax havens. I'm sure you'd also agree that there is clearly a line where creative accounting becomes fraud. A blatant example being setting up fake shell companies with fake directors and an even deeper web of false identities to in order to make illegal transactions.

Revenue isn't a problem if the solution is to use new revenue to create new govt. But why can't it be a big part of a solution to help balance the budget? And sure... It's not the total solution, but it's a big help. Again, this isn't raising taxes. This is paying taxes that should be reasonably owed.
[Reply]
patteeu 08:52 AM 02-11-2019
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Im assuming you agree tax evasion is flat out wrong. Seems a given.
Yes, of course.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
For shady tax avoidance.... I'm not talking about making use of tax deductions and things of that nature. Some tax avoidance is gaming loopholes which is more the fault of the tax code vs the taxpayer exploiting the loophole. But with creative accounting, there is a ton that becomes borderline to blatantly unethical especially in terms of exploiting offshore tax havens. I'm sure you'd also agree that there is clearly a line where creative accounting becomes fraud. A blatant example being setting up fake shell companies with fake directors and an even deeper web of false identities to in order to make illegal transactions.

Revenue isn't a problem if the solution is to use new revenue to create new govt. But why can't it be a big part of a solution to help balance the budget? And sure... It's not the total solution, but it's a big help. Again, this isn't raising taxes. This is paying taxes that should be reasonably owed.
I don't think we should describe fraud as tax avoidance. Fraud is wrong. Tax avoidance is an expected part of the system (even if in some cases, it happens in an unexpected way that lawmakers later decide to outlaw).
[Reply]
chiefzilla1501 09:03 AM 02-11-2019
Originally Posted by patteeu:
Yes, of course.



I don't think we should describe fraud as tax avoidance. Fraud is wrong. Tax avoidance is an expected part of the system (even if in some cases, it happens in an unexpected way that lawmakers later decide to outlaw).

Yup, Ive put fraud in the tax evasion category. But there is gray area where tax avoidance borders on or overlaps with evasion. Just because the tax system doesn't disallow it doesn't mean some practices aren't unethical. Where we probably disagree with is how big that gray area is. I think it's substantial.
[Reply]
Marcellus 09:27 AM 02-11-2019
Originally Posted by suzzer99:
Lol you're just going to keep doubling down on the "embarrassing for you" thing, even after being called out, aren't you? I guess it's your brand now.

Here's a programmer buddy of mine from another site:





Republicans, the party of entrepreneurs. Glad I went straight W-2 this year.

It's gonna be funny when any of you who have 1099s start doing your taxes and realize how badly you got hosed. Rs want you captive to corporations - for heath care, to avoid taxes, etc. They want proles and owner class and nothing in-between.

There is so much bullshit in this post its hilarious. Damn Suzzer you just keep showing your stupidity.
[Reply]
suzzer99 02:47 PM 02-11-2019
Refunds are definitely down. https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.62f49c4cb68f

Total taxes seem like slightly down or a wash for most non-1%ers, and again temporary for the middle class - but permanent for the 1%.

And for sure some people got hosed. I'm checking with Grue but I doubt that screenshot is bullshit. I've know him for a while. He's not an idiot and he's not lying.
[Reply]
Marcellus 02:49 PM 02-11-2019
Originally Posted by suzzer99:
Refunds are definitely down. https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.62f49c4cb68f

Total taxes seem like slightly down or a wash for most non-1%ers, and again temporary for the middle class - but permanent for the 1%.

And for sure some people got hosed. I'm checking with Grue but I doubt that screenshot is bullshit. I've know him for a while. He's not an idiot and he's not lying.
:-)


Originally Posted by :
Many Americans may confuse their meager refunds as a sign that they paid more in taxes as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Generally, that is not true.

According to the Tax Policy Center, 80 percent of filers received a tax cut, and about 5 percent wound up paying more in federal income taxes. The tax cuts showed up in fatter weekly or biweekly paychecks for most Americans, but few people noticed, according to polling.

“There’s a difference between taxes and your refund,” said Joseph Rosenberg, a senior research associate at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute. “People generally got a piece of their tax cut last year gradually in the form of lower withholding on their paychecks.”

[Reply]
Page 18 of 23
« First < 81415161718 19202122 > Last »
Up