Jump to content
modestobulldog

How are you faring under the new tax regime?

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Akkula said:

The "Great Recession" was not "just like" the recession Bush inherited, were you alive at that time?  The financial system literally almost collapsed during the Great Recession.  The dot com bust was relatively severe but most of main street was well insulated and a lot of the crash was on speculative wall street investments but the lifeblood of the financial system and housing didn't almost go under.  We almost had a second great depression.

It collapsed because of the actions of Bush and Obama.  It they had done nothing things would have been better in 6 months instead of 6 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2019 at 4:33 AM, Akkula said:

 

You guys are really like the Borg and trot out these inane talking points that Rush and Mitch McConnell tell you to use.  You must assimilate.  

If you don't have a balanced budget you have a revenue and spending problem.  I can only imagine an unemployed skid row bum with his whiskey bottle in hand telling his wife and children when the mortgage payment and groceries are due, "we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem!  Just open a credit card with the kids social security number to pay the bills and we will only pay the minimum payment until we die.  I am sure they will figure it out when we die that they have that card."

If you don't have a balanced budget you have a revenue and a spending problem.  If you want to cut revenue you first have to cut spending.  You can't just quit your professional job to become a yoga instructor if you haven't paid off the credit cards and downsized your house and tell the bank, "I don't have an income problem, I have a bill problem."

Whether you like Obamacare or not it was enacted to have enough tax increases to not increase the debt.  Republicans never actually cut any spending before giving their tax cuts.  They just get to the goodies for their wealthy billionaires and tell us that "voodoo economics" will somehow magically not increase the debt.  I think you guys have finally given up on that grift that tax cuts will increase the amount of tax revenue that comes in.  I am not sure even Trump would tell that lie now.  How many times will the American people be dumb enough to be hoodwinked by Republican fiscal irresponsibility?

We should get rid of the filibuster completely EXCEPT for bills that will increase the debt and deficit should require 60 votes.  Right now we have the exact opposite where we can't get anything through with 51 votes EXCEPT budget busting tax cuts.  I mean how dumb is the country to basically allow no legislation to get through ever except things that destroy the debt and deficit?

No.  It is clearly a spending problem.  First, you can't cut anything.  Once a program is in, it is in.  If you cut anything, then you are against it.  Against, the military, against retirees, against the poor, against education, etc., etc.  Second, all the programs you don't cut are subject to base line accounting increases.  The budget grows 6% to 7% a year automatically.  If you try to lower the base line accounting increase, then you are actually accused of cutting funding!  The budget goes from $100 to $105, instead of $107, but you are evil for cutting funding.  Does the budgeting at the company you work for or own operation that way?  There have been studies that show we can balance the budget by simply reducing the rate of growth, by reducing the baseline accounting increase.  When Paul Ryan suggested that several years ago, nearly all Democrats and many Republicans screamed bloody murder.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Supply side works if you just cut spending. No +++++ing way :rolleyes:

The problem with that is that spending mimics supply side economics (think about it). You have to walk a pretty tight line between cutting spending and cutting taxes to avoid an austerity death spiral. Of course that is a lot easier to do in a country with growth, a lot of Europe's problems with this is that they just don't seem to grow economically in the first place like we do. 

As for us, we paid less in taxes this year and still somehow got a nearly 4 figure return despite trying as hard as we could to be at 0. Child care credit, man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'll find out when I file. In October. :ph34r:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

I guess I'll find out when I file. In October. :ph34r:

Just get that payment in with your extension you file on 4/15

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, happycamper said:

As for us, we paid less in taxes this year and still somehow got a nearly 4 figure return despite trying as hard as we could to be at 0. Child care credit, man. 

Yup.  After having to pay 4 figures the last two years, had another kid and increased withholding to make sure this year was definitely not in the red again...and going to get a 4 figure return this year, which is nice, even if the shrewd CPAs on here think that is dumb that I'm missing out on 2% interest. I'd rather get the big return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

Yup.  After having to pay 4 figures the last two years, had another kid and increased withholding to make sure this year was definitely not in the red again...and going to get a 4 figure return this year, which is nice, even if the shrewd CPAs on here think that is dumb that I'm missing out on 2% interest. I'd rather get the big return.

You can get 7% pretty easy over time in just a indexed fund.  Tax Free municipal bonds give you 4-5% often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

You can get 7% pretty easy over time in just a indexed fund.  Tax Free municipal bonds give you 4-5% often.

I'd be better off paying down student loans, but that's no fun.  I'd rather spend money now than use it when I'm too old to enjoy it.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice tax year for my wife and I. Biggest return we have ever received and didn’t change a thing from last year. I need to give better thought to taxes withheld this year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first glance, thread title looks like "How are you farting under the new tax regime?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bsu_alum9 said:

I'd be better off paying down student loans, but that's no fun.  I'd rather spend money now than use it when I'm too old to enjoy it.

You don't stop enjoying things because you get older.

Good excuse for your lack of emotional control though.  I imagine it plays good with most people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made $3,872.00 more $$ in 2018 than in 2017.  I paid $758.00 less in taxes this year.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, happycamper said:

The problem with that is that spending mimics supply side economics (think about it). You have to walk a pretty tight line between cutting spending and cutting taxes to avoid an austerity death spiral. Of course that is a lot easier to do in a country with growth, a lot of Europe's problems with this is that they just don't seem to grow economically in the first place like we do. 

As for us, we paid less in taxes this year and still somehow got a nearly 4 figure return despite trying as hard as we could to be at 0. Child care credit, man. 

I don’t see how spending mimics supply side in theory, maybe you can elaborate. I do agree that reductions in spending have to be taken gradually, with a lot of care and a medium and long term vision in mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, thelawlorfaithful said:

I don’t see how spending mimics supply side in theory, maybe you can elaborate. I do agree that reductions in spending have to be taken gradually, with a lot of care and a medium and long term vision in mind. 

In theory, for supply side economics, you're letting wealthy people keep more money, so they spend more on infrastructure and hiring people and raises and conspicuous consumption, so the rising tide from above lifts all boats and all that money trickles down to all levels of society. 

In spending, you're giving money to a lot of people in the form of government workers and contractors and corporations, who use that money for investment and raises and hiring people and conspicuous consumption, so there's more money being pushed into the economy (I mean... especially apparent when you're running 4% of GDP deficits, that's pushing more money into the economy than is really there). 

It isn't the same, but the effect of "money to the economy" is similar. If you cut spending and cut taxes by less than you cut spending, yes, you're being fiscally responsible and good for you, but you have to expect the economy to react to just having less money in it and you're going to experienced localized pain that is much more than the generalized benefit you're giving out, at least in the short term. Kind of the NAFTA problem, everyone loves cheap AF wal-mart, but cleveland is way more depressed than what cheap wal mart can provide locally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, happycamper said:

In theory, for supply side economics, you're letting wealthy people keep more money, so they spend more on infrastructure and hiring people and raises and conspicuous consumption, so the rising tide from above lifts all boats and all that money trickles down to all levels of society. 

In spending, you're giving money to a lot of people in the form of government workers and contractors and corporations, who use that money for investment and raises and hiring people and conspicuous consumption, so there's more money being pushed into the economy (I mean... especially apparent when you're running 4% of GDP deficits, that's pushing more money into the economy than is really there). 

It isn't the same, but the effect of "money to the economy" is similar. If you cut spending and cut taxes by less than you cut spending, yes, you're being fiscally responsible and good for you, but you have to expect the economy to react to just having less money in it and you're going to experienced localized pain that is much more than the generalized benefit you're giving out, at least in the short term. Kind of the NAFTA problem, everyone loves cheap AF wal-mart, but cleveland is way more depressed than what cheap wal mart can provide locally. 

Spending isn’t adding any additional money though. It’s allocating money within the economy in a different way. The pie doesn’t grow, the slice is just portioned out differently. Supply side grows the pie by (theoretically). And in doing so the government’s slice increases with a more robust economy, especially in the long term. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Spending isn’t adding any additional money though. It’s allocating money within the economy in a different way. The pie doesn’t grow, the slice is just portioned out differently. Supply side grows the pie by (theoretically). And in doing so the government’s slice increases with a more robust economy, especially in the long term. 

What are you talking about, lawlor? If you meticulously manage the budget to a t, with daily or even perhaps hourly changes in spending and taxes then yes, spending isn't additional money. 

In reality, spending is absolutely more money. The majority of industrialized nations run on deficit spending. That's introducing more money into the economy than there was. The pie grew.

Supply side essentially works the same way in practice. You cut taxes and in theory you cut spending later maybe. Again, someone has more money and nobody had to give up any of their money to balance it out, at least in the short term. In the long term does it grow the economy? Maybe.

At a smaller level the comparison works as well. Supply side gives people money to spend and that stimulates the economy in those local areas (seemingly helping finance to a greater degree than elsewhere) so the benefits are larger in certain local areas. Spending more tends to do the same, look at the enormous amount of wealth in beltway bandit companies as well as around large bases.

Does supply side eventually grow the overall pie more? Maybe! And that effect may even be measurable. In most ways, though, at the 5-10 year range, that effect seems to be smaller than the distorting short term effects, which is why I compared the two. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, happycamper said:

What are you talking about, lawlor? If you meticulously manage the budget to a t, with daily or even perhaps hourly changes in spending and taxes then yes, spending isn't additional money. 

In reality, spending is absolutely more money. The majority of industrialized nations run on deficit spending. That's introducing more money into the economy than there was. The pie grew.

Supply side essentially works the same way in practice. You cut taxes and in theory you cut spending later maybe. Again, someone has more money and nobody had to give up any of their money to balance it out, at least in the short term. In the long term does it grow the economy? Maybe.

At a smaller level the comparison works as well. Supply side gives people money to spend and that stimulates the economy in those local areas (seemingly helping finance to a greater degree than elsewhere) so the benefits are larger in certain local areas. Spending more tends to do the same, look at the enormous amount of wealth in beltway bandit companies as well as around large bases.

Does supply side eventually grow the overall pie more? Maybe! And that effect may even be measurable. In most ways, though, at the 5-10 year range, that effect seems to be smaller than the distorting short term effects, which is why I compared the two. 

In what reality does meticulously managing repurposed value correspond with a neutral outcome, but not doing so leads to net gain? Certainly not this one, where the reallocation is always inefficient because the motivations and incentives for doing so most often aren’t geared to it, and the systems that do so are uniformly concerned with their own self-propagation first and formost. Yes, in other areas where the wealth is distributed you can see growth, but it’s a mirage because it’s just being spread around, not growing organically. And it’s done at the expense of those who did create the value that facilitated it, and all the extra good they could have done with what was taken from them. 

You rob Peter to pay Paul, that isn’t growing the pie. Yes, two people can now spend some money. But it’s the same amount, and that’s only if you ignore all the change that falls out of your pockets because your motivations aren’t aligned with making sure Paul gets every penny, but your own self serving ends and where Peter and Paul are really only incidental.

And of course supply side eventually grows the pie! You’re letting responsible people keep more of what they created which allows them a greater degree to innovate than if they had less. That’s where the value is created. Most industrial nations run a deficit because they rely on the U.S. to prevent the chickens from coming home to roost. They’ve invested their faith, whether they’re tyrannical or Democratic, in a world where the US military power keeps everyone basically in check and bears the cost on its own. They deficit spend because there is a benevolent semi-dictator running the show and so long as he doesn’t fall off a cliff long term, we can all keep the lie agreed upon going. But that doesn’t last forever when the top dog acts like a dumbass and believes it can act just like all the other irresponsible countries that rely on it to not break the world. It’ll come crashing down, if destruction be our lot we ourselves will be it’s author. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

In what reality does meticulously managing repurposed value correspond with a neutral outcome, but not doing so leads to net gain?

Who said net gain? Deficit spending eventually results in a net loss, but it also results in a short term gain - and that term is longer than most people's memories (and is probably even longer than most election cycles, meaning fractured continuity of purpose). 

49 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Certainly not this one, where the reallocation is always inefficient because the motivations and incentives for doing so most often aren’t geared to it, and the systems that do so are uniformly concerned with their own self-propagation first and formost. Yes, in other areas where the wealth is distributed you can see growth, but it’s a mirage because it’s just being spread around, not growing organically. And it’s done at the expense of those who did create the value that facilitated it, and all the extra good they could have done with what was taken from them. 

NAFTA indubitably created wealth, but the targeted pain it cased was worth more politically and culturally than the small gain it gave everyone. 

49 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

You rob Peter to pay Paul, that isn’t growing the pie. Yes, two people can now spend some money. But it’s the same amount, and that’s only if you ignore all the change that falls out of your pockets because your motivations aren’t aligned with making sure Paul gets every penny, but your own self serving ends and where Peter and Paul are really only incidental.

It is if Peter is willing to wait 30 years for repayment. We have a net inflow of money into this country because of who is buying our debt. That money gets spent mostly in this country. Will it have to be paid back? Probably! Unfortunately for those other countries, our currency is the world baseline and they bought our debt in our currency. We can inflate away a lot of the debt, paying them back at negative inflation, and still be the best bet in town. It's not sustainable but what global hegemony is?

49 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

And of course supply side eventually grows the pie!

Does it?

49 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

You’re letting responsible people keep more of what they created which allows them a greater degree to innovate than if they had less.

Is that what they are doing? How do you truly measure what any one person creates on a macroeconomic scale? For that matter, we're seeing companies doing stock buybacks. That isn't innovation.

You have gone from information to ideology here, lawlor.

49 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

That’s where the value is created. Most industrial nations run a deficit because they rely on the U.S. to prevent the chickens from coming home to roost. They’ve invested their faith, whether they’re tyrannical or Democratic, in a world where the US military power keeps everyone basically in check and bears the cost on its own. They deficit spend because there is a benevolent semi-dictator running the show and so long as he doesn’t fall off a cliff long term, we can all keep the lie agreed upon going. But that doesn’t last forever when the top dog acts like a dumbass and believes it can act just like all the other irresponsible countries that rely on it to not break the world. It’ll come crashing down, if destruction be our lot we ourselves will be it’s author. 

They run a deficit because they can (and it feels to them like they have to). Historically everyone runs a deficit. Spain, even with more money than the world had ever seen coming in, declared bankruptcy something like once a decade. Rome had onerous estate taxes to just pay for the army and debased its currency in an effort to stay afloat. The only real way that Rome ever balanced the books was by conquering other places, enslaving their people, and stealing all their money. Once they ran out conquerable places, they struggled mightily. William essentially leveraged his conquest of England and was able to pay by granting titles and land, not by balancing any kind of ledger. 

Paying for government has always been the little dutch boy at the dyke. Sometimes you run out of fingers and then what? You borrow some!!! If you don't you get replaced and by god the next guy will sure borrow fingers so he gets to keep his job. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have much of a baseline to go off of. The tax bill put an extra something like $30/mo in my paycheck. That being said, my wife was unemployed for most of last year, and now she's making significantly more than she was previously. We'll probably get a good chunk back, but that will be in large part due to the fact that she only worked for about four months last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×