(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

US tax cuts confuse me .....

Crazy Horse

Crazy Horse

Well-known Member
I know this is O/T but here goes, not like I'm breaking the law right? Reading a newspaper article up here (Canada) this AM about the tax cuts south of the border that were just approved. Some things about what I read leave me scratching my head.

So tax cuts totaling $1.5 trillion USD with corporate rates dropping from 35% to 21% (that must be a pretty generic statement for % drops). Smaller cuts for middle and low-income families. And supposedly leaving middle-class and working Americans behind. The term "middle" shows up in both sentences that I read. Sounds like the middle is benefiting and being left behind at the same time?

Here's my question ....... with all of these tax cuts, there is no mention of: 1) Cuts to public spending or service or 2) An increase in the public debt happening.

It would be nice if all of this could happen in a positive way at the same time but from what little knowledge I have of public finance, it doesn't seem possible does it?
 
You have to be careful about what you are hearing on the tax cuts. The guys that like tax and spend policies are the ones putting all the info into the media and its a safe bet much of it is a lie. On paper the tax cut does add to the debt but the theory is it spurs so much growth in the economy it will cover the short fall due to less taxes. As far as cutting public spending that never seems to happen. There may be less of an increase which some people call a cut but the total amount is never less than the year before. We have too many people in our country looking to the government for hand outs and it has become a way of life for some people. In this country its more important to play politics with an issue than it is to fix it.
 
The money to support our budget has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is the middle class. As I understand it young families with children at home will be hit. They lose a $4100 deduction per child but gain a $2200 or thereabouts credit to go towards their tax bill. Any child older than 17 is not counted as a deduction anymore but the standard family deduction will almost double. I’m not a CPA but from what I read the young family will still lose after the smoke clears and they are least able to afford it.

The independent business owner and farmer will gain with a standard 20% standard deduction.

It’s claimed corporations that pay less tax can pay the employees more. Corporations suck up to their investors first and foremost, not their employees. Their investors will gain more, not the employees. Will the investors pay more income tax on their increased earnings? I don’t have an answer.

DISCLIMER; this is information I read on the net so take it with a grain of salt.
 
Really simple in theory that is. Tax cuts for big business lets then bring back there good made in the U.S.A. and also lets them grow bigger and hire more people which in turn causes the amount of taxes being pay to go up because more stuff is made In the U.S. and more people and buying and also working. Simple numbers game and corp. taxes In the U.S. where so high that many places have shipped the jobs overseas which hurts the U.S.
 
Don't have the information to know who or who doesn't benefit the most. But government keeps wanting more money and the debt keeps going up so somebody in the future is going to get taxes raised or someone else owns the USA. Probably the classis that have the least influence on capital hill will get the biggest tax increase. Probably before the 8 year cut runs out if I was a betting man.
 
Pertaining to the spending cuts of public money, the reform to govt entitlements is supposed to be the next target. Let's hope it gets some people moving...
 
Old, companies don?t hire because they have extra money, from a tax break or any other reason. Companies hire only if they need more people because the market demands more of their products than they can supply with their existing workforce.

On the other hand, consumers will buy more if they have more money to spend. That creates more jobs because demand goes up.

Trickle down is smoke and mirrors. It only makes the people at the top of the pyramid richer.

It has already had a negative impact on the US credit rating. The interest cost on the debt just went up. There will be large cuts to social programs like social security retirement benefits and social security disability benefits.
 
The percentage numbers given can be so deceiving. I never quite understand the main percentage basis and the percentage basis is changed by who gives the data and what they want the data to say. If the basis is the total dollars in tax cuts for the entire country (billions of dollars) then the percentages are higher for the wealthy and corporations because they pay more than anyone else. For example an average person gets $1000 in tax cuts but the basis is billions then the percentage for a given person is very low. If the basis is one individuals tax savings divided by how much that same person currently pays in taxes the numbers look better for the middle class.
 
Yes. You understand perfectly......

Taxes are about redistributing wealth.

Wealth is redistributed to gain votes.

The USA is carved into 2 political parties, neither of which care about the citizens or the country of the USA. They apcare about getting more votes.

And so taxes are created, and loopholes in the taxes are created, to buy more votes.

The tax system become more and more complicated, and less and less fair, as this system of adding taxes and subtracting loopholes goes on.

All in the name of buying votes for one side or the other.

No govt really cares about balancing the budget.

The past abundant administration spent, spent, spent. They didn't balance anything. This appeals to one segment of the country.

Past and current more conservative governments try to tax less. They don't balance anything either. This appeals to a different segment of the country.

And so the games continue on.

No one cares about balancing anything.

Most other countries are run about the same way. Truth be told.

I believe my message is not very political, in that I'm not for or against either side - just telling you the facts.

I'm sure this thread will be pulled for political reasons tho, before you even get to read what I wrote.

Paul
 
Trouble is,somewhere along the line,somebody rewrote history and convinced people that it was Reagan's tax cuts that turned things around in the 80s. Fact is,it wasn't high taxes that caused the trouble in the 70s. It was high inflation and high interest rates. That was the result of Nixon,Ford and Carter funding deficits by printing money. Reagan cut a deal with Congress to stop printing money and fund deficit spending by borrowing money until Congress could get spending under control.
They never did get it under control,so now we've borrowed ourselves in to oblivion and the (R)s who've always ranted and raved against deficits have passed legislation to make matters even worse.

What's left? Printing money again? This is not gonna end well.
 
The tax cut bill authorizes borrowing 1.5 trillion. This is unlikely to be anywhere near enough to pay for the tax cuts, so expect future cuts to "entitlement" programs: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Here's a quick explanation of how things work down here in Baja Ontario:
- Borrowing money to improve education and/or infrastructure: BAD!
- Borrowing money to benefit oligarchs and plutocrats: GOOD!
 
A way to stimulate the USA economy is to lower the value of the USA dollar. We had that for a few years in the past decade, but not long enough.

The folks on the cosasts went into a panic, stock market fell, the dollar value fell. And the govt did everything it could to turn that around, prop up the stock market, make the dollar very strong again....

But with a low dollar value, we were able to export a lot of raw materials at a very nice profit (grains, lumber, ethanol, even fuels from crude). Given more time, we were able to export manufactured goods and compete with China, Mexico, etc and actually improve our balance of trade. As well manufacturers could make stuff in the USA and sell here, competitively with imported goods.

But it did not last long enough to get our exports and our manufacturing up to speed for long term.

The big investment and insurance companies won, and we have returned to a strong USA dollar and poor manufacturing envioronment.

That's too bad.

Paul
 
Yep...the gap between government spending and revenue will get bigger.Either cut spending or print more money.They will chose the latter thereby causing even more inflation.Government has to address it's obscene deficit spending.
 
Paul I’m not a good thinker when it comes to national economics so I have to ask questions. How will the US lower the dollar? What avenues have to be taken? A lower dollar will help farm exports and I’m all for that.
 
I bought this place in 1988 from Federal Land Bank the owner who lost it was paying 22% int. I just read in Farm World yesterday that the Feds raised the rates Dec 13 to 1.5 from 1.25% and are planning on raising 3 times in 2018 by 0.25 and 2 more in 2019. Jim
 
When things settle down and the other party shuts the blank up. Government always wants more money, more power, and more control. The biggest thing that I can see with this bill is to lower the corporate taxes. This country taxes the begabbers out of companies with the highest taxes in the world. Can you wonder why everything gets shipped overseas? Where in the world does the average brain dead person think jobs come from? The government doesn't create jobs. They just collect taxes and then spend them on plenty of stupid stuff with some good stuff thrown in. The guys that are trying to drain the swamp are starting to make a little progress and you can see how much kicking and screaming the other side is doing because some of their power is being taken away. Now this really is my opinion and I am sure others disagree, but we need to start somewhere! ! The personal taxes are different. How much of you salary goes to taxes? Now is 20-25-28-30-40% enough? Guess what sparkey, you are wrong! Everything you use, buy,eat, wear, drive, ride on or in is TAXED! There are layers and multiple layers of taxes that corporations and the government stick it to you. That loaf of bread, how many layers of taxes are added up and passed on to YOU? See where this is going. Nothing is simole when it comes to government . It can be a very big and very rotten onion.
 
Dollar used to be backed by gold.That
changed in the early 70's.Government now has
power to print as much as they want.The more
that's printed the less it's
worth.Economists call it fiat money.Read the
book"What have they done to our money".Can't
remember the auther.You can Google it.All I
know is that sound money is always backed by
something of value.You can't say that about
the dollar anymore.Basically the feds are
counterfeiting.Like someone else said here
on this post the problem gets kicked into
the future.
 
The Federal Reserve (nothing 'Federal' about it) has been 'printing' money since it started in 1913,that's why in 1913 20 Federal Reserve Notes could buy an ounce of Gold now it takes
around 1300 of them to get the ounce.Heck of a coincidence that the economy suddenly took off in 1983 when the tax cuts cut in,biggest thing was that new equipment
could be quickly depreciated company I worked for bought about a Million$ worth of equipment because of the tax break.BTW JFK did the same thing back in the early 60's.
 
Don't worry Mr. Lund as our monetary problems will soon be over once we switch from the dollar to Bitcoins. You know, that online currency that was created from nothing and is now worth millions.
 
In the big picture it's really rather simple.

Any tax cut is a good thing.

Any tax increase is a bad thing.

Obviously, the two statements immediately above assume one is not a government employee, in which case any tax increase is good and any tax cut is bad.

The recently enacted tax bill is certainly not what I wanted or even what I expected but was probably as good as anyone could have expected given the number of nnalert and establishment RINOS in the House and Senate, so I'll take it.

Those of you who are students of history will know that tax cuts have always resulted in increased federal tax revenues due to improved economic activity.

Stay tuned.

Dean
 
Inflation is not the rise in prices but the value of the dollar going down.Which is why it takes more money to buy something that used to be cheaper.
 
> You know, that online currency that was created from nothing and is now worth millions.

From "nothing"? It takes about a thousand bucks to make a single nnalert these days. Electricity and hardware cost money.
nnalert mining uses more electricity than 159 countries
 
Something like 80% of us get a tax cut but for those who say its a terrible thing they can go ahead and send big brother federal govt some extra LOL There are of course some out there who oppose having taxes cut and I respect their opinion and I pray they will see the light........

Best wishes and God Bless all, those who like a tax cut and those who want to pay more FREE CHOICE pay extra if you like

The stock market and jobs jobs jobs are booming the past year (way different then past 8 yrs) yayyyyyyyyyyyyy making America Great Again

I can make better and more efficient use of my own money then big brother even if some CAN NOT

John T Merry Christmas to all here
 
They want to confuse you and me. They'll give us a break for a few years then wack it to us. That is the working class who put them in office. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
 
In terms of revenues to the federal government, corporate tax revenue is much less than I thought it may be, when I looked into this a few months ago. The largest source of revenue is individual income taxes. Again, I cannot recall, but I seem to recall the corporate tax revenues may be 1/5 or 1/6 the amount of individual income tax revenues. I was in a college graduate school course a few years ago and I recall it being specifically stated the United States has the highest corporate tax rates on the planet. It was also noted in that course, the intent to "repatriate" a few trillion dollars of corporate revenues from companies who are global, with respect to the economy. These revenues have been held overseas for some time, with these global companies waiting for lower taxes, or even some sort of "tax holiday." Domestic firms have moved their headquarters to other nations with lower corporate tax rates because of the high tax rates in this country. Lowering the corporate tax rate could very well bring those revenues back home and subject them to federal taxation. I do not recall what the end result was thought to be, but I think there was a strong belief this could produce a significant income boost to the federal government, particularly when we face $20 trillion in debt, and still increasing. I also recall reading about the 2016 budget, along with the 2016 revenues ($3.3 trillion) and the debt added ($600 billion) in 2016. A critical problem is the program areas funded by the government ($3.9 trillion), particularly the mandatory programs such as Social Security (23%), Medicare (15%), Medicaid (9.4%), other mandatory programs which include food assistance, unemployment, retirement, and others (14.4%). Interest payment (6.4%), defense ((15.9%), and other discretionary spending ((16%) which include education, highway, veterans benefits, housing, etc. So, where do we start cutting? The revenues ($3.3 trillion) are: Social Security (33%), individual income taxes (45.4%), corporate taxes (7.7%), and other (7.7%). I don't have a great suggestion or idea on how to solve the problems we face as a nation. We cannot tax our way to prosperity, nor can be "cut" our way to prosperity. It frightens me to think about all that debt if/when interest rates are increased! Our government's fiscal house has been in disarray for numerous years. Our debt to GDP (gross domestic product) is at a level not seen since after the end of World War II. I do not think I am wrong here, but the only way I see to even start solving the problem is to increase revenues (increase taxes) and place some cuts to spending (reduce expenditures), so that we as a nation can start operating "in the black" once again? I think we all know our households and family finances cannot operate under these circumstances for long, nor can any business.
 
Just remember Big Brother Government CAN NOT GIVE ANYHTING TO ONE PERSON THEY DONT TAKE AWAY FROM ANOTHER. Wow theyre giving us a tax cut (for which I'm very happy) IT WAS OUR MONEY THEY TOOK FROM US IN THE FIRST PLACE grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr I'm a believer in free market capitalism versus big brother socialism and communism but respect others who disagree, that's why we had an election.........

God Bless all regardless of politics and Merry Christmas

John T
 
I suspect that gets back to the politics involved and I have never heard an explanation for it. I would guess it will be headlines in 8 years and something will happen with it but who knows. Maybe we will all be so rich by then it won't matter. LOL
 
[i:654c4848f0]If what you say is true, why do the reduced taxes on the working people disappear in eight years?[/i:654c4848f0]

Because those same people Charlie mentioned wouldn't vote to make them permanent. The folks in power had to do this as a resolution, which limits them to reassessing after so many years (I thought 10). The side complaining about this part forced it to be this way, mainly so they'd have this to complain about.

It looks like a benefit for folks with lower state/county taxes but the Feds are phasing out their subsidies for the higher tax states such as CA, MA, MD. You will now only be able to deduct a max of $10k of local taxes on your fed form. They also increased the standard deduction, so many more folks will be able to file the short form.

It's a start in the right direction, but they need to reign in spending to match.
 
Talk a close look at the latest $100 bill with the blue security stripe.
I believe its printing started in 2009 & circulation started in 2014?

Compare the left & right sides.
What do you see?

Very interesting!
Do an internet search for more info.
 
I bought a new John Deere 4040 in February of 1981 at 18.5%. I had one land contract at 7% which I figured was a gift. I had another one at 11%. It would have been higher,but that was the limit by law at the time. I knew people who had production loans at 21%. You can't sustain an economy at rates like that.
 
The other day one of the Senators said that he would vote against the bill unless larger "tax credits" were introduced for the children of low income families that don't pay taxes in the first place. How does one give a credit on something when nothing was paid out to begin with? I'm not trying to be a grinch, but call it what it is...increased welfare. And to your point, where are the spending cuts? There aren't any because in theory, by cutting corporate taxes, that should increase in corporate spending and investments, which should equate to increased production and hiring here versus overseas where cheaper taxes and labor costs exist. Time will tell. This weekend, tomorrow I think is another spending Continuing Resolution because the folks whose job it is to come up with a budget, have all year to do it, fail to do so year after year AND with Baseline budgeting where a budget automatically pays for any and every program that has ever been budgeted for because nothing ever is removed from spending even if the program is deleted. At that point, the body that has the whole year to come up with a budget and never does anymore should only have to add the costs of new programs to last years budget, increased by inflation. Its Baseline budgeting that is the killer because its autopilot budget for every program that ever existed and does not allow for no longer existing programs to be deleted from budgets. Try running your farm or household like that and see what the banker tells you.

Mark
 
It has showed up in his text for several months now. Looks like he has a bad key on the key board or something, screwed up. I have wanted to ask for days.
 
Yes, USA does have very high basic corporate tax rates. HOWEVER, nobody is talking about the literally THOUSANDS of deductions that are available to corporations. There are also thousands of corporate tax lawyers who ferret out these deductions for their clients. Bottom line is that most corporations in USA pay very low taxes, compared to rest of the developed world. I find it quite ironic that these corporate tax cuts were passed during a time of fantastic corporate wealth, record high stock market. History shows us that tax cuts to large corporations only result in large CEO and stockholder profits. USA tax rates are NOT prohibiting growth in USA, but rather corporate greed.
 
Actually "trickle down" seems to be working just fine. Have you listened to all the companies that announced raises and bonuses in the last 24 hours?
 
Nothing will change, never does. I'll get up tomorrow and still be broke. All smoke and mirrors. There isn't a single "public servant" worth a dime, and that goes for the R and the D, and all in between. This tax thing is just a slap ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves for looking like we are useful.
 
What's it like in the bubble you live? You think we're headed in the right direction under the people in power now? If you are an honest hard working guy, they think your up to something. You guys have a Merry Christmas, regardless.
 
I think when we bought this place in 88 I was paying 7.5%. The article said the Feds want it stabilize around 2.8%. I think the prime right now at 4.5% so may be looking at 6-7% by end of 2019. All the people with large credit card balances may get quite a shock before long.
 
No. If the family is doing well and is in the 25% tax bracket getting to deduct $4050 (dependent deduction) from income means they save $1012 in taxes, if they get $2200 TAX CREDIT they get $1,188 more. If they are in the 15% tax bracket they get $607.50 (4050 * .15) in tax savings but getting $2200 in TAX CREDIT means they get $1592 more in cash.
 
(quoted from post at 16:25:04 12/21/17) What's it like in the bubble you live? You think we're headed in the right direction under the people in power now? If you are an honest hard working guy, they think your up to something. You guys have a Merry Christmas, regardless.
Click to expand...

All I can say is it's better than the last guy who explained to every business owner that "you didn't build that" because they rely on existing infrastructure when growing a business. Underlying theme he was trying to promote is we should just sit and watch TV and let the government provide for us. From where? Makes my blood boil.

But I agree, tax incentives for business are much better than across the board reduction of taxes. Section 179 promotes equipment purchases.
 
> Just remember Big Brother Government CAN NOT GIVE ANYHTING TO ONE PERSON THEY DONT TAKE AWAY FROM ANOTHER.

In this case, they're taking it from our children and grandchildren, since it's borrowed money and our kids will be paying it back. For a LONG time.
 
> Can you wonder why everything gets shipped overseas?

Sure. It's more profitable to ship production overseas. It has been for decades, and it will continue to be for the foreseeable future. The idea that cutting corporate taxes will be sufficient incentive to bring production back home is nonsense; when you have a labor source that's willing to work for almost free, that's where corporations will go.
 
I agree Mark, good post. For years the Libs have been spending till the cows come home (In external_link years the natl debt exploded) and you're right its our kids that have to pay grrrrrrrrrrr

Best wishes and you have a Merry Christmas

John T
 
> It takes about a $1000 to produce something that has no value? Why bother?

What do you mean by "value"? Something has value because someone is willing to exchange some other thing of value to buy it. After all, the substances that make up a human body are only worth a few bucks, yet we put great value on a single human life. The scrap value of a Ferrari Testarossa and a Chrysler Cordoba are about the same, yet folks seem much more eager to get their hands on a Ferrari, even though it does NOT have Rich Corinthian Leather! Tolstoy's [i:654c4848f0]War and Peace[/i:654c4848f0] is just a bunch of words strung together; why would I pay to read it when our President gives us a word salad every day for free?

nnalert miners are willing to spend a grand mining a single nnalert because they can sell it for a LOT more than $1000.
 
Where is it written that government revenues must increase, or even not decrease?

There is no reason to borrow money to be paid back by our children. Enough of that has been done already.

Rather, it's time to reduce government spending and (gasp!) downsize government.

Dean
 
IIRC, the "last guy" of which you speak was really the last gal, Fauxcahauntus, AKA, Liawatha, likely to be the next dem presidential candidate, liz warren. God help us all.

Dean
 
> There is no reason to borrow money to be paid back by our children. Enough of that has been done already.

Then why did Congress just vote to borrow 1.5 trillion dollars? Please explain.
 
> Those of you who are students of history will know that tax cuts have always resulted in increased federal tax revenues due to improved economic activity.

As a student of history, I'm well aware that over the past thirty years, every cut in federal income taxes has resulted in a dramatic increase in the budget deficit. And when states have tried it, the results have been the same. Take, for example, Kansas, which eliminated taxes on pass-through income only to find (SURPRISE!) that revenues plummeted. The state legislature was forced to reverse its own tax cuts to keep the state government solvent.

Now, even a broken clock is right twice a day, so I suppose it's possible to have a stupendous tax cut and somehow not run up a ridiculous deficit. But it sure hasn't happened yet. And the fact that right off the bat, we're borrowing a couple trillion dollars to pay for the tax cuts is pretty clear evidence nobody in Congress believes we won't run up a deficit this time around.
 
Agree with you but the government has encourage companys fleeing over seas for many years. Nothing new . Hopefully these new laws will slow or stop the out going flood. One problem that is fat bigger is how forien companys reverse engineer stuff and then all of these knock off products are allowed back in at not even 1/4 of the cost to bmanufacture them here. Pattens we dont need no stincking pattens.
 
Cheer up Ollie - you have 6 to 10 years to form your own corporation or else face even higher taxes. How could you ask for a better deal than that?

I'm just kidding you Ollie - I'm approaching 69 years old, and I really don't care what they do, or don't do. I know it does no good to dwell on the supposed pros and cons, because none of us know anything about it, other than what we're told on our favorite propaganda machine, and we all know that the free press is fake news.
 
Lol. I'm only 51 and I'm hoping to start drawing on one of my pensions at 55..it was doing good until this last year. Now it's not doing anything. Thought stocks going up I would be rich but it has had a reverse affect. Guess I will have to get in the chow line.
 
Our kids and grand kids will not be paying anything back. Did you ever get a bill for your "share" of the national debt? I think not. Neither will our descendants. To me, it is all just more smoke and mirrors. If I applied my entire net worth to the national debt, I would not even come near to what my "share" would be. Not too many on this forum would be much different.
As far as I can see, the national debt is just some numbers on a piece of paper. Big numbers on a big piece of paper. We owe a lot to China. And, if we do not pay them what happens? Basically nothing. Are they going to foreclose on Alaska? Florida? California? None of the above!.
This will not affect my daily life one bit. I will still get up at about the same time, eat about the same meals, and go to bed about the same time. I may watch a bit of TV or sit on the computer a while. I might even work on one of my waiting projects. Overall, debt or not, my life will be about the same. So will my kids' lives and their kids' lives.
Time to worry about something I have some control over. {{yawn}}
 
Here's my question ....... with all of these tax cuts, there is no mention of: 1) Cuts to public spending or service or 2) An increase in the public debt happening.
Click to expand...
Because this is about tax reform. Next big thing will be the budget and there is where there will be much snarling and gnashing of teeth.
 
It's going to be good for the folks that make over $800,000.00, the rest of us are getting screwed! Times like this I'm glad we don't have grandchildren, they're going to have to pay for this mess!
 
There are thousands of small corporations also that do not move overseas to avoid the high tax rates. This tax bill will help those small companies.
 
Does anyone really think the National Debt will ever be paid back? Plus most of it has been financed by the Fed creating the money on their computer screens and handing it over to
the big banks to 'buy' the debt bonds.And since the Federal Reserve isn't part of the US Gov't we won't be on the hook for their failures only money the US Mint produces is coins.
 
> Where was all this concern of the debt the previous administration ran up? Crickets.....!

I've always been concerned about the deficit, starting when Ronnie blew it sky-high with tax cuts and out-of-control military spending. We got a repeat performance when Dubya, who was handed a SURPLUS by Slick, decided to squander it on tax cuts and a pet war in Iraq.

Yes, BO cut taxes and ran up a deficit, leading to wails of protest from many folks here. But borrowing money to build up infrastructure and generate jobs at a time when the economy is on its knees is just good sense and very likely saved the country from a deep depression. Borrowing money to reward billionaire political contributors at a time when the economy is booming isn't good sense. It's called kleptocracy.
 
> Does anyone really think the National Debt will ever be paid back?

No, the debt is never paid off. But we continue to pay the interest on it in perpetuity, and at a certain point the interest paid on the debt will exceed the revenue available to pay it. Note that today, interest rates are near a historical low, so it's really cheap for the government to borrow money. But if the promised (and very unrealistic) growth predictions actually materialize, the Fed will raise interest rates to put the brakes on inflation. Re-financing the existing debt will get a lot more expensive, which will increase the need for revenue to cover interest.

No Toto, we're not in Sam Brownback's Kansas. But it sure seems familiar.
 
(quoted from post at 10:00:27 12/22/17) > Where was all this concern of the debt the previous administration ran up? Crickets.....!

I've always been concerned about the deficit, starting when Ronnie blew it sky-high with tax cuts and out-of-control military spending. We got a repeat performance when Dubya, who was handed a SURPLUS by Slick, decided to squander it on tax cuts and a pet war in Iraq.

Yes, BO cut taxes and ran up a deficit, leading to wails of protest from many folks here. But borrowing money to build up infrastructure and generate jobs at a time when the economy is on its knees is just good sense and very likely saved the country from a deep depression. Borrowing money to reward billionaire political contributors at a time when the economy is booming isn't good sense. It's called kleptocracy.
Click to expand...

There was never an actual "surplus". Revenue exceeded spending for a very short time, but scheduled spending increases would have wiped that out regardless of who was President, especially after 9/11.
 
(quoted from post at 12:56:32 12/21/17) I know this is O/T but here goes, not like I'm breaking the law right? Reading a newspaper article up here (Canada) this AM about the tax cuts south of the border that were just approved. Some things about what I read leave me scratching my head.

So tax cuts totaling $1.5 trillion USD with corporate rates dropping from 35% to 21% (that must be a pretty generic statement for % drops). Smaller cuts for middle and low-income families. And supposedly leaving middle-class and working Americans behind. The term "middle" shows up in both sentences that I read. Sounds like the middle is benefiting and being left behind at the same time?

Here's my question ....... with all of these tax cuts, there is no mention of: 1) Cuts to public spending or service or 2) An increase in the public debt happening.

It would be nice if all of this could happen in a positive way at the same time but from what little knowledge I have of public finance, it doesn't seem possible does it?
Click to expand...

I didn't go through all the posts here, but I'll respond to the OP. The "middle class" will be able to effectively double it's child tax credit and standard deduction. Small business will reap a lot from this too. Dropping the corporate rates has ALWAYS historically resulted in an uptick in business investment- that means JOBS for the middle class.

You ID the one big issue- spending. No one in Washington wants to cut a dime. It's got to be done by someone. There are billions wasted on things like NPR/PBS/CPB, the National Endowment for the Arts, Dept of Interior, military waste and fraud, Medicare/Medicaid fraud and over payments, etc. I won't even touch on some of the more hot button issues like the Farm Bill. We have to cut spending, simple as that.
 
Sigh.

The party out of power criticizes the party in power for what they're doing. The party out of power gets in power,does the same thing,but it's OK because the other party did the same thing. And we wonder why nothing ever gets any better.

Some people just don't have the guts to pull the plug and stop defending the nonsense.
 
The moderator tried to explain it down on the site comments forum a little while ago. Nothing they can do right now to prevent it I guess.
 
I generally think the new tax bill is a good thing--not perfect by far--but a good thing. Anytime something changes, there are winners and losers. It looks to me like most Federal income taxpayers will benefit from this bill, at least for the next decade (I would have preferred the provisions ad been permanent rather than having expiration dates). My own annual taxable income is well under $100,000, and the doubling of the standard deduction is going to benefit my family considerably.
People are too prone to be envious of others. It does NOT harm me if some other company or individual makes more money. It is a good thing if such entities are doing well, as that is how wealth is created, and it tends to get spread around eventually. If someone is making a lot of money in a capitalistic economy, it means they are producing goods or services people really want. I may personally disagree with the real value of such a good or service, but the overall market has spoken. The USA has had the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and that encourages companies to move (and take the jobs) to other places. I do understand that the very high corporate tax rates are mitigated somewhat by numerous deductions, but I think it is better to have a lower tax rate with fewer deductions, as that makes for a more honest system with less game playing and manipulation. Accountants and tax lawyers at the main people who benefit from having such a complex system of deductions, exclusions, credits, etc. A fundamental law of economics is that when you tax something, you get less of it, and when you subsidize it, you get more of it. In other words high taxes on business activity will discourage it, while paying unemployment compensation tends to prolong the period of joblessness.
It is likely true that this tax bill will let the richer people retain more dollars than poorer people, but that is because the wealthy pay so much more in income taxes than poorer people. Right now, the bottom half of the population pay nearly nothing in federal income taxes, so it stands to reason an income tax cut is not going to help someone that is already not paying any.
 
I didn't go through all the posts here, but I'll respond to the OP. The "middle class" will be able to effectively double it's child tax credit and standard deduction.

From what I read,that's not correct. The standard deduction for a married couple doubles to $24,000,but the deduction for children is gone. A married couple with two kids actually looses over $5000 in standard deductions as I read it.
 
Problem is no one receiving Gov't $$$$ will take a cut,so anyone that voted to cut almost anything would be out of office at the next election.Any American that wants to
see the root cause of the debt just needs to head to the nearest mirror.
 
WOW! Lot of nonsense in this thread!

Like the comment that the middle class pays most of the taxes. People earning 199,999 dollars a year or less account for 34% of taxes according to Pew Research. Pew by the way is kinda like the gold standard for research. People making over 200,000 a year pay the rest with less than 1% of the population making over 2 million a year paying about 27% of taxes collected. People earning less than 30K a year pay about 1.4% of taxes after refunds.

I suggest that instead of listening to one party or the other spouting nonsense that people stop using social media and forums to get their information and spend just a couple of minutes actually looking stuff up before jumping on the band wagon.

It's kinda like the pie charts they show us to let us know where the government spends it's money. Because of how it's broken down it too is a lie. Biggest example is social programs. Money for that is spread out in budgets for USDA, Department of Housing, Department of Education, Department of Health and Department of Energy. Some foreign aid isn't under the State Department either, falls under military spending. The politicians are very good at hiding where the money is going to.

As far as the new tax cuts? Don't know what's going to happen. I do know that as of last night 47% of big business had already stated that they are either raising workers pay, paying bonuses and or going to expand/renovate/expand which should increase the number of jobs available.

Government jobs programs as some touted on here are not very effective and never have been. external_link's programs didn't really create many new jobs but did protect some existing one. Roosevelt's programs were kinda a flop too. They just didn't provide enough jobs to really stimulate a recovery. Historians are now saying that the US didn't start to recover from the Great Depression until sometime in 1938 when factory orders from belligerent nations in Europe made them start ordering US goods. The US didn't fully recover until 1942 when factories started picking up contracts to provide war materials to the US. Germany on the other hand started their recovery in 1933 when a despicable man named Hitler took power. By 1936 the German economy was doing great, all do to the government placing orders for military equipment. The point is that governments are terrible at creating jobs. Companies make jobs based on sales.

Rick
 
Rick, I'm referring to your statement ......... "I do know that as of last night 47% of big business had already stated that they are
either raising workers pay, paying bonuses and or going to expand/renovate/expand which should increase the number of jobs available."

Here's my take on it. Worded statements are exactly that, worded statements and nothing more. It's like saying "I'm sorry", the two
easiest words in the English language to say that have the least amount of meaning. If the corporate tax rate is being cut, why would a
corporation who is in the business for one reason and one reason only (ie. making money for themselves and their shareholders) consider
shutting things down offshore where they are paying $2 per hour for their labor and then pay $20 per hour on this side of the ocean? Oh
yes, I forgot, they're good old boys thinking of you and me. Ha, I don't think so.

And of course, the information you have gleaned about this is accurate (unlike a lot of the other guys on here that are spouting nonsense).
One thing I do know Rick is this ....... you are getting your information from the internet, and 99.9% of it is probably worth exactly what
you pay for it (the information that is, I know you pay for internet service).
 
(quoted from post at 08:20:33 12/22/17) Rick, I'm referring to your statement ......... "I do know that as of last night 47% of big business had already stated that they are
either raising workers pay, paying bonuses and or going to expand/renovate/expand which should increase the number of jobs available."

Here's my take on it. Worded statements are exactly that, worded statements and nothing more. It's like saying "I'm sorry", the two
easiest words in the English language to say that have the least amount of meaning. If the corporate tax rate is being cut, why would a
corporation who is in the business for one reason and one reason only (ie. making money for themselves and their shareholders) consider
shutting things down offshore where they are paying $2 per hour for their labor and then pay $20 per hour on this side of the ocean? Oh
yes, I forgot, they're good old boys thinking of you and me. Ha, I don't think so.

And of course, the information you have gleaned about this is accurate (unlike a lot of the other guys on here that are spouting nonsense).
One thing I do know Rick is this ....... you are getting your information from the internet, and 99.9% of it is probably worth exactly what
you pay for it (the information that is, I know you pay for internet service).
Click to expand...

Granted the 47% was from the news. I don't really trust the news that much but that so far is the only figure available.

And no, the companies that rely on cheap labor are not going to bring jobs back. That doesn't mean new jobs won't be created. But expansions/renovations ECT make jobs too. The rest of the figures I stated were from Pew Research. I'm not saying the are 100% :lol: (had to toss a number in there) accurate but as I said they are kinda considered the gold standard for research. Those are the tax numbers I posted.

But when the masses have money/more money to spend demand goes up. That demand creates more jobs than the government ever did. During the depression those who got jobs from government programs did not spend that money on personal stuff like the government expected. They spent it on basic needs because a brother or sister needed it. Same thing happened during the Carter/Reagan recession. Junior/Juniorett had moved back home so any extra income or tax savings went for food. Don't know what's going to happen now.

As for what we were taught in school concerning the Great Depression? Historians are looking at that again and finding that a lot of the stuff I was taught isn't accurate. For example, the government claimed that about 33% were unemployed. Well government census wasn't very accurate back then. Plus people were moving all over the place. Historians today are saying at the worst unemployment was as high as 80%. Keeping in mind that in my life unemployment has been as high as 28% (some claim as high as 33%) and we were not experiencing a depression? That 80% figure becomes believable.

Rick
 
Regardless of how you spin it, my 43 years of active employment isn't going to change because a politician manipulated the tax code. My $1,900 a month pension estimate is still going to be just that. The $800 monthly for insurance will still be the same. I can wish for more but $1,100 a month is still what I'm getting if I were to retire. 43 years of work has done nothing for my chances of living on a pension. My medical debt for my disabled adult son will still be the same. Guess they will box me up where I sit at work and bury me when I can no longer work.
 
Politicians should just stop using issues that they have no intention of doing anything about then.
 
> here was never an actual "surplus". Revenue exceeded spending for a very short time, but scheduled spending increases would have wiped that out regardless of who was President, especially after 9/11.

Bret, the point isn't whether or not Dollar Bill handed Junior a surplus. It's how Junior, starting out with a budget that was more-or-less balanced, deliberately ran it into the red. The interesting thing is that Dubya could have maintained a balanced budget if he had either backed out the tax cuts or opted not to invade Iraq. (A country, you will recall, that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.) It was the one-two punch of tax cuts and wars that blew out the deficit. Now, when Junior decided to invade Iraq, he could have said, "Ya know, everybody will have to suffer a bit so we can make Iraq safe for Islamist militants. So I'm asking Congress to roll back our tax cuts so we can pay for this little adventure." Instead, every year he presented a "balanced budget" to Congress that explicitly excluded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so he could PRETEND to have a balanced budget while actually borrowing money to fund the wars.
 
Viewed as a modern development, the roots of NESARA can be found in the response by the Supreme Court to banking foreclosures against farm property which the Court found to be illegal.
 
(quoted from post at 11:50:12 12/22/17) I didn't go through all the posts here, but I'll respond to the OP. The "middle class" will be able to effectively double it's child tax credit and standard deduction.

From what I read,that's not correct. The standard deduction for a married couple doubles to $24,000,but the deduction for children is gone. A married couple with two kids actually looses over $5000 in standard deductions as I read it.
Click to expand...

It's not a deduction, it's a "credit" and yes, it doubles from $1k per child to $2K. http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/16/news/economy/child-tax-credit/index.html
 
(quoted from post at 17:03:20 12/22/17) > here was never an actual "surplus". Revenue exceeded spending for a very short time, but scheduled spending increases would have wiped that out regardless of who was President, especially after 9/11.

Bret, the point isn't whether or not Dollar Bill handed Junior a surplus. It's how Junior, starting out with a budget that was more-or-less balanced, deliberately ran it into the red. The interesting thing is that Dubya could have maintained a balanced budget if he had either backed out the tax cuts or opted not to invade Iraq. (A country, you will recall, that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.) It was the one-two punch of tax cuts and wars that blew out the deficit. Now, when Junior decided to invade Iraq, he could have said, "Ya know, everybody will have to suffer a bit so we can make Iraq safe for Islamist militants. So I'm asking Congress to roll back our tax cuts so we can pay for this little adventure." Instead, every year he presented a "balanced budget" to Congress that explicitly excluded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so he could PRETEND to have a balanced budget while actually borrowing money to fund the wars.
Click to expand...

I recall exactly what happened and how everyone from Hi llary to Bush was in agreement that Sa dam was up to no good, and since we found everything except the nuke addressed to Hometown USA, I'd say that was born out. Regardless, the following administration doubled that debt. You can blame everything on Bu sh or Rea gan (that "Star Wars" idea is looking pretty good with Kim I'm Crazy running North Korea) or Clinton and Oba ma. My point is that politicians, on both sides, manipulate numbers to their best advantage despite evidence to the contrary.
 
Check out the pedigree of your news sources before you take any stock in news articles. Fake,altered, tilted, opinionated, half truths, only telling one side of the story, or a particular part for political gain....... etc and etc is alive and well; nothing new, just out front these days where people can see it and realize it happens.

The way I see it is that the benefit the little and "fair to middlin" (term for a grade of cotton) guys and gals get out of the deal will be a robust economy....already happening with DJIA putting on 5000 points since the election, unemployment lowest in 17 years, 401k savings busting at the seams if lucky enough to have one and on and on. Several big companys have already announced end of the year bonuses for many of their tiers of managers.

So add that to anything you can glean out of your 1040 bottom line as a result and it's a win win situation. Infrastructure bills are coming out after the first of the year...has bipartisan support in the congress so should be an easy sell.....jobs plus reduced wear and tear on your auto plus shorter times to get to work for the road improvement part....new bridges...on and on.

The glass is "half full".
 
(quoted from post at 11:55:13 12/23/17) Check out the pedigree of your news sources before you take any stock in news articles. Fake,altered, tilted, opinionated, half truths, only telling one side of the story, or a particular part for political gain....... etc and etc is alive and well; nothing new, just out front these days where people can see it and realize it happens.

The way I see it is that the benefit the little and "fair to middlin" (term for a grade of cotton) guys and gals get out of the deal will be a robust economy....already happening with DJIA putting on 5000 points since the election, unemployment lowest in 17 years, 401k savings busting at the seams if lucky enough to have one and on and on. Several big companys have already announced end of the year bonuses for many of their tiers of managers.

So add that to anything you can glean out of your 1040 bottom line as a result and it's a win win situation. Infrastructure bills are coming out after the first of the year...has bipartisan support in the congress so should be an easy sell.....jobs plus reduced wear and tear on your auto plus shorter times to get to work for the road improvement part....new bridges...on and on.


[u:8581af38b6]AND... all of the bonus's paid,,, will be taxed as income, at a much higher rate, to the individual who receives it.[/u:8581af38b6] To all of you naysayers, remember,,, that's more taxes paid into the coffers that you dont have to pay. And paid at a higher rate bracket that those people are in.

And lowering corp tax rates, means more business can be in 'merica.

What we need to fix also...is that there should be NO taxes for money made overseas. Those companies have paid taxes already in the countries where the money was made. Taxing money made overseas, means that more companies will move headquarters out of country... And it makes it cheaper to invest out of country. That policy actually encourages companies to invest elsewhere. We dont let Japan tax money made in america, why the heJJ would we try to tax money made over there? Cisco is an american router company and literally has billions of dollars made from its world wide sales. BUt if they were to bring the money home, it would cost them, an additional 15% or more. So they just build more offices and jobs overseas. Many countries they sell in, demand that offices and jobs be provided there or they cannot sell anyway. How can we pass laws on taxes that actually take away american jobs and american investments?? We have NO legal right to tax moneys made in other countries as they are not allowed to collect taxes in our country. The new law says the will tax it at a lower rate, but will tax it anyway... [u:8581af38b6]WILL MAKE MORE COMPANIES MOVE THEIR HEADQUARTERS OVERSEAS!!!!![/u:8581af38b6]

[/b][/i][b:8581af38b6][/b:8581af38b6]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
To one of the Billy's in New York
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
W_B
W
T
oil tax
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
tlak
T
D
When is enough enough?
Replies
18
Views
3K
Anonymous-0
A
A
Frack it, I'm voting for T. Boone.
Replies
13
Views
2K
onefarmer
onefarmer
T
OT proof you all asked for
4 5 6
Replies
112
Views
8K
trucker40
T
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top