20% Tax on Items from Mexico to pay for wall...

[rojo]

...President Twitter...

LOLOL

 

[Irvrobinson]

This point of view implies a belief in a level playing field. It's really not. The system is rigged against the poor. They have the highest interest loans. They're more apt to incur overdraft fees. Sales tax has a disproportionately negative effect on the poor. They are the target market for predatory loans -- adjustable rate mortgages, payday loans, buy here pay here junk auto dealerships, rent-to-own appliance shops, for-profit universities... they're all intended to push their customers into default and to indenture them for life. Sure, falling for these predators qualifies as a poor decision. But it's not hard to imagine the circumstances one might suffer that would drive him to pay $3000 over time for a $500 car when no one else will offer a loan -- a car which now needs $2000 worth of repairs, and now you need a pay day advance loan to perform those repairs, and it easily becomes a torturous cycle of self-perpetuating, crippling, high interest debt.

Your list includes mostly bad decisions, which actually supports highfigh's argument. Stupidity really does feed poverty.

I don't know whether you agree with Reaganomics or not, but the fundamental justification for tax breaks for the wealthy has always been that they will create more jobs and give more raises, letting their good fortune trickle down and putting more of their wealth into circulation. If what you say is true (and it absolutely is), then how can anyone expect trickle down economics to work? (It absolutely doesn't.)

Trickle-down Economics is dumb, but wealthy people already pay the large majority of taxes. (The top 1% pays nearly half of all income taxes.) I suppose we could just confiscate their income, perhaps put them in internment camps, confiscate their property... I'm only joking of course, as I contemplate my income tax returns, but I think closing of all the stupid credits, deductions, and loopholes that Congress has put in the laws would probably suffice to doing everything reasonable with the taxation system. The real economic challenge is that modern technology has enabled a far greater difference in wealth generation potential for some people than ever existed in the past, and we are judging fairness by the standards of the 1950s.

I remember being lectured by a pre-med student a few years back that she couldn't understand how anyone could need more than $80K per year of income, and everything higher should be taxed at nearly 100%. The real answer is that no one should have the right to earn (and keep) more than I earn, says everybody.

 

[rojo]

Your list includes mostly bad decisions, which actually supports highfigh's argument. Stupidity really does feed poverty.

It's lazy and ignorant to dismiss people's struggles as a lack of intelligence. The point of that list was that predatory lenders prey on the desperate as a business model. You and I aren't their target market because we aren't suffering from bankruptcy, crippling medical bills, the lack of a car to get us to and from a job near which there is no affordable housing, or any of the thousand other situations that make these lenders seem like a lifeline to those who are their target market. So it's easy for us to dismiss their services as merely taking advantage of the uninformed. In reality, it's not that simple.

My broader point is that poverty isn't self-sustaining merely due to poor decision making; whereas highfigh implies otherwise when he says, "Those who do make better decisions escape poverty and some do exceptionally well. ... I would bet that many would do better if they were to move to a different location where they might have better opportunities." That's an overly simplistic solution to a complicated problem. As I said before, the system is rigged against the poor.

Trickle-down Economics is dumb, but wealthy people already pay the large majority of taxes.

When I first started reading that paragraph, it reminded me of when Warren Buffett famously observed that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Then I got to...

I think closing of all the stupid credits, deductions, and loopholes that Congress has put in the laws would probably suffice to doing everything reasonable with the taxation system.

... with which I strongly agree!

 

[skypickle]

A tariff on products (which are the result of an international supply chain) does not make sense when the only nation that suffers (as a result of reduced demand) is the nation that exports them to the US. That nation could easily just send them to their neighbor for export to the US.

(Yes I realize that ultimately we the tariff paying importers would pay this - IF we choose to buy the imported product). Maybe the money raised by such tariffs should go to companies making 'replacement products' in the US?

REALLY, this issue is about jobs lost domestically that enrich corporations externally. Maybe an alternative more precise approach would be to tax investment from these 'job stealing nations' that comes to the US. So when Mexican execs want to invest their millions in Treasury bonds, or NASDAQ or other US corporations trading on an exchange anywhere in the world, there is a 'foreign investment tax'.

Canada recently did this with their real estate. Wealthy Asian manufacturing execas were buying everything in British Columbia near the ski resorts. Property values are sky rocketing. The local people could not find a place to live (like San Francisco?) I think there is now a 75% tax on any real estate purchase that uses foreign capital.

Essentially, Canada declared their land to be preserved for native Canadians. Not too different than President Trump's emphasis on the nation-state. But our valuable 'crown jewels' that should be protected is not just our border and our jobs but our relatively sane set of financial markets and our economic policy.

 

[Chu Gai]

A lot has happened in a very short time. It'll be interesting to see if all of this really benefits the people.

 

[shadyJ]

A lot has happened in a very short time. It'll be interesting to see if all of this really benefits the people.

You don't need to be Nostradamus to see that a trade war with your next-door neighbor is not going to benefit the people.

 

[Irvrobinson]

It's lazy and ignorant to dismiss people's struggles as a lack of intelligence.

Stupidity and lacking intelligence are two different things. As for me being lazy and ignorant, well, there are probably many people who would agree with you.

 

[Chu Gai]

You don't need to be Nostradamus to see that a trade war with your next-door neighbor is not going to benefit the people.

And you don't need to be Nostradamus to take everything Trump says literally and run with it.

 

[highfigh]

Businesses can already write off just about any reasonable expense within a tax year. I'm talking about being about to use a net loss to offset future profits for tax purposes. This is nothing but subsidizing failure, and it is often twisted around to sly people's advantage, like President Twitter did.

Your math is messed up. The FICA income limit is $127K this year. $150K-$127K = $23K, taxed at 6.2% = $1426. I remember when I made $150K, and $1426 was serious change to me when I was raising a family. So let's not trivialize that level of additional taxation.

And you should remember how the Social Security system works. If you raise the income limit maximum benefits go up in proportion. So I wish they'd raise the limit to infinity, so I could get a bigger government guaranteed payout. What most greedy people want is to raise the taxation limit, but not raise the maximum payout, and while I'm not an expert in the SS law, I think you'd have to change the legislation.

I don't think it's subsidizing failure as much as giving an incentive to businesses to spend money on development and growing the business. They need to budget for growth and if they don't, it may happen, but it will happen through spasms, not planning. Businesses also may need to borrow money and if they have "extraordinary expenses", as they're called in GAAP, this is another way to keep the businesses open. One division may be profitable while another may not be, but long-term, most accounting at the corporate level is a lot like juggling with fire, IMO. Whether someone gets burned seems to depend on intricate knowledge of the tax code and interpreting it as they see fit.

Let's face it- the tax code is just too complex.

I wasn't aware the FICA limit was raised, so my example was wrong and of course, that difference matters more where the cost of living is higher. Yes, the payout would be higher if the limit is raised further, but if people who make more pay in for a long period, the fund will grow, although if it grows, that changes the plan to eliminate Social Security by handing money to people who never paid in.

It's broken and they're not trying to fix it in any kind of meaningful way.

 

[highfigh]

No Drama Obama vs. The Gropenfuhrer ... it's not even close.

Start a trade war with the nation that imports the 2nd most goods from us, signs an executive order before the Attorney General can review it for its legality, then ...

the list just grows and it's only been 11 days.

"No Drama Obama"? Where the hell were you for the last eight years?

 

[highfigh]

The Affordable Care Act in the US already includes additional taxation for so-called "Cadillac" health care plans. The tax hasn't been levied yet, as the ACA included a provision to postpone it until 2018 (if my memory serves), at the behest of labor unions.

Isn't paying for a 'Cadillac Plan' enough of a burden?

 

[highfigh]

This point of view implies a belief in a level playing field. It's really not. The system is rigged against the poor. They have the highest interest loans. They're more apt to incur overdraft fees. Sales tax has a disproportionately negative effect on the poor. They are the target market for predatory loans -- adjustable rate mortgages, payday loans, buy here pay here junk auto dealerships, rent-to-own appliance shops, for-profit universities... they're all intended to push their customers into default and to indenture them for life. Sure, falling for these predators qualifies as a poor decision. But it's not hard to imagine the circumstances one might suffer that would drive him to pay $3000 over time for a $500 car when no one else will offer a loan -- a car which now needs $2000 worth of repairs, and now you need a pay day advance loan to perform those repairs, and it easily becomes a torturous cycle of self-perpetuating, crippling, high interest debt.

I don't know whether you agree with Reaganomics or not, but the fundamental justification for tax breaks for the wealthy has always been that they will create more jobs and give more raises, letting their good fortune trickle down and putting more of their wealth into circulation. If what you say is true (and it absolutely is), then how can anyone expect trickle down economics to work? (It absolutely doesn't.)

People who pay higher interest are a bad credit risk and people who pay overdraft fees are bad money managers. Intentionally spending money that isn't in the account is at best, hopeful and worse, irresponsible.

Trickle down doesn't work? If this is true, how has Microsoft created more millionaires than any other company? It CAN work, but the management needs to operate that way.

 

[highfigh]

This point of view implies a belief in a level playing field. It's really not. The system is rigged against the poor. They have the highest interest loans. They're more apt to incur overdraft fees. Sales tax has a disproportionately negative effect on the poor. They are the target market for predatory loans -- adjustable rate mortgages, payday loans, buy here pay here junk auto dealerships, rent-to-own appliance shops, for-profit universities... they're all intended to push their customers into default and to indenture them for life. Sure, falling for these predators qualifies as a poor decision. But it's not hard to imagine the circumstances one might suffer that would drive him to pay $3000 over time for a $500 car when no one else will offer a loan -- a car which now needs $2000 worth of repairs, and now you need a pay day advance loan to perform those repairs, and it easily becomes a torturous cycle of self-perpetuating, crippling, high interest debt.

You're right- ever notice that when you need more credit, it's damn near impossible to get it and when you don't need it, the offers never seem to end? Why would lenders offer credit to people who are likely to default?

 

[Irvrobinson]

but 1% of your income made that much of a difference?

Absolutely. $1426 is two or three car payments, maybe more. A washer/dryer combination perhaps. Or just a leaky valve cover fix on your ten year old BMW. Or perhaps a year's savings for college. I am so fed up with the notion of paying "just a little bit more".

BTW, all of your reasoning about loss carry forward is incorrect. This has nothing to do with keeping businesses open; it is a tax break for businesses and incorporated people that people with just W2 income can't take advantage of. End of story. It should go away. President Twitter wrote off a billion dollars with this policy in one year.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Isn't paying for a 'Cadillac Plan' enough of a burden?

Maybe, but Obama wanted to tax them as income.

 

[shadyJ]

"No Drama Obama"? Where the hell were you for the last eight years?

I am guessing not watching Foxnews which was saying Obama's scary death panels are going to crawl in your grandmother's room at night and strangle her.

Trickle down doesn't work? If this is true, how has Microsoft created more millionaires than any other company? It CAN work, but the management needs to operate that way.

This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what trickle-down economics and supply side economics are. What does microsoft millionaires have to do with this? or management?

 

[highfigh]

Maybe, but Obama wanted to tax them as income.

I'd like to know how the hell paying thirty grand/year for insurance qualifies as 'income'. That seems stupid any way you look at it. If everyone in a family of five has allergies, some have psych issues, one has Crone's Disease and the wife insists that they pay no deductible, it would cost close to $30K in the MKE market, a few years ago. This is a real example, too. If they're taxed on this as a Cadillac Plan, it's not only unfair, it's an insult. Will they be receiving better care because they pay more? Not unless they go to a better hospital. What purpose would this tax serve? I fail to see any good in it. The fact that the annual premium would be less if they had a higher deductible didn't make any difference to the wife, but the tax would definitely have been a burden.

 

[highfigh]

Absolutely. $1426 is two or three car payments, maybe more. A washer/dryer combination perhaps. Or just a leaky valve cover fix on your ten year old BMW. Or perhaps a year's savings for college. I am so fed up with the notion of paying "just a little bit more".

BTW, all of your reasoning about loss carry forward is incorrect. This has nothing to do with keeping businesses open; it is a tax break for businesses and incorporated people that people with just W2 income can't take advantage of. End of story. It should go away. President Twitter wrote off a billion dollars with this policy in one year.

IMO, anyone who pays $450-$700/month for a car shouldn't complain about a 1% increase in their taxes. For a huge portion of the population, that's how much they pay for their rent. $1400 to repair leaky valve cover(s)? Cry me a river! Washers and dryers can be repaired for a lot less.

Choices need to be made, whether to live within one's means, or not. If one location is too expensive, it's time to get a better job, cut back or move.

W2 income, as in nothing but a 1040EZ form? They wouldn't have any gain or loss from investments to carry forward, so why even bring them into this? That just sounds like jealousy. Anyone who lost money in a cash account with stocks, bonds, IRA, Mutual Funds, etc is able to carry the gain or loss forward if the gain or loss is significant enough (exceeds the allowed deduction limit). I did it because they wouldn't allow it in one year and when the IRS had an accelerated deduction for company vehicles, I called and was told that I could use that to buy a van for my business because I was buying it outright, not financing. When I filed, I found that it was all BS and that put a pretty serious crimp in my finances.

If you think 1% is hard to chew on at $150K, try doing it at a much lower income level. Look at the increases in the cost of food- that's a lot more than 1% annually, but I bet you just go along with it "because we have to eat", right? Look at the reasons for the rise in the price of food and then tell me the carry-forward is the problem.

 

[highfigh]

I am guessing not watching Foxnews which was saying Obama's scary death panels are going to crawl in your grandmother's room at night and strangle her.


This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what trickle-down economics and supply side economics are. What does microsoft millionaires have to do with this? or management?

My last grandmother died in 1964 and she would have kicked his butt if they tried to strangle her- she had twelve kids before 1930.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I'd like to know how the hell paying thirty grand/year for insurance qualifies as 'income'.

It only qualifies as income if it is an employment benefit. If you're paying the cost of the plan is not counted as income.