Major entitlement changes wouldn’t work under reconcilation rules
And PAYGO rules are automatic and already standing law.
Speaking of, did they pass that PAYGO waiver? I hadn't heard anything about it. Also reconciliation only matters if McConnell doesn't remove the filibuster, which I'm honestly surprised he hasn't done yet. Perhaps he is worried about losing the Senate majority in the near future? I'm hoping that I am worried over nothing.
About the only way these tax changes get rolled back is if the Democrats get a filibuster proof majority in both houses, right?
No, it was passed under Reconciliation.
But yeah, you'd need either a veto-proof majority, or a D pres. Otherwise it won't get signed
Major entitlement changes wouldn’t work under reconcilation rules
And PAYGO rules are automatic and already standing law.
Speaking of, did they pass that PAYGO waiver? I hadn't heard anything about it. Also reconciliation only matters if McConnell doesn't remove the filibuster, which I'm honestly surprised he hasn't done yet. Perhaps he is worried about losing the Senate majority in the near future? I'm hoping that I am worried over nothing.
About the only way these tax changes get rolled back is if the Democrats get a filibuster proof majority in both houses, right?
No, it was passed under Reconciliation.
Sorry I meant veto-proof. Not sure why I wrote filibuster there the first time.
I don't understand how that works. Is CA somehow just calling the taxes I pay a donation? It's still mandatory/owed, just classified differently?
The plan is to give people an option to get a state tax credit for donation to the "State of California Government" charity instead of paying that same amount as a tax. Charitable donations are deductible from Federal taxes, and money past $10k is not for state and local taxes. It's rules lawyering to get around the intent of the Republican tax plan, which is to screw over high tax states that just so happen to be predominantly Democratic (California and New York being two prime examples).
I don't understand how that works. Is CA somehow just calling the taxes I pay a donation? It's still mandatory/owed, just classified differently?
You can make a charitable donation and CA will give you a credit on your taxes in the amount you make a donation in. Tax credits are worth taxes paid, dollar for dollar.
So if you owed 24k you would donate 14k. CA would give you a credit for 14k making your total taxes due 10k
All it does is transfer the type of deduction federally from SALT (which is now capped at 10k) to charitable (which is not similarly capped)
Honestly, I don't give a monkey's what other states are doing. The gop wrote a crappy law that was a blatant partisan attack on blue states. It's about as fair and considerate as a knife wound to the face. They left a loophole, the blue donor states should use it, because these tax dollars are being spent to give tax cuts to 50 billionaires. If the GOP is worried about their bill meeting it's targets, it should try hiking their taxes instead.
Donations to billionaires is not a good use of the money of upper middle class people in California and New York.
Donations to billionaires is not a good use of the money of upper middle class people in California and New York.
Right. The upper-middle class people of NY and California were OKish with a tax raise - IF it was to be spent on things like healthcare and infrastructure. They are NOT OK with it being just handed to the ultra-rich to put on their cash piles. Might as well set it on fire.
The idea, obviously, is to pressure NYC and California to start electing Republican local politicians on a platform of lowering local taxes.
Looks like you could get a max benefit of around $4,800. Also, $2,100 of that is for donations to private school tuition; ick.
It's not just "write a check for whatever to the State of Arizona Foundation and get a 1:1 match!"
Since our income tax is already 100% optional, the only FL thing I found involved bequeathing a portion of your collected sales tax to a school computer program. $30/month max, but that's just a distinction of scale; same principle.
Donations to billionaires is not a good use of the money of upper middle class people in California and New York.
Right. The upper-middle class people of NY and California were OKish with a tax raise - IF it was to be spent on things like healthcare and infrastructure. They are NOT OK with it being just handed to the ultra-rich to put on their cash piles. Might as well set it on fire.
The idea, obviously, is to pressure NYC and California to start electing Republican local politicians on a platform of lowering local taxes.
Not just might as well, it would literally be better for the economy to burn it, since then it wouldn't concentrate power in the hands of the ultra wealthy.
A secretary at a public high school in Lancaster, PA, said she was pleasantly surprised her pay went up $1.50 a week ... she said [that] will more than cover her Costco membership for the year
(Edit - lmao he deleted the tweet after three hours)
That comes out to $78 a year. Ryan got between $300k and $500k, just to illustrate the massive disconnect this guy has in his head. There's been a lot of articles in the news about peoples' wages "going up" in the wake of this reform but there's always a catch (or the precise details don't mean jack shit; like the above). And don't forget it is tax season so watch out for stories about what people are or are not getting back. Remember, the specific promise made with this tax reform was that Americans would see $4k more "at minimum." Though I guess to be fair, maybe that will apply a year from now since this current tax season is for last year.
I don't consider the issue put to rest by the slightest. Evidence will start to mount against this shitshow.
"The reaction in the bond market is due to the rise in average hourly earnings," said James Ragan, director of individual investor group research at D.A. Davidson. "I think the market is now thinking of the possibility that the Fed could raise rates four times this year rather than three."
A secretary at a public high school in Lancaster, PA, said she was pleasantly surprised her pay went up $1.50 a week ... she said [that] will more than cover her Costco membership for the year
(Edit - lmao he deleted the tweet after three hours)
That comes out to $78 a year. Ryan got between $300k and $500k, just to illustrate the massive disconnect this guy has in his head. There's been a lot of articles in the news about peoples' wages "going up" in the wake of this reform but there's always a catch (or the precise details don't mean jack shit; like the above). And don't forget it is tax season so watch out for stories about what people are or are not getting back. Remember, the specific promise made with this tax reform was that Americans would see $4k more "at minimum." Though I guess to be fair, maybe that will apply a year from now since this current tax season is for last year.
I don't consider the issue put to rest by the slightest. Evidence will start to mount against this shitshow.
"The reaction in the bond market is due to the rise in average hourly earnings," said James Ragan, director of individual investor group research at D.A. Davidson. "I think the market is now thinking of the possibility that the Fed could raise rates four times this year rather than three."
Ryan's presumptive election opponent, Iron Stache, has said "we'll beat him, $1.50 at a time."
A secretary at a public high school in Lancaster, PA, said she was pleasantly surprised her pay went up $1.50 a week ... she said [that] will more than cover her Costco membership for the year
(Edit - lmao he deleted the tweet after three hours)
That comes out to $78 a year. Ryan got between $300k and $500k, just to illustrate the massive disconnect this guy has in his head. There's been a lot of articles in the news about peoples' wages "going up" in the wake of this reform but there's always a catch (or the precise details don't mean jack shit; like the above). And don't forget it is tax season so watch out for stories about what people are or are not getting back. Remember, the specific promise made with this tax reform was that Americans would see $4k more "at minimum." Though I guess to be fair, maybe that will apply a year from now since this current tax season is for last year.
I don't consider the issue put to rest by the slightest. Evidence will start to mount against this shitshow.
"The reaction in the bond market is due to the rise in average hourly earnings," said James Ragan, director of individual investor group research at D.A. Davidson. "I think the market is now thinking of the possibility that the Fed could raise rates four times this year rather than three."
Ryan's presumptive election opponent, Iron Stache, has said "we'll beat him, $1.50 at a time."
It’s interesting that these stories are coming out now when employers haven’t even received the new withholding tables to implement into their payroll systems yet and are still using 2017s as a default...
Almost like people are completely clueless about how taxes work
A secretary at a public high school in Lancaster, PA, said she was pleasantly surprised her pay went up $1.50 a week ... she said [that] will more than cover her Costco membership for the year
(Edit - lmao he deleted the tweet after three hours)
That comes out to $78 a year. Ryan got between $300k and $500k, just to illustrate the massive disconnect this guy has in his head. There's been a lot of articles in the news about peoples' wages "going up" in the wake of this reform but there's always a catch (or the precise details don't mean jack shit; like the above). And don't forget it is tax season so watch out for stories about what people are or are not getting back. Remember, the specific promise made with this tax reform was that Americans would see $4k more "at minimum." Though I guess to be fair, maybe that will apply a year from now since this current tax season is for last year.
I don't consider the issue put to rest by the slightest. Evidence will start to mount against this shitshow.
"The reaction in the bond market is due to the rise in average hourly earnings," said James Ragan, director of individual investor group research at D.A. Davidson. "I think the market is now thinking of the possibility that the Fed could raise rates four times this year rather than three."
Ryan's presumptive election opponent, Iron Stache, has said "we'll beat him, $1.50 at a time."
It’s interesting that these stories are coming out now when employers haven’t even received the new withholding tables to implement into their payroll systems yet and are still using 2017s as a default...
Almost like people are completely clueless about how taxes work
I got a relatively decent amount, up ~$20, but mostly because our insurance premium has been flat (while quality of coverage has slipped). But that's only for now. I plan on still being a working stiff in my late 30's when the rest of the Tax Bill comes online and starts taking more than $40 a month away from me. Especially since we'll have kids by then.
Yeah, that’s a message that needs to be hammered; whatever gains people may have, what they’ve lost or it will cost them is so very much more.
Saving $5 a cheque but seeing reductions in social services, or increases in health care costs, or whatever, is not a good trade for the majority of the US’s population.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Yeah, that’s a message that needs to be hammered; whatever gains people may have, what they’ve lost is or will cost them so very much more.
Saving $5 a cheque but seeing reductions in social services, or increases in health care costs, or whatever, is not a good trade for the majority of the US’s population.
"But there's no way that they'll actually let those tax cuts expire, or reduce social services! That would be political suicide!" - people who have simply not being pating attention for the last half decade or so.
+13
Mx. QuillI now prefer "Myr. Quill", actually...{They/Them}Registered Userregular
I got $16 more.
I'd gladly give it up to rewind this farce of a "tax bill."
Yeah, that’s a message that needs to be hammered; whatever gains people may have, what they’ve lost or it will cost them is so very much more.
Saving $5 a cheque but seeing reductions in social services, or increases in health care costs, or whatever, is not a good trade for the majority of the US’s population.
Not just that
They should be hammering that Republicans spent 1.5 trillion dollars on their tax cut bill, and their constituents are seeing a fraction of 1% of that money. Dems should be telling voters to start wondering what happened to the rest.
+10
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
Yeah, that’s a message that needs to be hammered; whatever gains people may have, what they’ve lost or it will cost them is so very much more.
Saving $5 a cheque but seeing reductions in social services, or increases in health care costs, or whatever, is not a good trade for the majority of the US’s population.
Not just that
They should be hammering that Republicans spent 1.5 trillion dollars on their tax cut bill, and their constituents are seeing a fraction of 1% of that money. Dems should be telling voters to start wondering what happened to the rest.
Don't think it would sink in with most of the rank and file. Most of the ones that can't/won't see the tax bill for what it will really wind up doing over the next ten years are the ones that still wouldn't give a shit, because they primarily think that they'll be a 1-0.01%'er by the time it would actively harm them in their current economic situation.
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
A secretary at a public high school in Lancaster, PA, said she was pleasantly surprised her pay went up $1.50 a week ... she said [that] will more than cover her Costco membership for the year
(Edit - lmao he deleted the tweet after three hours)
That comes out to $78 a year. Ryan got between $300k and $500k, just to illustrate the massive disconnect this guy has in his head. There's been a lot of articles in the news about peoples' wages "going up" in the wake of this reform but there's always a catch (or the precise details don't mean jack shit; like the above). And don't forget it is tax season so watch out for stories about what people are or are not getting back. Remember, the specific promise made with this tax reform was that Americans would see $4k more "at minimum." Though I guess to be fair, maybe that will apply a year from now since this current tax season is for last year.
I don't consider the issue put to rest by the slightest. Evidence will start to mount against this shitshow.
"The reaction in the bond market is due to the rise in average hourly earnings," said James Ragan, director of individual investor group research at D.A. Davidson. "I think the market is now thinking of the possibility that the Fed could raise rates four times this year rather than three."
Ryan's presumptive election opponent, Iron Stache, has said "we'll beat him, $1.50 at a time."
It’s interesting that these stories are coming out now when employers haven’t even received the new withholding tables to implement into their payroll systems yet and are still using 2017s as a default...
Almost like people are completely clueless about how taxes work
Meanwhile I see an increase of $40/paycheck, and I'm not sure how because when I ran the numbers we should owe MORE thanks to the SALT cap.
I should probably adjust our withholding *sigh*
It is possible a lot of people have not adjusted their holdings yet despite changes, and at least some of what we are seeing is from that. Those people are going to owe more at the end of this year, after they vote the tax cutters back in for getting them "more money per check".
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
+3
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Meanwhile I see an increase of $40/paycheck, and I'm not sure how because when I ran the numbers we should owe MORE thanks to the SALT cap.
I should probably adjust our withholding *sigh*
It is possible a lot of people have not adjusted their holdings yet despite changes, and at least some of what we are seeing is from that. Those people are going to owe more at the end of this year, after they vote the tax cutters back in for getting them "more money per check".
You think this paperwork kerfuffle is deliberate on the part of campaign donors? Edit - Not asking as a challenge, it's just... starting to make sense to me and that bothers me. I dunno why I made it a question.
Henroid on
0
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Yeah, that’s a message that needs to be hammered; whatever gains people may have, what they’ve lost or it will cost them is so very much more.
Saving $5 a cheque but seeing reductions in social services, or increases in health care costs, or whatever, is not a good trade for the majority of the US’s population.
There was a quote of an interview with a random person floating around recently (that I wish I had on hand) perfectly illustrating this: the lady was happy that her monthly take home pay would be $200 more, because it would help to offset the $300 rise in her health care costs that month.
Meanwhile I see an increase of $40/paycheck, and I'm not sure how because when I ran the numbers we should owe MORE thanks to the SALT cap.
I should probably adjust our withholding *sigh*
It is possible a lot of people have not adjusted their holdings yet despite changes, and at least some of what we are seeing is from that. Those people are going to owe more at the end of this year, after they vote the tax cutters back in for getting them "more money per check".
You think this paperwork kerfuffle is deliberate on the part of campaign donors? Edit - Not asking as a challenge, it's just... starting to make sense to me and that bothers me. I dunno why I made it a question.
Accounting departments aren't going to mess with things like that to make electeds look good. It's mostly just because eliminated Personal Exemptions, and SALT caps, &c. aren't represented in withholding since that's variable and can't really be assumed in the same way brackets and rates can be.
+1
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Pfizer cancelling research on Parkinsons and Alzheimers, pocketing the difference and doing a major stock buyback.
which is expected behavior
it's interesting to me that so many conservatives are all about social Darwinism, demanding that we not make life easier for poor people because otherwise they'll just decide to keep being poor, but also think it's fine to eliminate all selective pressure from businesses
Pfizer cancelling research on Parkinsons and Alzheimers, pocketing the difference and doing a major stock buyback.
which is expected behavior
it's interesting to me that so many conservatives are all about social Darwinism, demanding that we not make life easier for poor people because otherwise they'll just decide to keep being poor, but also think it's fine to eliminate all selective pressure from businesses
One group gives the government money, which they hate. One group gives them money, which they love. I'm pretty sure it doesn't go beyond that.
Meanwhile I see an increase of $40/paycheck, and I'm not sure how because when I ran the numbers we should owe MORE thanks to the SALT cap.
I should probably adjust our withholding *sigh*
It is possible a lot of people have not adjusted their holdings yet despite changes, and at least some of what we are seeing is from that. Those people are going to owe more at the end of this year, after they vote the tax cutters back in for getting them "more money per check".
You think this paperwork kerfuffle is deliberate on the part of campaign donors? Edit - Not asking as a challenge, it's just... starting to make sense to me and that bothers me. I dunno why I made it a question.
It's also possible the IRS is purposefully putting out incorrect tables for 2018. If you were being nice, then it's because they just didn't have time to accurately figure out workers taxes due to the changes to the tax code and time they had to do the work. If you felt like not being nice, it's because they succumbed to pressure from Trump to help him and republicans (but mostly him) look good.
Meanwhile I see an increase of $40/paycheck, and I'm not sure how because when I ran the numbers we should owe MORE thanks to the SALT cap.
I should probably adjust our withholding *sigh*
It is possible a lot of people have not adjusted their holdings yet despite changes, and at least some of what we are seeing is from that. Those people are going to owe more at the end of this year, after they vote the tax cutters back in for getting them "more money per check".
You think this paperwork kerfuffle is deliberate on the part of campaign donors? Edit - Not asking as a challenge, it's just... starting to make sense to me and that bothers me. I dunno why I made it a question.
It's also possible the IRS is purposefully putting out incorrect tables for 2018. If you were being nice, then it's because they just didn't have time to accurately figure out workers taxes due to the changes to the tax code and time they had to do the work. If you felt like not being nice, it's because they succumbed to pressure from Trump to help him and republicans (but mostly him) look good.
That warns people who don't update their W4 using the IRS's TBD calculator might be running a negative balance. Reason being: While the new withholding tables are out, your current exemption allocation may be wrong.
Meanwhile I see an increase of $40/paycheck, and I'm not sure how because when I ran the numbers we should owe MORE thanks to the SALT cap.
I should probably adjust our withholding *sigh*
It is possible a lot of people have not adjusted their holdings yet despite changes, and at least some of what we are seeing is from that. Those people are going to owe more at the end of this year, after they vote the tax cutters back in for getting them "more money per check".
You think this paperwork kerfuffle is deliberate on the part of campaign donors? Edit - Not asking as a challenge, it's just... starting to make sense to me and that bothers me. I dunno why I made it a question.
It's also possible the IRS is purposefully putting out incorrect tables for 2018. If you were being nice, then it's because they just didn't have time to accurately figure out workers taxes due to the changes to the tax code and time they had to do the work. If you felt like not being nice, it's because they succumbed to pressure from Trump to help him and republicans (but mostly him) look good.
That warns people who don't update their W4 using the IRS's TBD calculator might be running a negative balance. Reason being: While the new withholding tables are out, your current exemption allocation may be wrong.
Not paywalled on mobile, so I'll copy/paste some relevant sections
The ranking Democrats on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee are worried the Internal Revenue Service might succumb to political pressure by releasing withholding tables this year that cause employers to withhold too little in federal taxes from their employees’ paychecks to make it appear the tax cuts are larger than they really are, with the result that taxpayers will end up owing more money on their taxes next year.
Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Richard Neal, D-Mass., sent a letter Monday to Acting IRS Commissioner and Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy David Kautter. Wyden and Neal asked Kautter about any interactions between Trump officials and the IRS about development of the withholding tables, which are expected to be released soon.
They pointed to Kautter’s status as both acting IRS commissioner and Assistant Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy, who helped develop the new tax law.
Wyden and Neal also sent a separate letter Monday to Government Accountability Office Comptroller General Gene Dodaro asking the GAO to serve as an independent arbiter to analyze the 2018 withholding tables and determine whether they will result in systematic underwithholding.
+1
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Pfizer cancelling research on Parkinsons and Alzheimers, pocketing the difference and doing a major stock buyback.
which is expected behavior
it's interesting to me that so many conservatives are all about social Darwinism, demanding that we not make life easier for poor people because otherwise they'll just decide to keep being poor, but also think it's fine to eliminate all selective pressure from businesses
One group gives the government money, which they hate. One group gives them money, which they love. I'm pretty sure it doesn't go beyond that.
businesses don't give money to "conservatives", they give it to republican politicians
this is a position I see from individuals on the ground as well as politicians
+2
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Pfizer cancelling research on Parkinsons and Alzheimers, pocketing the difference and doing a major stock buyback.
which is expected behavior
it's interesting to me that so many conservatives are all about social Darwinism, demanding that we not make life easier for poor people because otherwise they'll just decide to keep being poor, but also think it's fine to eliminate all selective pressure from businesses
Many fiscal conservatives have no idea what being poor is like and have been led to believe the social safety net is far more effective and far more enjoyable than it is. They read bullshit studies from The Heritage Foundation and the CATO institute loaded with fun facts about households in poverty having outstanding luxuries like refrigerators, air conditioning and sometimes as many as TWO televisions. Then they think "Well shit! No wonder they aren't more upwardly mobile. The government makes them so comfortable they feel like they have everything they need!"
They don't think about shit like hungry nights right before the next pay period, payday loan debt, or a justice system designed to keep their neighborhood poor. They don't realize that welfare isn't fun or that its necessary if you don't want to constantly pass by corpses on your way to and from work.
Meanwhile I see an increase of $40/paycheck, and I'm not sure how because when I ran the numbers we should owe MORE thanks to the SALT cap.
I should probably adjust our withholding *sigh*
It is possible a lot of people have not adjusted their holdings yet despite changes, and at least some of what we are seeing is from that. Those people are going to owe more at the end of this year, after they vote the tax cutters back in for getting them "more money per check".
You think this paperwork kerfuffle is deliberate on the part of campaign donors? Edit - Not asking as a challenge, it's just... starting to make sense to me and that bothers me. I dunno why I made it a question.
It's also possible the IRS is purposefully putting out incorrect tables for 2018. If you were being nice, then it's because they just didn't have time to accurately figure out workers taxes due to the changes to the tax code and time they had to do the work. If you felt like not being nice, it's because they succumbed to pressure from Trump to help him and republicans (but mostly him) look good.
That warns people who don't update their W4 using the IRS's TBD calculator might be running a negative balance. Reason being: While the new withholding tables are out, your current exemption allocation may be wrong.
Not paywalled on mobile, so I'll copy/paste some relevant sections
The ranking Democrats on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee are worried the Internal Revenue Service might succumb to political pressure by releasing withholding tables this year that cause employers to withhold too little in federal taxes from their employees’ paychecks to make it appear the tax cuts are larger than they really are, with the result that taxpayers will end up owing more money on their taxes next year.
Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Richard Neal, D-Mass., sent a letter Monday to Acting IRS Commissioner and Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy David Kautter. Wyden and Neal asked Kautter about any interactions between Trump officials and the IRS about development of the withholding tables, which are expected to be released soon.
They pointed to Kautter’s status as both acting IRS commissioner and Assistant Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy, who helped develop the new tax law.
Wyden and Neal also sent a separate letter Monday to Government Accountability Office Comptroller General Gene Dodaro asking the GAO to serve as an independent arbiter to analyze the 2018 withholding tables and determine whether they will result in systematic underwithholding.
So we should adjust our withholding that are already being taken based on a calculator that is not out. That's going to cause some problems.
Posts
But yeah, you'd need either a veto-proof majority, or a D pres. Otherwise it won't get signed
Sorry I meant veto-proof. Not sure why I wrote filibuster there the first time.
Legislation about to be introduced. First 10k taxed as normal, payers given option to pay the rest as a donation.
Apparently AZ and FL already have something like this?
The plan is to give people an option to get a state tax credit for donation to the "State of California Government" charity instead of paying that same amount as a tax. Charitable donations are deductible from Federal taxes, and money past $10k is not for state and local taxes. It's rules lawyering to get around the intent of the Republican tax plan, which is to screw over high tax states that just so happen to be predominantly Democratic (California and New York being two prime examples).
You can make a charitable donation and CA will give you a credit on your taxes in the amount you make a donation in. Tax credits are worth taxes paid, dollar for dollar.
So if you owed 24k you would donate 14k. CA would give you a credit for 14k making your total taxes due 10k
All it does is transfer the type of deduction federally from SALT (which is now capped at 10k) to charitable (which is not similarly capped)
Looks like you could get a max benefit of around $4,800. Also, $2,100 of that is for donations to private school tuition; ick.
It's not just "write a check for whatever to the State of Arizona Foundation and get a 1:1 match!"
Donations to billionaires is not a good use of the money of upper middle class people in California and New York.
Right. The upper-middle class people of NY and California were OKish with a tax raise - IF it was to be spent on things like healthcare and infrastructure. They are NOT OK with it being just handed to the ultra-rich to put on their cash piles. Might as well set it on fire.
The idea, obviously, is to pressure NYC and California to start electing Republican local politicians on a platform of lowering local taxes.
Since our income tax is already 100% optional, the only FL thing I found involved bequeathing a portion of your collected sales tax to a school computer program. $30/month max, but that's just a distinction of scale; same principle.
Not just might as well, it would literally be better for the economy to burn it, since then it wouldn't concentrate power in the hands of the ultra wealthy.
YOur tax reform in action ladies and gentglemen
Pfizer cancelling research on Parkinsons and Alzheimers, pocketing the difference and doing a major stock buyback.
That comes out to $78 a year. Ryan got between $300k and $500k, just to illustrate the massive disconnect this guy has in his head. There's been a lot of articles in the news about peoples' wages "going up" in the wake of this reform but there's always a catch (or the precise details don't mean jack shit; like the above). And don't forget it is tax season so watch out for stories about what people are or are not getting back. Remember, the specific promise made with this tax reform was that Americans would see $4k more "at minimum." Though I guess to be fair, maybe that will apply a year from now since this current tax season is for last year.
I don't consider the issue put to rest by the slightest. Evidence will start to mount against this shitshow.
OH! Before I forget, with all this "look, wages are going up!" news, the Dow crashed down 666 points yesterday, and it was cited that employees getting this small, meaningless token amount of money was the reason why.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/02/us-futures-move-lower-as-investors-worry-about-rising-yields.html
Ryan's presumptive election opponent, Iron Stache, has said "we'll beat him, $1.50 at a time."
It’s interesting that these stories are coming out now when employers haven’t even received the new withholding tables to implement into their payroll systems yet and are still using 2017s as a default...
Almost like people are completely clueless about how taxes work
I'm fairly sure that the 2018 brackets are out (PDF) and have been since Jan 11.
Still, no disagreement on my part re: people being clueless about taxes.
[ed] I only knew this because I've had customers @ work up my ass about it since Jan 1.
For the 1.5T that this gutted federal revenue, 6 more dollars is utterly useless. Anyone who thinks that's a fair trade is a hopeless mark.
Saving $5 a cheque but seeing reductions in social services, or increases in health care costs, or whatever, is not a good trade for the majority of the US’s population.
I'd gladly give it up to rewind this farce of a "tax bill."
Not just that
They should be hammering that Republicans spent 1.5 trillion dollars on their tax cut bill, and their constituents are seeing a fraction of 1% of that money. Dems should be telling voters to start wondering what happened to the rest.
Don't think it would sink in with most of the rank and file. Most of the ones that can't/won't see the tax bill for what it will really wind up doing over the next ten years are the ones that still wouldn't give a shit, because they primarily think that they'll be a 1-0.01%'er by the time it would actively harm them in their current economic situation.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Yeah my bad- companies have until 2/15 to implement, while I was thinking that’s when all companies would switch at once.
I should probably adjust our withholding *sigh*
It is possible a lot of people have not adjusted their holdings yet despite changes, and at least some of what we are seeing is from that. Those people are going to owe more at the end of this year, after they vote the tax cutters back in for getting them "more money per check".
There was a quote of an interview with a random person floating around recently (that I wish I had on hand) perfectly illustrating this: the lady was happy that her monthly take home pay would be $200 more, because it would help to offset the $300 rise in her health care costs that month.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Accounting departments aren't going to mess with things like that to make electeds look good. It's mostly just because eliminated Personal Exemptions, and SALT caps, &c. aren't represented in withholding since that's variable and can't really be assumed in the same way brackets and rates can be.
which is expected behavior
it's interesting to me that so many conservatives are all about social Darwinism, demanding that we not make life easier for poor people because otherwise they'll just decide to keep being poor, but also think it's fine to eliminate all selective pressure from businesses
One group gives the government money, which they hate. One group gives them money, which they love. I'm pretty sure it doesn't go beyond that.
I am rocking a giant 12 biweekly increase. Picture me twirling my finger around in the air.
It's also possible the IRS is purposefully putting out incorrect tables for 2018. If you were being nice, then it's because they just didn't have time to accurately figure out workers taxes due to the changes to the tax code and time they had to do the work. If you felt like not being nice, it's because they succumbed to pressure from Trump to help him and republicans (but mostly him) look good.
https://www.accountingtoday.com/news/democrats-raise-concerns-about-irs-withholding-tables
This was the only source I could find in a quick Google search. Not sure of how trustworthy it is.
Paywalled.
But Fox Business had a thing:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2018/01/30/taxpayers-paycheck-problems-could-lead-to-big-bill-from-irs-expert-warns.html
That warns people who don't update their W4 using the IRS's TBD calculator might be running a negative balance. Reason being: While the new withholding tables are out, your current exemption allocation may be wrong.
Not paywalled on mobile, so I'll copy/paste some relevant sections
businesses don't give money to "conservatives", they give it to republican politicians
this is a position I see from individuals on the ground as well as politicians
Many fiscal conservatives have no idea what being poor is like and have been led to believe the social safety net is far more effective and far more enjoyable than it is. They read bullshit studies from The Heritage Foundation and the CATO institute loaded with fun facts about households in poverty having outstanding luxuries like refrigerators, air conditioning and sometimes as many as TWO televisions. Then they think "Well shit! No wonder they aren't more upwardly mobile. The government makes them so comfortable they feel like they have everything they need!"
They don't think about shit like hungry nights right before the next pay period, payday loan debt, or a justice system designed to keep their neighborhood poor. They don't realize that welfare isn't fun or that its necessary if you don't want to constantly pass by corpses on your way to and from work.
So we should adjust our withholding that are already being taken based on a calculator that is not out. That's going to cause some problems.