[BayMoWe335]

Originally Posted by Lups

I have an extra kid i can donate to you. He wants to talk about quantum physics while eating his breakfast, his biggest wish is to start deep sea diving as a hobby, he loves fishing and rocks and he according to his teacher is a future gangster or a professional blackmailer.

Just pm me where to send him. His teacher will probably pay for the tickets since my little devil refuses to participate to math classes if after doing the work, he is not allowed to go to the library for the rest of the lesson.

Don’t take this personally. Internet post.

He’s almost assuredly not as smart as you believe him to be. Maybe just slightly ahead of others which will even out later.

Source: All parents think their kids are Einstein and generally different.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by BayMoWe335

Don’t take this personally. Internet post.

He’s almost assuredly not as smart as you believe him to be. Maybe just slightly ahead of others which will even out later.

Source: All parents think their kids are Einstein and generally different.

Hahaha, do you know how a seven year old avoids leaving to school? They ask their parents questions. Quantum physics is a funny word he learned yesterday so naturally he spent the moment i need to inhale coffee to torture me with it.

It has nothing to do with being smart. Kids get weird obsessions all the time, and us parents pray for a heart attack or a stroke while repeating 27 times "please, put on socks before i go bat shit cray cray."

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by jgoens

Why would you pay a tax guy $500 to do tax prep when you can do it yourself for $50 using TAXact? Takes about an hour and is easy as hell. I learned about this program years ago from a tax guy as this is all he uses.

Depends on your return. Simple - sure, use it. You probably won't miss much, if anything that a tax accountant would have done.

Once you start getting a little more complex, then you don't know what you are missing. Sure, you can file, but IRS won't come knocking on your door to let you know that you missed claiming a bunch of credits.

That's why a lot of people use an accountant. I tell people with simple returns that they shouldn't bother coming to me, HR Block will do it for half the price and I'm not very interested in simple returns. But I accept anything with a little complexity.

Take this guy who moved from the States - he had previously been doing his own returns. Well, took him having a conversation with someone else about child benefits for him to realize he was missing out on about $10K a year up here. Signed up the next day to make sure his return was being done right.

[jgoens]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Depends on your return. Simple - sure, use it. You probably won't miss much, if anything that a tax accountant would have done.

Once you start getting a little more complex, then you don't know what you are missing. Sure, you can file, but IRS won't come knocking on your door to let you know that you missed claiming a bunch of credits.

That's why a lot of people use an accountant. I tell people with simple returns that they shouldn't bother coming to me, HR Block will do it for half the price and I'm not very interested in simple returns. But I accept anything with a little complexity.

Take this guy who moved from the States - he had previously been doing his own returns. Well, took him having a conversation with someone else about child benefits for him to realize he was missing out on about $10K a year up here. Signed up the next day to make sure his return was being done right.

My tax return is not simple: have a house, kid, other dependents and multiple W-2's, stocks etc. I go over all the credits but hardly ever have any I can apply. I'm pretty hands on with most things and am anal as well. I still have not found any loopholes or ways to beat the system.

[wdb]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

Doesn't sound like you fully understand supply-side economics or current tax reform based on your original post or if you think economic impact is predicated on corporations altruistically "taking care" of employees.

Employees should benefit from stimulated economic activity (industrial and consumer), which leads to increased demand, more employment opportunities and ultimately wage growth by increased competition for labor, while minimizing incentives for companies / employers to relocate to lower tax jurisdictions. I understand people not subscribing to the theory but it is something else to dismiss by distorting.

Yabut the job market is already heavily tilted towards the employee (thanks Obama!). In my field they can't come anywhere near filling the open spots with qualified people; companies have taken to tossing in bennies such as unlimited paid vacation. I walked into a Target two days ago; they had a sign up offering $11.25/hr plus flexibility in selecting work hours. Even Mickey D's around here are offering substantially more than minimum wage.

[NicoleLusts4BMW]

If anyone thinks that this HUGE tax cut for corporations is going result in more jobs and increased wages they are only kidding themselves and drinking from the same Koolaid punch bowl that convinced then to vote for Donald Thrump!!!!

The American Dream was to get the best education, the best paying job, buy a home and start a family. This so called tax cut penalizes you for doing all those things. The American dream is now a nightmare brought to you by Republicans.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by jgoens

My tax return is not simple: have a house, kid, other dependents and multiple W-2's, stocks etc. I go over all the credits but hardly ever have any I can apply. I'm pretty hands on with most things and am anal as well. I still have not found any loopholes or ways to beat the system.

Fair enough - maybe there are none available to you. Have you considered hiring an accountant one year, doing your own return as well that same year (but not filing) and comparing your return to his/her preparation of your return? It might be the same, might be different. If different, then it might be a good learning experience for the $200-400 it would cost. If not different, then hey, you know there really is nothing else you can do, and you keep on filing using the tax software.

[Maynard]

Sad to see intelligent people trying to defend an immoral money-grab by the donor class. Trickle-down is a lame myth - not that it doesn't improve economy, just that it does so by such a tiny pittance of the amount lost in tax revenues. Compare this to a REAL tax reform that kept/increased taxes on wealthy, while boosting disposable income on the bottom 50% - now THAT would really juice up a consumption based economy. If you want wage increases, specifically incentivize them (like only give tax breaks on the amount going into wages). And WTF happened to fiscal responsibility? If I get it right, they did not just bump up the deficit, they intentionally pushed it exactly as far as they were allowed to w/o having to get more than 50% support - like some loser who gets credit consolidation so they can run out and get a new card to max out.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by Maynard

Sad to see intelligent people trying to defend an immoral money-grab by the donor class. Trickle-down is a lame myth - not that it doesn't improve economy, just that it does so by such a tiny pittance of the amount lost in tax revenues. Compare this to a REAL tax reform that kept/increased taxes on wealthy, while boosting disposable income on the bottom 50% - now THAT would really juice up a consumption based economy. If you want wage increases, specifically incentivize them (like only give tax breaks on the amount going into wages). And WTF happened to fiscal responsibility? If I get it right, they did not just bump up the deficit, they intentionally pushed it exactly as far as they were allowed to w/o having to get more than 50% support - like some loser who gets credit consolidation so they can run out and get a new card to max out.

Isn't the bolded part exactly what happened when the last tax cuts expired (minus the juiced economy)?

There is no silver bullet to make everyone prosperous. There are theories to make things better overall, but there will always be some who lag economically. Some subscribe to trying to manipulate results by transferring wealth, ignoring unintended consequences. Others prefer lower taxes and smaller government. I personally think a strategy focused on promoting broad economic growth is better for long term wage growth than an attempt by government to force it through manipulation. Obviously not everyone sees things the same way.

As far as fiscal responsibility, stay tuned for entitlement reforms next year and wait to see what happens with actual results from tax cuts. The left tried to force tax increases by increasing spending. The right is trying to force spending cuts by cutting taxes. That's what happens when everything in government becomes a sound bite instead of a negotiation between (at least semi-) rational people.

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

Isn't the bolded part exactly what happened when the last tax cuts expired (minus the juiced economy)?

This economy is doing well, despite the claims of the contrary. In fact, until Trump passes his first budget, it's still "Obama's Economy" that he inherited.

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

There is no silver bullet to make everyone prosperous. There are theories to make things better overall, but there will always be some who lag economically. Some subscribe to trying to manipulate results by transferring wealth, ignoring unintended consequences. Others prefer lower taxes and smaller government. I personally think a strategy focused on promoting broad economic growth is better for long term wage growth than an attempt by government to force it through manipulation. Obviously not everyone sees things the same way.

Promoting growth how?
Define what "government force" is
Some people see facts - and the others talk with feelings.

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

As far as fiscal responsibility, stay tuned for entitlement reforms next year and wait to see what happens with actual results from tax cuts. The left tried to force tax increases by increasing spending. The right is trying to force spending cuts by cutting taxes. That's what happens when everything in government becomes a sound bite instead of a negotiation between (at least semi-) rational people.

Taxes were already at all time lows, there was no need for these tax cuts. Now they have a reason to cut benefits that Americans pay for, removing guarantees for the reasons of "jump starting" an already strong economy.

Makes total sense.

[Scharbag]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

Isn't the bolded part exactly what happened when the last tax cuts expired (minus the juiced economy)?

There is no silver bullet to make everyone prosperous. There are theories to make things better overall, but there will always be some who lag economically. Some subscribe to trying to manipulate results by transferring wealth, ignoring unintended consequences. Others prefer lower taxes and smaller government. I personally think a strategy focused on promoting broad economic growth is better for long term wage growth than an attempt by government to force it through manipulation. Obviously not everyone sees things the same way.

As far as fiscal responsibility, stay tuned for entitlement reforms next year and wait to see what happens with actual results from tax cuts. The left tried to force tax increases by increasing spending. The right is trying to force spending cuts by cutting taxes. That's what happens when everything in government becomes a sound bite instead of a negotiation between (at least semi-) rational people.

Nailed it with the sound bite comment. No longer is government "for the people" and it has been sliding for a while (Canada too).

Below applies only to personal taxes as I am far to dumb to wax intellectual about corporate anything:

One thing to consider: US spending of transportation infrastructure peaked in the 60s. You guys built a LOT of really cool shit back then (and now it needs fixing). Since then, infrastructure spending (as a percent of GDP) has declined significantly. Simultaneously, marginal tax rates for the highest brackets have decreased significantly within this timeframe. Infrastructure is expensive, if you want it, someone needs to pay for it. Might just be a coincidence but I think there is a link here.

Also, the gap between rich and poor has widened since the 70s AND the highest income earners have received the largest piece of the economic increase pie over this period as well. This is irksome for all the hard working people that go to work every day. Without good employees, no business would prosper. A rising tide and all that... This income disparity is likely a result of the agency theory that became prevalent in the 70s i.e. shareholders own the company and can therefore call the shots. Typically, shareholders want to make as much $$ as possible and one of the best ways to do this is to minimize employee costs. Good times... If you have ever been part of a layoff, you know what I am talking about. Terrible terrible terrible thing to go through when you know it is just for share price (icing on the cake is when the CEO gets $10M+ bonus in that year).

I am 100% for people being rewarded for working hard (I feel I am rewarded for being educated and working hard). I also expect that my taxes be spent in a wise fashion (on this, I am often disappointed...). I also believe that the highest earners are the most able to pay their share. Full disclosure, I make good money (low 6 figs) and I pay high taxes. I am happy to contribute. I hope they are well spent. I understand that I can afford more $ and % than people who earn less. That is called being part of society. I do not play tax games. I am NOT in the group that needs a tax break. People who earn more than me certainly DO NOT NEED A TAX BREAK.

Hopefully this new tax bill does not ruin your country. Time will tell.

And remember: Rome was not built in a day, but she burnt down overnight!!

Snoochy boochy!!

[RickFLM4]

Changes in marginal tax rates have little effect on total income tax receipts (Hauser's Law) so I don't attribute all infrastructure needs to reductions in marginal tax rates. Rather, taxes that are supposed fund portions of infrastructure spending, such as gasoline taxes, have not kept pace with inflation. Additionally, spending on entitlement programs as a percentage of GDP has sharply increased, partly due to sharper than planned increases in costs like healthcare, and partly due to expansion of programs. Consequently, they are taking a larger and larger piece of the tax receipts.

The war on poverty also started in the mid 1960s and yet we don't seem to be winning. It's been 50 years of trying to tax one person to provide a benefit to another, including the preceding 8 years with a liberal president. So let's try something else, like trying to get companies to make investments and spend money in the U.S., increase GDP (which should mean more tax dollars coming in) combined with real reforms over entitlement programs, which are on an unsustainable path. If it doesn't work, we can always go back to tax and spend.

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

Changes in marginal tax rates have little effect on total income tax receipts (Hauser's Law) so I don't attribute all infrastructure needs to reductions in marginal tax rates. Rather, taxes that are supposed fund portions of infrastructure spending, such as gasoline taxes, have not kept pace with inflation. Additionally, spending on entitlement programs as a percentage of GDP has sharply increased, partly due to sharper than planned increases in costs like healthcare, and partly due to expansion of programs. Consequently, they are taking a larger and larger piece of the tax receipts.

The war on poverty also started in the mid 1960s and yet we don't seem to be winning. It's been 50 years of trying to tax one person to provide a benefit to another, including the preceding 8 years with a liberal president. So let's try something else, like trying to get companies to make investments and spend money in the U.S., increase GDP (which should mean more tax dollars coming in) combined with real reforms over entitlement programs, which are on an unsustainable path. If it doesn't work, we can always go back to tax and spend.

I mean, those programs do work and have worked. What we need to not do is reward people for behavior/actions they haven't' taken yet.

You don't deserve a tax cut for what you MIGHT do. We also shouldn't reward you for exploiting loopholes.

[N0Chill 335i]

Originally Posted by Scharbag

Nailed it with the sound bite comment. No longer is government "for the people" and it has been sliding for a while (Canada too).

Below applies only to personal taxes as I am far to dumb to wax intellectual about corporate anything:

One thing to consider: US spending of transportation infrastructure peaked in the 60s. You guys built a LOT of really cool shit back then (and now it needs fixing). Since then, infrastructure spending (as a percent of GDP) has declined significantly. Simultaneously, marginal tax rates for the highest brackets have decreased significantly within this timeframe. Infrastructure is expensive, if you want it, someone needs to pay for it. Might just be a coincidence but I think there is a link here.

Also, the gap between rich and poor has widened since the 70s AND the highest income earners have received the largest piece of the economic increase pie over this period as well. This is irksome for all the hard working people that go to work every day. Without good employees, no business would prosper. A rising tide and all that... This income disparity is likely a result of the agency theory that became prevalent in the 70s i.e. shareholders own the company and can therefore call the shots. Typically, shareholders want to make as much $$ as possible and one of the best ways to do this is to minimize employee costs. Good times... If you have ever been part of a layoff, you know what I am talking about. Terrible terrible terrible thing to go through when you know it is just for share price (icing on the cake is when the CEO gets $10M+ bonus in that year).

I am 100% for people being rewarded for working hard (I feel I am rewarded for being educated and working hard). I also expect that my taxes be spent in a wise fashion (on this, I am often disappointed...). I also believe that the highest earners are the most able to pay their share. Full disclosure, I make good money (low 6 figs) and I pay high taxes. I am happy to contribute. I hope they are well spent. I understand that I can afford more $ and % than people who earn less. That is called being part of society. I do not play tax games. I am NOT in the group that needs a tax break. People who earn more than me certainly DO NOT NEED A TAX BREAK.

Hopefully this new tax bill does not ruin your country. Time will tell.

And remember: Rome was not built in a day, but she burnt down overnight!!

Snoochy boochy!!

One of my favorite posts to date on this forum. I agree wholeheartedly and I'm in a similar position to you with a similar outlook. Thanks for sharing.

[UglyBuzzard]

If it was anyone but Trump, most would be raving about this. What he said would happen has begun...

AT&T

The telecom giant said Wednesday that more than 200,000 of its employees, including union-represented and non-management workers, will be eligible for a $1,000 bonus. The checks will be in the mail in time for the holidays if Trump finalizes the tax bill with his signature before Christmas. AT&T also said it will invest $1 billion more than expected in the U.S. in 2018, once the cuts are final.

“Congress, working closely with the President, took a monumental step to bring taxes paid by U.S. businesses in line with the rest of the industrialized world,” AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson said in a statement. “This tax reform will drive economic growth and create good-paying jobs.”

Boeing

The aerospace and defense company immediately announced $300 million in investments after the bill passed, with $100 million toward corporate giving including employee gift-match programs, $100 million toward workforce development, training and education and $100 million toward enhancing Boeing’s workplaces.

"On behalf of all of our stakeholders, we applaud and thank Congress and the administration for their leadership in seizing this opportunity to unleash economic energy in the United States," Boeing President and CEO Dennis Muilenburg said in a statement. "It's the single-most important thing we can do to drive innovation, support quality jobs and accelerate capital investment in our country."

Fifth Third Bancorp

The Cincinnati-based banking corporation said it would raise the minimum hourly wage for all employees to $15 per hour and dispense $1,000 bonuses for more than 13,500 workers. The company says tax reform was directly responsible for the initiatives.

“It is good for our communities, employees and Fifth Third Bank,” Fifth Third President and CEO Greg Carmichael said.

Wells Fargo

Wells Fargo & Company said it would raise minimum wage for its team members to $15 per hour and earmark $400 million for philanthropic initiatives in 2018. Some $100 million of that total will be committed to boosting small businesses, while $75 million will support neighborhood revitalization efforts.

“We believe tax reform is good for our U.S. economy and are pleased to take these immediate steps to invest in our team members, communities, small businesses, and homeowners,” said Wells Fargo President and CEO Tim Sloan. “We look forward to identifying additional opportunities for Wells Fargo (WFC) to invest, as we continue to execute our business strategies and provide long-term value to all our stakeholders."

[UglyBuzzard]

Another just announced. Yea, this sucks


Comcast

The Philadelphia-based telecom corporation said it would award $1,000 bonuses to more than 100,000 non-executive employees. In addition, Comcast (CMCSA) NBC Universal Chairman and CEO Brian L. Roberts said the company plans to spend more than $50 billion in the next five years on infrastructure investments that are expected to create "thousands of new direct and indirect jobs."

In a press release, Comcast said the initiatives were "based on the passage of tax reform and the FCC's action on broadband."

[rlmesq]

So employees get a one time bonus, while the rest of us lose net neutrality, and some of us get a tax cut that will expire in eight years.

[wdb]

I work for Comcast. I'll let you know. And it's not a "telecom" ferchrissakes.

[gatorfast]

Originally Posted by jgoens

My tax return is not simple: have a house, kid, other dependents and multiple W-2's, stocks etc. I go over all the credits but hardly ever have any I can apply. I'm pretty hands on with most things and am anal as well. I still have not found any loopholes or ways to beat the system.

All that stuff is fairly simple and things that most people have. You likely take advantage of the basic deductions/credits available to most Americans but don't have any exotic tax situations which would open up new avenues for savings.

[jgoens]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

All that stuff is fairly simple and things that most people have. You likely take advantage of the basic deductions/credits available to most Americans but don't have any exotic tax situations which would open up new avenues for savings.

What kind of exotic tax situations do you speak of? I would like to implement whatever I can.

[Scharbag]

Originally Posted by UglyBuzzard

Another just announced. Yea, this sucks


Comcast

The Philadelphia-based telecom corporation said it would award $1,000 bonuses to more than 100,000 non-executive employees. In addition, Comcast (CMCSA) NBC Universal Chairman and CEO Brian L. Roberts said the company plans to spend more than $50 billion in the next five years on infrastructure investments that are expected to create "thousands of new direct and indirect jobs."

In a press release, Comcast said the initiatives were "based on the passage of tax reform and the FCC's action on broadband."

I really hope that it works out long term. I would question their sincerity though. Comcast's 2016 gross revenue was $80B according to their year end results. After operating and capital costs, Comcast made $8.2B profit in 2016.

In 2016, Comcast paid approximately $125M to their top 5 executives. This all occurred with a Democrat in office.

So, 100,000 X $1,000 = $100M for this 1 time bonus. That means that all the Comcast employees, the people that do the work and who allow Comcast to succeed in the competitive market, will be paid less than the 5 top executives made in 2016. Put another way, the recently announced bonus is ~1.2% of the 2016 profit while executive compensation (to FIVE people) was ~1.5%. I will reserve my applause on this one.

Furthermore, $10B per year in capital expenditures for a company with $80B in gross revenues is really nothing to brag about. And regardless of the net neutrality landscape, Comcast would still have to upgrade their infrastructure to remain competitive.

As I say, I hope the US economy becomes strong and that ALL hard working Americans prosper. It is my opinion, though, that these announcements are political rather than altruistic. I sincerely hope these short term gains translate into long term gains for all Americans.

But I have my doubts.

Cheers,

[BayMoWe335]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

This economy is doing well, despite the claims of the contrary. In fact, until Trump passes his first budget, it's still "Obama's Economy" that he inherited.


Promoting growth how?
Define what "government force" is
Some people see facts - and the others talk with feelings.


Taxes were already at all time lows, there was no need for these tax cuts. Now they have a reason to cut benefits that Americans pay for, removing guarantees for the reasons of "jump starting" an already strong economy.

Makes total sense.

Corporate taxes were too high. 21% is more in line with reality.

Everything else,is a more complicated discussion.