OT: Is this the end of General Electric?

[Obliviax]

For me, personally, there was no tax cut. I got a little help at the Fed level, buy my property taxes went up and I can no longer deduct all of them. At the same time, Federal Tax income is UP. as a result, there was no tax decrease, just a reshuffle.

 

[PSU_Chicago]

Taxes ... many in the major urban areas and surrounding suburbs in the NE and CA ("Blue States") saw increased tax liabilities due to loss of deductions. These are typically higher real estate, city wage and state tax liability areas.

Most of the press are saying the tax cuts did not deliver as expected with respect to business investment and return of capital / cash reserves from overseas to the US.

It would be interesting to see an independent analysis of the goals of the tax cut and the outcome in year 1 and thoughts for future with this tax plan. Not a partisan one sided analysis. Anyone have a reference that meets that criteria?

 

[LionDeNittany]

Oh yeah? And what exactly should I look into? I don't claim any dependents. I am single. I saw zero increase in my take home pay and when I filed my taxes my refund was the same amount it has been the last 4 years. There is nothing to look into. The tax cuts were not for the middle class. People in this thread have already admitted that the tax cuts were for the rich and that it will trickle down but we all know that trickle down economics has never worked, not even one time.

They lied. It's common knowledge and fact that yes there were tax cuts but the beneficiaries of those were the rich and big corporations. You know, the people who donate the most money.

Your refund isnt the determinant of your tax burden. That is why you dont seem to get it.

And yes the tax cuts were for the middle class.

Factually they were for all classes.

LdN

 

[psu2016]

I live in Pennsylvania. The tax cuts were great, for the rich and big corporations. For the rest of us it didn't mean a thing. Same take home pay before and after. I claim 0 dependents on my W4 as well. The tax cuts were not for the middle class.

You can argue that they were bad policy or insignificant, but if you're middle class and didn't receive a tax cut living in PA, then you were an extreme anomaly

 

[BoulderFish]

Yeah, letting people keep more of the money THEY EARN is a sugar high.

Technically speaking, the tax cuts weren't the sugar high, but rather it was the massive sudden net effect that the tax cuts had on the deficit. Increasing net deficit spending into an already healthy economy (with low unemployment) is what created the sugar high. But make no mistake, the tax cuts, were the most significant change that caused the sugar high.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Technically speaking, the tax cuts weren't the sugar high, but rather it was the massive sudden net effect that the tax cuts had on the deficit. Increasing net deficit spending into an already healthy economy (with low unemployment) is what created the sugar high. But make no mistake, the tax cuts, were the most significant change that caused the sugar high.

---
The tax cuts spurred economic growth, which spurred tax revenue. Federal tax revenue is at record highs.

Tax cuts did not increase the deficit spending. Massive increased spending did.

 

[Howie'81]

Technically speaking, the tax cuts weren't the sugar high, but rather it was the massive sudden net effect that the tax cuts had on the deficit. Increasing net deficit spending into an already healthy economy (with low unemployment) is what created the sugar high. But make no mistake, the tax cuts, were the most significant change that caused the sugar high.

I couldn't disagree more. This country doesn't have a problem with paying too little taxes. We pay far, far too much. We, as a nation have a ridiculous spending problem, yet politicians keep promising to spend more so that they win elections. Remember one thing: Every dollar you pay in taxes is one less dollar you personally control and one less dollar of freedom. Freedom and taxes are inextricably linked. Don't believe me? Study the American Revolution.

 

[Howie'81]

---
The tax cuts spurred economic growth, which spurred tax revenue. Federal tax revenue is at record highs.

Tax cuts did not increase the deficit spending. Massive increased spending did.

Exactly!!! I can't believe the incredible lack of understanding of basic economic principles in this country.

 

[LionDeNittany]

Exactly!!! I can't believe the incredible lack of understanding of basic economic principles in this country.

It is just talking points.

Fact: Fed Govt cut tax rates
Fact: Tax revenues went UP as predicted

LdN

 

[BobPSU92]

Six sigma is a bad thing?

Why stop at six? If you are really driven to be excellent, go to at least nine.

 

[Columbus_Lion]

There were no changes to mortgage interest being deductible. Those with mortgages would have still been able to deduct the interest.

People without mortgages got a greater benefit with the new standard deduction, therefore reduced taxes.

 

[Howie'81]

It is just talking points.

Fact: Fed Govt cut tax rates
Fact: Tax revenues went UP as predicted

LdN

And it's entirely predictable, because it is based on economic principles. Lower taxes mean more money to spend and invest, both for businesses and individuals, and the economy grows. When the economy grows, the tax base is higher and hence more revenue, even at lower rates. It's not brain surgery, but I guess it is for some people.

 

[bdgan]

Why stop at six? If you are really driven to be excellent, go to at least nine.

Six Sigma is a measure of quality that strives for near perfection (3.4 defects per million opportunities). I was surprised to see a post that critical of this.

 

[Obliviax]

Technically speaking, the tax cuts weren't the sugar high, but rather it was the massive sudden net effect that the tax cuts had on the deficit. Increasing net deficit spending into an already healthy economy (with low unemployment) is what created the sugar high. But make no mistake, the tax cuts, were the most significant change that caused the sugar high.

there was no "tax cut". It is as simple as that. Some won, some lost, but net result is more federal revenue. Those are the facts two years in.

 

[bdgan]

Federal Tax Revenue is ALWAYS (just about - aside from rare instances of massive recessions) at a "record high".


That is what inflation and a growing economy will do


Any year that IRS Revenues don't increase..... its a bad thing.



Year-by-Year Federal Personal Income Tax Revenues (X1,000) 1960-2018:

44,945,711
46,153,001
50,649,594
52,987,581
54,590,354
53,660,683 1965
61,297,552
69,370,595
78,252,045
97,440,406
103,651,585
100,752,421 1971 (fallout from 1969 recession)
108,879,186
125,112,006
142,903,650
156,399,437
158,968,797
186,755,263
213,058,144
251,545,857
287,547,782
332,850,146
352,608,936
349,627,967 1983 (fallout from Iranian Embargo, Oil Crisis)
362,891,679
396,659,558
416,964,771
465,452,486
473,666,566
515,731,504
540,228,408
546,876,876
557,723,156
585,774,159
619,819,153
675,779,337
745,313,276
825,020,880
928,065,857
1,002,185,765
1,137,077,702
1,178,209,880
1,037,733,908 2002 (fallout from "Dot.Com Bubble" and 9/11)
987,208,878 2003
990,248,760 2004
1,107,500,994 2005
1,236,259,371
1,366,241,437
1,400,405,178
1,175,421,788 2009 (fallout from the "SubPrime Mortgage" / Fin Mrkt Collapse)
1,163,687,589 2010
1,331,160,469 2011
1,371,402,290 2012
1,539,658,421
1,614,213,171
1,759,740,317
1,786,123,738
1,838,403,489
1,933,485,246

That's true. The problem is that spending grows faster than revenues. The tax cuts may be contributing the the growing deficit but that's difficult to prove. The thing that's easy to prove is that entitlement expenditures are growing much faster than entitlement revenues.

 

[bdgan]

there was no "tax cut". It is as simple as that. Some won, some lost, but net result is more federal revenue. Those are the facts two years in.

Some people assume that the economy hasn't picked up due to the tax cuts. They assume taxable income is the same either way and that lower rates = lower tax revenues. IMO that thinking defies logic and common sense. I think the tax cuts have added to the deficit but probably no more than $50b.

The biggest increase in the deficit is due to rapidly growing entitlement expenditures.

 

[Obliviax]

Totally.

NYC is clearly an exception. Property values ARE NOT higher in 95% of cities in the USA. Property values are higher in the near suburbs, typically off the first exit outside of the home county of the large city. In pittsburgh, think Cranberry Township. Why? Lower property taxes, better schools and less crime. All of that falls into the category of "no-brainer".

And, you CAN deduct property taxes but up to $10k per year. Where I live, that means a $500k home...and, again, you only cannot deduct above $10k. So a $1m home will pay $10,000 while deducting $10k. Finally, it is a deduction so if you are in a 35% bracket, a $10,000 deduction means a $3,500 loss over the old tax laws. And with all of that, most communities raised property taxes to make up for less federal grants.

bottom line is that there wasn't a tax cut, it was just moved around.

 

[Obliviax]

That's true. The problem is that spending grows faster than revenues. The tax cuts may be contributing the the growing deficit but that's difficult to prove. The thing that's easy to prove is that entitlement expenditures are growing much faster than entitlement revenues.

Especially when, after "tax cuts" the Fed is brining in more tax revenues. One may argue that there would be even more fed revenue with no new tax legislation, but then that counters the argument that there was a "sugar high".

 

[Howie'81]

Especially when, after "tax cuts" the Fed is brining in more tax revenues. One may argue that there would be even more fed revenue with no new tax legislation, but then that counters the argument that there was a "sugar high".

Tax base increases when the economy grows. It's not simply tax rates impacting tax revenues.

 

[Obliviax]

Tax base increases when the economy grows. It's not simply tax rates impacting tax revenues.

Agreed. and that was one of the reasons for the new tax plan. But if that is the case, it wasn't a "sugar high". Can't have it both ways. If the new taxes spurred the economy, that led to greater production, jobs,earning and tax income. If it didn't then it wasn't a tax cut.

Pick your poison.

 

[BobPSU92]

Six Sigma is a measure of quality that strives for near perfection (3.4 defects per million opportunities). I was surprised to see a post that critical of this.

I know what it is. Just having fun.

 

[Obliviax]

On the Other Hand...… here is something that is FAR more worthy of discussion / debate:


Business (Corporate) IRS Revenues vs Personal Income Tax Revenues
2010 through 2018

Corporate ……. Personal ……. $ of Personal Tax per $ of Corp Tax

277,937,220 ……. 1,163,687,589 ……. 4.2
242,848,122 ……. 1,331,160,469 ……. 5.5
281,461,580 ……. 1,371,402,290 ……. 4.9
311,993,954 ……. 1,539,658,421 ……. 4.9
353,141,112 ……. 1,614,213,171 ……. 4.6
389,888,722 ……. 1,759,740,317 ……. 4.5
345,552,427 ……. 1,786,123,738 ……. 5.2
338,529,154 ……. 1,838,403,489 ……. 5.4
262,742,024 ……. :1,933,485,246 ……. 7.4


All the jabrony jabbering about "I Didn't Get a Tax Cut" nonsense has drowned out any reasonable public discussion about this ^^^^^

Which is the 1,000 times more impactful issue..... whether one thinks it is a "good thing" or a "bad thing"


FWIW:

Here is a longer history:

Ratio of Personal Income Tax Revenues vs Corporate Tax Revenues
1980-Present

3.97
4.51
5.34
5.66
4.89
5.12
5.18
4.53
4.32
4.41
4.91
4.81
4.73
4.45
4.02
3.87
3.94
4.03
4.35
4.63
4.83
6.31
4.91
5.08
4.29
3.61
3.25
3.45
3.95
5.21
4.19
5.48
4.87
4.93
4.57
4.51
5.17
5.43
7.36


Now THAT is what reasonably intelligent folks - who have taken so much as two minutes to UNDERSTAND the situation - would be talking about.

Lots of ambiguity on those figures. At some point, one has to define "income". If it is stock options, those are often calculated as value if exercised or not. And they are only taxes when executed, and then at the capgains level. that is why rich people work to grow assets and poor people work to grow income.

Secondly, companies and the wealthy have options in terms of where they invest them money. Raising taxes makes people go off shore. A perfect example of this is U2. Despite their amazing track record of philanthropy, they have an army of tax accountants and move their wealth/earnings all over the world to mitigate their tax liability. This has been quite the controversy. So when you raise these taxes, you drive behaviors. And those behaviors end up with a tax increase or cut, resulting in the opposite of what was desired.

I heard a guy on NPR state that taxation in the USA really ends up being pegged at 18% of net income (payroll or cap gains). And if we just pegged it to 18% as a flat rate, that would be ideal. of course, good luck taxing someone on the increased value of their Shelby Cobra or Monet.

 

[rem524]

There were no changes to mortgage interest being deductible. Those with mortgages would have still been able to deduct the interest.

You are correct that mortgage interest remained deductible. However, the loss of deductions for state and local taxes and the increase in the standard deduction put some people in a position where either they did not exceed the standard deduction or the difference between the standard deduction and their itemized deductions was less than in previous years (resulting in a smaller tax reduction).

 

[demlion]

Federal Tax Revenue is ALWAYS (just about - aside from rare instances of massive recessions) at a "record high".


That is what inflation and a growing economy will do


Any year that IRS Revenues don't increase..... its a bad thing.



Year-by-Year Federal Personal Income Tax Revenues (X1,000) 1960-2018:


Every year in black is a "record high"

44,945,711
46,153,001
50,649,594
52,987,581
54,590,354
53,660,683 1965
61,297,552
69,370,595
78,252,045
97,440,406
103,651,585
100,752,421 1971 (fallout from 1969 recession)
108,879,186
125,112,006
142,903,650
156,399,437
158,968,797
186,755,263
213,058,144
251,545,857
287,547,782
332,850,146
352,608,936
349,627,967 1983 (fallout from Iranian Embargo, Oil Crisis)
362,891,679
396,659,558
416,964,771
465,452,486
473,666,566
515,731,504
540,228,408
546,876,876
557,723,156
585,774,159
619,819,153
675,779,337
745,313,276
825,020,880
928,065,857
1,002,185,765
1,137,077,702
1,178,209,880
1,037,733,908 2002 (fallout from "Dot.Com Bubble" and 9/11)
987,208,878 2003
990,248,760 2004
1,107,500,994 2005
1,236,259,371
1,366,241,437
1,400,405,178
1,175,421,788 2009 (fallout from the "SubPrime Mortgage" / Fin Mrkt Collapse)
1,163,687,589 2010
1,331,160,469 2011
1,371,402,290 2012
1,539,658,421
1,614,213,171
1,759,740,317
1,786,123,738
1,838,403,489
1,933,485,246

LOL. Don't confuse their talking points with facts, norm!

 

[The Spin Meister]

Oh, for ****'s sake

"The Point":
There is ZERO ****ing "ambiguity" in the fact that the 2017 Tax Act DRAMATICALLY shifted the burden of financing the Federal Government further away from Corporations and onto Individuals.
Which fundamentally alters the entire fiscal construct of the nation.

-----
Good!!!

 

[Obliviax]

Oh, for ****'s sake

"The Point":
There is ZERO ****ing "ambiguity" in the fact that the 2017 Tax Act DRAMATICALLY shifted the burden of financing the Federal Government further away from Corporations and onto Individuals.
Which fundamentally alters the entire fiscal construct of the nation.

..and, as I stated, increased the number of investments corporations made in the USA. My case in point was U2, an incredibly charitable organization, that has an army of lawyers to move their income to low taxation areas of the world (to the point where they were indicted). But you didn't address that, did you? you increase taxes, people take counter measures. So increasing taxes, to any particular group, won't always end up with positive results. If you don't recognize that, you think tax policy is as simple as 4x4=16. It isn't that simple.

 

[4rosco]

You are correct that mortgage interest remained deductible. However, the loss of deductions for state and local taxes and the increase in the standard deduction put some people in a position where either they did not exceed the standard deduction or the difference between the standard deduction and their itemized deductions was less than in previous years (resulting in a smaller tax reduction).

And the tax rates were also reduced plus the increase in child tax credit could have offset those.
Everyone's situation is different but overall for the majority of the people their taxed were reduced.

Personally I think single home owners were probably the ones most impacted

 

[ivan brunetti]

I question this statement. Define middle-class. It also depends where you live. A $100k salary in some places is poor and others its the top 1%. Families with income around $150k did not benefit from the tax reform because of the adjust to the SALT deduction. Unless you have your mortgage paid off, or lived in a modest valued house the taxes were the same.

If a person makes $100k and feels "poor" he or she is simply spending too much. You could make $1 million per year, and if you spend $999,000 of it, you are going to "feel poor".

Learn to budget.

 

[jrd23psu]

Your refund isnt the determinant of your tax burden. That is why you dont seem to get it.

And yes the tax cuts were for the middle class.

Factually they were for all classes.

LdN

I never said my tax refund was what determined it. I've already stated that nothing changed in terms of take home pay, my refund or anything. Everything stayed exactly the same. I saw no change whatsoever because the tax cuts were never designed to save anybody money except for the richest people in this country and large corporations who were given a huge tax cut because "trickle down" which has never ever once worked.

The tax cuts were designed to give more money to the rich because that's who donates the most money. It was nothing more than a kickback.

 

[LionDeNittany]

On the Other Hand...… here is something that is FAR more worthy of discussion / debate:


Business (Corporate) IRS Revenues vs Personal Income Tax Revenues
2010 through 2018

Corporate ……. Personal ……. $ of Personal Tax per $ of Corp Tax

277,937,220 ……. 1,163,687,589 ……. 4.2
242,848,122 ……. 1,331,160,469 ……. 5.5
281,461,580 ……. 1,371,402,290 ……. 4.9
311,993,954 ……. 1,539,658,421 ……. 4.9
353,141,112 ……. 1,614,213,171 ……. 4.6
389,888,722 ……. 1,759,740,317 ……. 4.5
345,552,427 ……. 1,786,123,738 ……. 5.2
338,529,154 ……. 1,838,403,489 ……. 5.4
262,742,024 ……. :1,933,485,246 ……. 7.4


All the jabrony jabbering about "I Didn't Get a Tax Cut" nonsense has drowned out any reasonable public discussion about this ^^^^^

Which is the 1,000 times more impactful issue..... whether one thinks it is a "good thing" or a "bad thing"


FWIW:

Here is a longer history:

Ratio of Personal Income Tax Revenues vs Corporate Tax Revenues
1980-Present

3.97
4.51
5.34
5.66
4.89
5.12
5.18
4.53
4.32
4.41
4.91
4.81
4.73
4.45
4.02
3.87
3.94
4.03
4.35
4.63
4.83
6.31
4.91
5.08
4.29
3.61
3.25
3.45
3.95
5.21
4.19
5.48
4.87
4.93
4.57
4.51
5.17
5.43
7.36


Now THAT is what reasonably intelligent folks - who have taken so much as two minutes to UNDERSTAND the situation - would be talking about.


We have undergone a MASSIVE fundamental shift wrt US Fiscal Policy.
And no one is even talking about it - because they want to "R" vs "D" debate about their ****ing property tax deduction

Norm why is this a problem?

If people are making more money and corporations less... after what, eight years of bashing corporate profits?

Why do you see this as an issue?

LdN

 

[LionDeNittany]

I never said my tax refund was what determined it. I've already stated that nothing changed in terms of take home pay, my refund or anything. Everything stayed exactly the same. I saw no change whatsoever because the tax cuts were never designed to save anybody money except for the richest people in this country and large corporations who were given a huge tax cut because "trickle down" which has never ever once worked.

The tax cuts were designed to give more money to the rich because that's who donates the most money. It was nothing more than a kickback.

Almost everything you just wrote is B.S.

This isnt worth discussing anymore because anyone who understands taxes knows you are wrong about your overall tax liability.

The rest is political garbage.

 

[BoulderFish]

---
The tax cuts spurred economic growth, which spurred tax revenue. Federal tax revenue is at record highs.

Tax cuts did not increase the deficit spending. Massive increased spending did.

Exactly!!! I can't believe the incredible lack of understanding of basic economic principles in this country.

It is just talking points.

Fact: Fed Govt cut tax rates
Fact: Tax revenues went UP as predicted

LdN

SMH

1. Seven straight years of decreasing unemployment (and more people paying taxes).
2. Seven straight years of tax revenue increases.
3. Year 8: unemployment lower again, more people paying taxes again, tax revenue increases again, and we cut taxes (rates).
4. Year 9: unemployment lower again, more people paying taxes again, tax revenue increases again.

Howie and LdN: "Look! We cut taxes and tax revenue went up! See, we told you guys that cutting taxes causes tax revenue to go up!"

Jesus.

How many times does it have to be explained to you guys that correlation != causation. I can't believe the incredible lack of understanding of this very basic fact. It's amazing.

 

[LionDeNittany]

SMH

1. Seven straight years of decreasing unemployment (and more people paying taxes).
2. Seven straight years of tax revenue increases.
3. Year 8: unemployment lower again, more people paying taxes again, tax revenue increases again, and we cut taxes (rates).
4. Year 9: unemployment lower again, more people paying taxes again, tax revenue increases again.

Howie and LdN: "Look! We cut taxes and tax revenue went up! See, we told you guys that cutting taxes causes tax revenue to go up!"

Jesus.

How many times does it have to be explained to you guys that correlation != causation. I can't believe the incredible lack of understanding of this very basic fact. It's amazing.

TCF people like you said revenues would go down.

They didnt.

LdN

 

[cment]

Time to Nuke this thread.

 

[The Spin Meister]

SMH

1. Seven straight years of decreasing unemployment (and more people paying taxes).
2. Seven straight years of tax revenue increases.
3. Year 8: unemployment lower again, more people paying taxes again, tax revenue increases again, and we cut taxes (rates).
4. Year 9: unemployment lower again, more people paying taxes again, tax revenue increases again.

Howie and LdN: "Look! We cut taxes and tax revenue went up! See, we told you guys that cutting taxes causes tax revenue to go up!"

Jesus.

How many times does it have to be explained to you guys that correlation != causation. I can't believe the incredible lack of understanding of this very basic fact. It's amazing.

I'll type slowly so you can keep up;


Yep, cut taxes, people keep more = people spend more.

Corps pay less in taxes = reinvest in biz or pay more to stockholders = giving people even more to spend.

People spend more = retail, service, importers, and manufacturers hire more.

More people working = more taxes paid/person + more people paying taxes.

+ Corps making higher profits = more taxes paid.

Total = record revenues

SMH that something so simple as these basic economics is too complex for so many.

 

[Talpsu]

There were no changes to mortgage interest being deductible. Those with mortgages would have still been able to deduct the interest.

true but chances are it wasnt greater than the standard deduction for most people

 

[BoulderFish]

TCF people like you said revenues would go down.

They didnt.

LdN

I never said that total tax revenues would go down. And anyone who did, they're not like me.

 

[LionDeNittany]

Only an idiot would have expected IRS revenue to go down

Well you just called almost all democtats idiots. At least their leadership.

LdN

 

[BoulderFish]

I'll type slowly so you can keep up;


Yep, cut taxes, people keep more = people spend more.

Corps pay less in taxes = reinvest in biz or pay more to stockholders = giving people even more to spend.

People spend more = retail, service, importers, and manufacturers hire more.

More people working = more taxes paid/person + more people paying taxes.

+ Corps making higher profits = more taxes paid.

Total = record revenues

SMH that something so simple as these basic economics is too complex for so many.

You wrote "More taxes paid/person" -- That claim makes no sense, so do you have a citation for where you may have picked up that belief?

 

[Howie'81]

You are correct that mortgage interest remained deductible. However, the loss of deductions for state and local taxes and the increase in the standard deduction put some people in a position where either they did not exceed the standard deduction or the difference between the standard deduction and their itemized deductions was less than in previous years (resulting in a smaller tax reduction).

Correct, but that mostly occurred in high SALT states like where I live and work. If my SALT's weren't so high, I would have benefited from the new law. How do I know? Because I can do the math.