Fox Business Host Going in Hard on Tax Bill

It's not registering.

He's not gonna look at it any way but his way

He can't seem to grasp that 2k is minimal in the grand scope of all tax receipts/refunds. But is at the same time substantial to those receiving those refunds.

He's looking to be right. Not look at the issue


I'm not even saying he wrong in his value judgment. I'm saying he's a liar or ignorant by saying it's a 1% savings for someone making 100k.

The decrease in federal tax liability needs to be weighed against the current tax liability. Weighing that decrease against pretax income is irrelevant and completely deceptive.
 
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?

I am not interested in my tax if i was in America i am interested in what this means for the wider economy and consumer demand as such i want a wide range of typical scenarios. I am talking thousands of different families not just a couple.

My stance is i want real info on the wider implications.
I have seen one such report and it suggests lower demand from the real job creators ie the middle class.
You suggested youve seen something different so i want to see it to. I didn't understand your hypothesis is based on a sample size of one hypothetical.
 
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

"Net effect is the only thing that really matters"
 
I am not interested in my tax if i was in America i am interested in what this means for the wider economy and consumer demand as such i want a wide range of typical scenarios. I am talking thousands of different families not just a couple.

My stance is i want real info on the wider implications.
I have seen one such report and it suggests lower demand from the real job creators ie the middle class.
You suggested youve seen something different so i want to see it to. I didn't understand your hypothesis is based on a sample size of one hypothetical.

How would people getting more money result in lower demand?
 
I'd measure that way because the relative savings to each person is best presented as the increased percentage of their pre-tax income that they get to keep. The absolute dollar figure means less given the size of the income brackets. For an income bracket that ranges from $50k to $75k, there's a 50% difference in the top and bottom incomes despite being within the same tax bracket. So absolute savings within the bracket could be 50% apart suggesting a large difference in tax savings when the savings relative to the pre-tax income are identical.

Calculating it as a percentage on paid tax is less informative. For example, you say there's a savings of 11.5% but it's 11.5% of the tax paid, which is itself just another percentage (but of the pre-tax income). So, you're saving 11.5% of 13% of your pre-tax income (the 13k from 100k). It's much more direct to put it in terms of what is being saved - some percentage of the total pre-tax income. Your hypothetical family is now retaining $1,500 on their earned $100k income. I don't see how it can be realistically discussed except relative to earned income.

Your approach makes more sense if the range of incomes is narrow and the previous effective tax rates were similar. But they aren't. The income ranges from under $5k to millions of dollars and the effective tax rates are very broad. The effective rate for the lowest quintiles is essentially zero. The effective rates for W-2 earners at the top end can top 30%.

You can disagree but relative to pre-tax income is the most informative way to discuss tax savings - how much more of your pre-tax income do you get to keep?


I do disagree. It's not the most informative it's the most deceptive. Especially when you are using it on the micro level to determine an individual's savings. You repeatedly stated that that person making 100k realized a 1-1.5% savings which is an utter lie. You can't save what you do not spend. That person who makes 100k will most likely save 11-14% off of what he normally pays.

Now your method may or may not have some value when arguing on a macro level comparative savings across the many brackets. But that method certainly has no business being used the way you were using it in an obvious attempt to obfuscate the facts to win an argument.
 
I am not interested in my tax if i was in America i am interested in what this means for the wider economy and consumer demand as such i want a wide range of typical scenarios. I am talking thousands of different families not just a couple.

My stance is i want real info on the wider implications.
I have seen one such report and it suggests lower demand from the real job creators ie the middle class.
You suggested youve seen something different so i want to see it to. I didn't understand your hypothesis is based on a sample size of one hypothetical.

Lol... Your stance is you want info? Well how about you go do some research instead of sitting there like some morbidly obese, bed ridden, eventually have to cut you out of your house and take you out on a forklift slob, screaming "sauce"....sauce....I want sauce! !"

And there will be many millions of people that fall under the same set of circumstances that I describes. Hence all the screaming and crying from high taxed states, myself included.
 
How would people getting more money result in lower demand?

By not actually getting more money when savings from a tax rate reduction are outweighed by an increase in the taxable amount.
 
Lol... Your stance is you want info? Well how about you go do some research instead of sitting there like some morbidly obese, bed ridden, eventually have to cut you out of your house and take you out on a forklift slob, screaming "sauce"....sauce....I want sauce! !"

And there will be many millions of people that fall under the same set of circumstances that I describes. Hence all the screaming and crying from high taxed states, myself included.

I have info and it conflicts with his claim.
Thus i want him to support his claim.
Pretty standard stuff imo.
 
I do disagree. It's not the most informative it's the most deceptive. Especially when you are using it on the micro level to determine an individual's savings. You repeatedly stated that that person making 100k realized a 1-1.5% savings which is an utter lie. You can't save what you do not spend. That person who makes 100k will most likely save 11-14% off of what he normally pays.

Now your method may or may not have some value when arguing on a macro level comparative savings across the many brackets. But that method certainly has no business being used the way you were using it in an obvious attempt to obfuscate the facts to win an argument.

It's not an attempt to win an argument, it's presenting the actual gain in terms of what is occurring. The percentage of a percentage approach you're preferring simply ignores that the entire tax conversation is predicated on earned income.

Tax payers earns $100k income. Currently they pay 13% of their income in taxes. Under the new metric, they pay 11.5% in taxes. They have seen a 1.5% decrease in their tax burden. You can take someone else who makes $50k. Currently they pay 10% of their income in taxes, now they way 8.5%. It's a 1.5% decrease in their tax burden.

It doesn't matter that 1.5% is a larger percentage of 10% (15%) than it is of 13% (11.5%) because the cash savings are also different, $1,500 vs. $750 and the previous effective tax rates are also different. Different effective tax rates on completely different incomes across different graduated income brackets with different deduction phaseout rules will yield completely different absolute dollar figures because you're not making an apples to apples comparison.

The only thing that you can consistently compare across the incomes and income brackets is what is the decrease in their effective tax rate relative to their actual income (put another way, how much more of their income do they get to keep). And it appears to be ~1.5%. That is what your average middle class tax payer is going to retain relative to the previous tax plan.

Ignoring the top line numbers and percentages essentially disregards how we talk about taxes - what percentage of your income are you paying in taxes - to discuss are less relevant metric, the rate of change in tax rates. But should be simple to understand.

If you retain 10% of the 10% you previously paid then you're keeping 1% more, not 10% more.
 
It's not an attempt to win an argument, it's presenting the actual gain in terms of what is occurring. The percentage of a percentage approach you're preferring simply ignores that the entire tax conversation is predicated on earned income.

Tax payers earns $100k income. Currently they pay 13% of their income in taxes. Under the new metric, they pay 11.5% in taxes. They have seen a 1.5% decrease in their tax burden. You can take someone else who makes $50k. Currently they pay 10% of their income in taxes, now they way 8.5%. It's a 1.5% decrease in their tax burden.

It doesn't matter that 1.5% is a larger percentage of 10% (15%) than it is of 13% (11.5%) because the cash savings are also different, $1,500 vs. $750 and the previous effective tax rates are also different. Different effective tax rates on completely different incomes across different graduated income brackets with different deduction phaseout rules will yield completely different absolute dollar figures because you're not making an apples to apples comparison.

The only thing that you can consistently compare across the incomes and income brackets is what is the decrease in their effective tax rate relative to their actual income (put another way, how much more of their income do they get to keep). And it appears to be ~1.5%. That is what your average middle class tax payer is going to retain relative to the previous tax plan.

Ignoring the top line numbers and percentages essentially disregards how we talk about taxes - what percentage of your income are you paying in taxes - to discuss are less relevant metric, the rate of change in tax rates. But should be simple to understand.

If you retain 10% of the 10% you previously paid then you're keeping 1% more, not 10% more.



So in every other aspect of life we measure "savings" by the decrease in the amount we spend on a specific item.

For instance. ...I just saved 15% on my car insurance. Which the entire world understands to mean that your new bill is 15 % lower than your previous bill. But according to your logic I only and .015%......because. ....I have to measure it against my income for...reasons.

Or the coat at macys that's 25% off.

Or refinancing at a lower interest rate will save me 20% per month.

Or every other possible use of the word "savings" as we know it.

But in your infinite wisdom we're going to measure tax savings against our income. Which just so happens to make said savings look infinitely small in an argument you are having in which you are trying to prove that the savings aren't shit.

Ok sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
 
So in every other aspect of life we measure "savings" by the decrease in the amount we spend on a specific item.

For instance. ...I just saved 15% on my car insurance. Which the entire world understands to mean that your new bill is 15 % lower than your previous bill. But according to your logic I only and .015%......because. ....I have to measure it against my income for...reasons.

Or the coat at macys that's 25% off.

Or refinancing at a lower interest rate will save me 20% per month.

Or every other possible use of the word "savings" as we know it.

But in your infinite wisdom we're going to measure tax savings against our income. Which just so happens to make said savings look infinitely small in an argument you are having in which you are trying to prove that the savings aren't shit.

Ok sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

But we're not discussing every other aspect of life. We're discussing tax rates. And tax rates are discussed relative to earned income. Why? Because that's what they're actually calculated against, not other tax rates.

If you save 15% on car insurance, it's relative to what you paid on car insurance. But car insurance isn't based on some 3rd variable. Tax rates are. Tax rates are based on income. Car insurance is only based on other car insurance rates.

You don't just pick some random number out of the sky and hand it to the government for taxes.

Your cost of a coat example is actually not bad. Macy's sets a price for a coat ($100), then gives you 25% off ($25). If Macy's offers you another 10% off, is it based on the original purchase price or on the 25% off that you already got? They yield very different numbers.

If it's 10% off the 25% then it's 10% of $25, $2.50. Given that the original cost of the coat was $100, it's a 2.5% reduction. If it's 10% off the price of the coat, it would be a $10 reduction. That means the difference between paying $72.50 (27.5% discount) and paying $65 (35% discount) for the same coat.

To any person who's buying the coat, they wouldn't equate 10% off the 25% as the same as 10% off the original purchase price. They would, rightly, call the $2.50 reduction as a 2.5% reduction on the price of the coat, not as a 10% reduction on the price of the coat.

In tax terms, your earned income is the price of the coat. You calculate your savings against that price, not against the relative value your other coupons.
 
But we're not discussing every other aspect of life. We're discussing tax rates. And tax rates are discussed relative to earned income. Why? Because that's what they're actually calculated against, not other tax rates.

If you save 15% on car insurance, it's relative to what you paid on car insurance. But car insurance isn't based on some 3rd variable. Tax rates are. Tax rates are based on income. Car insurance is only based on other car insurance rates.

You don't just pick some random number out of the sky and hand it to the government for taxes.

Your cost of a coat example is actually not bad. Macy's sets a price for a coat ($100), then gives you 25% off ($25). If Macy's offers you another 10% off, is it based on the original purchase price or on the 25% off that you already got? They yield very different numbers.

If it's 10% off the 25% then it's 10% of $25, $2.50. Given that the original cost of the coat was $100, it's a 2.5% reduction. If it's 10% off the price of the coat, it would be a $10 reduction. That means the difference between paying $72.50 (27.5% discount) and paying $65 (35% discount) for the same coat.

To any person who's buying the coat, they wouldn't equate 10% off the 25% as the same as 10% off the original purchase price. They would, rightly, call the $2.50 reduction as a 2.5% reduction on the price of the coat, not as a 10% reduction on the price of the coat.

In tax terms, your earned income is the price of the coat. You calculate your savings against that price, not against the relative value your other coupons.


You keep telling me what you're doing but haven't explained why that's beneficial.

And more importantly how it's beneficial when you are arguing over the savings of a specific individual.

Do you really think it's more accurate to say that the person making 100k saved 1.5%?
 
I won 1200 on the Bulls last night. It felt like a substantial amount when I won it.
 
Back
Top