Fox Business Host Going in Hard on Tax Bill

[panamaican]

Because the "Middle Class" barely pays any Federal Income Taxes to begin with. Payroll cuts is all that is basically left. Unless you want to just start giving them money

If a middle class family of 4 pays 2000 in federal(not payroll) taxes then of course the tax break will be minimal

So then you're agreeing that it's not "substantial". I appreciate the support.

 

[SBJJ]

So then you're agreeing that it's not "substantial". I appreciate the support.

To someone making 500k a year. No it's not.

To a family of 4 with 2 earners making 100k a year. A grand or 2 might be substantial.

Hope that helped a bit.

 

[HIMBOB]

I just think most people have no idea what's in this bill and parrot the fact that it's for the rich.

Those making middle class incomes are definitely going to see a substantial break. People making alot of money are going to end up with a higher effective tax rate due to capping state and local tax deductions.

Not from any analysis i have seen. Source?

 

[panamaican]

To someone making 500k a year. No it's not.

To a family of 4 with 2 earners making 100k a year. A grand or 2 might be substantial.

You agreed that it's minimal because the middle class doesn't pay much in taxes.

Now you're arguing that it's substantial just because you don't like to admit you agreed with me.

That right there is a perfect example of posting with no interest in the content of what you're responding to. When you thought I was demeaning the size of the savings, you explained why a minimal tax break was acceptable for the middle class. When you realized that you agreed with me relative to the other poster, suddenly you're redefining it as "substantial".

Lol, I can summarize your posting as "Whatever Panamaican says, I'm going to disagree with it because I don't care about the content, I just want to argue with him."

 

[SBJJ]

Not from any analysis i have seen. Source?

Most lower earners get a break. In fact, they all probably do

Higher earners in high tax states may get hit a bit because state taxes are capped at what you can deduct. I also believe the interest(home) deduction is capped at like 750k. So yea, a person or couple making decent money living in a high tax state living(financing) a 2 mill dollar home may get hit

 

[SBJJ]

You agreed that it's minimal because the middle class doesn't pay much in taxes.

Now you're arguing that it's substantial just because you don't like to admit you agreed with me.

That right there is a perfect example of posting with no interest in the content of what you're responding to. When you thought I was demeaning the size of the savings, you explained why a minimal tax break was acceptable for the middle class. When you realized that you agreed with me relative to the other poster, suddenly you're redefining it as "substantial".

Lol, I can summarize your posting as "Whatever Panamaican says, I'm going to disagree with it because I don't care about the content, I just want to argue with him."

You do understand minimal or substantial is subjective to your living standard. Or maybe you don't.

Someone making 70k a year will look at a 1500 tax refund much differently than someone making 800k a year getting a 10k refund.

I'm not disagreeing with you. 1 or 2k is minimal in my eyes or the governments eyes. But it might not be to those receiving it.

Follow closely. I am not classifying it substantial. I'm saying MAYBE some receiving it will.

Hope this helped out

 

[panamaican]

You do understand minimal or substantial is subjective to your living standard. Or maybe you don't.

Someone making 70k a year will look at a 1500 tax refund much differently than someone making 800k a year getting a 10k refund.

I'm not disagreeing with you. 1 or 2k is minimal in my eyes or the governments eyes. But it might not be to those receiving it.

Hope this helped out

Oh, I understand. I said the savings were minimal. You agreed with me.

I said that you agreed with me then you said that for some the savings are substantial.

If you were really about this "it's all subjective" position that you're pretending to, you wouldn't have said this:

f a middle class family of 4 pays 2000 in federal(not payroll) taxes then of course the tax break will be minimal

You would have said that it's subjective. Which you didn't. C'mon, your postings are right there and, to you, "Of course" the tax breaks will be "minimal", not subjective.

 

[SBJJ]

Oh, I understand. I said the savings were minimal. You agreed with me.

I said that you agreed with me then you said that for some the savings are substantial.

If you were really about this "it's all subjective" position that you're pretending to you wouldn't have said this:



You would have said that it's subjective. Which you didn't. C'mon, your postings are right there and, to you, "Of course" the tax breaks will be "minimal", not subjective.

Interesting. Of course a 1500 tax break is minimal in the scope of things. We agree there.

I apologize im pointing out that there are families who will look at it as NOT minimal.

A homeless person getting a 75 cent meal at a soup kitchen will look at not going hungry that day as substantial. While u and I will not.

Of course I look at it as minimal. It's not me getting it. I'm saying minimal in the scope of things.

Once again I'll post this

A 1500 tax refund to a working couple with kids making 100k is LIKELY substantial to them

A 50k tax refund to a guy making 2mill a year is LIKELY not substantial to him

Are you disagreeing that a 1 or 2k tax refund will FEEL substantial to some working families?

I hope this helps

 

[SBJJ]

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

 

[nostradumbass]

Video said "media cannot be played", so I don't know what she said. High earners in NY, NJ, Illinois, CA, and other high state tax rates will likely pay more after losing deductions. I believe average income for under 35 years old is around $40k, so that bracket will be lowered by a few percentage points, the child credit is expanding, the medical insurance mandate is gone, which benefits young people the most but could hike insurance premiums for others. The only thing that disproportionately hurts young people in this is the relocation deduction being gone.

It doesn't seem like all that much is changing with most people's personal income taxes, maybe slightly lower. The most significant change is lowering the corporate rate from highest in the 1st world to middle of the pack in an attempt to spark growth. Like I said to @PolishHeadlock and @kpt018 yesterday, it's impossible to predict when the purpose of it was to promote growth. They both know more about finance than I do, but all anybody can do is wait and see what kind of growth happens from it. I don't think tax revenue will be all that different in the end, but if I turn out to be wrong, I'll happily admit it.

 

[splendica]

But Fox.

 

[zebby23]

But Fox.

Yes every now and again Fox gets it right. A clock is right twice a day.

In all seriousness they have a couple people who qualify as journalists there and they get it right on occasion

 

[splendica]

Yes every now and again Fox gets it right. A clock is right twice a day.

In all seriousness they have a couple people who qualify as journalists there and they get it right on occasion

Lol, I've said it before . . . well you know the rest.

 

[SBJJ]

Yes every now and again Fox gets it right. A clock is right twice a day.

In all seriousness they have a couple people who qualify as journalists there and they get it right on occasion

They've actually covered this better than other outlets. And they've called out Trump justly for this bill looking nothing like what he promised.

Good on them. We need more REAL policy coverage. And a candidate or Prez going back on policy promises is a big deal

 

[kahiljabroni]

Not from any analysis i have seen. Source?

The source is looking at the brackets and doing the math. The only people I know that will pay more are high income earners in high taxed states.

I know a couple in Westchester ny with a nice house of 2400 square feet. It's nothing spectacular but due to the area it's a 1.2 million dollar house. Their property taxes are about 26k. They make about 300k per year so they also pay about 25k in state income tax. One of them is in sales and deducts about 15k a year in mileage, etc. That's 66k of deductions plus 15k mortgage interest for a total 81k in deductions. Under the new plan they will only be able to deduct 24k... Instead of 81k. They are going to pay substantially more in federal income tax. Most left leaning people would say that's a good thing because they are in the top 3% of earners.

 

[kahiljabroni]

The top state tax rate in California is 13%. If you make a million bucks there then you pay 130k to the state. Under the old laws the fed would only tax you on the other 870k. Under new laws you will be taxed federally on 976k after the 24k deduction assuming you're married. So you are literally being federally taxed on money that was already paid to the state.

The people hurt by this plan are people that have huge deductions.
People with huge deductions are people making a ton of money. Ipso facto this plan hurts the wealthy.

Now I havnt looked into how it helps the super wealthy. They may benefit for all I know

 

[HIMBOB]

Most lower earners get a break. In fact, they all probably do

Higher earners in high tax states may get hit a bit because state taxes are capped at what you can deduct. I also believe the interest(home) deduction is capped at like 750k. So yea, a person or couple making decent money living in a high tax state living(financing) a 2 mill dollar home may get hit

Thanks but really looking for a source and one that highlights net effect as an tax revamp has numerous swings and roundabouts for every earner.


My understanding (of the net effect) is the lower income people get temporary breaks while higher earners get lasting ones.
I know The Economist certainly arrived at that conclusion.

 

[HIMBOB]

The source is looking at the brackets and doing the math. The only people I know that will pay more are high income earners in high taxed states.

I know a couple in Westchester ny with a nice house of 2400 square feet. It's nothing spectacular but due to the area it's a 1.2 million dollar house. Their property taxes are about 26k. They make about 300k per year so they also pay about 25k in state income tax. One of them is in sales and deducts about 15k a year in mileage, etc. That's 66k of deductions plus 15k mortgage interest for a total 81k in deductions. Under the new plan they will only be able to deduct 24k... Instead of 81k. They are going to pay substantially more in federal income tax. Most left leaning people would say that's a good thing because they are in the top 3% of earners.

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.

 

[Seano]

I will benefit some. Its not going to change my life or anything but it'll be a few more bucks a month for my family.

 

[JosephDredd]

Most lower earners get a break. In fact, they all probably do

Higher earners in high tax states may get hit a bit because state taxes are capped at what you can deduct. I also believe the interest(home) deduction is capped at like 750k. So yea, a person or couple making decent money living in a high tax state living(financing) a 2 mill dollar home may get hit

Lol asked for source, uses himself as a source