Economy Trump Tax Cuts Announced.

[panamaican]

There is a reason those tax cuts are expiring this year....he was expecting to have been finishing up his second term now and not having to deal with the fallout.

Exactly. The economic impact of those tax cuts were bad for the national debt. But he planned on being out of politics so the next guy would be the bad guy for not extending them.

 

[Darkavius]

1) Yes, it would be more sound. But raising the minimum wage actually puts a burden on employers and there's no energy from this administration to do so.

That's the point and why I hate tips. Who am I as the customer to determine how good you are at your job? That's the employer's duty. You may be a good worker having a bad day or a bad worker having a good day but it should not be the customer's decision to determine their value.

3) Remains to be seen. From what I've read, carried interest is about $1.2 billion annually. So, it's not a big number at all. The sports owner issue is even more nebulous, probably driven by Trump's anti-NFL animus from back in the day, lol.

Tax tangent: The primary tax loophole for sports team owners is that the majority of the team's assets are depreciable assets - stadiums, vehicles, training equipment, etc. So the team assets are losing value on paper offsetting taxable revenue.

Additionally, some owners are taking a deduction on player salaries and a deduction on having purchased the player contracts. There's more complexity here but it revolves around owning the contracts as a separate asset from the operating expenses of paying salaries. Essentially, paying Lebron to play basketball is an operating expense and deductible. But Lebron's contract is an asset with depreciable value because Lebron, the athlete, is worth less money every year (because of age, injury risk, etc.). And that too is deductible, lol.

I did not know this so thank you. It makes me more angry at how sports are ran.

4) This is going to work hand in hand with the tariff threat. If we tariff goods produced in other countries and couple it with a tax break on goods produced here then manufacturers will have an incentive to move their manufacturing here instead. In a perfect world, this increases US worker salaries so that even if the cost of eggs don't go down, we're making enough money to still afford them. In the real world? I don't know if that's true.

This would be counteracted though by the push towards immigration would it not especially lower tier jobs? What you says sounds good but then the problem you have is the lack of available workers. Sure you bring jobs back here but what good is it if you don't have enough labor and skilled labor? In theory it costs less to produce but if you don't have anyone to produce it what good is the less cost? Then you get rid of the Department of Education and that brings a bigger issue at hand.

5) Well, that's the question isn't it? There is a theory out there that some people on the right believe in a "Starve the beast" approach to ending social safety nets. If you reduce government revenues enough, eventually you have to cut the safety nets because you're literally out of money. We'll see if that's where they're going with this.

Never heard of that theory but it's a dumb theory. Starving the beast only helps the Capitalist and the Capitalist always wants more. There's never enough for a Capitalist. I don't have to tell you this but starving the beast will only lead to more labor conflicts in the future, and when the Capitalist if fat enough the government will have to step in and take money to support the people if you want a functioning society.

 

[Madmick]

I think the basis for that claim is that the Project 2025 policy agenda wants to reduce access to overtime pay. And given that this administration has adhered to several of the objectives of Project 2025, it's not crazy to think they would try to implement that objective as well.

Damn, I can't wait to start negging every headline about a good thing a Democrat in office has done based on what they might do in the future because some other Democrat out there who is not in office has suggested that stupid idea was something they wanted.

 

[ShadowRun]

The clip in the OP is Trump's Press Secretary.
It may as well be on CNN or any other news channel.

“That don’t matter bro it’s a Tweet who cares it’s the biggest multimedia platform that is the easiest to share clips and stories “
… -NPCs on Sherdog.
But that don’t apply to the person you quoted btw .. but plenty of others on here

 

[avenue94]

Conspiracy theorists have a much better record of being correct.

Lol

No, its a who, because its run by people with interests and goals.

Again, your tax and policy knowledge is so woeful you don't know what the EITC is.

I never said SNIP, so what are you quoting?
Maybe we can get back some of the trillions we've wasted over the last two decades.

A lot of pointless attempts to duck and deflect instead of address the topic of this thread: taxation.

Why would you be against investigations for where several trillion dollars in spending went into?

I'm not opposed to investigations, I'm opposed to them being conducted by unqualified people attempting to drive partisan or unconstitutional goals, rather than good faith attempts to reduce waste.

We've actually discussed the EITC before but apparently you forgot.

If they were ineffective for the past few decades there's nothing to give them faith they would be effective now.

It's amazing that you not only don't know what the EITC is but are so fucking dumb that you can't even google it. Again, EITC is a what, not a who.

 

[avenue94]

Additionally, some owners are taking a deduction on player salaries and a deduction on having purchased the player contracts. There's more complexity here but it revolves around owning the contracts as a separate asset from the operating expenses of paying salaries. Essentially, paying Lebron to play basketball is an operating expense and deductible. But Lebron's contract is an asset with depreciable value because Lebron, the athlete, is worth less money every year (because of age, injury risk, etc.). And that too is deductible, lol.

Does the opposite ever happen, since clearly an athlete's value can increase over time (early in career or after a breakout moment, for example)?

 

[panamaican]

Damn, I can't wait to start negging every headline about a good thing a Democrat in office has done based on what they might do in the future because some other Democrat out there who is not in office has suggested that stupid idea was something they wanted.

It's not really nagging. Didn't they just put one of the architects of Project 2025 into the head of the budget office.

Russell Vought: Senate confirms Project 2025 co-author as Trump budget chief

Democrats call Russell Vought the president's "most dangerous nominee", but Republicans say he will "stop the waste of US taxpayers' dollars".

www.bbc.com

I know it's USAID funded BBC but the confirmation is still a real thing. So, while they might be stupid ideas, plenty of people who believe in those stupid ideas are being placed into positions of authority from which to exert influence over the government.

There comes a point where the number of Project 2025 affiliated appointees and hires stops being coincidence and instead becomes predictive.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

considering we were under trump's tax plan while biden was in office, i expect this to be another inflationary disaster.

 

[panamaican]

Does the opposite ever happen, since clearly an athlete's value can increase over time (early in career or after a breakout moment, for example)?

Not in the tax world, lol.

I'll use something straightforward, like a tractor compared to real estate, to break it down. Tractors are depreciating assets because the tractor wears down over time and thus yields less value the longer you own it. Eventually, the tractor is so old that it's no longer useful. Technically houses are the same. Wood rots, nails rust, shingles wear out, etc. Houses depreciate over time and that's why no one wants to buy a 100 year old house instead of a 10 year old house. Except since you make money renting out houses and there's limited supply, the value of houses go up even though the usefulness of the baseline materials go down.

But depreciation doesn't care about "value" in the supply/demand way because that's too subjective. Instead it cares about value in the materials way.

So an athlete might be more marketable over time but his/her body will never get younger. It's always got one more year of wear and tear on it. It's always one year closer to breaking down permanently. So from a tax perspective, a contract based on the physical asset of an athlete's body is always losing value because no one ages backwards.

 

[avenue94]

Not in the tax world, lol.

I'll use something straightforward, like a tractor compared to real estate, to break it down. Tractors are depreciating assets because the tractor wears down over time and thus yields less value the longer you own it. Eventually, the tractor is so old that it's no longer useful. Technically houses are the same. Wood rots, nails rust, shingles wear out, etc. Houses depreciate over time and that's why no one wants to buy a 100 year old house instead of a 10 year old house. Except since you make money renting out houses and there's limited supply, the value of houses go up even though the usefulness of the baseline materials go down.

But depreciation doesn't care about "value" in the supply/demand way because that's too subjective. Instead it cares about value in the materials way.

So an athlete might be more marketable over time but his/her body will never get younger. It's always got one more year of wear and tear on it. It's always one year closer to breaking down permanently. So from a tax perspective, a contract based on the physical asset of an athlete's body is always losing value because no one ages backwards.

I figured not but was curious just because an athlete as an asset isn't just physical, and even if they were they physically develop. But like you said, it's a tax loophole of sorts. I wonder what accountant came up with that one and if they're famous.

 

[panamaican]

I figured not but was curious just because an athlete as an asset isn't just physical, and even if they were they physically develop. But like you said, it's a tax loophole of sorts. I wonder what accountant came up with that one and if they're famous.

Apparently it was dreamed up decades ago. In the 40s with the Cleveland Indians' owner.

It started with just depreciating the things like stadiums and equipment. So, smart buyers would set the purchase price for a sports franchise based around a valuation for those things. Then they'd just take the depreciation value over time so the franchise shows a loss on paper, even as they make a bundle. Then sell the team down the road and move on.

But this baseball owner came up with a gimmick to depreciate the players themselves. Contracts for players are just accounts payable to a 3rd party. So when he realized that when you buy a team, you don't have to take control of the contracts. Instead you buy the contracts separately, as individual assets. And it's just evolved since then.

I took a great class called "The economics of sports" in college. Really interesting.

 

[panamaican]

I figured not but was curious just because an athlete as an asset isn't just physical, and even if they were they physically develop. But like you said, it's a tax loophole of sorts. I wonder what accountant came up with that one and if they're famous.

Side note - it's why teams are always pushing for new stadiums. Once they've completely depreciated the old stadium, they need a new high value asset to offset against revenue and nothing is bigger than a new stadium itself.

I'd bet this is why Trump originally tried to get into the professional football world back in the day. The massive tax write offs.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Well his last tax plan combined with his economy raised the deficit by $15 trillion. Single largest increase in American history. This one looks on track to do the same.

Well, that’s simply not true. Even the easiest and most basic search disproves this.

 

[syct23]

Haha that man is still pissed they didn’t let him purchase an NFL team…

 

[Zazen]

It's not really nagging. Didn't they just put one of the architects of Project 2025 into the head of the budget office.

Russell Vought: Senate confirms Project 2025 co-author as Trump budget chief

Democrats call Russell Vought the president's "most dangerous nominee", but Republicans say he will "stop the waste of US taxpayers' dollars".

www.bbc.com

I know it's USAID funded BBC but the confirmation is still a real thing. So, while they might be stupid ideas, plenty of people who believe in those stupid ideas are being placed into positions of authority from which to exert influence over the government.

There comes a point where the number of Project 2025 affiliated appointees and hires stops being coincidence and instead becomes predictive.

It’s wild that they still can’t connect the dots. On the appointment thread I posted a video, Vought is behind this federal worker push out. In his own words he wants to “traumatize” them to the point that they cry and no longer want to come into work. Also said he thinks the president should have authority to open fire on protestors. It’s terrifying that you can say stuff like this in the open and still be confirmed.

 

[cincymma79]

All I know is if I have to keep all of my overtime pay I’ll be so fucking pissed. I wanted it to go to penises in Gaza. Fuck a duck I’m so mad.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

To understand how this'll play out in practice, ask yourself:

"Do Trump and Edolf care more about working class people, or acquiring more money and power for billionaires like themselves?"

Anything nice they do for the working class will be tossing you their crumbs, while the real giga tax breaks will go to them and their billionaire friends. Maybe cut taxes a couple percent for the middle class, a whole lot of percent for themselves, put the cost of that on the credit card in the form of national debt

 

[LeonardoBjj]

It’s wild that they still can’t connect the dots. On the appointment thread I posted a video, Vought is behind this federal worker push out. In his own words he wants to “traumatize” them to the point that they cry and no longer want to come into work. Also said he thinks the president should have authority to open fire on protestors. It’s terrifying that you can say stuff like this in the open and still be confirmed.

- Can you link that? And how would Trump do that. He cant own a gun

 

[Protectandserve]

100% no tax on OT would be life changing for my finances.

 

[Misfit23]

This will surely make a huge dent on the deficit!