'There You Have It': McConnell Says He 'Misspoke' When He Promised No Tax Hike on Middle Class

a reply to: UKTruth

Right, because what happened before has nothing to do with what may happen as a result of the same actions.

This time it will be different. Maybe.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: intrptr

How many pages thick is that 'tax relief' bill?

Lawyers wrote it so taxpayers won't understand it.

When was the last time taxes went down?

Well our tax code sits around 75,000 pages...a bit extreme, right?
source

Would be nice to just trim it down, rule out a ton of exemptions and make it simple enough that everyone can do their own taxes, easily, affordably and accurately.

Used to be that way. Actually it is real simple. The spirit behind the framers intent was no more than ten percent, and only in time of war. The rest of the time gubment is supposed to pay for its budget thru collection of import tariffs, period.

Now we have a permanent, progressive, overburdensome tax system, the employers acting as indentured servants for the IRS, and unlawful forfeiture or seizure for truancy. Besides the rich paying little, the lowly worker gets to pay 40 percent or more overall.

We are waaaay out of line .

a reply to: intrptr

Besides the rich paying little, the lowly worker gets to pay 40 percent or more overall.

Are you including FICA in that number?
You're still pretty far off.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: intrptr

Besides the rich paying little, the lowly worker gets to pay 40 percent or more overall.

Are you including FICA in that number?
You're still pretty far off.

Its even higher if you include state, medical, SSI, and sales tax.
Then don't buy something and sell it, or inherit any money or God forbid, win the Lotto...

I'm not going into fees, fines, permits, licensing, etc. either, the "other" tax.

a reply to: intrptr
I'm not rich. What I pay in income taxes, including FICA (medicare and social security) does not approach 40%.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: intrptr
I'm not rich. What I pay in income taxes, including FICA (medicare and social security) does not approach 40%.

When you shop (in Ca), add another 9 percent.

Edit: You do realize the 'Don't tread on me flag' was about taxes higher than ten percent? So was the Boston Tea Party.

But we suck it up nowadays. Well, you do anyway. I'm poor.

a reply to: intrptr

That's not income tax.
But I pay 4.5%. 9% still wouldn't get me close to 40% overall.

a reply to: Phage

That's not income tax.

Federal, state, sales, all taxing your bottom line.

We like to remain in denial though.

a reply to: intrptr

I'm quite aware of how much I pay in taxes, income and otherwise. I'm also somewhat cognizant of where it goes, for the most part.

I don't like the idea that a hypothetical reduction in my federal income tax will be going toward an increase in the servicing of federal debt and I don't like the idea that an increase in my local sales tax (excise tax, actually) is paying for a stupid elevated train system.

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: kurthall

The top 1% ($430K per year) paid 40% of the taxes
The bottom 50% ($33K per year) paid 3% of taxes.

Who the ^$%# is any tax plan going to favor?

*FTR and before I'm accused of being a shill to the rich or some such drivel, my income is around $50K a year tax free so I don't have a dog in this fight. It just gets old hearing the "they haves it, we's wants it" routine about everything and anything in this country.

If you don't pay INCOME taxes or pay little INCOME taxes a reduction in INCOME taxes will not work in your favor. The more you pay into the system the more a reduction will work in your favor.


If you pay nothing and receive a $5K-$9k check every income tax season - this tax bill will not be your friend.
If you pay $1.8-$3.4 million in taxes every year and do not get a return - this tax bill will be your friend.

The rest of us will fall into varying degrees of friendship with ANY tax bill passed by Congress (increase or decrease).

That leaves 49% who paid the other 67% of taxes. This is based on absolute dollars not the percentage of income. Therefore it is a very weak argument. The other 67%, presumably you and me, pay a much higher rate on our limited dollars.

Comparing dollar to dollar is deliberately misleading when it comes to tax fairness or 'paying one's own FAIR share' (remember the rich use a lot more public resources and receive mucho public assistance - read TAX-CODE )where it can only be measured, if you are interested it a JUST tax system when tax is measured as a percentage of income.

A percentage of income is how we are taxed, so it is the only logical measure of TAX FAIRNESS.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Actually the tax plan seems pretty good tome. Itlowers my taxes from 28 to25 percent. And you still get to deduct charitable contributions, mortgage interest, property taxes, and retirement savings. I think honestly many have noy looked at it. Really only two states that taxes may increase. But thats because their state taxes are to high seems to me that is what people should complain about why do people in california and new york give their states so much money?

Have you checked the deductions that are going away? And what about your portion of the new deficit? It's smoke and mirrors. I recommend Ralph Nader Radio hour from today where he talks to James Henry about the tax plan.

I wouldn't listen to 'talking points' but do the research before making up your mind. Superficial appearances can be quite deceiving.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr

And you still get to deduct charitable contributions, mortgage interest, property taxes, and retirement savings

The Senate seems to disagree with you regarding property taxes.

You don't care about the deficit, or are you buying that "trickle down" crap?

Senate plan isnt out yet so fail. As far as trickle down dont care if it lowers my taxes which the house plan does save me about 4 grand a year.

www.thebalance.com...

That's all well and good - However, it isn't all about you. It's about the wellbeing of the US as a country and a people. And you will see massive cuts in government services (other then military) across the board, it's all ready happening. The State Department is totally screwed up - as is FEMA - the EPA .... Government Departments intented to protect the people and the state. Departments intended to mininimise chaos.

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: Phage


Is this just another "if you like you doctor" moment for Trump, you think?
___________________________________________________________________________________________

All politicians lie. It's really just a matter of voting for the ones that tell the lies we like.

Republicans lie and say "we are going to take less money from everyone" and Democrats lie and say "don't worry we are going to spend more of other peoples money". Which side tells the best lie is a matter of personal opinion and that is what wins elections. Hence, elections have consequences.

Irrelevant!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Right, because what happened before has nothing to do with what may happen as a result of the same actions.

This time it will be different. Maybe.

Did people, in general, pay less tax under Ronald Reagan?

a reply to: UKTruth
NO
Since you say "in general" that would suggest at least half of the population - the median

1981, married filed jointly...
0% rate up to $3400 is equal to $8976 in 2016
14% rate from $3400 to $5500 is equal to $8976 to $14520 in 2016
16% rate from $5500 to $7600 is equal to $14520 to $20064 in 2016
18% rate from $7600 to $11900 is equal to $20064 to $31416 in 2016
21% rate from $11900 to $16000 is equal to $31416 to $42240 in 2016
24% rate from $16000 to $20200 is equal to $42240 to $53328 in 2016
28% rate from $20200 to $24600 is equal to $53328 to $64944 in 2016
And so on... but we just care about the median, which in 1981 was: $18062 or $47684 in 2016.

Median household income in 2016 was $56516.
2016, married filed jointly...
10% rate from $0 to $18550
15% rate from $18550 to $75300

But wait, you say... that wasn't Reagan's tax cuts!
Ok, let's look at the end of his term the huge change in 1988, where median household income was $25872 or $52489 in 2016...
15% rate from $0 to $29750 is equal to $0 to $60357
28% rate from $29750 and up is equal to $60357 and up

2016 top rate for median: 15% rate
1988 top rate for median: 15% rate
1981 top rate for median: 24% rate

2016 effective rate is actually less than 15% (13.4% for median household income), as 10% applied to income up to $18550. Same story with 1981 actually being less than 24%, but the effective rate is higher than either.

You'll note that Reagan actually raised taxes on people earning the lowest.

I have to point out that the $1.5T this is supposed to add to the debt is over a 10 year period, so it's $150B per year. Does anyone know what GDP growth rate was used in that calculation? Someone on TV said they only assumed 1.9% GDP growth per year over those 10 years to get that number. If the actual growth rate is only a few tenths of a percent higher, it will eat up that $150B a year no problem and actually balance. I haven't been able to find a source for that 1.9% number though.

As for the tax plans, under either I get a tax cut, my brother gets a tax cut, and my parents get tax cuts. We're all lower-middle class. The "tax cut for the rich" argument only works if you're hoping most Americans don't understand percentages. Al Gore tried this same strategy in the debates with George W Bush. It failed because Americans are smarter than he thought. We still are.



Edit: Apparently I gave up too easily. Here's a
source that the CBO used a 1.9% GDP growth rate to get that $1.5T number. If we average 2.5 or 3% growth over those 10 years, I think we'll be just fine.

a reply to: face23785

I understand percentages.
By what percentage will your tax burden decline? I don't expect mine to by more than 0.5%, if at all.
By what percentage will the tax burden of high earners decline?

How much is 0.5% of your current tax burden? Not much, right?
How much is 6.0% of $1,000,000? Quite a lot, right?

Why should high earners see a greater percentage of reduction than you do?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: face23785

I understand percentages.
By what percentage will your tax burden decline? I don't expect mine to by more than 0.5%, if at all.
By what percentage will the tax burden of high earners decline?

How much is 0.5% of your current tax burden? Not much, right?
How much is 6.0% of $1,000,000? Quite a lot, right?

Why should high earners see a greater percentage of reduction than you do?

Personally I'm gonna drop into the zero bracket under either plan. That's a 10% reduction. We both know with the tax code being so complicated there's virtually no plan that will ensure every single person will get a reduction. There's always gonna be special cases. Congrats, you're personally gonna pay lower taxes. If you don't want that .5% you're gonna save, you can always send it to me.

we knew that....

in the 70's the radio announced TEXAS Utility electric will pay 50 dollars in taxes...they then said it's not cheating...just good tax planning.

since then I knew better than to trust any entity for tax or retirement security of truth

a reply to: face23785

Congrats, you're personally gonna pay lower taxes.

That remains to be seen. I said, "if at all."

But you didn't answer my question. And apparently you are not one of the the middle class, the ones McConnell was talking about. You should note though, that there is no "zero bracket" under either plan.