Did anyone fall for the tax cut nonsense?

[egokiller]

Save for a few trump tards on here, did anyone fall for it? Doubtful.

The average home owner with total family wages of $78k - $168k that claimed itemized in 2017 and standard deduction in 2018 filing jointly saved less than 3% on their federal taxes between 2017 and 2018. So if they paid 15% after taking their refund into account on their 2017 filing, then they paid somewhere a little over 12% on their 2018 filing. Those falling in the middle of that range around $123k saved less than 2%.

Take a guess at how much big businesses and the rich saved

https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968

"Dis tax cut gonna benefit da middle class that most doe" :roll:

Sheep will believe anything. In fact people who are single with no kids could see their taxable income be about 1.5% higher than it would have been using the old law. This is because the old Personal Exemption + Itemized Deduction is slightly higher than the new Standard Deduction ($12k). IOW, losing the PE hurts them more than the new, higher SD.

Some could also pay higher taxes because bunching of deductions in their personal situation under the old rules was good to them, but is prevented with the new rules.

Decent income earners in a high tax state will get hosed as they lose their SALT deductions and exemptions and the increase in standard deductions doesn't make up for it. The withholding tables changed on top of that which resulted in them owing money.

So on top of our trillion dollar debt this "Tax Cut" given to our economy results in some having to pay even more in taxes than they already do.

:roll:

[Prometheus]

BREAKING NEWS:

Politicians serve the interest of their financiers, not the interests of their voters.

[PickernRoller]

No one believed it. Doing my returns by the end of the week.

There is a reason the GOP/Dems passed the tax cuts without any issues but both parties have steamrolled Trump everywhere else.

[tpols]

BREAKING NEWS:

Politicians serve the interest of their financiers, not the interests of their voters.


this was supposed to be the saving grace of trumps congress.... and we had many posters here touting the tax cuts when people were getting chump change bonuses last christmas.


the trumptards deserve to be called out by name here.

[PickernRoller]

Both parties are in on the jig tho...

Doesn't really matter for those that bleed dem to score points on some MAGA kids. It's inconsequential as the never ending bickering.

The party you bleed for is just as bought and paid for.

[tpols]

Both parties are in on the jig tho...

Doesn't really matter for those that bleed dem to score points on some MAGA kids. It's inconsequential as the never ending bickering.

The party you bleed for is just as bought and paid for.


nah dems were not pushing any big corporate tax cuts... that was never in their agenda.

[egokiller]

Right down to the city level. I recently found out those living in my city pay more per gallon of water than all the neighboring cities. Those that run the city figure that people who live in a nicer city should pay more even though there’s no difference in water quality. Why fight for citizens best interests when that won’t result in kickbacks from the suppliers of such utilities? I plan to make it known to everyone. Fvcking me over is one thing, no one fvcks over my fellow neighbors. The elected city officials have a better chance of winning the lottery than getting re-elected after more are made aware.

[ScalsFan21]

The list of odious GOP "achievements" when they had the WH and both chambers is long, but tax cuts for the rich probably top the list.

It's easy to hate on Pelosi, there was nothing more cringe than watching millionaires on Faux try to talk about how out of touch she was to call the "relief" what it was: crumbs. :lol

Shit literally raises taxes after a decade on anyone making under $75K. That's probably the worst part of an absolutely barbaric law. And no matter how unpopular that bill was and remains, the "socialists" in the Democratic Party still won't vocally run against it in 2020.

[ScalsFan21]

Both parties are in on the jig tho...

Doesn't really matter for those that bleed dem to score points on some MAGA kids. It's inconsequential as the never ending bickering.

The party you bleed for is just as bought and paid for.

No question about it. The GOP is worse, but they are two sides of the same coin.

[Draz]

I'm getting less tax returns than last year so far turbotax is predicting yet made the most money so far. What the ***

[egokiller]

I'm getting less tax returns than last year so far turbotax is predicting yet made the most money so far. What the ***

Trump lied to you.

No wall.
No tax cuts of acceptable amount to a majority of middle classers.

Can orange man deliver on anything? And this coming from someone who leans right on many issues.

[bladefd]

I wonder how much Trump and his billionaire buddies made from these taxcuts.. This was one of the very first things he wanted done even before he took office so I'm certain he and his buddies made off like bandits..

[highwhey]

I'm getting less tax returns than last year so far turbotax is predicting yet made the most money so far. What the ***
same here. i received $2500 last year and i made a lot more this year yet i am getting less...:facepalm

[Akrazotile]

Save for a few trump tards on here, did anyone fall for it? Doubtful.

The average home owner with total family wages of $78k - $168k that claimed itemized in 2017 and standard deduction in 2018 filing jointly saved less than 3% on their federal taxes between 2017 and 2018. So if they paid 15% after taking their refund into account on their 2017 filing, then they paid somewhere a little over 12% on their 2018 filing. Those falling in the middle of that range around $123k saved less than 2%.

Take a guess at how much big businesses and the rich saved

https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968

"Dis tax cut gonna benefit da middle class that most doe" :roll:

Sheep will believe anything. In fact people who are single with no kids could see their taxable income be about 1.5% higher than it would have been using the old law. This is because the old Personal Exemption + Itemized Deduction is slightly higher than the new Standard Deduction ($12k). IOW, losing the PE hurts them more than the new, higher SD.

Some could also pay higher taxes because bunching of deductions in their personal situation under the old rules was good to them, but is prevented with the new rules.

Decent income earners in a high tax state will get hosed as they lose their SALT deductions and exemptions and the increase in standard deductions doesn't make up for it. The withholding tables changed on top of that which resulted in them owing money.

So on top of our trillion dollar debt this "Tax Cut" given to our economy results in some having to pay even more in taxes than they already do.

:roll:

Wait, who said this? Where?

Link?

[Akrazotile]

If one group already pays by far the lion's share in taxes to begin with, obviously a tax cut is going to proportionally help them more, right?

But since they already pay the most by far, what is the problem with bringing their tax liability closer to what everyone else pays? Even if we set aside any potential economic benefit of saving business more money, it's just simple equality right?

Isn't that equality? Don't we want equality?

Or are we talking about "left wing" equality here?

"I dont have to pay 60% of my taxes to help those less fortunate than me, but guy richer than me has to pay 60% to help me!!!!!!"

Hey, whatever. Some people have a loser's mentality. Complain they aren't being given enough, even they tho dont expect to have to give anything themselves.

Just look at the list of complainers in this thread. Tells you everything you need to know.

[egokiller]

Wait, who said this? Where?

Link?

Heard it multiple times when having this conversation with people when it was first announced.

[highwhey]

Heard it multiple times when having this conversation with people when it was first announced.
i second this, i remember trump supporters saying it.

but don't expect them to recall it, starface himself was caught backpedaling on the wall. he claimed trump never said the wall would stop drugs coming through the border, we all know that is false :oldlol:

[egokiller]

If one group already pays by far the lion's share in taxes to begin with, obviously a tax cut is going to proportionally help them more, right?

But since they already pay the most by far, what is the problem with bringing their tax liability closer to what everyone else pays? Even if we set aside any potential economic benefit of saving business more money, it's just simple equality right?

Isn't that equality? Don't we want equality?

Or are we talking about "left wing" equality here?

"I dont have to pay 60% of my taxes to help those less fortunate than me, but guy richer than me has to pay 60% to help me!!!!!!"

Hey, whatever. Some people have a loser's mentality. Complain they aren't being given enough, even they tho dont expect to have to give anything themselves.

Just look at the list of complainers in this thread. Tells you everything you need to know.

So what you are suggesting then is a flat tax. Everyone pays the same amount regardless of income. Sounds good. Let's do it. No income? No problem. Taxes are still owed for every year you are on US soil. The longer you wait to pay, the longer the juice runs. 3 years and you are exported. Looks like the 40% that don't pay taxes in the US can start paying them. Make it happen. You won't get anyone in this thread disagreeing with you. To disagree would be a loser mentality. :applause:

[Ben Simmons 25]

i second this, i remember trump supporters saying it.

but don't expect them to recall it, starface himself was caught backpedaling on the wall. he claimed trump never said the wall would stop drugs coming through the border, we all know that is false :oldlol:

https://media.giphy.com/media/mjKno6YAxgc36/giphy.gif

[ZenMaster]

same here. i received $2500 last year and i made a lot more this year yet i am getting less...:facepalm

What does your full calculation say though? Are you paying a higher or lower percentage overall on the money you made vs the year before?

It's important to remember that tax returns are not just something you "receive" or "get". It's your own money that was paid too much to the government over the course of the year. Preferably you should not receive anything back, but if so then it should be very little as you would have paid the correct taxes in real time.

You mentioned getting $2500 last year, that would mean in the year before you had paid $208 too much in tax per month. Say inflation is about 2.4% for the year, then when you get the money back, you would've needed about $213 to be able to buy the same stuff - so not only did you not have the $208 dollars of your own money at the time, but you also lost $5 in value because you had to wait a year to get it back.

Tax returns are not a reward and it's not something you get extra, it's simply letting the government hold a sum of your earned money while it devalues because you get the same amount back later.

[Akrazotile]

https://media.giphy.com/media/mjKno6YAxgc36/giphy.gif


:roll:

[Akrazotile]

So what you are suggesting then is a flat tax. Everyone pays the same amount regardless of income. Sounds good. Let's do it. No income? No problem. Taxes are still owed for every year you are on US soil. The longer you wait to pay, the longer the juice runs. 3 years and you are exported. Looks like the 40% that don't pay taxes in the US can start paying them. Make it happen. You won't get anyone in this thread disagreeing with you. To disagree would be a loser mentality. :applause:


Yes, that is what I'm suggesting.

The rest of your post appears to be purposefully incoherent gibberish, designed to appear as a "response" to my post, but without actually committing yourself to any premises. Is he being sarcastic? Serious? He's being cryptic and coy so he must really have good ideas, he's just so far advanced it's an insult for him to even converse with us in plain, intelligible terms ...

Yeah, sorry bro. We don't believe you. You need more people.

[Akrazotile]

same here. i received $2500 last year and i made a lot more this year yet i am getting less...:facepalm

Isn't that exactly how you and the girls claim it SHOULD work?

The more you make, the less you get back?


You don't have any clue what you're talking about, you're just jumping on a bandwagon cause you see others on it.

Typical whey.

[egokiller]

Yes, that is what I'm suggesting.

The rest of your post appears to be purposefully incoherent gibberish, designed to appear as a "response" to my post, but without actually committing yourself to any premises. Is he being sarcastic? Serious? He's being cryptic and coy so he must really have good ideas, he's just so far advanced it's an insult for him to even converse with us in plain, intelligible terms ...

Yeah, sorry bro. We don't believe you. You need more people.

Like I said, you won't find anyone here that will argue against that.

[egokiller]

Isn't that exactly how you and the girls claim it SHOULD work?

The more you make, the less you get back?


You don't have any clue what you're talking about, you're just jumping on a bandwagon cause you see others on it.

Typical whey.

It depends on how much more. It's all about the tax tables.
If he only made $2500 more but is still in the same tax table, then based on Trump promoting less taxes for middle class, he should still get more back this year because the extra $2500 didn't put him into another tax bracket.

You tried. You tried your best. But alas, you came up short. Stick with the flat tax idea.

Orange man was proven wrong again and now his supporters don't have a leg to stand on. First the wall, and now this. Yes the dems were on the other side of the coin, but they weren't the ones promoting tax cuts for the middle class with the new law in place.

[Akrazotile]

Like I said, you won't find anyone here that will argue against that.


Are you serious? MOST here will argue vehemently against a flat tax.

[Ben Simmons 25]

I'd rather do consumption taxes across the board than income taxes.

Income tax is ****ing robbery, military industrial complex expanding, welfare state perpetuating bullshit. **** the IRS.

Plus, if there's no income tax, how can people dodge sales tax when purchasing shit? They can't.

[Akrazotile]

I'd rather do consumption taxes across the board than income taxes.

Income tax is ****ing robbery, military industrial complex expanding, welfare state perpetuating bullshit. **** the IRS.

Plus, if there's no income tax, how can people dodge sales tax when purchasing shit? They can't.

I suspect unreported cash-transactions would skyrocket, but of course it's not like people don't try to skirt their income taxes. People will always try to find a way around any system.

But yeah, I don't care whether it's income or consumption etc, just make it the same for everyone. For one thing since that's what equality IS, and also so we have 1 less conflict to remain perpetually divided on.

[egokiller]

I'd rather do consumption taxes across the board than income taxes.

Income tax is ****ing robbery, military industrial complex expanding, welfare state perpetuating bullshit. **** the IRS.

Plus, if there's no income tax, how can people dodge sales tax when purchasing shit? They can't.

I'd be in favor of that also. Want to buy a lambo? Pay the high tax on that shit. We got states like PA that pay no sales tax. United States of America? I don't know who it was, but whoever said that lied to congress back in 1776. :lol

[Ben Simmons 25]

I'd be in favor of that also. Want to buy a lambo? Pay the high tax on that shit. We got states like PA that pay no sales tax. United States of America? I don't know who it was, but whoever said that lied to congress back in 1776. :lol

The five states that don't have a sales tax:
Alaska.
Delaware.
Montana.
New Hampshire.
Oregon.

Holy shit. I honestly didn't know this.

Seven U.S. states forgo individual income taxes as of 2018:
Alaska.
Florida.
Nevada.
South Dakota.
Texas.
Washington.
Wyoming.
Residents of New Hampshire and Tennessee are also spared from handing over an extra chunk of their paycheck, though they do pay tax on dividends and income from investments.

Well **** me sideways, it might be time to move to New Hampshire.

No state income tax AND no sales tax? What!?

They must recoup via property taxes. Still.. hmm... and Alaska, but **** that.

[egokiller]

The five states that don't have a sales tax:
Alaska.
Delaware.
Montana.
New Hampshire.
Oregon.

Holy shit. I honestly didn't know this.

Seven U.S. states forgo individual income taxes as of 2018:
Alaska.
Florida.
Nevada.
South Dakota.
Texas.
Washington.
Wyoming.
Residents of New Hampshire and Tennessee are also spared from handing over an extra chunk of their paycheck, though they do pay tax on dividends and income from investments.

Well **** me sideways, it might be time to move to New Hampshire.

No state income tax AND no sales tax? What!?

New Hampshire sounds like a deal, until you see the property tax. I have a friend that lives there who used to live in Ohio and he flat out said Ohio is cheaper cost of living.

[Derka]

Well **** me sideways, it might be time to move to New Hampshire.

No state income tax AND no sales tax? What!?

They must recoup via property taxes. Still.. hmm... and Alaska, but **** that.
Ding ding ding! I

[egokiller]

Like I said, New Hampshire sounds like a deal, until you see the property tax.

Schools it all depends. My friend said that while he was in the parking lot waiting to pick up the kids at their school, he was involved in conversations with the other parents. One was a doctor, one a lawyer, another a college professor, another a dentist, another a CFO.... from the way he described it there wasn't a single parent there that didn't have at least 8 years of schooling making bank. Definitely some money there to afford the astronomical property taxes.

[MaxFly]

I'm getting less tax returns than last year so far turbotax is predicting yet made the most money so far. What the ***

After you crunch the numbers, did you pay more in total taxes in 2017 than you did in total taxes for 2018. All things being equal, and taking into account any pay raises or bonuses, you may have paid more in taxes in 2017 than 2018, but your payroll tax withholding might have been skewed in 2018 and led to you getting more in your paycheck, but less on your return.

[MaxFly]

same here. i received $2500 last year and i made a lot more this year yet i am getting less...:facepalm

Same question I asked the other poster: did your effective tax rate change significantly for 2018's paid taxes over those of 2017? The extra earnings should have bumped up how much you paid in taxes and your effective rate, but really in correlation to that extra money being earned in a higher tax bracket, and not significantly. How's it looking for you?

[highwhey]

Same question I asked the other poster: did your effective tax rate change significantly for 2018's paid taxes over those of 2017? The extra earnings should have bumped up how much you paid in taxes and your effective rate, but really in correlation to that extra money being earned in a higher tax bracket, and not significantly. How's it looking for you?
i haven't finished inputting some other things. once i saw how much i was getting, i exited the browser and haven't checked back since. :lol

[MaxFly]

i haven't finished inputting some other things. once i saw how much i was getting, i exited the browser and haven't checked back since. :lol

Yeah, it's likely that your effective rate hasn't changed significantly. A few screwy things were done with payroll tax withholdings that have led to a significant number of people getting back less on their returns. They are paying less taxes overall, but are getting back less on their returns.

[highwhey]

Yeah, it's likely that your effective rate hasn't changed significantly. A few screwy things were done with payroll tax withholdings that have led to a significant number of people getting back less on their returns. They are paying less taxes overall, but are getting back less on their returns.
ah, gotcha. i'll check on that then.

[egokiller]

Yeah, it's likely that your effective rate hasn't changed significantly. A few screwy things were done with payroll tax withholdings that have led to a significant number of people getting back less on their returns. They are paying less taxes overall, but are getting back less on their returns.

Not everyone is paying less taxes overall. Many reports saying their total tax paid out for the year was more than last year regardless of how much is withheld during the year.


ah, gotcha. i'll check on that then.

On your 1040 look at box #7 (wages) , box #16 (fed taxes paid) and box 20a (how much your federal refund is/was.)

[(Box #16 - Box 20a) / box #7] * 100 = % fed taxes paid

Compare this year and last year. What is the difference in % paid? If Box 22 is showing an amount you owe, then use:

[(Box #16 + Box 22) / box #7] * 100 = % fed taxes paid

[Hawker]

Why should blue states get away with high taxation knowing they can just deduct from their federal taxes?

Didn’t the evening out of this make states more competitive for business and people? That’s a good thing.

Remember, a tax refund is an interest free loan you paid to the government.

[egokiller]

[QUOTE=Hawker]Why should blue states get away with high taxation knowing they can just deduct from their federal taxes?

Didn

[NumberSix]

same here. i received $2500 last year and i made a lot more this year yet i am getting less...:facepalm
Think of what you just said. You send the government YOUR money and then they send $2.5k of it back to you. If you didn

[egokiller]

I don't like the asymmetrical way interest is handled on taxes. If you underpay, you pay interest. If you overpay, they do not pay interest. Doesn't seem fair to me. Why does no one at the IRS say

[MaxFly]

Not everyone is paying less taxes overall. Many reports saying their total tax paid out for the year was more than last year regardless of how much is withheld during the year.


I'm aware, though I've had to calm a lot of people down this week for whom it was the case that they paid less in taxes in 2018 than in 2017, but that regular payroll withholdings led to smaller returns.

Notwithstanding, depending on people's incomes, living situations and the kinds of itemized deductions they have been able to claim in the past, a lot of people will be surprised to see that their taxes were higher in 2018, and we're not talking millionaires and billionaires. [/QUOTE]


On your 1040 look at box #7 (wages) , box #16 (fed taxes paid) and box 20a (how much your federal refund is/was.)

[(Box #16 - Box 20a) / box #7] * 100 = % fed taxes paid

Compare this year and last year. What is the difference in % paid? If Box 22 is showing an amount you owe, then use:

[(Box #16 + Box 22) / box #7] * 100 = % fed taxes paid

Yup, everyone should do this before they freak out.

[MaxFly]

[QUOTE=Hawker]Why should blue states get away with high taxation knowing they can just deduct from their federal taxes?

Didn

[MaxFly]

[QUOTE=NumberSix]Think of what you just said. You send the government YOUR money and then they send $2.5k of it back to you. If you didn

[Duderonomy]

Well at least the Republicans in battleground states lost their seat over this. Even the CIA spook running as a dem narrowly won because of the slimeball lawyer Rep was saying how much the middle class would benefit from this tax cut.

[egokiller]

While we're at it, we could make sure that red states only get back the same percentage of overall federal taxes that they have paid in federal funding. For decades, red states, on average, have consistenly gotten back more federal tax dollars than they have contributed. With blue states, on average, getting back more of their federal tax dollars, they could decrease state and local taxes. :applause:

Why is it that blue states always try to fvck over their voter base by other means other than taxation though? I mean take something arbitrary like utility costs. Why do a good portion of the blue states have to pay more for electricity? I'm sure that gas and water are similar.

https://www.chooseenergy.com/electricity-rates-by-state/

New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
New York
Massachusetts
Maine
Connecticut
California

These states all pay more unless is somewhere like Alaska or Hawaii.

[SomeBlackDude]

Americans who have already filed their federal tax returns are seeing, on average, an 8.4 percent drop in their refund amount so far this year


The big banks paid $21 billion less in taxes last year. What did they do with the savings?

Boosted dividends and stock buybacks by 23 percent and eliminated 4,300 jobs.


Full data on buybacks is not yet available for 2018. But by mid-December, research from the firm TrimTabs had already noted a record $1 trillion in buyback announcements.


The national debt has just topped $22 trillion for the first time.
It's increased $2,065,536,336,473 since the day President Donald Trump took the oath of office two years ago.

https://i.imgflip.com/wj62b.jpg

and on and on it goes...

[SomeBlackDude]

breaking news.

[QUOTE][B][U]Marco Rubio says he

[bladefd]

breaking news.



lil' marco for president. :bowdown:

I doubt they will be able to pass it. Corporations own the government and the rest of us. It will never get enough votes to get past both houses and Lil Donny in the White House. :confusedshrug:

[SomeBlackDude]

I doubt they will be able to pass it. Corporations own the government and the rest of us. It will never get enough votes to get past both houses and Lil Donny in the White House. :confusedshrug:

naturally.

but honestly, i'm legit shocked lil marco came out of left field to propose this. this is anathema to the whole gop trickle down scam. the hustle doesn't work without it, rip ron reagan.

makes me wonder why he's stepping off the reservation on this. :coleman:

[tpols]

naturally.

but honestly, i'm legit shocked lil marco came out of left field to propose this. this is anathema to the whole gop trickle down scam. the hustle doesn't work without it, rip ron reagan.

makes me wonder why he's stepping off the reservation on this. :coleman:


:lol

ron the don, baby. :pimp:

rollin rn.

[MaxFly]

Why is it that blue states always try to fvck over their voter base by other means other than taxation though? I mean take something arbitrary like utility costs. Why do a good portion of the blue states have to pay more for electricity? I'm sure that gas and water are similar.

https://www.chooseenergy.com/electricity-rates-by-state/

New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
New York
Massachusetts
Maine
Connecticut
California

These states all pay more unless is somewhere like Alaska or Hawaii.

They generally tend to have higher costs of living.

[NumberSix]

They generally tend to have higher costs of living.
And why is that? Why would states like Texas or Florida have such lower cost of living than states like New York or Massachusetts?

[Jasper]

Save for a few trump tards on here, did anyone fall for it? Doubtful.

The average home owner with total family wages of $78k - $168k that claimed itemized in 2017 and standard deduction in 2018 filing jointly saved less than 3% on their federal taxes between 2017 and 2018. So if they paid 15% after taking their refund into account on their 2017 filing, then they paid somewhere a little over 12% on their 2018 filing. Those falling in the middle of that range around $123k saved less than 2%.

Take a guess at how much big businesses and the rich saved

https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968

"Dis tax cut gonna benefit da middle class that most doe" :roll:

Sheep will believe anything. In fact people who are single with no kids could see their taxable income be about 1.5% higher than it would have been using the old law. This is because the old Personal Exemption + Itemized Deduction is slightly higher than the new Standard Deduction ($12k). IOW, losing the PE hurts them more than the new, higher SD.

Some could also pay higher taxes because bunching of deductions in their personal situation under the old rules was good to them, but is prevented with the new rules.

Decent income earners in a high tax state will get hosed as they lose their SALT deductions and exemptions and the increase in standard deductions doesn't make up for it. The withholding tables changed on top of that which resulted in them owing money.

So on top of our trillion dollar debt this "Tax Cut" given to our economy results in some having to pay even more in taxes than they already do.

:roll:
Glad to see someone else besides me , realize the Republicans make the rich richer , and the poor and middle-class stay in a hole.

[SomeBlackDude]

"I Trusted You!" Furious Trump Voters REVOLT Over GOP Tax Scam (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3xjn8oORZs)

https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Trump-Fan-Book-Store-410x220.png

just tragic (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/trusted-trump-voters-seethe-realizing-theyre-getting-screwed-gops-tax-plan/). :(

[Hawker]

Cuomo went to the White House and got on his knees to Trump begging him to change the tax law. That’s embarrassing.

Amazon peaced out as well.

[greymatter]

While we're at it, we could make sure that red states only get back the same percentage of overall federal taxes that they have paid in federal funding. For decades, red states, on average, have consistenly gotten back more federal tax dollars than they have contributed. With blue states, on average, getting back more of their federal tax dollars, they could decrease state and local taxes. :applause:

The RW have always been the biggest welfare queens who like talking shit about having the west and NE coasts secede.

They're completely oblivious to the fact that their collective states would collectively be little better than a developing country.

[greymatter]

Why do a good portion of the blue states have to pay more for electricity?

Back in the early 2000s, it was as simple as organized price fixing that was made able to happen because W Bush and the rest of the Retardlicans were dumb enough to assert that government regulation universally increases prices.

Once they deregulated the energy industry (namely pricing guidelines), a company by the name of Enron tripled energy prices for California by artificially creating energy shortfalls (producing less energy to decrease supply).

[NumberSix]

Back in the early 2000s, it was as simple as organized price fixing that was made able to happen because W Bush and the rest of the Retardlicans were dumb enough to assert that government regulation universally increases prices.

Once they deregulated the energy industry (namely pricing guidelines), a company by the name of Enron tripled energy prices for California by artificially creating energy shortfalls (producing less energy to decrease supply).
California’s main energy company (PG&E) just filed for bankruptcy 4 weeks ago. Who are we blaming for that?

[MaxFly]

And why is that? Why would states like Texas or Florida have such lower cost of living than states like New York or Massachusetts?

Why would states like Mississippi and West Virginia have a lower cost of living than states like Texas and Florida?

[Akrazotile]

While we're at it, we could make sure that red states only get back the same percentage of overall federal taxes that they have paid in federal funding. For decades, red states, on average, have consistenly gotten back more federal tax dollars than they have contributed. With blue states, on average, getting back more of their federal tax dollars, they could decrease state and local taxes. :applause:


You could, but you'd alienate a lot of minorities in the process.

All the poor red states in the South East have huge African American populations. Red state poverty in the west is often skewed heavily by Indian Reservations (the poorest group in America).

Any time you're clowning red state poverty, you're basically clowning minorities. Red state minorities are REALLY poor, and presumably get a lot of aid. And the Injuns don't even have to pay federal taxes even though they receive federal benefits.

So proceed with caution.

[Akrazotile]

Why would states like Mississippi and West Virginia have a lower cost of living than states like Texas and Florida?


I'm sure in large part because they have comparatively much smaller economies.

Not as much of an applicable factor when comparing CA/TX/NY/FL

[MaxFly]

You could, but you'd alienate a lot of minorities in the process.

All the poor red states in the South East have huge African American populations. Red state poverty in the west is often skewed heavily by Indian Reservations (the poorest group in America).

Any time you're clowning red state poverty, you're basically clowning minorities. Red state minorities are REALLY poor, and presumably get a lot of aid. And the Injuns don't even have to pay federal taxes even though they receive federal benefits.

So proceed with caution.

West Virginia, Montana, Kentucky, Idaho... :confusedshrug:

[tpols]

You could, but you'd alienate a lot of minorities in the process.

All the poor red states in the South East have huge African American populations. Red state poverty in the west is often skewed heavily by Indian Reservations (the poorest group in America).

Any time you're clowning red state poverty, you're basically clowning minorities. Red state minorities are REALLY poor, and presumably get a lot of aid. And the Injuns don't even have to pay federal taxes even though they receive federal benefits.

So proceed with caution.


the overwhelming majority of caucasian welfare population is in red states as well. in fact, they are the majority ethnicity for their respective states too.

[MaxFly]

I'm sure in large part because they have comparatively much smaller economies.

Not as much of an applicable factor when comparing CA/TX/NY/FL

It's not that simple. States that have large and bouyant economies but have relatively low costs of living also tend to have relatively low median household incomes. Texas' median household income is right around the 50th pecentile. Florida is in the bottom 25th percentile for obvious reasons.

It's a simple rule of economics and capitalism. When people in a region earn more and can spend more, businesses and local economies will adjust the pricing of goods and services (within reason) to capture increased profits.

Incidentally, I was being facetious regarding blue states keeping or getting back more of their federal tax dollars. It would be a terrible idea that would significantly hurt red states, the general US economy, and ultimately, blue states in the long run. But if we're going to complain about blue states being overly taxed, federal tax funding is where the conversation should likely begin.

[Akrazotile]

the overwhelming majority of caucasian welfare population is in red states as well. in fact, they are the majority ethnicity for their respective states too.


Sure, relative to other caucasians theyre the poorest.

But white people in Montana and Arizona arent poor like the Injuns are poor. Hell, Injuns have a host of federal programs created just for them


The scope of Indian Affairs programs is extensive and includes a range of services comparable to the programs of state and local government, e.g., education, social services, law enforcement, courts, real estate services, agriculture and range management, and resource protection.

Other agencies

Many Federal agencies other than the Indian Affairs have special programs to serve the American Indian population, i.e., the Indian Health Service (IHS), an adjunct of the Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The IHS provides health care services through a network of reservation-based hospitals and clinics. Besides standard medical care, the agency has established programs that specialize in maternal and child health, mental health, substance abuse, home health care, nutrition, etc.

https://www.doi.gov/tribes/benefits


Also the white poverty rate in both Mississippi and Louisiana is 10% while the African American rate is 30% and 31% respectively. This is a wider gap than in, for instance, NY or CA.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22 :%22asc%22%7D


Red states, by population percentage, are more black and native american than blue states. Not only are minority poverty rates higher than in blue states, but minorities are also a higher percentage of the population. So when you clown red states for being poor and suffused with handouts... youre basically clowning on the relationship between minorities and poverty. That’s your prerogative tho :confusedshrug:

[Hawker]

https://i.imgflip.com/wj62b.jpg

and on and on it goes...

You can't math. Read maxfly's explanation.

Let's tax more rich people to give money to failed infrastructure projects like the California high speed rail!

[MaxFly]

You can't math. Read maxfly's explanation.


Well, let's be balanced, now. We were told by the administration that billions from the tax savings of rich people and corporations would pour back into the economy, resulting in accelerated job growth and wage increases, and that the middle class would see huge tax savings and end up being big beneficiaries.

We now know that companies by and large directed those tax savings to investors via dividend increases and stock buybacks. As an investor, it was great for me (minus the market instability Trump has caused with the trade war foolishness), but we know the administration was lying then, and we know that they knew they were lying as they were saying it. It's no wonder nary a Republican seriously ran on the tax cuts during the 2018 election and are loath to mention the cuts even now. :confusedshrug:

[Akrazotile]

Well, let's be balanced, now. We were told by the administration that billions from the tax savings of rich people and corporations would pour back into the economy, resulting in accelerated job growth and wage increases, and that the middle class would see huge tax savings and end up being big beneficiaries.

We now know that companies by and large directed those tax savings to investors via dividend increases and stock buybacks. As an investor, it was great for me (minus the market instability Trump has caused with the trade war foolishness), but we know the administration was lying then, and we know that they knew they were lying as they were saying it. It's no wonder nary a Republican seriously ran on the tax cuts during the 2018 election and are loath to mention the cuts even now. :confusedshrug:


Well the investors who got dividends live in America, right? (Most of them anyhow). So presumably theyre buying a few more products and services than they otherwise would be.

And it did create a continued level of job growth, didnt it? I remember at the time a bunch of companies rolled out ambitious hiring plans. In fact, I remember an article pointing to big tech companies starting to waive degree requirements, because they had so many positions to fill after the tax break.

You want wage improvement? Open your mouth about immigration, instead of always avoiding the issue like a typical left

[Hawker]

Well, let's be balanced, now. We were told by the administration that billions from the tax savings of rich people and corporations would pour back into the economy, resulting in accelerated job growth and wage increases, and that the middle class would see huge tax savings and end up being big beneficiaries.

We now know that companies by and large directed those tax savings to investors via dividend increases and stock buybacks. As an investor, it was great for me (minus the market instability Trump has caused with the trade war foolishness), but we know the administration was lying then, and we know that they knew they were lying as they were saying it. It's no wonder nary a Republican seriously ran on the tax cuts during the 2018 election and are loath to mention the cuts even now. :confusedshrug:

Job growth is actually up and why do people leave jobs anyway? Generally for better pay so I don

[SomeBlackDude]

[QUOTE]Weakest U.S. retail sales since 2009 cast pall over economy

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. retail sales recorded their biggest drop in more than nine years in December as receipts fell across the board, suggesting a sharp slowdown in economic activity at the end of 2018.

The shockingly weak report from the Commerce Department on Thursday led to growth estimates for the fourth-quarter being cut to below a 2.0 percent annualized rate.

December

[NumberSix]

the overwhelming majority of caucasian welfare population is in red states as well. in fact, they are the majority ethnicity for their respective states too.
People who voted for Trump on average make $10k more than people who voted for Hillary.

[Kblaze8855]

Being more likely to be older white males thats hardly shocking. It doesnt take many rich people to tip the scales but there is no doubt who the trailer park crowd voted for.

[Akrazotile]

Being more likely to be older white males thats hardly shocking. It doesnt take many rich people to tip the scales but there is no doubt who the trailer park crowd voted for.



Proud to have em aboard :rockon:

Altho tbh trailer parks are increasingly becoming latino in demographic. Hey, if theyre votin for Trump, we

[bladefd]

[QUOTE=Akrazotile]Well the investors who got dividends live in America, right? (Most of them anyhow). So presumably theyre buying a few more products and services than they otherwise would be.

And it did create a continued level of job growth, didnt it? I remember at the time a bunch of companies rolled out ambitious hiring plans. In fact, I remember an article pointing to big tech companies starting to waive degree requirements, because they had so many positions to fill after the tax break.

You want wage improvement? Open your mouth about immigration, instead of always avoiding the issue like a typical left

[Akrazotile]

Not unless if you cash out your stocks and spend that cash... Most don't do that


Im sure people in general spend a bit more as their net worth goes up. Whether using more of their pay for disposable income, putting a bit more on credit etc.

In any case, it

[Hawker]

[QUOTE=Akrazotile]Im sure people in general spend a bit more as their net worth goes up. Whether using more of their pay for disposable income, putting a bit more on credit etc.

In any case, it

[MaxFly]

Job growth is actually up and why do people leave jobs anyway? Generally for better pay so I don’t buy the lack of wage increase as it’s not properly captured.

No, we have not seen a significant bump in job growth due to the tax cuts. The historical jobs numbers and their revisions bear that out. And we certainly haven't seen a significant bump in wage increases across sectors.


Also, how come there was nary a story of stock buybacks post recession due to cheap credit from the fed? Stock buybacks aren’t necessarily a bad thing. I remember you posted some statistic that showed 20% went to new jobs. So that’s more jobs created than before...why is that a bad thing?

There's nothing wrong, in my opinion with stock buybacks. The issue is that anyone who has ever invested or paid any attention to the markets knew quite well where the tax savings were going to go, even as the administration tried to convince us of the opposite. After complaining about deficits for years, even at the height of the recession, Republicans passed a tax bill that they knew would widen the deficit and would not stimulte the economy to the extent that they were trying to sell. Again, this is why they are no longer talking about it. Trying to get Republicans to talk about the tax cuts is like pulling teeth, unless you start with, "Hey, maybe the effects aren't as big as we expected because we really needed even more federal tax cuts."

Here is what the jobs growth really looks like. Even Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/12/08/trumps-tax-cuts-havent-spiked-job-growth/#400071ce2df9) is like, "Meh..."

https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fchuckjones%2Ffiles%2F2018%2F11 %2FTRUMP-OBAMA-BUSH-EMPLOUMENT-CHART-2005-TO-OCTOBER-2018-JOEL-SHORE.jpg


If we would’ve left the tax rate at 35%, how much more job growth, wage increase etc. would there have been?

Likely an exact continuation of the Obama numbers as underscored in the graph.

[masonanddixon]

I get taxed at nearly 50% of my total income.

[bladefd]

There's nothing wrong, in my opinion with stock buybacks. The issue is that anyone who has ever invested or paid any attention to the markets knew quite well where the tax savings were going to go, even as the administration tried to convince us of the opposite. After complaining about deficits for years, even at the height of the recession, Republicans passed a tax bill that they knew would widen the deficit and would not stimulte the economy to the extent that they were trying to sell. Again, this is why they are no longer talking about it. Trying to get Republicans to talk about the tax cuts is like pulling teeth, unless you start with, "Hey, maybe the effects aren't as big as we expected because we really needed even more federal tax cuts."

Didn't they also try to sneak in another smaller tax cut after the first big one last year? Didn't get anywhere but still tried.

Guys, you are being played by the Republican cronies.. It's not helping out anyone but the wealthiest. Don't you all see it? It's not being back by economic growth as promised.. Wake up! :hammerhead:

[NumberSix]

Likely an exact continuation of the Obama numbers as underscored in the graph.
Yeah, Obama was the greatest part time jobs president in American history. No president will ever have that level of part time job creation.

[masonanddixon]

If you hoard your money, it can't grow. The only way to increase net worth is to keep investing and using it.

This is what the Jews on Wall Street want to you to believe.

Also, buying a home is a great investment! You actually OWN it, wink wink.