Face It: You (Probably) Got a Tax Cut

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:90% pay less or same. 10% pay more. End of story.

The 10% are probably over represented on DCUM hence all the complaining and screaming.

Will those 90% still have Social Security and Medicare in 10 years?

Humans are terrible at balancing short term gains against long term consequences.

Would Social Security and Medicare still go broke without the new tax code changes? Entitlement reforms will never take place with hopeless demogogues like you.

[Anonymous]

I definitely paid more in taxes. I lost 11K in SALT deductions and 9K in business expenses. So, I lost 10% of my gross salary in deduction, but rates declined by maybe 3%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We stopped paying almost all our AMT penalty but lost almost all our savings in SALT penalty. So yes we got a tax cut, but in the low 4 figures on a 250kish total tax bill.

Thank you for demonstrating classic DCUM idiocy. Since you paid AMT last year, you literally had no SALT deduction last year. Therefore, you face no SALT penalty this year since you had no SAlLT benefit last year

You are almost as stupid as people comparing the amounts of refunds between tax seasons or those comparing marginal rates. It's amazing that the United States survives as a self-governing society with the idiots on DCUM.

Okay, I'll try to use short sentences so you can understand. Last year, paid AMT. This year, paid almost as much in tax. Why? Because despite tax cut, lost SALT deduction that AMT was screwing us out of. Without SALT deduction, back where we started.

I'll use shorter sentences. You paid slightly less because there was a small net cut in taxes at this income level. I was in the same boat and now take the standard deduction. You just don't like having other taxpayers not subsidizing your state tax payment

The purpose and effect of the tax law was threefold:
Cut taxes on capital income
Simplify (Fewer Schedule A and AMT)
A modest tax cut, concentrated at lower income levels.

I understand why politicians sold it primarily as a tax cut for labor, but it just wasn't. If the news media we're to get their collective heads out of their asses, perhaps we could have reasonable political discussions.

I know why my taxes were like they were. I’m not confused.

[Anonymous]

The thing that really sucks about this tax bill is it’s impermanent nature. The entire point of the tax code is to enable long term planning. They used accounting tricks to make this work and it’s going to screw us all in a few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:90% pay less or same. 10% pay more. End of story.

The 10% are probably over represented on DCUM hence all the complaining and screaming.

Will those 90% still have Social Security and Medicare in 10 years?

Humans are terrible at balancing short term gains against long term consequences.

Would Social Security and Medicare still go broke without the new tax code changes? Entitlement reforms will never take place with hopeless demogogues like you.

The tax bill fundementally puts at risk the programs that keep a large % of Americans from eating cat food in retirement. The only demagogue here is you. Why would you propose policies that speed up the downfall of programs paid-in by working Americans? Those are not entitlements; it’s MY money.

For you, “entitlement reform” means kicking people off. Me? I advocate to raise the Social Secuity cap and peg it to inflation.

[Anonymous]

Effective tax rate increased by 3% this year. Same salary/deductions.

[Anonymous]

The only reason ours didn’t go up was because we put an extra $50k in a retirement account to shield income. Had to restructure retirement vehicles to do it. We lost $120k in SALT deductions so not insignificant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We stopped paying almost all our AMT penalty but lost almost all our savings in SALT penalty. So yes we got a tax cut, but in the low 4 figures on a 250kish total tax bill.

If you're paying a quarter million dollars in taxes, my sympathy is . . . limited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only reason ours didn’t go up was because we put an extra $50k in a retirement account to shield income. Had to restructure retirement vehicles to do it. We lost $120k in SALT deductions so not insignificant.

Again, if you're paying $120k in state and local taxes, just pipe down. You should have seen a massive tax increase, in a rational world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The tax bill fundementally puts at risk the programs that keep a large % of Americans from eating cat food in retirement. The only demagogue here is you. Why would you propose policies that speed up the downfall of programs paid-in by working Americans? Those are not entitlements; it’s MY money.

For you, “entitlement reform” means kicking people off. Me? I advocate to raise the Social Secuity cap and peg it to inflation.

No. Social Security and Medicare are fundamentally at risk because they are Ponzi schemes. The tax law doesn't change any of that. You pay money into a system that spends it immediately, but you are promised future returns. No money is invested in real assets to pay back those promises. I'm sure Bernie Madoff's victims want "their" money back too, but it's just not happening. The best that can occur is an orderly winddown. I expect need-based testing. I suggest you "donut hole" families stop whining and start saving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really sucks about this tax bill is it’s impermanent nature. The entire point of the tax code is to enable long term planning. They used accounting tricks to make this work and it’s going to screw us all in a few years.

You aren't a capital allocator, so your short term and long term planning looks roughly the same. Business cuts were permanent, so they can plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really sucks about this tax bill is it’s impermanent nature. The entire point of the tax code is to enable long term planning. They used accounting tricks to make this work and it’s going to screw us all in a few years.

You aren't a capital allocator, so your short term and long term planning looks roughly the same. Business cuts were permanent, so they can plan.

+1.

And I'm sure the GOP will try to make the cuts permanent when the time comes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason ours didn’t go up was because we put an extra $50k in a retirement account to shield income. Had to restructure retirement vehicles to do it. We lost $120k in SALT deductions so not insignificant.

Again, if you're paying $120k in state and local taxes, just pipe down. You should have seen a massive tax increase, in a rational world.

We pay about about a 50% effective rate now (37% federal + 9.5% state +15% SS on a portion + 2.9% medicare on all - I am self employed so pay both sides of SS and medicare). A massive tax increase would not be effective because the additional work required to earn the marginal income wouldn't be worth it if I was paying at 60-70% tax rate on that income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really sucks about this tax bill is it’s impermanent nature. The entire point of the tax code is to enable long term planning. They used accounting tricks to make this work and it’s going to screw us all in a few years.

You aren't a capital allocator, so your short term and long term planning looks roughly the same. Business cuts were permanent, so they can plan.

+1.

And I'm sure the GOP will try to make the cuts permanent when the time comes.

The challenge is that they can't (per their own rules) because of the financial impact on the Treasury--that's why they weren't permanent in the first place. The tax cuts are pushing the average annual deficit north of $1 trillion each year they're in place, and our national debt is already the highest it's ever been. I think things will look quite different economically by the time the current cuts expire in five years, so it will be interesting to see what a solution looks like.

But yes, the uncertainty is definitely challenging even for individual taxpayers who have to assess decisions like whether or not to buy a home without knowing whether the SALT caps and mortgage deduction limits may become permanent. Ditto for the changes to exemptions and the child tax credit, for those who have kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really sucks about this tax bill is it’s impermanent nature. The entire point of the tax code is to enable long term planning. They used accounting tricks to make this work and it’s going to screw us all in a few years.

You aren't a capital allocator, so your short term and long term planning looks roughly the same. Business cuts were permanent, so they can plan.

+1.

And I'm sure the GOP will try to make the cuts permanent when the time comes.

The challenge is that they can't (per their own rules) because of the financial impact on the Treasury--that's why they weren't permanent in the first place. The tax cuts are pushing the average annual deficit north of $1 trillion each year they're in place, and our national debt is already the highest it's ever been. I think things will look quite different economically by the time the current cuts expire in five years, so it will be interesting to see what a solution looks like.

But yes, the uncertainty is definitely challenging even for individual taxpayers who have to assess decisions like whether or not to buy a home without knowing whether the SALT caps and mortgage deduction limits may become permanent. Ditto for the changes to exemptions and the child tax credit, for those who have kids.

+1 Our grandkids will be paying dearly for these tax cuts. They're not sustainable.