ADVERTISEMENT

Your tax burden. :)

Depressing.

Just out of curiosity, why is it depressing?

Is it because your federal income tax burden is a higher percentage than your share of AGI itself? If so, there's no way that ever won't be the case (can't squeeze blood from a stone, etc.). It's wrong to call this arrangement equitable or just, I think. But would you prefer the alternative -- that is, be in the bottom 50% and pay a lower percentage of the federal tax burden?

Is it the total dollar value of federal taxes paid? If so, I can sympathize -- I do think we're taxed more than we ought to be. But we have a seemingly insatiable taste for government largess.
 
Last edited:
Just out of curiosity, why is it depressing?

Is it because your federal income tax burden is a higher percentage than your share of AGI itself? If so, there's no way that ever won't be the case (can't squeeze blood from a stone, etc.). It's wrong to call this arrangement equitable or just, I think. But would you prefer the alternative -- that is, be in the bottom 50% and pay a lower percentage of the federal tax burden?

Is it the total dollar value of federal taxes paid? If so, I can sympathize -- I do think we're taxed more than we ought to be. But we have a seemingly insatiable taste for government largess.


Depressing is that the GOP is about to add $1.5 trillion to the deficit, while at the same time my tax bill will go up!
 
Just wait until this tax "cut" passes.

I hate to say it -- I really do. It goes against every fiber of my being. But taxes need to go up.

And I'm quite sure that average tax rates for the next 35 years will be higher than average tax rates have been for the last 35 years.

Would I prefer that we fill the gap entirely with spending reductions? Yes. What are the chances of that happening? Zero. Not 5 percent or 1 percent, but zero.
 
Depressing is that the GOP is about to add $1.5 trillion to the deficit, while at the same time my tax bill will go up!

Well, let's wait and see how things shake out. The corporate tax infrastructure absolutely needs to be overhauled -- one way or another. If they do the taxes regarding repatriation of foreign earnings right, it should result in a net increase in tax revenues. I'm far from an adherent to the notion that "tax cuts pay for themselves" -- but, in this case, I really do think it's one where lower rates will lead to higher revenues. We're not getting squat from that tax right now as corps are parking $2+ trillion overseas.

I've never put a whole lot of faith in these "scoring" things -- even when they're done by ostensibly non-partisan analysts. But I do generally agree with Sen. Corker that the tax reform they do should at the very least be revenue neutral.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
I hate to say it -- I really do. It goes against every fiber of my being. But taxes need to go up.

And I'm quite sure that average tax rates for the next 35 years will be higher than average tax rates have been for the last 35 years.

Would I prefer that we fill the gap entirely with spending reductions? Yes. What are the chances of that happening? Zero. Not 5 percent or 1 percent, but zero.


I know it's modern GOP orthodoxy to cut taxes any chance possible....but I cannot fathom how one can look at our debt/structural deficits and say hey....what we really need right now is to cut taxes overall.

Reform? Sure...but deficit neutral only.
 
Well, let's wait and see how things shake out. The corporate tax infrastructure absolutely needs to be overhauled -- one way or another. If they do the taxes regarding repatriation of foreign earnings right, it should result in a net increase in tax revenues. I'm far from an adherent to the notion that "tax cuts pay for themselves" -- but, in this case, I really do think it's one where lower rates will lead to higher revenues. We're not getting squat from that tax right now as corps are parking $2+ trillion overseas.

I've never put a whole lot of faith in these "scoring" things -- even when they're done by ostensibly non-partisan analysts. But I do generally agree with Sen. Corker that the tax reform they do should at the very least be revenue neutral.

Yeah, I'm not jumping the gun yet....but the reality is they are proposing something like $5.5T in cuts...so they will need $4T in new revenues to get to their $1.5T deficit number.

So there are going to be losers here.

I liked the Bloomberg headline I saw today:

GOP Braces for ‘All Hell’ to Break Loose When Tax Bill Finally Drops
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...als-gop-setback-even-before-hell-breaks-loose


 
Yeah, I'm not jumping the gun yet....but the reality is they are proposing something like $5.5T in cuts...so they will need $4T in new revenues to get to their $1.5T deficit number.

So there are going to be losers here.

I liked the Bloomberg headline I saw today:

GOP Braces for ‘All Hell’ to Break Loose When Tax Bill Finally Drops
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...als-gop-setback-even-before-hell-breaks-loose


What became of the border adjustment tax? Based on my cursory examination of it, I actually thought they were onto something with that.

I don't have nearly as much problem with the Freedom Caucus guys as you do. But I will say that I wish they (and other elected Republicans) would be at least as adamant about cutting spending as they are about cutting taxes.
 
Just out of curiosity, why is it depressing?

Is it because your federal income tax burden is a higher percentage than your share of AGI itself? If so, there's no way that ever won't be the case (can't squeeze blood from a stone, etc.). It's wrong to call this arrangement equitable or just, I think. But would you prefer the alternative -- that is, be in the bottom 50% and pay a lower percentage of the federal tax burden?

Is it the total dollar value of federal taxes paid? If so, I can sympathize -- I do think we're taxed more than we ought to be. But we have a seemingly insatiable taste for government largess.

Aside from lacking clarity in what is included (did I miss the footnotes?),

The top-earning 5% of taxpayers reported 36.1% of all AGI and paid 59.6% of total federal income taxes.

Together, you and the other 7.1 million taxpayers with incomes of $195,778 or more paid a total of $866 billion in federal income taxes. That amounts to $122K per filer.

As someone that doesn't feel they get that much out of the Federal Government, it's a large number to accept.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
What became of the border adjustment tax? Based on my cursory examination of it, I actually thought they were onto something with that.

I don't have nearly as much problem with the Freedom Caucus guys as you do. But I will say that I wish they (and other elected Republicans) would be at least as adamant about cutting spending as they are about cutting taxes.


The Senate said the BAT was a 100% no go, so Ryan ditched it.

Lot of opposition from retailers/importers.

I found it interesting....But think it was too complicated for anybody but tax wonks/economists to really grasp. And there was still a lot of disagreement within the expert community of what the impacts would really be. End of the day, it was too radical a change....and we don't do big changes.
 
But would you prefer the alternative -- that is, be in the bottom 50% and pay a lower percentage of the federal tax burden?
A few years ago I found myself in the 47%. It was not a good feeling. (Yes, I cashed the refund check.) I'd much rather be in a better situation financially, and feel like I'm paying my fair share.
 
I'm having a hard time summoning up much sympathy.

Lol...yeah, the grass is always greener. I was thinking " trade ya" and I fell in the upper quarter.

And honestly, with deductions and all, I get most of what I currently pay in back (having children and a wife who is a stay at home Mom helps with that.)
 
Lol...yeah, the grass is always greener. I was thinking " trade ya" and I fell in the upper quarter.

And honestly, with deductions and all, I get most of what I currently pay in back (having children and a wife who is a stay at home Mom helps with that.)


Don't look too close at the tax bill, then. I think they intend to remove a lot of tax incentives for married with children (by removing personal exemptions)....The question will be how large a child tax credit will be (and what the income cutoffs will be).
 
Depressing.
I haven't found my income or taxes depressing since I got out of poverty. I once thought I'd be rich if I made less than I pay in taxes now. I'm not going to complain about my taxes. I'll save that for our fiscally irresponsible federal government.
 
Don't look too close at the tax bill, then. I think they intend to remove a lot of tax incentives for married with children (by removing personal exemptions)....The question will be how large a child tax credit will be (and what the income cutoffs will be).

I have heard that is the case, I have not really seen a concrete proposal though. I think it is bad policy to disincentivize marriage and having children so I think less support there and I also think that at a certain point they have to worry about the next election. A massive overhaul of the system that drastically raises the effective rate for the middle class will mean sitting outside the halls of power for quite some time.
 
Don't look too close at the tax bill, then. I think they intend to remove a lot of tax incentives for married with children (by removing personal exemptions)....The question will be how large a child tax credit will be (and what the income cutoffs will be).
Childless renters have been subsidizing June and Ward for forever.
 
I haven't found my income or taxes depressing since I got out of poverty. I once thought I'd be rich if I made less than I pay in taxes now. I'm not going to complain about my taxes.
I hear ya. I'm out of poverty (barely) and can't complain about what I pay. How it's spent is a different matter.
 
I'm having a hard time summoning up much sympathy.

Does it make you feel any better if I tell you that it isn't worth it? I'll be making a change at the end of the year, so who knows, maybe we'll fall back into the middle class.
 
Childless renters have been subsidizing June and Ward for forever.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

But who's going to fund your SS/Medicare with no children? Economy will go into the toilet real fast with a declining population.


But that's neither here nor there....just a discussion on what changes are being proposed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUCrazy2
Good Lord....how dumb is this man? Does he know the difference between + and -?


 
But who's going to fund your SS/Medicare with no children? Economy will go into the toilet real fast with a declining population.
Do you seriously believe a tax break is part of people's decision to have children? I can't say one way or the other, but I find it hard to believe that's given much weight. IMO, the resulting tax deduction would be more rightly called a subsidy than an incentive.
 
Does it make you feel any better if I tell you that it isn't worth it? I'll be making a change at the end of the year, so who knows, maybe we'll fall back into the middle class.
And maybe all the beautiful tax breaks Trump has promised will make up for it.
 
Do you seriously believe a tax break is part of people's decision to have children? I can't say one way or the other, but I find it hard to believe that's given much weight. IMO, the resulting tax deduction would be more rightly called a subsidy than an incentive.

I would say the overall cost of having a child is very much considered by people. The tax structure is only but one part of it.

Child care costs is by far the biggest issue I see in deterring people having kids....or maybe having the 2nd kid. It's painful for well off families....borderline crippling for those just getting by.

We have at least 3 couples that we know our age that haven't had kids (mid 30s)....and their finances are a big reason why. Student debt plays in here as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chester Fried
I would say the overall cost of having a child is very much considered by people. The tax structure is only but one part of it.

Child care is by far the biggest issue I see in deterring people having kids....or maybe having the 2nd kid.
That I can believe. I just think it's unlikely the tax deduction figures into the planning to any great extent. So calling it a disincentive to eliminate it strikes me as a reach. Economic theory might say otherwise, but this kind of decision, in the real world... call me skeptical.
 
I would say the overall cost of having a child is very much considered by people. The tax structure is only but one part of it.

Child care costs is by far the biggest issue I see in deterring people having kids....or maybe having the 2nd kid. It's painful for well off families....borderline crippling for those just getting by.

We have at least 3 couples that we know our age that haven't had kids (mid 30s)....and their finances are a big reason why. Student debt plays in here as well.

And yet so many choose to continue having more kids than those that are better off, which has been a problem, not only in the U.S., but globally.
 
I would say the overall cost of having a child is very much considered by people. The tax structure is only but one part of it.

Child care costs is by far the biggest issue I see in deterring people having kids....or maybe having the 2nd kid. It's painful for well off families....borderline crippling for those just getting by.

We have at least 3 couples that we know our age that haven't had kids (mid 30s)....and their finances are a big reason why. Student debt plays in here as well.

Child care is the biggest issue I see with my friends. My wife and I have a 5 mo old and there is no way in hell we are going to have a second one until our first is in school. We could “afford” a second in daycare, but that would mean drastically reducing savings and consumption and we just won’t do it.
 
Child care is the biggest issue I see with my friends. My wife and I have a 5 mo old and there is no way in hell we are going to have a second one until our first is in school.
Fourteen months ago, did the tax deduction you now have figure into your decision to have a child? Was it any kind of incentive?
 
Fourteen months ago, did the tax deduction you now have figure into your decision to have a child? Was it any kind of incentive?

Directly? Probably not, but you are talking to the wrong guy because I knew exactly what impact it has on our taxes even before we started trying to have a kid. Same for the mortgage interest deduction.

I think you are being too literal in your arguments in this thread. When we decided to buy a house and then stated to have a kid we didn’t sit down and base things exactly on what tax deductions we would get, but we sure as heck sat down and made a financial plan and determined we were financially ready before trying. What our tax burden would be was part of that discussion. I realize that’s probably not the case for most families.
 
Directly? Probably not, but you are talking to the wrong guy because I knew exactly what impact it has on our taxes even before we started trying to have a kid. Same for the mortgage interest deduction.

I think you are being too literal in your arguments in this thread. When we decided to buy a house and then stated to have a kid we didn’t sit down and base things exactly on what tax deductions we would get, but we sure as heck sat down and made a financial plan and determined we were financially ready before trying. What our tax burden would be was part of that discussion. I realize that’s probably not the case for most families.
I'm not dogging you in particular by any means. I just am very skeptical about the notion that tax considerations are a prime driver of personal behavior, and the notion that the removal of the personal exemption for children would result in fewer children was raised earlier in the discussion. I think doing so would have a very minimal effect on the fertility rate, if any. Same thing with the charitable giving deduction. When I make my piddling donation to WFIU/WTIU, I don't take the Indiana tax credit into consideration (although I'm happy to take it come April).

Of course, smarter people with multiple degrees will tell me I'm crazy, that my thinking flies in the face of basic economics.
 
I'm not dogging you in particular by any means. I just am very skeptical about the notion that tax considerations are a prime driver of personal behavior, and the notion that the removal of the personal exemption for children would result in fewer children was raised earlier in the discussion. I think doing so would have a very minimal effect on the fertility rate, if any. Same thing with the charitable giving deduction. When I make my piddling donation to WFIU/WTIU, I don't take the Indiana tax credit into consideration (although I'm happy to take it come April).

Of course, smarter people with multiple degrees will tell me I'm crazy, that my thinking flies in the face of basic economics.

You’re wrong about the charitable giving deduction. Lots of research indicates the deductions make a huge difference especially with major gifts. I work with donors who structure their gifts for tax advantages all the time. I’m not saying they wouldn’t still donate but the current laws have a big effect on how and how much people give.
 
You’re wrong about the charitable giving deduction. Lots of research indicates the deductions make a huge difference especially with major gifts. I work with donors who structure their gifts for tax advantages all the time. I’m not saying they wouldn’t still donate but the current laws have a big effect on how and how much people give.

You’re 100% correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT