* Married (marriage penalty is reduced from what it was)
* Lower middle class
* Currently subject to the AMT
You do less well if you:
* Have multiple kids and are upper middle class or higher (personal exemption goes away and the child tax credit phases out)
* Live in a state with an excessively high income tax
* Plan to buy a $1 million home
The details:
1. No more AMT
2. No more deduction for state income tax (real estate and property taxes up to $10K are still deductible)
3. No more personal exemption
4. Standard deduction is $12K for singles or $24K for married
5. Mortgage deduction capped at homes of $500K for new home purchases (previously it was $1 million)
6. Child tax credit increases to $1500 (from $1000), but phases out $50 for every $1000 you make over $75K (single) or $110K (married)
You left off the 1.5T increase in our deficit. But I haven't seen a lot of worry on here about that.
What does the budget have to do in a discussion over how much of somebody's earnings they should keep? That would be pretty Lefty of you to argue over how much of somebody's earnings the government should let them keep.
Well, taxes fund the federal government. So there’s that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
* Married (marriage penalty is reduced from what it was)
* Lower middle class
* Currently subject to the AMT
You do less well if you:
* Have multiple kids and are upper middle class or higher (personal exemption goes away and the child tax credit phases out)
* Live in a state with an excessively high income tax
* Plan to buy a $1 million home
The details:
1. No more AMT
2. No more deduction for state income tax (real estate and property taxes up to $10K are still deductible)
3. No more personal exemption
4. Standard deduction is $12K for singles or $24K for married
5. Mortgage deduction capped at homes of $500K for new home purchases (previously it was $1 million)
6. Child tax credit increases to $1500 (from $1000), but phases out $50 for every $1000 you make over $75K (single) or $110K (married)
You left off the 1.5T increase in our deficit. But I haven't seen a lot of worry on here about that.
What does the budget have to do in a discussion over how much of somebody's earnings they should keep? That would be pretty Lefty of you to argue over how much of somebody's earnings the government should let them keep.
Well, taxes fund the federal government. So there’s that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Should the federal government have unlimited access to your earnings? How much is too much? What is the government funding with tax dollars that they shouldn't be (constitutionally or otherwise). The pot isn't unlimited. When is the breaking point reached?
* Married (marriage penalty is reduced from what it was)
* Lower middle class
* Currently subject to the AMT
You do less well if you:
* Have multiple kids and are upper middle class or higher (personal exemption goes away and the child tax credit phases out)
* Live in a state with an excessively high income tax
* Plan to buy a $1 million home
The details:
1. No more AMT
2. No more deduction for state income tax (real estate and property taxes up to $10K are still deductible)
3. No more personal exemption
4. Standard deduction is $12K for singles or $24K for married
5. Mortgage deduction capped at homes of $500K for new home purchases (previously it was $1 million)
6. Child tax credit increases to $1500 (from $1000), but phases out $50 for every $1000 you make over $75K (single) or $110K (married)
You left off the 1.5T increase in our deficit. But I haven't seen a lot of worry on here about that.
What does the budget have to do in a discussion over how much of somebody's earnings they should keep? That would be pretty Lefty of you to argue over how much of somebody's earnings the government should let them keep.
Well, taxes fund the federal government. So there’s that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Should the federal government have unlimited access to your earnings? How much is too much? What is the government funding with tax dollars that they shouldn't be (constitutionally or otherwise). The pot isn't unlimited. When is the breaking point reached?
As soon as ip gets his beloved single payer.
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
* Married (marriage penalty is reduced from what it was)
* Lower middle class
* Currently subject to the AMT
You do less well if you:
* Have multiple kids and are upper middle class or higher (personal exemption goes away and the child tax credit phases out)
* Live in a state with an excessively high income tax
* Plan to buy a $1 million home
The details:
1. No more AMT
2. No more deduction for state income tax (real estate and property taxes up to $10K are still deductible)
3. No more personal exemption
4. Standard deduction is $12K for singles or $24K for married
5. Mortgage deduction capped at homes of $500K for new home purchases (previously it was $1 million)
6. Child tax credit increases to $1500 (from $1000), but phases out $50 for every $1000 you make over $75K (single) or $110K (married)
You left off the 1.5T increase in our deficit. But I haven't seen a lot of worry on here about that.
What does the budget have to do in a discussion over how much of somebody's earnings they should keep? That would be pretty Lefty of you to argue over how much of somebody's earnings the government should let them keep.
Well, taxes fund the federal government. So there’s that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Should the federal government have unlimited access to your earnings? How much is too much? What is the government funding with tax dollars that they shouldn't be (constitutionally or otherwise). The pot isn't unlimited. When is the breaking point reached?
I’m not following the relevance of your rant, sorry.
Sure there is a limit. But when we are already spending more than we are taking in, and are not willing to cut spending to any significant extent, it would seem logical to suggest that cutting the money coming in is not the fiscally prudent response.
If you cannot accept this from me, listen to R. Paul. He’s saying the same thing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
* Married (marriage penalty is reduced from what it was)
* Lower middle class
* Currently subject to the AMT
You do less well if you:
* Have multiple kids and are upper middle class or higher (personal exemption goes away and the child tax credit phases out)
* Live in a state with an excessively high income tax
* Plan to buy a $1 million home
The details:
1. No more AMT
2. No more deduction for state income tax (real estate and property taxes up to $10K are still deductible)
3. No more personal exemption
4. Standard deduction is $12K for singles or $24K for married
5. Mortgage deduction capped at homes of $500K for new home purchases (previously it was $1 million)
6. Child tax credit increases to $1500 (from $1000), but phases out $50 for every $1000 you make over $75K (single) or $110K (married)
You left off the 1.5T increase in our deficit. But I haven't seen a lot of worry on here about that.
What does the budget have to do in a discussion over how much of somebody's earnings they should keep? That would be pretty Lefty of you to argue over how much of somebody's earnings the government should let them keep.
Well, taxes fund the federal government. So there’s that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Should the federal government have unlimited access to your earnings? How much is too much? What is the government funding with tax dollars that they shouldn't be (constitutionally or otherwise). The pot isn't unlimited. When is the breaking point reached?
I’m not following the relevance of your rant, sorry.
Sure there is a limit. But when we are already spending more than we are taking in, and are not willing to cut spending to any significant extent, it would seem logical to suggest that cutting the money coming in is not the fiscally prudent response.
If you cannot accept this from me, listen to R. Paul. He’s saying the same thing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No. We agree that spending should be cut......but this just seems disenginuous coming from someone who wants government to totally take over the nations healthcare. Whenever Pubs tried to reduce spending in the past, it was always evil. They were starving children in schools, elderly at home, on and on ad nausem. Cut it all. Stop funding art, PBS.....etc. cut Military spending. Cut foreign aid. Cut welfare. What else can we cut?
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
Well, taxes fund the federal government. So there’s that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]
Should the federal government have unlimited access to your earnings? How much is too much? What is the government funding with tax dollars that they shouldn't be (constitutionally or otherwise). The pot isn't unlimited. When is the breaking point reached?[/quote]
I’m not following the relevance of your rant, sorry.
Sure there is a limit. But when we are already spending more than we are taking in, and are not willing to cut spending to any significant extent, it would seem logical to suggest that cutting the money coming in is not the fiscally prudent response.
If you cannot accept this from me, listen to R. Paul. He’s saying the same thing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]
No. We agree that spending should be cut......but this just seems disenginuous coming from someone who wants government to totally take over the nations healthcare. Whenever Pubs tried to reduce spending in the past, it was always evil. They were starving children in schools, elderly at home, on and on ad nausem. Cut it all. Stop funding art, PBS.....etc. cut Military spending. Cut foreign aid. Cut welfare. What else can we cut?[/quote]
I give you credit for thinking that. Some think it's white noise. Some think it's always OK to cut taxes.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
I give you credit for thinking that. Some think it's white noise. Some think it's always OK to cut taxes.
If we aren’t running deficits, I think it’s alsway good to cut taxes. We are now in this endless cycle of Dems wanting more government intrusion into our lives with more taxes and cowardly Pubs who want to cut taxes without cutting government. To be honest, it doesn’t really seem the Pubs want to cut taxes either.
We need a new party that is not the Libertarians.
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
* Married (marriage penalty is reduced from what it was)
* Lower middle class
* Currently subject to the AMT
You do less well if you:
* Have multiple kids and are upper middle class or higher (personal exemption goes away and the child tax credit phases out)
* Live in a state with an excessively high income tax
* Plan to buy a $1 million home
The details:
1. No more AMT
2. No more deduction for state income tax (real estate and property taxes up to $10K are still deductible)
3. No more personal exemption
4. Standard deduction is $12K for singles or $24K for married
5. Mortgage deduction capped at homes of $500K for new home purchases (previously it was $1 million)
6. Child tax credit increases to $1500 (from $1000), but phases out $50 for every $1000 you make over $75K (single) or $110K (married)
You left off the 1.5T increase in our deficit. But I haven't seen a lot of worry on here about that.
What does the budget have to do in a discussion over how much of somebody's earnings they should keep? That would be pretty Lefty of you to argue over how much of somebody's earnings the government should let them keep.
Well, taxes fund the federal government. So there’s that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I guess that makes sense if you think taxpayers exist as livestock to serve government.
* Married (marriage penalty is reduced from what it was)
* Lower middle class
* Currently subject to the AMT
You do less well if you:
* Have multiple kids and are upper middle class or higher (personal exemption goes away and the child tax credit phases out)
* Live in a state with an excessively high income tax
* Plan to buy a $1 million home
The details:
1. No more AMT
2. No more deduction for state income tax (real estate and property taxes up to $10K are still deductible)
3. No more personal exemption
4. Standard deduction is $12K for singles or $24K for married
5. Mortgage deduction capped at homes of $500K for new home purchases (previously it was $1 million)
6. Child tax credit increases to $1500 (from $1000), but phases out $50 for every $1000 you make over $75K (single) or $110K (married)
Overall, it's a crap show, but you also have to include the low tax rate on pass through income for partnerships and sole proprietorships, which would be great. If you get that, and then get rid of the stupid removal of the state income tax deduction, I'm all for it.
USN_Hokie wrote:I like it, even though I'll probably pay more.
Love to see all the folks living in liberal welfare states suddenly become tea partiers over removal of the state tax deduction, too.
It will just encourage states to switch from income taxes to property taxes.
I’d be curious to hear their stated reasoning for including one, but not the other.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
USN_Hokie wrote:I like it, even though I'll probably pay more.
Love to see all the folks living in liberal welfare states suddenly become tea partiers over removal of the state tax deduction, too.
It will just encourage states to switch from income taxes to property taxes.
I’d be curious to hear their stated reasoning for including one, but not the other.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You don't get it? States were using the exemption to collect taxes the fed would have otherwise collected. If states just increase property/sales taxes to recoup the losses they will increase the gross taxes for their constituents to collect the same amount of taxes.
USN_Hokie wrote:I like it, even though I'll probably pay more.
Love to see all the folks living in liberal welfare states suddenly become tea partiers over removal of the state tax deduction, too.
It will just encourage states to switch from income taxes to property taxes.
I’d be curious to hear their stated reasoning for including one, but not the other.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You don't get it? States were using the exemption to collect taxes the fed would have otherwise collected. If states just increase property/sales taxes to recoup the losses they will increase the gross taxes for their constituents to collect the same amount of taxes.
Of course. But it would still put most NY/CA/MD tax payers in a better position than continuing to rely on income taxes to the same extent.
What is the stated reasoning for exempting state property taxes and not state income taxes? Have they given one?
And yes, I understand the real reason is that they home industry lobby carries more weight than the concerns of NY, CA and NJ tax payers. I get that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
* Married (marriage penalty is reduced from what it was)
* Lower middle class
* Currently subject to the AMT
You do less well if you:
* Have multiple kids and are upper middle class or higher (personal exemption goes away and the child tax credit phases out)
* Live in a state with an excessively high income tax
* Plan to buy a $1 million home
The details:
1. No more AMT
2. No more deduction for state income tax (real estate and property taxes up to $10K are still deductible)
3. No more personal exemption
4. Standard deduction is $12K for singles or $24K for married
5. Mortgage deduction capped at homes of $500K for new home purchases (previously it was $1 million)
6. Child tax credit increases to $1500 (from $1000), but phases out $50 for every $1000 you make over $75K (single) or $110K (married)
You left off the 1.5T increase in our deficit. But I haven't seen a lot of worry on here about that.
What does the budget have to do in a discussion over how much of somebody's earnings they should keep? That would be pretty Lefty of you to argue over how much of somebody's earnings the government should let them keep.
Well, taxes fund the federal government. So there’s that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Should the federal government have unlimited access to your earnings? How much is too much? What is the government funding with tax dollars that they shouldn't be (constitutionally or otherwise). The pot isn't unlimited. When is the breaking point reached?
I’m not following the relevance of your rant, sorry.
Sure there is a limit. But when we are already spending more than we are taking in, and are not willing to cut spending to any significant extent, it would seem logical to suggest that cutting the money coming in is not the fiscally prudent response.
If you cannot accept this from me, listen to R. Paul. He’s saying the same thing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Woah. The republicans are willing to cut spending, the democrats are not. If left to the republicans we could cut spending and have tax reform and then still zero the deficit for the year. The democrats are unwilling to compromise on ANY spending cuts. Shoot, they even rail about reductions in increases.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
You left off the 1.5T increase in our deficit. But I haven't seen a lot of worry on here about that.
What does the budget have to do in a discussion over how much of somebody's earnings they should keep? That would be pretty Lefty of you to argue over how much of somebody's earnings the government should let them keep.
Well, taxes fund the federal government. So there’s that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Should the federal government have unlimited access to your earnings? How much is too much? What is the government funding with tax dollars that they shouldn't be (constitutionally or otherwise). The pot isn't unlimited. When is the breaking point reached?
I’m not following the relevance of your rant, sorry.
Sure there is a limit. But when we are already spending more than we are taking in, and are not willing to cut spending to any significant extent, it would seem logical to suggest that cutting the money coming in is not the fiscally prudent response.
If you cannot accept this from me, listen to R. Paul. He’s saying the same thing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Woah. The republicans are willing to cut spending, the democrats are not. If left to the republicans we could cut spending and have tax reform and then still zero the deficit for the year. The democrats are unwilling to compromise on ANY spending cuts. Shoot, they even rail about reductions in increases.
Are you serious? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t only a majority required. Don’t you have the House, Senate and White House?
Touchdown Jets.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
* Married (marriage penalty is reduced from what it was)
* Lower middle class
* Currently subject to the AMT
You do less well if you:
* Have multiple kids and are upper middle class or higher (personal exemption goes away and the child tax credit phases out)
* Live in a state with an excessively high income tax
* Plan to buy a $1 million home
The details:
1. No more AMT
2. No more deduction for state income tax (real estate and property taxes up to $10K are still deductible)
3. No more personal exemption
4. Standard deduction is $12K for singles or $24K for married
5. Mortgage deduction capped at homes of $500K for new home purchases (previously it was $1 million)
6. Child tax credit increases to $1500 (from $1000), but phases out $50 for every $1000 you make over $75K (single) or $110K (married)
Well, taxes fund the federal government. So there’s that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Should the federal government have unlimited access to your earnings? How much is too much? What is the government funding with tax dollars that they shouldn't be (constitutionally or otherwise). The pot isn't unlimited. When is the breaking point reached?
I’m not following the relevance of your rant, sorry.
Sure there is a limit. But when we are already spending more than we are taking in, and are not willing to cut spending to any significant extent, it would seem logical to suggest that cutting the money coming in is not the fiscally prudent response.
If you cannot accept this from me, listen to R. Paul. He’s saying the same thing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Woah. The republicans are willing to cut spending, the democrats are not. If left to the republicans we could cut spending and have tax reform and then still zero the deficit for the year. The democrats are unwilling to compromise on ANY spending cuts. Shoot, they even rail about reductions in increases.
Are you serious? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t only a majority required. Don’t you have the House, Senate and White House?
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Well, taxes fund the federal government. So there’s that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Should the federal government have unlimited access to your earnings? How much is too much? What is the government funding with tax dollars that they shouldn't be (constitutionally or otherwise). The pot isn't unlimited. When is the breaking point reached?
I’m not following the relevance of your rant, sorry.
Sure there is a limit. But when we are already spending more than we are taking in, and are not willing to cut spending to any significant extent, it would seem logical to suggest that cutting the money coming in is not the fiscally prudent response.
If you cannot accept this from me, listen to R. Paul. He’s saying the same thing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Woah. The republicans are willing to cut spending, the democrats are not. If left to the republicans we could cut spending and have tax reform and then still zero the deficit for the year. The democrats are unwilling to compromise on ANY spending cuts. Shoot, they even rail about reductions in increases.
Are you serious? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t only a majority required. Don’t you have the House, Senate and White House?
Touchdown Jets.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, it requires more than a simple majority.
OK. The votes taken to date have passed with majority votes, correct? Including the resolution authorizing the 1.5T increase in the deficit? How did that vote go?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
