Jump to content
bsjkki

Senate Tax Bill will hurt Mormon tithe payers

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

When I bought my home it cost $130,000. Today it is listed at over $350,000. Young people today can no longer afford to buy my home.

Well...I am liking this..should have bought a home instead of a condo....I did what my husband asked me to do...he said...hey...you don't mow lawns...:P

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Here is one of several estimators based on proposals under consideration. I don't trust anything yet though. Very cynical at the moment.

http://taxplancalculator.com/calc

It is overly simplified. It assumes your kids are under 18 so there is no way to see an apples to apples comparison if you lose  the personal exemptions. If all my kids were minors, I would come out ahead. But, it does show people without dependents doing better which is good news. I think most people would get a tax cut except some who itemize with college aged kids. (me)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

It is overly simplified. It assumes your kids are under 18 so there is no way to see an apples to apples comparison if you lose  the personal exemptions. If all my kids were minors, I would come out ahead. But, it does show people without dependents doing better which is good news. I think most people would get a tax cut except some who itemize with college aged kids. (me)

Those tax cuts for you go away very quickly. IE; College loans are taxed at the same rate as earned income.The tax cuts for the the hyper-rich are permanent. IE; Those with personal jets get them treated as a business deduction.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, mnn727 said:

It will affect most family farmers and family-owned businesses. So yes, its important.

The family farm thing is mostly a myth peddled for political reasons. Median wealth for a farm operating household is less than a million. It has to be worth over 5 million (or 10 million for a couple) before it can apply and even then, only about half of family farm estates over that limit get taxed after deductions and credits and all the rest are considered.

Do not believe that is who estate tax opponents are actually worried about. It is misleading propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The family farm thing is mostly a myth peddled for political reasons. Median wealth for a farm operating household is less than a million. It has to be worth over 5 million (or 10 million for a couple) before it can apply and even then, only about half of family farm estates over that limit get taxed after deductions and credits and all the rest are considered.

Do not believe that is who estate tax opponents are actually worried about. It is misleading propaganda.

The bolded statement above doesn't mesh with the statistics I see.
https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2015/03/17/family-farms-are-focus-new-agriculture-census-data
https://www.farmflavor.com/nebraska/nebraska-family-farms/

Not sure about the whole estate thing (not a farmer myself), but even estate taxes are a significant and non-trivial thing that has to be planned for (see for example: https://ufarm.com/2015/07/11/estate-taxes-nebraska-farmland-mean-heirs/ or http://fortune.com/2015/04/13/death-tax-killing-american-family-farms/).

But the thread is about Mormons, large family size, and proposed taxes relevant to such. So, I shan't get into an exchange on this chain of thought. I'm just not persuaded your stated opinions here accurately reflect the situation.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The estate tax is the death tax, and starts to kick in at $10,000,000. It affects about 2 tenths of 1 percent of the population. It's intent was to prevent monied dynasties from controlling the political process for generations. So you determine the fairness of a tax based on the political persuasion of a small minority of citizens.

Like Google and Facebook? The death tax is designed to take money from people who are determined to not need it. It is strange that there are those who construe politicians promising people to keep more of their own money as something scandelous. And I speak as one of the poor folk. 

Share this post


Link to post

Take some time to watch this. I just watched the intro Tim Scott’s intro was awesome and Ted Cruz was my guy for president. Many here will also like Bernie Sanders no doubt. His intro was animated in his typical likable personal way. I don’t know anything about Catwell other than that she muddled things up during the debate as oer another artice I read; and her intro made no sense at all. Geroge W’s tax cut, Reagan’s tax cut, John F. kennedy’s tax cut, and especially Coolidge’s tax cut all raised revenue for government and productivity. In fact there is not a single federal tax cut in history that I know of which did not raise productivity and revenue for the government. 

I don’t have time to watch it all right now and I drive lots of extra hours on the weekends so I don’t know when exactly I will get to this video but it is a priority of mine. 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/11/28/full_debate_bernie_sanders_maria_cantell_vs_ted_cruz_tim_scott_on_tax_reform.html

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Nofear said:

The bolded statement above doesn't mesh with the statistics I see.
https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2015/03/17/family-farms-are-focus-new-agriculture-census-data
https://www.farmflavor.com/nebraska/nebraska-family-farms/

Not sure about the whole estate thing (not a farmer myself), but even estate taxes are a significant and non-trivial thing that has to be planned for (see for example: https://ufarm.com/2015/07/11/estate-taxes-nebraska-farmland-mean-heirs/ or http://fortune.com/2015/04/13/death-tax-killing-american-family-farms/).

But the thread is about Mormons, large family size, and proposed taxes relevant to such. So, I shan't get into an exchange on this chain of thought. I'm just not persuaded your stated opinions here accurately reflect the situation.

 

That article is limited to one state and the family’s wealth is that high only if they have no debts connected to the property. If I can count the value of my property without factoring in the mortgage my fiscal worth doubles.

And your second link is an advertisement selling estate planning services. Not exactly a source without an agenda to play up the problem. And I agree with them. As you get older estate planning is important. And those figures are right.....for Nebraska which has a state inheritance tax (which is different from an estate tax but has a similar effect) with a much lower threshold on being taxed which has nothing to do with the federal estate tax. If the Nebraska inheritance tax is excessive (and it kind of looks like it might be) that is a state level problem that there should be screaming about. That tax could be damaging to a small family farm. If I inherited a 2 million dollar farm from my parents and got the whole thing it looks like I would cost me a little under 20 grand to the state. I would pay the federal government nothing.

Again, it seems like a red herring on the federal level but is a good warning not to die as a resident of or pass on valuable property in one of the states that has an inheritance tax. ;) 

It looks like the tax bill hit a snag earlier in any case. The deficit hawks are not signing on.

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Like Google and Facebook? The death tax is designed to take money from people who are determined to not need it. It is strange that there are those who construe politicians promising people to keep more of their own money as something scandelous. And I speak as one of the poor folk. 

But it is not their money. It is their relative's money. I say this as one of the rich folk (not really, just related to some).

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Take some time to watch this. I just watched the intro Tim Scott’s intro was awesome and Ted Cruz was my guy for president. Many here will also like Bernie Sanders no doubt. His intro was animated in his typical likable personal way. I don’t know anything about Catwell other than that she muddled things up during the debate as oer another artice I read; and her intro made no sense at all. Geroge W’s tax cut, Reagan’s tax cut, John F. kennedy’s tax cut, and especially Coolidge’s tax cut all raised revenue for government and productivity. In fact there is not a single federal tax cut in history that I know of which did not raise productivity and revenue for the government. 

I don’t have time to watch it all right now and I drive lots of extra hours on the weekends so I don’t know when exactly I will get to this video but it is a priority of mine. 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/11/28/full_debate_bernie_sanders_maria_cantell_vs_ted_cruz_tim_scott_on_tax_reform.html

 

That is another myth. That tax cuts always lead to economic growth. Some models suggest they do. Real world data suggests that sometimes they do and sometimes they do not. Furthermore the best way to grow the economy is to get more money into the hands of people who will spend it. That means the poorer the person you give the cut to the better. If they are likely to invest the money or save it the effect right now is insignificant because we have more investment capital than we know what to do with (see the interest rates of bank savings accounts for how badly banks need money right now).

That is on the individual level. The more questionable idea is will a change in the corporate income tax rate spur growth? I am not sure. Businesses complain about how high it is compared to other nations (and it is higher) but most other developed nations do not have the number of deductions and exemptions US businesses can take advantage of. Top businesses are usually paying less than half of the 40% that is the official rate. If you choose to dig into this be very careful. There is a lot of fuzzy language. Companies will often list their income tax expense which is not always what they actually paid. I admit I would support cutting the corporate tax if we also cut down the exemptions and deductions available.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

But it is not their money. It is their relative's money. I say this as one of the rich folk (not really, just related to some).

Then let the relatives keep it. But, since the government takes it no matter what they decide what they want to do with it, you’re correct, it’s fundamentally treated as not their money. I’m related to rich folk too. We have thay in common. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That is another myth. That tax cuts always lead to economic growth. Some models suggest they do. Real world data suggests that sometimes they do and sometimes they do not. Furthermore the best way to grow the economy is to get more money into the hands of people who will spend it. That means the poorer the person you give the cut to the better. If they are likely to invest the money or save it the effect right now is insignificant because we have more investment capital than we know what to do with (see the interest rates of bank savings accounts for how badly banks need money right now).

That is on the individual level. The more questionable idea is will a change in the corporate income tax rate spur growth? I am not sure. Businesses complain about how high it is compared to other nations (and it is higher) but most other developed nations do not have the number of deductions and exemptions US businesses can take advantage of. Top businesses are usually paying less than half of the 40% that is the official rate. If you choose to dig into this be very careful. There is a lot of fuzzy language. Companies will often list their income tax expense which is not always what they actually paid. I admit I would support cutting the corporate tax if we also cut down the exemptions and deductions available.

No, not models, actual federal tax cuts:

Quote

Geroge W’s tax cut, Reagan’s tax cut, John F. kennedy’s tax cut, and especially Coolidge’s tax cut all raised revenue for government and productivity. In fact there is not a single federal tax cut in history that I know of which did not raise productivity and revenue for the government. 

Is there any federal tax cut in history you can cite where productivity has not gone up as well as  revenue to the government? Anyone? 

We do give money to the poor. I’ve never eaten better in my life than when I’ve been on food stamps. There’s Medicaide, TANIF (spelling?), Social Security,  school lunch programs, rent subsidies, housing subsidies, Freddy and Fannie, etc. Where and when do the poor stop getting poorer under these programs? Start with Dallas to find an example. Not anectodal, a verifiable example. 

I admit I would support cutting the corporate tax if we also cut down the exemptions and deductions available.”

You watched the dabate I linked! (Or already heard of that talking point). Correct, our corporations do take loopholes (and they should) but it would be so much easier, and cost effective for corporations (less need to pay for financial advisors) if the rate itself was lowered. Bill Clinton and Obama support such a thing. Just do it, no caveats. 

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

No, not models, actual federal tax cuts:

Is there any federal tax cut in history you can cite where productivity has not gone up as well as  revenue to the government? Anyone? 

We do give money to the poor. I’ve never eaten better in my life than when I’ve been on food stamps. There’s Medicaide, TANIF (spelling?), Social Security,  school lunch programs, rent subsidies, housing subsidies, Freddy and Fannie, etc. Where and when do the poor stop getting poorer under these programs? Start with Dallas to find an example. Not anectodal, a verifiable example. 

I admit I would support cutting the corporate tax if we also cut down the exemptions and deductions available.”

You watched the dabate I linked! (Or already heard of that talking point). Correct, our corporations do take loopholes (and they should) but it would be so much easier, and cost effective for corporations (less need to pay for financial advisors) if the rate itself was lowered. Bill Clinton and Obama support such a thing. Just do it, no caveats. 

You are playing with fudged numbers with that statement. I am also not sure what you mean by productivity in this sense. GDP? GDP has only fallen in one year in the US since the forties and that was 2008 and the recession then was not tied to tax policy. So saying GDP going up is proof tax cuts work also suggests tax cuts works and so does leaving taxes as they are. Even when tax cuts correlate with improved GDP that is not necessarily proof that tax cuts work the way you suggest. Most trained economists do not believe tax cuts always spur economic growth and government revenue.

Plus the logic behind the generalization is a little absurd. If tax cuts always pay for themselves and always spur growth then logically we should abolish all forms of taxation and the economy will skyrocket and the government will be rich despite having no revenue sources through the magic of this article of many people’s faith.

Yes, welfare funding does assist the poorer. Your argument against that seems to be that it has not abolished poverty. By that standard the advice of Jesus is worthless as he insisted we would always have the poor amongst us but we should help them anyways. In the economic question welfare funds often pay for themselves to a great degree in terms of economic growth. Give benefits to the poor and they spend them and economic activity is generated. In some cases the benefit has been calculated to be greater than the cost. Even knowing that though reckless expansion of these programs would mess with the incentive for employment and we have to be careful how far down that road we are willing to go.

I did not watch the debate. I just read a lot. I would not lower the corporate income tax too far without caveats. Those caveats being closing a lot of the carryover deductions and exemptions. If you meant lower it and remove those methods of mitigating taxation (and they are the caveats) than I agree. I am not holding my breath on this one though. A balanced reduction like that would hit Republican donors in the pocketbook and probably cost them in contributions.

We will see. I personally hope the bill fails unless it goes through changes that are unlikely at this point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Then let the relatives keep it. But, since the government takes it no matter what they decide what they want to do with it, you’re correct, it’s fundamentally treated as not their money. I’m related to rich folk too. We have thay in common. 

There is a way to get the government to not take it. Spend it down while you are alive and grow the economy. You get to do fun things too. Everyone wins!

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You are playing with fudged numbers with that statement. I am also not sure what you mean by productivity in this sense. GDP? GDP has only fallen in one year in the US since the forties and that was 2008 and the recession then was not tied to tax policy. So saying GDP going up is proof tax cuts work also suggests tax cuts works and so does leaving taxes as they are. Even when tax cuts correlate with improved GDP that is not necessarily proof that tax cuts work the way you suggest. Most trained economists do not believe tax cuts always spur economic growth and government revenue.

Plus the logic behind the generalization is a little absurd. If tax cuts always pay for themselves and always spur growth then logically we should abolish all forms of taxation and the economy will skyrocket and the government will be rich despite having no revenue sources through the magic of this article of many people’s faith.

Yes, welfare funding does assist the poorer. Your argument against that seems to be that it has not abolished poverty. By that standard the advice of Jesus is worthless as he insisted we would always have the poor amongst us but we should help them anyways. In the economic question welfare funds often pay for themselves to a great degree in terms of economic growth. Give benefits to the poor and they spend them and economic activity is generated. In some cases the benefit has been calculated to be greater than the cost. Even knowing that though reckless expansion of these programs would mess with the incentive for employment and we have to be careful how far down that road we are willing to go.

I did not watch the debate. I just read a lot. I would not lower the corporate income tax too far without caveats. Those caveats being closing a lot of the carryover deductions and exemptions. If you meant lower it and remove those methods of mitigating taxation (and they are the caveats) than I agree. I am not holding my breath on this one though. A balanced reduction like that would hit Republican donors in the pocketbook and probably cost them in contributions.

We will see. I personally hope the bill fails unless it goes through changes that are unlikely at this point.

 

Thay’s a long answer to simply say, no. Let me put it this way. Has there ever not been an *increase* in revenue to the government after tax cuts? 

“In the economic question welfare funds often pay for themselves to a great degree in terms of economic growth. Give benefits to the poor and they spend them and economic activity is generated. In some cases the benefit has been calculated to be greater than the cost.” 

Um, “fudged numbers”? If that were remotely true them the significant increases in unemployment benefits and food stamps recipients should have spurred massive economic growth the past during the last 8 years. Not only did we see under 3% growth hear after year, the first in history, but there was also record unemplyment which fell only after many simply stopped looking for work which takes them off the unemployment list. The best way to hel the poor is to habe the poor work. One result in tax cuts is that businesses produce more and therefore hire more in order to meet demand. The “tax cuts for the rich” does not exist, it is tax cuts to spur economic growth. The economy wil eventually fall just ad it did right at the very end of the Bush administration after record economic groth for the vast msjority of his administration. That’s inevitable. Adjustments always ocurr but it takes a massive effort of bad economic policies to have a continual sluggish growth. 

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/1-average-annual-economic-growth-under-obama

Tax cuts always reverses economic sluggishness. 

So, pay your fast offerings, be generous, I won’t since, you know me, I like to ignore Jesus. ;) It is not that the poor will be done with being poor I was getting at so much as helping the poor. The number of poor seem to always increase especially in places with the most assistance offered to them. Why is that? 

Also, do things that creates jobs. That’ll help the poor. 

Forget the source of the video. This does accurately show what Travis Smiley has said. 

Here’s a good debate between Smiley and Larry Elder whom I listen to regularly. Elder is still waiting to hear back from Smiley. :)

 

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is a way to get the government to not take it. Spend it down while you are alive and grow the economy. You get to do fun things too. Everyone wins!

Yeah, use government to make them spend it. Good plan. :blink:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Yeah, use government to make them spend it. Good plan. :blink:

Agreed, or they can donate it tax free to a good cause. Not sure trust fund children qualify as a good cause.

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Thay’s a long answer to simply say, no. Let me put it this way. Has there ever not been an *increase* in revenue to the government after tax cuts? 

“In the economic question welfare funds often pay for themselves to a great degree in terms of economic growth. Give benefits to the poor and they spend them and economic activity is generated. In some cases the benefit has been calculated to be greater than the cost.” 

Um, “fudged numbers”? If that were remotely true them the significant increases in unemployment benefits and food stamps recipients should have spurred massive economic growth the past during the last 8 years. Not only did we see under 3% growth hear after year, the first in history, but there was also record unemplyment which fell only after many simply stopped looking for work which takes them off the unemployment list. The best way to hel the poor is to habe the poor work. One result in tax cuts is that businesses produce more and therefore hire more in order to meet demand. The “tax cuts for the rich” does not exist, it is tax cuts to spur economic growth. The economy wil eventually fall just ad it did right at the very end of the Bush administration after record economic groth for the vast msjority of his administration. That’s inevitable. Adjustments always ocurr but it takes a massive effort of bad economic policies to have a continual sluggish growth. 

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/1-average-annual-economic-growth-under-obama

Tax cuts always reverses economic sluggishness. 

So, pay your fast offerings, be generous, I won’t since, you know me, I like to ignore Jesus. ;) It is not that the poor will be done with being poor I was getting at so much as helping the poor. The number of poor seem to always increase especially in places with the most assistance offered to them. Why is that? 

Also, do things that creates jobs. That’ll help the poor. 

Forget the source of the video. This does accurately show what Travis Smiley has said. 

Here’s a good debate between Smiley and Larry Elder whom I listen to regularly. Elder is still waiting to hear back from Smiley. :)

 

You oversimplify everything as if the economy is in a neutral state and only changes to the tax code influence it. The increase in benefits came during a recession which also influenced things.

Saying tax cuts always end a sluggish economy (a new goal post you just brought in for some reason) is like saying sluggish economies always eventually stop being sluggish. Was it the tax cuts or other factors? You also sing the praises of the GWB tax changes but real GDP growth after you adjust for inflation was not that good during those years. Compared to the Clinton and Reagan years the economy was anemic. They were better the time his father’s years but there was minor recession during his presidency so it is not really his fault.

The idea that the wealthy “job creators” having more money spurs economic growth is also a myth. It is silly on the face of it. I have more money therefore I should hire more people? Please.....you hire more people because you need them not because you have more money as if John Doe, job creator, is paying his employee salaries out of his tax return.

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that the wealthy “job creators” having more money spurs economic growth is also a myth. It is silly on the face of it. I have more money therefore I should hire more people? Please.....you hire more people because you need them not because you have more money as if John Doe, job creator, is paying his employee salaries out of his tax return.

Not silly.   The more money you have, the more likely you will "indulge" in wants on top of needs.  Spending more (free from government "mandates") in effect allows you to INDIRECTLY hire more people to serve people LIKE you.  It is NOT "trickle down economics" because rising prosperity raises MORE boats.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Like Google and Facebook? The death tax is designed to take money from people who are determined to not need it. It is strange that there are those who construe politicians promising people to keep more of their own money as something scandelous. And I speak as one of the poor folk. 

Taxes, like any money that is owed, is for things we already agreed to pay for. It isn't their own money. It is like going to a fancy restaurant, eating the most expensive meal, then refusing to pay for it. I've been poor, and I've been middle class. Middle class is better. I have always paid my taxes. Plus I've always been grateful that I have the ability and desire to live in country with as many advantages that I have.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, longview said:

Not silly.   The more money you have, the more likely you will "indulge" in wants on top of needs.  Spending more (free from government "mandates") in effect allows you to INDIRECTLY hire more people to serve people LIKE you.  It is NOT "trickle down economics" because rising prosperity raises MORE boats.

It has NEVER worked that way. There is no way in Hell that a rich person can buy enough to effect the economy of a large nation should as ours.

SEE

 

Edited by thesometimesaint
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, longview said:

Not silly.   The more money you have, the more likely you will "indulge" in wants on top of needs.  Spending more (free from government "mandates") in effect allows you to INDIRECTLY hire more people to serve people LIKE you.  It is NOT "trickle down economics" because rising prosperity raises MORE boats.

That is true to a degree. It is also more likely to be spent the less money the person has. Saving does little and can be a luxury. In the sense you describe it does work. The usual “job creator” argument is used in defense for the upper middle class and higher needing to have more money to stimulate the economy when they are the least likely to spend that money in ways that stimulate the economy. The fun irony is if everyone followed the church’s counsel to live modestly and within your means and save in the short term it would trash the economy. :vader: 

The rising ocean raising all boat metaphor does not describe an economic law that always applies. If so serfs and slaves would benefit whenever their lord/master got rich which is historically laughable. In an economy with growing inequality it is laughable today. Of course it is not uniformly false. Sometimes good economic conditions do benefit more people. I work in an industry that makes more money in a recession though so even that is not universal. ;) 

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Yeah, use government to make them spend it. Good plan. :blink:

Then don't use the services the government provides. I hear Somalia is quite lovely this time of year. 

Edited by thesometimesaint

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Agreed, or they can donate it tax free to a good cause. Not sure trust fund children qualify as a good cause.

Don’t forget the Clinton Foundation. I believe they could have avoided the Death Tax with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...