Anyone going to read up on this and explain it for us idiots? Do I need to switch from a S-Corp to traditional LLC?
Tax Plan pushed through - What does it mean?
- Thread starter ticket2ride04
- Start date
It is not quite done yet. It will change again in conference committee to reconcile house and Senate bills. Btw, you can be both llc and s Corp as pass through at same time.
It appears the pass through tax is more favorable in Senate version and will probably make through to final version to appease Portman, etc.
It appears the pass through tax is more favorable in Senate version and will probably make through to final version to appease Portman, etc.
It's only slightly more favorable to pass throughs. Personally, I'm disappointed in it.
Me too. Trump's original proposal was MUCH better, congress version was not as good, and Senate version is worse. Although, it is a hell of a lot better than current situation.
I'm so glad to see Republicans being "fiscally conservative" as usual. Whores for corporate greed is such an endearing quality. I'm beginning to believe my Dad's overly-simplified summation when I was a kid - "Republicans make the rich richer and the poor poorer." I believe that happens regardless of the parties, but Republicans appear to be much more open about their love affair with the already-wealthy.
Nothing of what you just said had any truth whatsoever. It is the tired old liberal class warfare identity politics that your dad regurgitated to you. It is such BS and fortunately enough people a breaking away form that group think and finally realizing that economic success is not a zero sum game of winner and losers. BTW, I don't expect anyone that regurgitates a socialist like Bernie Sanders to understand this whatsoever, so carry on with your nonsense.
Good luck with that happening anytime soon. Apparently there were so many last-minute changes scribbled illegibly in longhand across the pages -- revisions which themselves contained plenty of gaffes and errors -- that no one in the U.S. Senate can make sense of it, let along you or I. And yet, they still voted on it. This is embarrassing.
Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin tweeted a screenshot of one of the pages with a long, handwritten note in the margin. "Trying to review the #GOPTaxScam but they are making hand-written changes to brand new text as we speak – can anyone else read this?" Durbin tweeted.
Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts shared the same scribbled pages and attacked the state of the bill. "The entire U.S. tax code is being rewritten at 6:30pm on a Friday in crayon #GOPTaxScam." he tweeted.
"Any handwriting experts out there? I'd like to know what this says before they call for a vote," tweeted Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. "This is absurd."
Matt House, a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, expressed similar sentiments. "They ran out of napkins to write the bill on, apparently," he tweeted.
Take a look for yourself and be sure to watch Senator Jon Tester's reaction.
Well, how many hedge-fund managers does it benefit? That provision is in the piece of legislation and it adds-up to $600 million bucks.
Who cares? It does not matter. These are tax cuts. Duh.
I don’t think this bill should have been passed. We need to get past the idea that less taxes on the top means that everyone else is better off.
A lot of people care. That provision is a prime example of how it helps to manifest the "liberal class warfare identity politics" when they slide-in such a thing. To me, that provision is the epitome of making the super-wealthy even more wealthy at the expense of the lower class.
You make enough money that it won't matter... that's great. Hey, if you can make 6 figures, you're much more likely to vote republican. Congratulations. But, it seems pretty foolish to act like Republicans aren't blatantly helping-out the uber-wealthy... especially when that is exactly what they're doing. I'm sure you believe trickle-down economics works, too. It DOES work... if you're at the top of the chain.
My biggest issue with this bill is the fact the GOP rank and file complained for years about excess spending during the Obama administration and yet now they’re perfectly okay with adding 1.4 trillion to the deficit.
No, there is not a single bit of spending in a tax bill. Cut spending, cut unnecessary departments, stop baseline budgeting, etc. Then you won't have a deficit.
Huh?
No you’re right, there isn’t any spending in it, but the lack of revenue to the government due to the tax cuts to these businesses and top earners will ensure the government spends more than it takes in, thus adding 1.4 trillion to the deficit. And that is not fiscal, that is madness.
I disagree with your assessment of a lack of revenue due to tax cuts. Every tax cut in history as led to record revenues a year or two later. It is simple economic theory of the law of diminishing returns.
Sounds like you've never set foot in an economics classroom in your life. In the past three decades and probably much further back than that, the tax cuts have served as expansionary monetary policy because we also increased spending at the same time. The "law of diminishing returns" has nothing to do with it. Its inflation, genius.
I love Reagan, but he increased the deficit greatly during his presidency for attempting a smaller version of what’s happening now. I consider myself fiscally conservative and if there’s 1.4 trillion being added to the deficit than its hard to mask this for what is is: just selling out to big business.
I was in a economics classroom before you were born, snowflake. You just validated my point that we spend too much. Also, inflation? really? Is that the "excuse" for baseline budgeting? Good Lord, I can't fix stupid. bigger moron
Last edited:
Again, Reagan did not increase the deficit by cutting taxes, congress did by spending more, and they were controlled by democrats then. Simple income vs. expenses. If you don't to have a deficit, spend less.
Did I say anything about baseline budgeting? Hint for those who can't read: no.
Do you really need me to explain to you how cutting taxes and increasing spending at the same time results in inflation? Apparently it's been so long you can't remember any actual economics anymore.
But that’s the point, the government needs a certain amount of money in order to pay for basic services and basically function. I agree there’s too much government waste and we should reduce spending in many areas. However, you can’t give top earners a huge tax break, eliminate basic deductions for everyone else, and expect an increase in revenue. That’s just not how it works. You can’t just say “stop spending so much” because on a fundamental level the government needs money. Fact is, we are going to add a ludicrous amount to the deficit and to do so just because corporations might bring back some off shore money isn’t smart economics.
Yep, it isn't rocket science.
Obama said Bush was "mortgaging our grandchildrens' future" when the deficit was growing fast under Bush's second Administration. Then Obama's Administration proceeded to add $10 trillion to our deficit, essentially doubling it.
Nancy Pelosi, when asked about the ever increasing deficit during the Obama Administration, said "we don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem." But therein lies the rub, we never have enough revenue. If we taxed the wealthy at a 90% rate, it still wouldn't be enough to satisfy Democrats because they'd spend 10% more than whatever the amount raised by taxes was. And Republicans aren't much better.
Bottom line is that until we stop spending more than we bring in, the deficit is going to continue to grow. A 5th grader can understand that concept but our politicians can't.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m failing to see any meaningful changeIs this correct or nah?
First of all,
Deficit - yearly shortage of funds from spending more than received in taxes.
Debt - the total accumulated debt calculated by summing our total deficits.
The deficit did not "ever increase" under Obama. It was high during the beginning of his administration because we used expansionary monetary policy to get out of a recession. It fell dramatically in the second half of his administration. But don't let facts get in the way of your bias.
Its also hilarious how Republicans talk about Obama "doubling the debt" when Bush increased the debt by a higher percentage than Obama. Obama increased the debt by 68% while Bush increased the debt by 101%. So yeah, there was a recent president who doubled the debt. But it wasn't Obama.
You're never going to get rid of the debt.
I dunno why people ever even try and discuss that. Debt is the pillar of our monetary system. It's more than the pillar, it's the entire foundation, framework and even the windmill on the roof.
Agreed. We have a fiat currency. Listening to people complain about the steady growth of the debt is like listening to people complain about a steady growth rate of inflation. Its silly because its inevitable. Congress has access to as much money as it needs at any time. All we have to do is remove enough money from the economy through taxes to avoid hyperinflation, and the dramatic increasing of interest rates and we will be just fine.
Demands for federal treasury reserves have gone up in recent years. So were paying a lower interest rate on the debt because of the increased demand to buy a piece of it.
Just how are "Top Earners" getting a huge tax break? "Top earners" are getting a huge tax increase under the house plan. The Senate plan, not so much, but they still are not reconciled. Just the opposite of what you just stated. They eliminated deductions and at the same time doubled the standard deduction to make taxes simpler. The average Joe will get far more in standard deduction than they would ever get itemizing their taxes. On that note, only a small percentage of taxpayers itemize to get deductions anyway so that is a straw man argument anyway.
I mentioned the debt expansion during the Bush years. But you’re really going to brag that the the Obama administration only increased the debt by 68%?
I'm not bragging about anything. I'm pointing out irony. Understanding that Bush had blown a giant hole in the deficit with tax cuts only adds to the irony when you compare the deficit in the first few years of Obama's presidency compared to the last few years.
Does the fact that the tax "cuts" for the wealthy are permanent and the ones for the rest of use expire bother anyone?
CC
CC
Just what "analysis" are you looking at when the tax brackets are not set yet?
I guess that one's that look at the entire bill and see a ton of other tax breaks for the wealthy.
CC
According to fb memes it allows extracting ivory from live baby elephants as well as insuring the country will bask in god’s favor.
Top 20% already pays 86% of the income taxes. Top 10% pays 45%. That is a higher share compared to their income than most other industrialized countries. Is enough EVER enough for you liberals?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Class of 2025 Recruiting Thread (Updated 2-4: Signing Day eve RB commit added)- Latest: Bryant Baucom