Fox Business Host Going in Hard on Tax Bill

[kahiljabroni]

Lol dude!!

Come on think it through.

You claim the effect is looking at brackets and doing the math, then in the same post talk about how their deductions will change significantly.

Hmmm I'm not sure if you're a kid that's never paid taxes, live in a cave, etc, but this is not hard to fathom.

If you earn 300k and deduct 80k, the fed will tax you on 220k.

If you make 300k and deduct 24k, the fed will tax you on 276k.

So you run 276k through the new bracket, and then run 220k through the old bracket and find out which one is higher.

I can guarantee you that the small change in the brackets won't overcome the 56k difference in taxable income. In fact they'll probably pay 10k more.

Now if you want to be taught so bad, go link me to the final brackets and I'll hold your hand and walk you through the math. If you just wanna scream "source" like a helpless child then I'll know you don't really want to be proven wrong.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

So most average people will benefit slightly, the rich will benefit greatly. Surprise, surprise.

What I'm interested in is knowing how this decrease in tax revenue will affect spending. What's getting cut out, basically. I got a suspicion it won't be the military or some other area.

 

[Necromantic]

For those that support the bill, what is your personal opinion on the points she addresses?

Since all of my income comes from LLC income, I benefit. The estate tax increase also benefits me. So, on a purely personal level, I support these changes.

However, I don't see how this benefits the country. I truly don't know the point of letting people deduct pass through income (@PolishHeadlock , @kpt018 - does this deduction mean that my self-employment taxes are calculated on the pre- or post- deduction figure?).

Hmmm...not really any information in that tweet. What are the full details?

Why estate tax someone? This is double taxing them. They were already taxed during life. I don't see how the state stealing some dead guy's shit is more MORAL than allowing the deceased to give it to who he wills.

As far as money made on the stock market and etc not being taxed as much, this is good for people because it encourages investment which in turns produces jobs.

Rich people and companies seem to create almost all the jobs in this country.

 

[Satanical Eve]

All I know is I'm fucked now, royally fucked. I live on Long Island and the bill will hit us extremely hard. The mother fuckers can't even answer questions about the bill from reporters.

 

[RockstarChris]

taxes should be 100% equal. meaning the 30% of americans that dont pay any tax should pay and the 1% of americans who are rich should pay.

 

[panamaican]

Hmmm...not really any information in that tweet. What are the full details?

Why estate tax someone? This is double taxing them. They were already taxed during life. I don't see how the state stealing some dead guy's shit is more MORAL than allowing the deceased to give it to who he wills.

As far as money made on the stock market and etc not being taxed as much, this is good for people because it encourages investment which in turns produces jobs.

Rich people and companies seem to create almost all the jobs in this country.

It's long and complicated and starts with understanding "step up in basis" and the tax consequences of transferring property between people.

And money made on the stock market is not always the same as capital investment in a new job producing venture. After the IPO, none of that money is about investment in the business that actually creates the mainstream jobs. It's purely about the secondary market and only creates jobs in the financial services industry that benefit from people buying and trading securities for personal profit.

And small businesses create approximately half the jobs and it's mostly new companies that do so, not established ones. So unless this is going to create new small businesses, it's not going to do much for job creation. And cutting taxes for established companies doesn't do that. Carried interest taxes don't do that either.

Pass through entity tax breaks will do that. Freeing people to pursue new business ventures will do that but I'm not sure how this tax plan accomplishes that.

 

[Culombo]

All I know is I'm fucked now, royally fucked. I live on Long Island and the bill will hit us extremely hard. The mother fuckers can't even answer questions about the bill from reporters.

your state should not be so liberal/democratic .. it's the wrong thing to be at the moment

 

[rearnakedchoke]

The GOP need the religious right for their votes and that is it. That way they can pass their bills to save millions in taxes. Poor people voting for trump are the dumbest people around.

 

[zebby23]

The GOP need the religious right for their votes and that is it. That way they can pass their bills to save millions in taxes. Poor people voting for trump are the dumbest people around.

They will vote against their own interests if it means liberals are butthurt

 

[HIMBOB]

Hmmm I'm not sure if you're a kid that's never paid taxes, live in a cave, etc, but this is not hard to fathom.

If you earn 300k and deduct 80k, the fed will tax you on 220k.

If you make 300k and deduct 24k, the fed will tax you on 276k.

So you run 276k through the new bracket, and then run 220k through the old bracket and find out which one is higher.

I can guarantee you that the small change in the brackets won't overcome the 56k difference in taxable income. In fact they'll probably pay 10k more.

Now if you want to be taught so bad, go link me to the final brackets and I'll hold your hand and walk you through the math. If you just wanna scream "source" like a helpless child then I'll know you don't really want to be proven wrong.

Not a kid, in fact would bet 10 to 1 i am more qualified and/or experienced in this area than you. But as this should be self evident tis no matter, so let's get back on topic.

When asked for a source about the effect of the tax you have said:

And i quote

"The source is looking at the brackets and doing the math."

You then go on to say,

"I can guarantee you that the small change in the brackets won't overcome the 56k difference in taxable income."

So your second (and imo correct statement) highlights the inaccuracy of your first (laughable) claim.

Can please explain which of your statements was incorrect or provide some explanation how you feel i can calculate the effect of the changes without any consideration to what you think is the key factor.

 

[HIMBOB]

Let's try this Pan

If a coworker came up to u at work and handed you 2000 dollars. Would you look at that as a minimal amount of money?

No

But when we think of tax breaks. We are programmed to think in large terms

$2,000 tax saved is huge.
However saving $2,000 in one area and then paying $2,500 more in another leaves you worse off.
Net effect is the only thing that really matters.

 

[kahiljabroni]

Not a kid, in fact would bet 10 to 1 i am more qualified and/or experienced in this area than you. But as this should be self evident tis no matter, so let's get back on topic.

When asked for a source about the effect of the tax you have said:

And i quote

"The source is looking at the brackets and doing the math."

You then go on to say,

"I can guarantee you that the small change in the brackets won't overcome the 56k difference in taxable income."

So your second (and imo correct statement) highlights the inaccuracy of your first (laughable) claim.

Can please explain which of your statements was incorrect or provide some explanation how you feel i can calculate the effect of the changes without any consideration to what you think is the key factor.

If you were in any way experienced in this matter this wouldn't be complicated.

Yes you have to look at the brackets and do the math. As is true under any tax plan for any payer.

You do the math by deducting everything you legally can which leaves you with your taxable income. Then you do more math by running that income through the progressive brackets and find out what you owe.

I'm not even sure what your stance is. Are you doubting that high earners will pay more or what exactly are you saying?

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

So most average people will benefit slightly, the rich will benefit greatly. Surprise, surprise.

What I'm interested in is knowing how this decrease in tax revenue will affect spending. What's getting cut out, basically. I got a suspicion it won't be the military or some other area.

Definitely wont be the military. Its a giant black hole of a money pit.

 

[kahiljabroni]

All I know is I'm fucked now, royally fucked. I live on Long Island and the bill will hit us extremely hard. The mother fuckers can't even answer questions about the bill from reporters.

You are correct sir. Dumbfucks like HIMBOB don't want to believe it but upper middle class people in ny and California and every other high tax state is getting raped by this.

How much in deductions are you losing?

 

[ultramanhyata]

It's the naked worship of capital.

 

[HomerThompson]

Breathtaking.

Also, dick is too big.

 

[panamaican]

Let's try this Pan

If a coworker came up to u at work and handed you 2000 dollars. Would you look at that as a minimal amount of money?

No

But when we think of tax breaks. We are programmed to think in large terms

On the first page, I linked to a very straightforward way of determining if there would be tax savings on a state by state and an income bracket basis.

Most people will see savings of ~1-1.5% on their pre-tax income. That means that if you make $50k, expect a net savings of appx. $750. On an income of $100k, a net savings of $1,000-$1500.

1.5% is not substantial. It is minimal. I don't care what the exact dollar figure is. If the middle class is only saving 1.5%, it's better than nothing but not by much. It is minimal.

 

[MicroBrew]

They will vote against their own interests if it means liberals are butthurt

..and if it means sticking it to Blacks and Hispanics.

 

[SBJJ]

On the first page, I linked to a very straightforward way of determining if there would be tax savings on a state by state and an income bracket basis.

Most people will see savings of ~1-1.5% on their pre-tax income. That means that if you make $50k, expect a net savings of appx. $750. On an income of $100k, a net savings of $1,000-$1500.

1.5% is not substantial. It is minimal. I don't care what the exact dollar figure is. If the middle class is only saving 1.5%, it's better than nothing but not by much. It is minimal.

Ok. It's minimal to everyone because it's minimal to you. People ar not different. They are all the same. People do not have different needs than you. You say it so it goes for all.

Sounds like your crew when they say "people voting against their own interests ". As if you know what's best for others

 

[SBJJ]

$2,000 tax saved is huge.
However saving $2,000 in one area and then paying $2,500 more in another leaves you worse off.
Net effect is the only thing that really matters.

Lol. What? Are you talking about high taxed stated for high earners? So what?

Careful. 2k refund is NOT huge! It's minimal. Just ask Pan