Sebastabear said:

---

CRBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

CRBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

MLooks like this idiocy is going to pass. Good bye ESP program. Spoke with Cal and they really have no idea what they are going to do (other than encouraging people who have already signed up for ESP to pay off their seats before the end of the month). May give us a sugar rush of cash but it will be very short term. Starting January 1st these seats just got 20% more expensive (approximately).

---

The Senate version of the tax bill does not have this provision. The House version does. However, things are changing so quickly that I no longer if this is true. It was true as of a week ago.

It's not a foregone conclusion that what actually becomes the passed tax bill will change whether donations for season tickets will be partially deductible but it very likely could happen.

---

I'd heard it was being added to the Senate bill in an effort to find cash, but that could be old news and might not have materialized. Cal did note that a lot of very red states (Alabama) and purple swing states (Ohio) heavily utilize this deduction. Maybe someone from one of those states pulled it out.

Comes back though to the point that this thing is a mess. I don't think the Senators voting for it appreciate half of what's in there.

---

You're right. It's in there. You can see it on page 294 of this pdf of the bill. It's not the final bill but it's in both the House and Senate versions so it's very likely to be a part of the bill that gets enacted.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_LgYQXsxWFkBe958xbE9W19R9_eK_z5M/view

---

Well that's pretty much a biblical disaster for us. Ignoring the rest of this abomination of a bill, we spent half a billion dollars on a renovation using an already ill-conceived and poorly performing business model. And then the tax laws got changed and blew that model to smithereens. When I asked Cal said they literally had no idea what to do, which seems appropriate. Sigh.

---

The whole bill is a big F.U. to the state of California. Get ready for some pain.

Sebastabear said:

---

CRBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

CRBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

MLooks like this idiocy is going to pass. Good bye ESP program. Spoke with Cal and they really have no idea what they are going to do (other than encouraging people who have already signed up for ESP to pay off their seats before the end of the month). May give us a sugar rush of cash but it will be very short term. Starting January 1st these seats just got 20% more expensive (approximately).

---

The Senate version of the tax bill does not have this provision. The House version does. However, things are changing so quickly that I no longer if this is true. It was true as of a week ago.

It's not a foregone conclusion that what actually becomes the passed tax bill will change whether donations for season tickets will be partially deductible but it very likely could happen.

---

I'd heard it was being added to the Senate bill in an effort to find cash, but that could be old news and might not have materialized. Cal did note that a lot of very red states (Alabama) and purple swing states (Ohio) heavily utilize this deduction. Maybe someone from one of those states pulled it out.

Comes back though to the point that this thing is a mess. I don't think the Senators voting for it appreciate half of what's in there.

---

You're right. It's in there. You can see it on page 294 of this pdf of the bill. It's not the final bill but it's in both the House and Senate versions so it's very likely to be a part of the bill that gets enacted.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_LgYQXsxWFkBe958xbE9W19R9_eK_z5M/view

---

Well that's pretty much a biblical disaster for us. Ignoring the rest of this abomination of a bill, we spent half a billion dollars on a renovation using an already ill-conceived and poorly performing business model. And then the tax laws got changed and blew that model to smithereens. When I asked Cal said they literally had no idea what to do, which seems appropriate. Sigh.

---

They probably have to see what comes out, but restructuring ESP seems like a good idea in any event. Furd makes you buy your tickets separately and then you donate to the athletic fund and donors above a certain level get seating priority. I have not read the bills recently, so I don't know if this works, but there usually is a fix.

I got creamed when I said the tax bill would pass - wish I was wrong. But the way this always works is you look at what gets passed and adjust, until the next big tax overhaul, and then you adjust.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

CRBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

CRBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

JMLooks like this idiocy is going to pass. Good bye ESP program. Spoke with Cal and they really have no idea what they are going to do (other than encouraging people who have already signed up for ESP to pay off their seats before the end of the month). May give us a sugar rush of cash but it will be very short term. Starting January 1st these seats just got 20% more expensive (approximately).

---

The Senate version of the tax bill does not have this provision. The House version does. However, things are changing so quickly that I no longer if this is true. It was true as of a week ago.

It's not a foregone conclusion that what actually becomes the passed tax bill will change whether donations for season tickets will be partially deductible but it very likely could happen.

---

I'd heard it was being added to the Senate bill in an effort to find cash, but that could be old news and might not have materialized. Cal did note that a lot of very red states (Alabama) and purple swing states (Ohio) heavily utilize this deduction. Maybe someone from one of those states pulled it out.

Comes back though to the point that this thing is a mess. I don't think the Senators voting for it appreciate half of what's in there.

---

You're right. It's in there. You can see it on page 294 of this pdf of the bill. It's not the final bill but it's in both the House and Senate versions so it's very likely to be a part of the bill that gets enacted.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_LgYQXsxWFkBe958xbE9W19R9_eK_z5M/view

---

Well that's pretty much a biblical disaster for us. Ignoring the rest of this abomination of a bill, we spent half a billion dollars on a renovation using an already ill-conceived and poorly performing business model. And then the tax laws got changed and blew that model to smithereens. When I asked Cal said they literally had no idea what to do, which seems appropriate. Sigh.

---

They probably have to see what comes out, but restructuring ESP seems like a good idea in any event. Furd makes you buy your tickets separately and then you donate to the athletic fund and donors above a certain level get seating priority. I have not read the bills recently, so I don't know if this works, but there usually is a fix.

I got creamed when I said the tax bill would pass - wish I was wrong. But the way this always works is you look at what gets passed and adjust, until the next big tax overhaul, and then you adjust.

---

I think the Stanford approach is a no go now. That's essentially what Cal did pre - ESP. There's supposed to be no tie in now between deductible donations and seating at athletic events.

If there's a fix, I haven't heard it yet - but I do agree with your broader point. The little I've seen of these bills tells me that far from simplifying things, tax complexity is going to go to 11. There are now huge disparities between rates depending on how your money was earned, which will incentive people to structure the hell out of their income. Tax consultants are going to have a field day. We're going back to the days of insane individual tax engineering (Chinchilla farms anyone? - for those old enough to remember when that was a thing).

My gut is that Cal will use this as an excuse to drop the price on ESP seats. They really needed to do that earlier but they'd boxed themselves in since their best donors had all bought in at the higher prices on the stated belief that this was a 45 year deal. Cal can now argue that the older buyers had effectively paid a lower price since they had gotten the tax deduction. The problem of course is that the net cost to the New buyer isn't changing and if Cal couldn't sell the seats before there's no real reason to expect that to change. If Cal uses this as an opportunity to lower the effective price below the old tax adjusted price to stimulate demand I think we'll see some highly pissed off donors.

calbear93 said:

---

Income and education do not make you elitist. Thinking that the regular folks are ignorant and need to be led like little children is elitist. Yeah, I would take that bet that most working folks would know the difference between capital gain and ordinary income. Most regular folks file tax returns and own homes.

---

Regular folks are ignorant. It doesn't take having lots of money to see that.

Grigsby said:

---

Regular folks are ignorant. It doesn't take having lots of money to see that.

---

methinks iss spelt IGNUNT

When you consider all of the other changes, I would imagine that most folks in ESP will come out ahead even losing SALT, limiting property tax deductions, and losing the ESP deduction. The problem is that nobody is going to think that way. They'll just see that a 40% discount has gone away.

I agree that a reprice is inevitable. They're just going to have to figure out a way to make existing holders not feel like they got taken for a ride.

I'm still holding out hope that Senator Saban fixes this before the bill is final.

CRBear said:

---

.

I'm still holding out hope that Senator Saban fixes this before the bill is final.

---

This may have been in jest, but there is lot to the comment.

Down in another country playing golf wth a lot of SEC alums (yes, I have had to act as security between Alabama and Auburn folks on more than one occasion) and they are furious at this provision. Calling it un-American. My guess is several southern members of the GOP delegation are getting phone calls. My guess is the put on surcharge on legal 420 sales instead or tech employees or whatever they think CA produces.

BTW, Goobear, I read that one of the Senate bill late night fixes is the active vs passing issue (actually the call almost everything passive now from real estate to oil and gas). Not sure, but that sounds helpful for everything but start-ups. Let me know if your of the same mind.

Sebastabear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

CRBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

CRBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

JMLooks like this idiocy is going to pass. Good bye ESP program. Spoke with Cal and they really have no idea what they are going to do (other than encouraging people who have already signed up for ESP to pay off their seats before the end of the month). May give us a sugar rush of cash but it will be very short term. Starting January 1st these seats just got 20% more expensive (approximately).

---

The Senate version of the tax bill does not have this provision. The House version does. However, things are changing so quickly that I no longer if this is true. It was true as of a week ago.

It's not a foregone conclusion that what actually becomes the passed tax bill will change whether donations for season tickets will be partially deductible but it very likely could happen.

---

I'd heard it was being added to the Senate bill in an effort to find cash, but that could be old news and might not have materialized. Cal did note that a lot of very red states (Alabama) and purple swing states (Ohio) heavily utilize this deduction. Maybe someone from one of those states pulled it out.

Comes back though to the point that this thing is a mess. I don't think the Senators voting for it appreciate half of what's in there.

---

You're right. It's in there. You can see it on page 294 of this pdf of the bill. It's not the final bill but it's in both the House and Senate versions so it's very likely to be a part of the bill that gets enacted.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_LgYQXsxWFkBe958xbE9W19R9_eK_z5M/view

---

Well that's pretty much a biblical disaster for us. Ignoring the rest of this abomination of a bill, we spent half a billion dollars on a renovation using an already ill-conceived and poorly performing business model. And then the tax laws got changed and blew that model to smithereens. When I asked Cal said they literally had no idea what to do, which seems appropriate. Sigh.

---

They probably have to see what comes out, but restructuring ESP seems like a good idea in any event. Furd makes you buy your tickets separately and then you donate to the athletic fund and donors above a certain level get seating priority. I have not read the bills recently, so I don't know if this works, but there usually is a fix.

I got creamed when I said the tax bill would pass - wish I was wrong. But the way this always works is you look at what gets passed and adjust, until the next big tax overhaul, and then you adjust.

---

I think the Stanford approach is a no go now. That's essentially what Cal did pre - ESP. There's supposed to be no tie in now between deductible donations and seating at athletic events.

If there's a fix, I haven't heard it yet - but I do agree with your broader point. The little I've seen of these bills tells me that far from simplifying things, tax complexity is going to go to 11. There are now huge disparities between rates depending on how your money was earned, which will incentive people to structure the hell out of their income. Tax consultants are going to have a field day. We're going back to the days of insane individual tax engineering (Chinchilla farms anyone? - for those old enough to remember when that was a thing).

My gut is that Cal will use this as an excuse to drop the price on ESP seats. They really needed to do that earlier but they'd boxed themselves in since their best donors had all bought in at the higher prices on the stated belief that this was a 45 year deal. Cal can now argue that the older buyers had effectively paid a lower price since they had gotten the tax deduction. The problem of course is that the net cost to the New buyer isn't changing and if Cal couldn't sell the seats before there's no real reason to expect that to change. If Cal uses this as an opportunity to lower the effective price below the old tax adjusted price to stimulate demand I think we'll see some highly pissed off donors.

---

First, your correct on complexity. I don't think these guys even know what all the last minute changes mean.

RE the linking of tickets and donations, create minds likely know some way around this or Senator Saban will make some calls. Good post - good stuff.

Agree with your

The Senate GOP Accidentally Killed Some of Its Donors' Favorite Tax Breaks

So now corps cannot take any deduction because the alternative minimum tax, added back to the Senate bill in the last minute, is still 20%.

BearChemist said:

---

The Senate GOP Accidentally Killed Some of Its Donors' Favorite Tax Breaks

So now corps cannot take any deduction because the alternative minimum tax, added back to the Senate bill in the last minute, is still 20%.

---

Maybe it would have been better to spend some more time drafting this thing.

So in the end, the deduction for grad students referenced in the original post will not be in the final will. In fact, many of the pre-existing deductions will be left intact.

It will be interesting to see how the AMT works in conjunction with the new limits on SALT. For many people who are perceived as wealthy but California middle class (i.e., making around $300K), it may well be a push. They won't get full mortgage and tax deductions, but many of those were partially disallowed under AMT before anyway.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/politics/republican-tax-plan-deal/index.html

BearGoggles said:

---

So in the end, the deduction for grad students referenced in the original post will not be in the final will. In fact, many of the pre-existing deductions will be left intact.

It will be interesting to see how the AMT works in conjunction with the new limits on SALT. For many people who are perceived as wealthy but California middle class (i.e., making around $300K), it may well be a push. They won't get full mortgage and tax deductions, but many of those were partially disallowed under AMT before anyway.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/politics/republican-tax-plan-deal/index.html

---

That said, any claims of tax simplification died a horrible death. I think this impacts on each of us is on an individual basis, after determined only after spending a lot of time trying to figure out the changes and making calculations.

Looks like they took out most of the worst stuff, probably due to public pressure.

The greatest potential for disaster I see here is repealing the Obamacare mandate while doing nothing else to drive young and healthy people to the health insurance markets. How do you now prevent people who are not presently sick from leaving the markets en masse, meaning insurance then becomes prohibitively expensive for those who are? This is more popularly known as the "death spiral."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_spiral_(insurance)#Health_insurance

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).

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.

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.

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?

Mine should be lower. No mortgage. Prop 13 taxrs at 1974 level. Double the personal deductions. The 10k limit on state taxes should work. Cal deduction is another matter.

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?

---

Well, in my case, I suspect they may be higher. But, when they unleash the momentum in company hiring, wage growth, revenue and earnings growth, I fully expect to make back more than the increase in taxes paid. Why complain so much about taxes when you are making money. Complain when the economy is being strangulated with government intervention that is excessive, and you have high taxes with less earnings.

But so many of the points you raise in paragraph 2, to me are wins. Less government is a win in my book.
The proof will be in the pudding in the midterm elections. If things are so painful the Repubs will be tossed. So far, not so. And as it looks things are about to get better.

Add to that the firm stance vs. ISIS, with a policy of military action dictated more by the military, that has all but wiped out ISIS's grip on an area the size of California, and you see policies of strength and firmness negating red line wash outs.

oskidunker said:

---

Mine should be lower. No mortgage. Prop 13 taxrs at 1974 level. Double the personal deductions. The 10k limit on state taxes should work. Cal deduction is another matter.

---

The standard deduction is doubled. The personal exemption is eliminated. Between the two your benefit is 15%, not doubled (in other words, you got conned by your media source who gave you incomplete information). This 15% is eroded over time by a lower inflation index (as is your income tax bracket). In ten years either this is continued leaving you with a higher tax rate or this is all eliminated. Either way, the corporate tax cut remains.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

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?

---

Well, in my case, I suspect they may be higher. But, when they unleash the momentum in company hiring, wage growth, revenue and earnings growth, I fully expect to make back more than the increase in taxes paid. Why complain so much about taxes when you are making money. Complain when the economy is being strangulated with government intervention that is excessive, and you have high taxes with less earnings.

But so many of the points you raise in paragraph 2, to me are wins. Less government is a win in my book.
The proof will be in the pudding in the midterm elections. If things are so painful the Repubs will be tossed. So far, not so. And as it looks things are about to get better.

Add to that the firm stance vs. ISIS, with a policy of military action dictated more by the military, that has all but wiped out ISIS's grip on an area the size of California, and you see policies of strength and firmness negating red line wash outs.

---

The bolded part is comedy gold. George W Bush couldn't have said it better himself.

Also, less government means less health care for people.

Trump has benefited handsomely from inheriting the Obama War on ISIS.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Well, in my case, I suspect they may be higher. But, when they unleash the momentum in company hiring, wage growth, revenue and earnings growth, I fully expect to make back more than the increase in taxes paid.

---

LOL

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/14/why-arent-the-other-hands-up-a-top-trump-advisers-startling-response-to-ceos-not-doing-what-hed-expect/

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

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?

---

Well, in my case, I suspect they may be higher. But, when they unleash the momentum in company hiring, wage growth, revenue and earnings growth, I fully expect to make back more than the increase in taxes paid. Why complain so much about taxes when you are making money. Complain when the economy is being strangulated with government intervention that is excessive, and you have high taxes with less earnings.

But so many of the points you raise in paragraph 2, to me are wins. Less government is a win in my book.
The proof will be in the pudding in the midterm elections. If things are so painful the Repubs will be tossed. So far, not so. And as it looks things are about to get better.

Add to that the firm stance vs. ISIS, with a policy of military action dictated more by the military, that has all but wiped out ISIS's grip on an area the size of California, and you see policies of strength and firmness negating red line wash outs.

---

The bolded part is comedy gold. George W Bush couldn't have said it better himself.

Also, less government means less health care for people.

Trump has benefited handsomely from inheriting the Obama War on ISIS.

---

If government is the source of health care, give us less.

Indecisive, wussy boy's War of ISIS---you are kidding, are you not. He was and is many things but firm is not one of them.

Let's just face it dajo, what you see as good, I generally see as bad. If you are in the Northern Hemisphere, I am probably in the Southern Hemisphere. So rarely do I choose to engage you as there is little common ground for discussion. And that is one of the root problems in our society of today. You find statements made by me as idiotic as I do with you. "The bolded part is comedy gold"...Great avenue for discussion. More liberal insult in response.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

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?

---

Well, in my case, I suspect they may be higher. But, when they unleash the momentum in company hiring, wage growth, revenue and earnings growth, I fully expect to make back more than the increase in taxes paid. Why complain so much about taxes when you are making money. Complain when the economy is being strangulated with government intervention that is excessive, and you have high taxes with less earnings.

But so many of the points you raise in paragraph 2, to me are wins. Less government is a win in my book.
The proof will be in the pudding in the midterm elections. If things are so painful the Repubs will be tossed. So far, not so. And as it looks things are about to get better.

Add to that the firm stance vs. ISIS, with a policy of military action dictated more by the military, that has all but wiped out ISIS's grip on an area the size of California, and you see policies of strength and firmness negating red line wash outs.

---

The bolded part is comedy gold. George W Bush couldn't have said it better himself.

Also, less government means less health care for people.

Trump has benefited handsomely from inheriting the Obama War on ISIS.

---

If government is the source of health care, give us less.

Indecisive, wussy boy's War of ISIS---you are kidding, are you not. He was and is many things but firm is not one of them.

Let's just face it dajo, what you see as good, I generally see as bad. If you are in the Northern Hemisphere, I am probably in the Southern Hemisphere. So rarely do I choose to engage you as there is little common ground for discussion. And that is one of the root problems in our society of today. You find statements made by me as idiotic as I do with you. "The bolded part is comedy gold"...Great avenue for discussion. More liberal insult in response.

---

Are you on Medicare?

If you don't like my response, then respond to the CEO's sycasey posted about. He is more civil than me. I don't have the patience anymore.

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.

---

Your track record on financial predictions and advice is, shall we say, not so good.

Since you advised to reduce exposure to equities, the DOW is up almost 25%.


https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/73289/1

sycasey said:

---

Looks like they took out most of the worst stuff, probably due to public pressure.

The greatest potential for disaster I see here is repealing the Obamacare mandate while doing nothing else to drive young and healthy people to the health insurance markets. How do you now prevent people who are not presently sick from leaving the markets en masse, meaning insurance then becomes prohibitively expensive for those who are? This is more popularly known as the "death spiral."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_spiral_(insurance)#Health_insurance

---

The problem is you're asking young healthy (AND generally less wealthy) people to subsidize older people. That makes no sense, both because its unfair and because as a practical matter, young people will still choose not to participate.

The answer is to have an honest discussion about health care and the real costs. If, as a society, there is consensus for universal care (and I think there is, at least with respect to covering pre-existing conditions and the elderly), then pass a tax to pay for those things (e.g., a national sales tax of some sort or whatever). And don't lie to people by telling them that there can be universal coverage while everyone can "keep their doctor and see their premiums go down."

In terms of young people leaving the market en mass, that can be mitigated in part by allowing high deductible/catastrophic polices that are more affordable and make more sense for many people, particularly the young. Currently, that is not an option.

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.

Sebastabear said:

---

If Cal uses this as an opportunity to lower the effective price below the old tax adjusted price to stimulate demand I think we'll see some highly pissed off donors.

---

You got that right! There will be justifiable demands for a refund, at the very least.

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.

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.

I saved this statement made by Ralph Nader back in 2008 when the economy crashed. The question he was asked was how to save the US economy:

"The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That's hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don't get away with no taxation. The Citizens for Tax Justice put out a report recently. They had 12 major corporations, like Honeywell, Verizon, General Electric, and in three years, Amy, they made $167 billionwith a "B" dollars in profit, paid zero tax, and got two-and-a-half billion dollars back from the Treasury. So you can see, if you return the tax rates and the effective tax payments back to the prosperous 1960 level, there would be hundreds of billions of dollars. You get out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, stop being engaged in these criminal wars of aggression, and get out of Iraq, you'll save another $150 billion. So, there are a lot of ways. Cutting the huge amount of redundancy and waste and out-of-date weapons programs in the Pentagon, again, another one. Bringing back the soldiers from Europe and East Asia, 65 years after World War II. What are they doing? Defending prosperous countries, like England and Germany and Italy and Japan, against what? Inner Mongolia or Moldova?"

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.

---

I don't see how this reply has anything to do with what I said. Individual families are not a large enough risk pool to adequately fund health insurance.

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

I don't see how this reply has anything to do with what I said. Individual families are not a large enough risk pool to adequately fund health insurance.

---

The insurance needs to be private with HSAs, etc. and you help yourself and those close to you rather than having resources taken away to fund governmental solutions.

Solutions coming closest to the individual, then the family, then friends and other relatives. That brings responsibility and resources emanating from where it should cometo where they should be. Would lessen governmental needs.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

I don't see how this reply has anything to do with what I said. Individual families are not a large enough risk pool to adequately fund health insurance.

---

The insurance needs to be private with HSAs, etc. and you help yourself and those close to you rather than having resources taken away to fund governmental solutions.

Solutions coming closest to the individual, then the family, then friends and other relatives. That brings responsibility and resources emanating from where it should cometo where they should be. Would lessen governmental needs.

---

IMO, we are way past the point where private health coverage has failed as a solution. Medical procedures are simply too expensive for most individuals to realistically pay for themselves. The "bootstraps" argument doesn't work here, unless you are comfortable letting the poor literally die from treatable illnesses and injuries.

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.

---

Nonsense. Most middle class people will benefit a decent amount more from lower tax brackets than they'll lose from some limits on deductability.

Why does it always seem like you're on the campaign trail here instead of having honest discussions?