dajo9 said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Larry Kudlow: "Every working American (155 million) will benefit from this bill as it is now structured."

Investment boom, faster growth; not everyone benefitting the same amount, but workers benefitting.

Nobody that I can find is projecting the under 2% growth of the last eight years.

Look at Boeing. Need for workers, need for new plants, many new contracts signed. Boom in business will accelerated over what it has this past year. Workforce has more capital. Improves training, improves wages, improves hiring of some of those who disappeared from the work force over the last eight years (64+million down to 62+million employed).

---

GDP growth in the last 7 years averaged 2.1%. 2009 (the 8th year back) was -2.8% GDP growth, thanks to deregulation and George W Bush supply side economics. Nobody ever projects GDP growth under 2%.

This tax bill raises taxes on the middle class, raises the deficits, and removes affordable health insurance availability for lower incomes. It will exacerbate the divide between the haves and the have-nots. It may produce a short term "sugar high" boost to the economy but a few years down the road will be a contributor to an economic slowdown, particularly as the deficits lead to more services being shut off by the government (which is a feature, not a bug for the Republicans).

Higher duration US government Treasury rates will be pushed down closer to 0% because of this legislation which will put more money in the hands of investors while at the same time reducing investment opportunities by clobbering the middle class.

---

I'm in the middle class living in the SF Bay area. My taxes will be lower and I am totally dependent on my investments for my living expenses. I suspect most everyone these days is an investor of sorts because pensions are gone. My kids have investments and they still live at home. I point this out as a type of Windex for your crystal ball. Not picking a fight just providing a data point.

---

I'm curious. What provisions lower your taxes?

---

Double standard deduction and I will be able to convert more of my IRA to a Roth while staying in the next to lowest tax bracket. This should lower my taxes in the years to come.

The lower personal tax rates are temporary but the lower inflation index is permanent. So, like many consumers who sign up for a temporary discount, in the long run the American middle class will find itself paying more.

The corporate tax cut is permanent - by Senate reconciliation rule, something has to offset that. That would be higher taxes on the middle class slowly caused over time by slower inflation indexing.

This is the honest discussion the Republican Congress does NOT want to have and why they are hiding the bill and rushing through without analysis.

As I explained above, you've been duped about the impact of the doubled standard deduction. Other deductions have been eliminated.

dajo9 said:

---

As I explained above, you've been duped about the impact of the doubled standard deduction. Other deductions have been eliminated.

---

So now you're saying dlsdad is gullible and you know what deductions he'll be losing out on? Are you his accountant or just another person who knows what's best for everyone else?

I'm saying that anyone who cites a doubled standard deduction has been spoon fed a marketing point that ignores the eliminated personal exemption that goes with it.

Full disclosure, I think I will benefit in thr short run due to the temporary lower rates and the elimination of the AMT. Our income is about the 2% level. After these are all phased out I will also be paying higher taxes due to the inflation indexing.

Unless. . . I can get my wife's income at the corporate passthrough rate. If that's the case we would have a huge windfall, none of which would affect my spending or grow GDP (it might lower GDP by hastening our retirement).

Anyone who's not in the top 2% of wage earners that thinks this is a good tax plan is a fool. Especially, if you live in CA, NJ, CT, or NY. Full disclosure: I will temporarily reap a tax benefit due to what dajo has been saying.

Full disclosure -- I will save a lot of money despite living in California and losing SALT and ESP deductions. I think reasonable people can disagree whether the tax cut will spur economic growth. I tend to doubt it. I certainly will not hire more people as a result of this nor will I pay anyone more. That said, maybe some will.

What reasonable people can't disagree about is the fact that a lot of poor people are going to be hurt by this. A lot of working class folks are going to either lose health insurance or pay a lot more for it. And deficits? This is going to blow a hole through the deficit. Anyone who argues that these tax cuts will pay for themselves is either a liar or an idiot. No reputable source backs this claim.

If you want to have an honest conversation, then let's have one. All these Republicans and the Tea Party movement that supposedly were anti-deficit have to admit that they're liars. They don't care about deficits. They just don't like spending. They're fine running a deficit.

CRBear said:

---

Full disclosure -- I will save a lot of money despite living in California and losing SALT and ESP deductions. I think reasonable people can disagree whether the tax cut will spur economic growth. I tend to doubt it. I certainly will not hire more people as a result of this nor will I pay anyone more. That said, maybe some will.

What reasonable people can't disagree about is the fact that a lot of poor people are going to be hurt by this. A lot of working class folks are going to either lose health insurance or pay a lot more for it. And deficits? This is going to blow a hole through the deficit. Anyone who argues that these tax cuts will pay for themselves is either a liar or an idiot. No reputable source backs this claim.

If you want to have an honest conversation, then let's have one. All these Republicans and the Tea Party movement that supposedly were anti-deficit have to admit that they're liars. They don't care about deficits. They just don't like spending. They're fine running a deficit.

---

Boom! They just want to please their overlords, the Mercers, Koch's, et al....

dajo9 said:

---

As I explained above, you've been duped about the impact of the doubled standard deduction. Other deductions have been eliminated.

---

I have no other deductions. Which ones of the ones that I don't have will I miss?

CRBear said:

---

If you want to have an honest conversation, then let's have one. All these Republicans and the Tea Party movement that supposedly were anti-deficit have to admit that they're liars. They don't care about deficits. They just don't like spending. They're fine running a deficit.

---

That's not true. They care very much about deficits when a Democrat is president.

You are either taking the personal exemption also or you've been overpaying your taxes for many years.

I just took a look at the 1040ez and I see the two are combined for simplicity. So, either you've been overpaying your taxes for years or the combined deduction you think is doubling is only going up 15%.

They don't care about anything except more money in their pockets. I think they are trying to corner the market on everything and controlling everything. The greatest creep show ever.

The guiding principle here is to reward a return on capital not wages, so it's not surprising that there are winners and losers, but wage earners are mostly the losers. The good news-if you are on the left- is that people mostly resent corporations and the 1% and now there is a additional "taxation without representation" meme that should even resonate with a group as feckless as the Democratic Party. An enraged populace will- once again- rise up and demand to raise rates on corporations and the wealthy without "reach across the aisle" bull***** We'll need an FDR or an LBJ not an Obama or a Clinton.

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

Anyone who's not in the top 2% of wage earners that thinks this is a good tax plan is a fool. Especially, if you live in CA, NJ, CT, or NY. Full disclosure: I will temporarily reap a tax benefit due to what dajo has been saying.

---

I think I agreed with this in an earlier post. But, down the line I intend to make up for any increased taxes I pay by increasing my investment income even more.

What surprises me is all the libs who don't relish paying a bit more in taxes, but are strategizing to keep it in their own pockets. Thought that was their end goal. Mo' taxes baby. 'Scuse me, in Dem language more investment. Haha

CRBear said:

---

Full disclosure -- I will save a lot of money despite living in California and losing SALT and ESP deductions. I think reasonable people can disagree whether the tax cut will spur economic growth. I tend to doubt it. I certainly will not hire more people as a result of this nor will I pay anyone more. That said, maybe some will.

What reasonable people can't disagree about is the fact that a lot of poor people are going to be hurt by this. A lot of working class folks are going to either lose health insurance or pay a lot more for it. And deficits? This is going to blow a hole through the deficit. Anyone who argues that these tax cuts will pay for themselves is either a liar or an idiot. No reputable source backs this claim.

If you want to have an honest conversation, then let's have one. All these Republicans and the Tea Party movement that supposedly were anti-deficit have to admit that they're liars. They don't care about deficits. They just don't like spending. They're fine running a deficit.

---

Actually, reasonable people can disagree with this and it is not a "fact". For one, the way the exchanges and other programs work for the poor, is that if the costs of insurance increase, so does the subsidy. Or stated differently, if you're getting Medicaid for free, you'll still get medicaid for free. The medicaid expansion remains in place (at least for now) - the tax bill only changed the mandate.

For the next people up the socioeconomic rung, there could be impacts. Their policies might be more expensive, though I think that remains to be seen, both in terms of what fixes the congress enacts and what actually happens in the marketplace.

Regarding the deficit, it really becomes a question of of whether the promised growth increases gross revenues over time. There are many models - but the are just that, models. And the CBO models are flawed because of all of the required assumptions, many of which do not necessarily comport with reality. No one really knows, but certainly deficits can be increased by any tax cuts..

BearGoggles, are you from Kansas by any chance?

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

The problem is you're asking young healthy (AND generally less wealthy) people to subsidize older people. That makes no sense

---

Sure it does. That's what health insurance is. The healthy subsidize the sick.

---

Obamacare set limits on the premiums for the old vs. young - I believe there can't be more than a 3:1 ratio even though the cost of insuring old people is much higher.

Healthy SHARE RISK WITH the sick - correct. But the poor (young) should not subsidize the wealthy (old). As a progressive, that should be offensive to you. It is literally taking money from your children/grandchildren - generational theft.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

Anyone who's not in the top 2% of wage earners that thinks this is a good tax plan is a fool. Especially, if you live in CA, NJ, CT, or NY. Full disclosure: I will temporarily reap a tax benefit due to what dajo has been saying.

---

I think I agreed with this in an earlier post. But, down the line I intend to make up for any increased taxes I pay by increasing my investment income even more.

What surprises me is all the libs who don't relish paying a bit more in taxes, but are strategizing to keep it in their own pockets. Thought that was their end goal. Mo' taxes baby. 'Scuse me, in Dem language more investment. Haha

---

That's wonderful for those of us that can have investment income.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

The problem is you're asking young healthy (AND generally less wealthy) people to subsidize older people. That makes no sense

---

Sure it does. That's what health insurance is. The healthy subsidize the sick.

---

Obamacare set limits on the premiums for the old vs. young - I believe there can't be more than a 3:1 ratio even though the cost of insuring old people is much higher.

Healthy SHARE RISK WITH the sick - correct. But the poor (young) should not subsidize the wealthy (old). As a progressive, that should be offensive to you. It is literally taking money from your children/grandchildren - generational theft.

---

It's not offensive to me if I also expect to need those benefits when I'm older. I'm not dumb enough to think I'll be young and healthy forever.

Honestly, every argument I see from a conservative about health care makes me think they don't understand how insurance works.

I'd also point out that not all older people are wealthy. Now, if Republicans had ideas about offering more subsidies or coverage for poor people, I'd be happy to listen. I expect I'll be waiting a while.

dajo9 said:

---

You don't seem to follow the differences between financial investments and economics.

Yes, I sold stocks and bought bonds and publicized it. Yes, I'd have more money if I didn't. However, my stocks are making money (20% allocation in my 401k and 50% allocation in my brokerage) and my bonds are making money. I'm also sitting with a much lower risk profile. As I sat at a dinner party last weekend listening to a doctor and a dentist talk about the money they were making off bitcoin volatility I was feeling very comfortable with my portfolio.

One aspect that crossed over financial investments and economics in my comments were long term interest rates. I have predicted and continue to predict they will trend down over time as a result of Republican policies. As most pundits have said rates were going up, I have said they won't and I've been right.

As far as saying x investment will do this at y time - well I don't give advice like that even if I write up my own investments sometimes. Thats a far different task from economics.

---

You are comedy gold. Nice try at a dodge.

Here was your original post on 12/15/16:

"These are interesting times in the capital markets. Over the past month in my 401k / IRA I have reduced my equity exposure from 80% to 20%, making the last big move today. Here are the main reasons why:

- Market sentiment is incredibly bullish
- Margin (borrowing to buy stocks) is around the highest levels ever
- Shorts on Treasuries are at incredibly high levels
- Valuations are at higher levels than any period except the dot-com bubble
- The rising dollar will hurt US exporters
- The rising dollar is wreaking havoc in some foreign countries, particularly China
- The US consumer will be hurt by the rise in interest rates (car purchases, home purchases, credit card purchases)
- Last but most importantly, the Fed is raising rates and reducing liquidity

I'm pretty confident in the move but I'm less confident in the timing. The market could continue to rise and my move into bonds could continue to hurt me (particularly with China selling US Treasuries in order to try to stop the decrease of the yuan) for many months. But I think over the next 6 months the market will have a sharp reversal and move back into safe bonds. Now I am positioned to profit off that move - if or when it happens.

One last note - my portfolio change in my taxable, non-retirement account is less dramatic because I don't want to trigger capital gains. I'm about 50/50 there."

So your "investment" decisions have been based on your flawed economic models and predictions. Your problem is that your ideology infects your predictions - you so hate republicans (and Trump in particular), that you can't fathom their policies would have positive economic effect. You're doing the same thing with the current tax plan.

You made bad investment decisions last year (and continue to make bad economics predictions) because you're worldview can't contemplate anything else. It is no wonder you like Paul Krugman, who does the same thing.

BearGoggles said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You don't seem to follow the differences between financial investments and economics.

Yes, I sold stocks and bought bonds and publicized it. Yes, I'd have more money if I didn't. However, my stocks are making money (20% allocation in my 401k and 50% allocation in my brokerage) and my bonds are making money. I'm also sitting with a much lower risk profile. As I sat at a dinner party last weekend listening to a doctor and a dentist talk about the money they were making off bitcoin volatility I was feeling very comfortable with my portfolio.

One aspect that crossed over financial investments and economics in my comments were long term interest rates. I have predicted and continue to predict they will trend down over time as a result of Republican policies. As most pundits have said rates were going up, I have said they won't and I've been right.

As far as saying x investment will do this at y time - well I don't give advice like that even if I write up my own investments sometimes. Thats a far different task from economics.

---

You are comedy gold. Nice try at a dodge.

Here was your original post on 12/15/16:

"These are interesting times in the capital markets. Over the past month in my 401k / IRA I have reduced my equity exposure from 80% to 20%, making the last big move today. Here are the main reasons why:

- Market sentiment is incredibly bullish
- Margin (borrowing to buy stocks) is around the highest levels ever
- Shorts on Treasuries are at incredibly high levels
- Valuations are at higher levels than any period except the dot-com bubble
- The rising dollar will hurt US exporters
- The rising dollar is wreaking havoc in some foreign countries, particularly China
- The US consumer will be hurt by the rise in interest rates (car purchases, home purchases, credit card purchases)
- Last but most importantly, the Fed is raising rates and reducing liquidity

I'm pretty confident in the move but I'm less confident in the timing. The market could continue to rise and my move into bonds could continue to hurt me (particularly with China selling US Treasuries in order to try to stop the decrease of the yuan) for many months. But I think over the next 6 months the market will have a sharp reversal and move back into safe bonds. Now I am positioned to profit off that move - if or when it happens.

One last note - my portfolio change in my taxable, non-retirement account is less dramatic because I don't want to trigger capital gains. I'm about 50/50 there."

So your "investment" decisions have been based on your flawed economic models and predictions. Your problem is that your ideology infects your predictions - you so hate republicans (and Trump in particular), that you can't fathom their policies would have positive economic effect. You're doing the same thing with the current tax plan.

You made bad investment decisions last year (and continue to make bad economics predictions) because you're worldview can't contemplate anything else. It is no wonder you like Paul Krugman, who does the same thing.

---

Nice deflection. You must watch Fox News.

dajo9 said:

---

You are either taking the personal exemption also or you've been overpaying your taxes for many years.

I just took a look at the 1040ez and I see the two are combined for simplicity. So, either you've been overpaying your taxes for years or the combined deduction you think is doubling is only going up 15%.

---

Thanks for making me look into this but it doesn't much change what i wrote. It looks like I lose the $4000 or so personal exemption for me and my wife but gain $12000 in standard deduction. I think that still means my taxes go down, yes?
And I think this is all shyte. Both parties. No one good can do anything in this system and that is a shame.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

The problem is you're asking young healthy (AND generally less wealthy) people to subsidize older people. That makes no sense

---

Sure it does. That's what health insurance is. The healthy subsidize the sick.

---

Ah no, the haves subsidize the have nots. Works better when we take care of ourselves and then subsidize our own families.

---

Yeah! **** the have nots!

Mike Bloomberg's take on it: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-15/this-tax-bill-is-a-trillion-dollar-blunder

"Last month a Wall Street Journal editor asked a room full of CEOs to raise their hands if the corporate tax cut being considered in Congress would lead them to invest more. Very few hands went up. Attending was Gary Cohn, President Donald Trump's economic adviser and a friend of mine. He asked: "Why aren't the other hands up?"

Allow me to answer that: We don't need the money.

Corporations are sitting on a record amount of cash reserves: nearly $2.3 trillion. That figure has been climbing steadily since the recession ended in 2009, and it's now double what it was in 2001. The reason CEOs aren't investing more of their liquid assets has little to do with the tax rate.

CEOs aren't waiting on a tax cut to "jump-start the economy" -- a favorite phrase of politicians who have never run a company -- or to hand out raises. It's pure fantasy to think that the tax bill will lead to significantly higher wages and growth, as Republicans have promised. Had Congress actually listened to executives, or economists who study these issues carefully, it might have realized that."

BearGoggles said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You don't seem to follow the differences between financial investments and economics.

Yes, I sold stocks and bought bonds and publicized it. Yes, I'd have more money if I didn't. However, my stocks are making money (20% allocation in my 401k and 50% allocation in my brokerage) and my bonds are making money. I'm also sitting with a much lower risk profile. As I sat at a dinner party last weekend listening to a doctor and a dentist talk about the money they were making off bitcoin volatility I was feeling very comfortable with my portfolio.

One aspect that crossed over financial investments and economics in my comments were long term interest rates. I have predicted and continue to predict they will trend down over time as a result of Republican policies. As most pundits have said rates were going up, I have said they won't and I've been right.

As far as saying x investment will do this at y time - well I don't give advice like that even if I write up my own investments sometimes. Thats a far different task from economics.

---

You are comedy gold. Nice try at a dodge.

Here was your original post on 12/15/16:

"These are interesting times in the capital markets. Over the past month in my 401k / IRA I have reduced my equity exposure from 80% to 20%, making the last big move today. Here are the main reasons why:

- Market sentiment is incredibly bullish
- Margin (borrowing to buy stocks) is around the highest levels ever
- Shorts on Treasuries are at incredibly high levels
- Valuations are at higher levels than any period except the dot-com bubble
- The rising dollar will hurt US exporters
- The rising dollar is wreaking havoc in some foreign countries, particularly China
- The US consumer will be hurt by the rise in interest rates (car purchases, home purchases, credit card purchases)
- Last but most importantly, the Fed is raising rates and reducing liquidity

I'm pretty confident in the move but I'm less confident in the timing. The market could continue to rise and my move into bonds could continue to hurt me (particularly with China selling US Treasuries in order to try to stop the decrease of the yuan) for many months. But I think over the next 6 months the market will have a sharp reversal and move back into safe bonds. Now I am positioned to profit off that move - if or when it happens.

One last note - my portfolio change in my taxable, non-retirement account is less dramatic because I don't want to trigger capital gains. I'm about 50/50 there."

So your "investment" decisions have been based on your flawed economic models and predictions. Your problem is that your ideology infects your predictions - you so hate republicans (and Trump in particular), that you can't fathom their policies would have positive economic effect. You're doing the same thing with the current tax plan.

You made bad investment decisions last year (and continue to make bad economics predictions) because you're worldview can't contemplate anything else. It is no wonder you like Paul Krugman, who does the same thing.

---

The people who were wrong economically were the ones saying the market is going up because of Trumpflation. I said that would not materialize and it has not. I invested directly against that argument in the bond market and made money.

I was wrong in thinking the stock market would go down in 2017. As I've said before, I think my timing was influenced by my dislike of Trump and that's something I need to consider when making investments in the future.

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

Anyone who's not in the top 2% of wage earners that thinks this is a good tax plan is a fool. Especially, if you live in CA, NJ, CT, or NY. Full disclosure: I will temporarily reap a tax benefit due to what dajo has been saying.

---

I think I agreed with this in an earlier post. But, down the line I intend to make up for any increased taxes I pay by increasing my investment income even more.

What surprises me is all the libs who don't relish paying a bit more in taxes, but are strategizing to keep it in their own pockets. Thought that was their end goal. Mo' taxes baby. 'Scuse me, in Dem language more investment. Haha

---

That's wonderful for those of us that can have investment income.

---

And if you do not have investment income what does that say of you? C'mon, weak argument. You live in NYC on wages alone, with no investment income?

dajo9 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You don't seem to follow the differences between financial investments and economics.

Yes, I sold stocks and bought bonds and publicized it. Yes, I'd have more money if I didn't. However, my stocks are making money (20% allocation in my 401k and 50% allocation in my brokerage) and my bonds are making money. I'm also sitting with a much lower risk profile. As I sat at a dinner party last weekend listening to a doctor and a dentist talk about the money they were making off bitcoin volatility I was feeling very comfortable with my portfolio.

One aspect that crossed over financial investments and economics in my comments were long term interest rates. I have predicted and continue to predict they will trend down over time as a result of Republican policies. As most pundits have said rates were going up, I have said they won't and I've been right.

As far as saying x investment will do this at y time - well I don't give advice like that even if I write up my own investments sometimes. Thats a far different task from economics.

---

You are comedy gold. Nice try at a dodge.

Here was your original post on 12/15/16:

"These are interesting times in the capital markets. Over the past month in my 401k / IRA I have reduced my equity exposure from 80% to 20%, making the last big move today. Here are the main reasons why:

- Market sentiment is incredibly bullish
- Margin (borrowing to buy stocks) is around the highest levels ever
- Shorts on Treasuries are at incredibly high levels
- Valuations are at higher levels than any period except the dot-com bubble
- The rising dollar will hurt US exporters
- The rising dollar is wreaking havoc in some foreign countries, particularly China
- The US consumer will be hurt by the rise in interest rates (car purchases, home purchases, credit card purchases)
- Last but most importantly, the Fed is raising rates and reducing liquidity

I'm pretty confident in the move but I'm less confident in the timing. The market could continue to rise and my move into bonds could continue to hurt me (particularly with China selling US Treasuries in order to try to stop the decrease of the yuan) for many months. But I think over the next 6 months the market will have a sharp reversal and move back into safe bonds. Now I am positioned to profit off that move - if or when it happens.

One last note - my portfolio change in my taxable, non-retirement account is less dramatic because I don't want to trigger capital gains. I'm about 50/50 there."

So your "investment" decisions have been based on your flawed economic models and predictions. Your problem is that your ideology infects your predictions - you so hate republicans (and Trump in particular), that you can't fathom their policies would have positive economic effect. You're doing the same thing with the current tax plan.

You made bad investment decisions last year (and continue to make bad economics predictions) because you're worldview can't contemplate anything else. It is no wonder you like Paul Krugman, who does the same thing.

---

The people who were wrong economically were the ones saying the market is going up because of Trumpflation. I said that would not materialize and it has not. I invested directly against that argument in the bond market and made money.

I was wrong in thinking the stock market would go down in 2017. As I've said before, I think my timing was influenced by my dislike of Trump and that's something I need to consider when making investments in the future.

---

Politically, we disagree on most everything, but I would agree with what you did over 2017. You lost out on some profits, but decreased your risk factor significantly.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You are either taking the personal exemption also or you've been overpaying your taxes for many years.

I just took a look at the 1040ez and I see the two are combined for simplicity. So, either you've been overpaying your taxes for years or the combined deduction you think is doubling is only going up 15%.

---

Thanks for making me look into this but it doesn't much change what i wrote. It looks like I lose the $4000 or so personal exemption for me and my wife but gain $12000 in standard deduction. I think that still means my taxes go down, yes?
And I think this is all shyte. Both parties. No one good can do anything in this system and that is a shame.

---

You and your wife? Two exemptions totaling $8,100 go away using 2016 numbers. $12,600 standard deduction increase, so in year 1 your total deduction goes up $4,500. Then, every year this new tax bill erodes that due to a lower inflation index until the deduction you are paying is actually lower than it would have been otherwise. All this expires after 10 years, except the inflation erosion, leaving you with a higher tax bill. And there is the matter of the increased national debt to deal with, since the corporate tax cut is permanent and not eroded by inflation over time.

The 1% is throwing you temporary pennies while they walk out of the bank vault. Stand up, man.

dajo9 said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You are either taking the personal exemption also or you've been overpaying your taxes for many years.

I just took a look at the 1040ez and I see the two are combined for simplicity. So, either you've been overpaying your taxes for years or the combined deduction you think is doubling is only going up 15%.

---

Thanks for making me look into this but it doesn't much change what i wrote. It looks like I lose the $4000 or so personal exemption for me and my wife but gain $12000 in standard deduction. I think that still means my taxes go down, yes?
And I think this is all shyte. Both parties. No one good can do anything in this system and that is a shame.

---

You and your wife? Two exemptions totaling $8,100 go away using 2016 numbers. $12,600 standard deduction increase, so in year 1 your total deduction goes up $4,500. Then, every year this new tax bill erodes that due to a lower inflation index until the deduction you are paying is actually lower than it would have been otherwise. All this expires after 10 years, except the inflation erosion, leaving you with a higher tax bill. And there is the matter of the increased national debt to deal with, since the corporate tax cut is permanent and not eroded by inflation over time.

The 1% is throwing you temporary pennies while they walk out of the bank vault. Stand up, man.

---

Stand up? Man, I'm living the dream fully erect. Retired in the bay area with more money than I ever thought possible with a philosophy degree. House paid off. Kids through college. Walks in San Francisco with my wife multiple times per week. You think I'm feeling duped by the 1%? Not a chance.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You are either taking the personal exemption also or you've been overpaying your taxes for many years.

I just took a look at the 1040ez and I see the two are combined for simplicity. So, either you've been overpaying your taxes for years or the combined deduction you think is doubling is only going up 15%.

---

Thanks for making me look into this but it doesn't much change what i wrote. It looks like I lose the $4000 or so personal exemption for me and my wife but gain $12000 in standard deduction. I think that still means my taxes go down, yes?
And I think this is all shyte. Both parties. No one good can do anything in this system and that is a shame.

---

You and your wife? Two exemptions totaling $8,100 go away using 2016 numbers. $12,600 standard deduction increase, so in year 1 your total deduction goes up $4,500. Then, every year this new tax bill erodes that due to a lower inflation index until the deduction you are paying is actually lower than it would have been otherwise. All this expires after 10 years, except the inflation erosion, leaving you with a higher tax bill. And there is the matter of the increased national debt to deal with, since the corporate tax cut is permanent and not eroded by inflation over time.

The 1% is throwing you temporary pennies while they walk out of the bank vault. Stand up, man.

---

Stand up? Man, I'm living the dream fully erect. Retired in the bay area with more money than I ever thought possible with a philosophy degree. House paid off. Kids through college. Walks in San Francisco with my wife multiple times per week. You think I'm feeling duped by the 1%? Not a chance.

---

Fair enough - I think we should all stand up for the financial future of the country

dajo9 said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You are either taking the personal exemption also or you've been overpaying your taxes for many years.

I just took a look at the 1040ez and I see the two are combined for simplicity. So, either you've been overpaying your taxes for years or the combined deduction you think is doubling is only going up 15%.

---

Thanks for making me look into this but it doesn't much change what i wrote. It looks like I lose the $4000 or so personal exemption for me and my wife but gain $12000 in standard deduction. I think that still means my taxes go down, yes?
And I think this is all shyte. Both parties. No one good can do anything in this system and that is a shame.

---

You and your wife? Two exemptions totaling $8,100 go away using 2016 numbers. $12,600 standard deduction increase, so in year 1 your total deduction goes up $4,500. Then, every year this new tax bill erodes that due to a lower inflation index until the deduction you are paying is actually lower than it would have been otherwise. All this expires after 10 years, except the inflation erosion, leaving you with a higher tax bill. And there is the matter of the increased national debt to deal with, since the corporate tax cut is permanent and not eroded by inflation over time.

The 1% is throwing you temporary pennies while they walk out of the bank vault. Stand up, man.

---

Stand up? Man, I'm living the dream fully erect. Retired in the bay area with more money than I ever thought possible with a philosophy degree. House paid off. Kids through college. Walks in San Francisco with my wife multiple times per week. You think I'm feeling duped by the 1%? Not a chance.

---

Fair enough - I think we should all stand up for the financial future of the country

---

I'm sure you and I are on opposite sides of how to secure the financial future of this country. My best friend and I have this discussion every Fri at lunch (you'd like his ideas much more than mine) and we've yet to solve anything.
Have a great holiday dajo. Thanks for getting me to look into some of this now 500+ page tax bill.

CRBear said:

---

If you want to have an honest conversation, then let's have one. All these Republicans and the Tea Party movement that supposedly were anti-deficit have to admit that they're liars. They don't care about deficits. They just don't like spending. They're fine running a deficit.

---

I agree with the quoted section above, it's part of the reason I'm no longer affiliated with a political party. IMO one of the good things about our crazy president is his antics are exposing the swamp things for what they are and maybe more of us are paying attention to it.

Back to the tax law...I'm not sure what it means for my family but I'm not hopeful. Are there any decent tools that give you a reasonable projections about how it will impact us?

OdontoBear66 said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

Anyone who's not in the top 2% of wage earners that thinks this is a good tax plan is a fool. Especially, if you live in CA, NJ, CT, or NY. Full disclosure: I will temporarily reap a tax benefit due to what dajo has been saying.

---

I think I agreed with this in an earlier post. But, down the line I intend to make up for any increased taxes I pay by increasing my investment income even more.

What surprises me is all the libs who don't relish paying a bit more in taxes, but are strategizing to keep it in their own pockets. Thought that was their end goal. Mo' taxes baby. 'Scuse me, in Dem language more investment. Haha

---

That's wonderful for those of us that can have investment income.

---

And if you do not have investment income what does that say of you? C'mon, weak argument. You live in NYC on wages alone, with no investment income?

---

Read what I wrote more carefully. My investments are fine. How is this tax plan a benefit to the lower and middle class?

tequila4kapp said:

---

Back to the tax law...I'm not sure what it means for my family but I'm not hopeful. Are there any decent tools that give you a reasonable projections about how it will impact us?

---

CNN has this calculator. Not sure how accurate their assumptions are.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/politics/calculate-americans-taxes-senate-reform-bill/index.html

For me, looks like dajo's assumption is correct: a tax cut until 2026, then a raise thereafter.