OK, I'll admit it, our friends on the left are correct; there IS a catch to the Trump tax cuts

[EverCurious]

I'm not surprised Murkowski wouldn't sign off on it because of the Medicare reduction... Gov peeps up here say we're looking at loosing well over $3B WITH the special allowance and we're already tight on the budget, I believe we're still $1B short even after all the tightening/cutting, we're struggling hard to not use our savings. (It is looking better as oil goes up thankfully, ANWAR opening and selling to the Chinese should help a ton.)


Anyway, we have a shit ton of Alaska Natives we have to provide insurance for. These folks make nothing because they live traditionally, but we're not exempt from proving them health care (and a shit ton of it) we are not allowed to just dump them off the rolls, regardless, because of ACA and other welfare regulations. It's also villages in the middle of damned nowhere, no access for half the year kind of remote, no power, no indoor plumbing, etc. Thus we pay through the nose for medical care in those places, and it's mostly emergency care which means we /have/ to treat and have to pay, therefore any health insurance we have to pay for out in the bush is outrageously expensive. Try to convince a comfortable city doctor to take a small plane for 4 hours to someplace it's 30 below zero so they can treat a kids sniffle and you'll understand - same reason our teachers are paid more than national averages, and our police as well.

We also have a bunch of vets up here (just over 68k), there's lots of elderly (10% of our population,) and a lot of disability to cover too (8% of our population).

Alaska has over 184k people on Medicare (out of a population like 740k) average per person spending in 2013 was $12k because of the ridiculous cost of medical care outside Anchorage. In 2016 Alaska spent $1.8B on Medicare (Related - our entire state budget is $10.6B and we were at that time running $3.5B short due to low oil prices >.<)

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm not surprised Murkowski wouldn't sign off on it because of the Medicare reduction... Gov peeps up here say we're looking at loosing well over $3B WITH the special allowance and we're already tight on the budget, I believe we're still $1B short even after all the tightening/cutting, we're struggling hard to not use our savings. (It is looking better as oil goes up thankfully, ANWAR opening and selling to the Chinese should help a ton.)


Anyway, we have a shit ton of Alaska Natives we have to provide insurance for. These folks make nothing because they live traditionally, but we're not exempt from proving them health care (and a shit ton of it) we are not allowed to just dump them off the rolls, regardless, because of ACA and other welfare regulations. It's also villages in the middle of damned nowhere, no access for half the year kind of remote, no power, no indoor plumbing, etc. Thus we pay through the nose for medical care in those places, and it's mostly emergency care which means we /have/ to treat and have to pay, therefore any health insurance we have to pay for out in the bush is outrageously expensive. Try to convince a comfortable city doctor to take a small plane for 4 hours to someplace it's 30 below zero so they can treat a kids sniffle and you'll understand - same reason our teachers are paid more than national averages, and our police as well.

We also have a bunch of vets up here (just over 68k), there's lots of elderly (10% of our population,) and a lot of disability to cover too (8% of our population).

Alaska has over 184k people on Medicare (out of a population like 740k) average per person spending in 2013 was $12k because of the ridiculous cost of medical care outside Anchorage. In 2016 Alaska spent $1.8B on Medicare (Related - our entire state budget is $10.6B and we were at that time running $3.5B short due to low oil prices >.<)

No offense, but I think I would move.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Business startups are risky, everyone involved are aware of that FACT. Every airline in the US has filed for bankruptcy at one time or another, some more than once. Trump wasn't the only one that invested in NJ and lost, a bunch of casinos were built and failed. The ones left standing are profitable.

A third of startups fail in the first 2 years, half in 5 years and two thirds in 10. Businesses that survive long term are the exception, not the rule.


.

Wonderful, but he's still a deadbeat.

Yeah, you tell that to the thousands of people that rely on him for their income. A wise man once said if you never fail, you're not trying. Funny how you never call other business failures deadbeats.

I try to stay on topic.

So run along hack, you have nothing to offer.


.

Trumps business failures have nothing to do with the topic and that pretty much all you've been harping about for a while now.

.

Someone asked me for proof some rich people are deadbeats, or something to that extent. I picked Trump as my example.

Oh, so now that you've been called out, you changed it to "some" rich people?

 

[NightFox]

.
In 2016 Alaska spent $1.8B on Medicare (Related - our entire state budget is $10.6B and we were at that time running $3.5B short due to low oil prices >.<)

Do you mean Medicaid? Aren't Medicare expenses covered by the Federal Government?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They mentored you into a fool who worships and thinks highly of someone just because he was born rich. It doesn't take any ability or hard work to be born rich or accept an inheritance.

No, but it takes work to mange or grow money.

It seems to me you have this extreme jealousy of people that were born into the right family. That begs the question: do you hate all people that have one up on you in life? Do you hate talented athletes, musicians, actors, doctors, lawyers? Or does it just stop an heirs of wealthy people?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Doesn't make Trump not a deadbeat. You can rationalize with entities all you want. You know what happened. Don't be an idiot.

You don't understand the difference between personal income and business income and I'm the idiot?

Nice theory, but people still file personal returns with non-entities (Schedule Cs) and even in the case of business, people can and do personally guarantee loans.

Bullshit. Are you going to tell me that owners of every company that ever filed bankruptcy are deadbeats? Thats a hell of a lot of deadbeats, because most (if not all) business owners don't mix their personal income with business income. They invest X amount of money to make the business, and win, lose or draw, that's the only money they are willing to risk.

It's like going to the horse races or perhaps Vegas. You set aside X amount of dollars. If you win something, that's great, but if you lose that set amount of money, you stop gambling. If you own stock that's not performing well, you have your brokers sell when it falls to X dollars. You don't put more money into it.

A true deadbeat is somebody that optionally doesn't pay their bills. When a company goes broke, there is no money left.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your party refuses to stop them from coming and working here... It's an open invitation to come and work and have a great life in America. And we have to stop it and a wall and b******* is not going to do it

Really? When did our party do that? It seems that our party contain the only people that DO want to stop it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's not what your definition says. Not the way it was worded by the writer regardless of you choose to see it. I gave you the grammar lesson already. Can't you learn anything?

It's exactly what my definition said. Trying to Clintonize it won't make you right.

I have no problem with that in theory. Many small gifts could be made to fall under de minimis rules like those applied to other types of income.

Why should only small gifts be exempt? If government deserves a chunk of what your family gives away, then it should be all gifts large and small. If your brother or sister dies and leaves you their car, you should pay taxes on that car based on the bluebook value. If you have to sell the car in order to come up with the tax money, so be it. After all, you think that's fine if others have to do it.

I don't care about your North Korea or Cuba bullshit. You sound childish.

And you sound like you can't make the argument against me.

 

[Papageorgio]

I don't need to ask you to do that, I already see you're wrong. The loss of real estate tax deductions are for personal real estate, not for business real estate. You shouldn't discuss things you don't understand.

no sir, you are the one that does not understand

it's been widely reported and acknowledged, even by news outlets that tend to lean left, that this tax bill increases the overall federal tax burden for many of the wealthiest landowners

the little guy gets a break

the super wealthy with expensive property that live off of passive income wind up paying more

sorry this upsets you...

It's right in the tax bill, you idiot.

SEC. 11042. LIMITATION ON DEDUCTION FOR STATE AND LOCAL, ETC. TAXES.

(a) In General.—Subsection (b) of section 164 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

“(B) the aggregate amount of taxes taken into account under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) and paragraph (5) of this subsection for any taxable year shall not exceed $10,000 ($5,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return).

If you click on the link of section 164, it leads you to this:

(1) Personal property taxes
The term "personal property tax" means an ad valorem tax which is imposed on an annual basis in respect of personal property.

(2) State or local taxes
A State or local tax includes only a tax imposed by a State, a possession of the United States, or a political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or by the District of Columbia.

(3) Foreign taxes
A foreign tax includes only a tax imposed by the authority of a foreign country.

(5) General sales taxes

As you can see, the only section being limited to $10,000 that has to do with property taxes is explicitly listed as PERSONAL property taxes and has nothing to do with land investors who do it as a business, especially through business entities.

it also affects vacation (or second) homes; which you only have to use 14 days a year

eliminating state & local taxes as a deductions, especially property taxes increases the tax burden for the really wealthy, the loss of property tax deductions will raise their overall tax burden

calling me an idiot doesn't change this

yes, you are correct that it does not include investment properties; and I did get that part wrong

good catch, I have to give you that one

By my rough calculations, a person making $10,000,000 a year in taxable income will save a little under $300,000 in tax under the new tax rules from the brackets. Sorry, I just don't see too many rich people losing out because of real estate taxes.

Please show us how roughly came to that figure.

 

[eddiew37]

Exactly. Trump took about 40 million dollars and turned it into billions.

While screwing 1000's of poor and middle class people ,,,a few banks and hotels What a guy Only went bankrupt 6 times

Which is a lie. Many successful businesses went through bankruptcy at sometime in their existence unless their company had the UAW and taxpayers bailed them out.

The thing about Trump is you only get the leftist side of the story and ignore (or don't seek) the other half. In spite of bankruptcies, some businesses closing down, the man made himself a billionaire which takes a hell of a lot of work. And as we on the right constantly tell you on the left, making money is not as easy as you think and it requires great risk at times. If you're lucky, most of those risks pay off while others fail. It's all part of business my friend.

But 6 times bankrupt with 100's of law suites against him mostly for non payment??

An analysis by USA Today published in June 2016 found that over the previous three decades, Trump and his businesses have been involved in 3,500 legal cases in U.S. federal courts and state court, an unprecedented number for a U.S. presidential candidate.[1] Of the 3,500 suits, Trump or one of his companies were plaintiffs in 1,900; defendants in 1,450; and bankruptcy, third party, or other in 150.[1] Trump was named in at least 169 suits in federal court.[2] A number of other cases (over 150) were in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida (covering Broward County, Florida) since 1983.[3] In about 500 cases, judges dismissed plaintiffs' claims against Trump. In hundreds more, cases ended with the available public record unclear about the resolution.[1] Where there was a clear resolution, Trump won 451 times, and lost 38.[4]

Legal affairs of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

Careful, regressives don't handle fact well.


.

HEY!!! I get facts ,,all I need from FAUX and a fat slob, think his name is hannity

 

[eddiew37]

Read your own definition. It says usually. Otherwise it just refers to a gain or recurrent benefit in general. And what is a gain?

resources or advantage acquired or increased

Wealth/money is a resource and/or an advantage. And yes, when they get the inheritance, they acquire it.

If your father hands you $10,000 in cash, would you report it to the government as income? I didn't think so.

What kind of American are you that thinks the government is more deserving of ones wealth after he or she dies than the family? You ask what the kids did to earn that money, and I ask you what government did to earn that money?

What exchanges happen within the family are family matters--not government matters. Perhaps you want government sitting at your dinner table, and when you pass the biscuits to your daughter, government is there to take their few biscuits first before they pass the plate to your daughter. It's ridiculous.

People work hard to try and make their children's life better than theirs. They didn't go to work every day, take risks, only to hand their hard work over to government.

And learn how to read. The definition is usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. I even highlighted the important part of the definition.

Do you know what usually means? It means it's usually from capital or labor, but can be from other things. The bottom line is income is income. Inheritance is income that is currently excused from taxation. If I were a rich deadbeat, of course I'd report it. The risk is too great and I'd still be a millionaire deadbeat afterwards, just with a few less million. I didn't have to work for any of it anyway. You can whine all you want to protect your rich deadbeat heroes, but you're basically a clown grasping at straws, especially with your "Do you understand the term INCOME TAX? It means tax on income." crap and your inability to read and comprehend a basic English sentence.

Governments will always control the money that THEY create and enforce. If you think it's none of their business, then the rich should be barred from using the government for enforcing their property rights. So if someone kills them to steal their money, the government should just ignore them. After all, you say it's none of the government's business. That wasn't Trump's tune when he was getting bankruptcy protection from the government!

Yes, it says usually measured in money--not usually measured from capital or labor. It's always measured in capital and labor. Usually measured in money means it could be from stock options given to a CEO or perhaps in profit sharing.

The government doesn't create money--it only creates the notes that represent wealth. Wealth is created by the individual which gives currency it's value. Without people giving those notes value, they are nothing more than worthless pieces of paper.

So now somebody dies in your family and leaves you with a 300K house. Should government force you to give them 100K in order to keep that house?

There's no 22 million deduction for a married couple on the death tax?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the GOP had wanted to really create jobs in a worthwhile manner they could have omitted the tax cuts for the rich in the bill,
and instead put that revenue into a national infrastructure project.

 

[eddiew37]

If the GOP had wanted to really create jobs in a worthwhile manner they could have omitted the tax cuts for the rich in the bill,
and instead put that revenue into a national infrastructure project.

republicans are full of .......trump

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Have you read the entire bill?

no

but my greedy Jewish accountant has

we are pleased

Your OP is incorrect but there is plenty of reason for the wealthy to be "pleased".

 

[Ame®icano]

How much do the rich pay in taxes?

How much does Trump pay in taxes? How much do the Koch family pay? How about the Mars family?

Come on, tell me how much they pay in taxes.

I can accept a round figure, I can accept a percentage of their income. Try me.

You could confiscate every dime of wealth all those families own, along with George Soros whom you forgot to mention and it wouldn't pay for a week of running out government.

Specifically, why do you believe it is a great thing to punish success and reward failure?

Because he's progressive, and they just like communists thrive on misery. It's much mach harder to lift people out of poverty than bring rich down to the poverty and make everyone equally miserable. They follow the marxism and their game hasn't changed since the October revolution.

 

[Ame®icano]

I'd say it would be none of our business if what they were paying were FAIR.

The problem is some of them have managed to buy Congress, buy politicians and when it becomes that corrupt, it is the business of the people.

One thing is to encourage investment. Another is to encourage rich people to give lots of money to politicians to do the bidding of the rich. Taxing the rich at a lower rate might encourage investment, but taxing the poorer people at a lower rate can encourage spending, as can taxing the Middle Class at a lower rate. You can make such arguments all day, but that doesn't stop things being unfair.

I'm not talking here about taxing the wealthy to death. I'm talking about making them pay a fair amount which people can trust in. The problem is you have the Koch brothers trying to take over the country. That doesn't benefit you. The partisan politics that they're defending because it's in their interests is killing the country.

There is a problem also with the leaches of society. But the rich don't care. They like having these people in order to create an environment where they can manipulate people all the time.

You are talking about taxing wealthy to death, since that would be only fair thing to do, right?

Otherwise, you would be specific what the "fair" is.

Can you at least explain, why is bad for people to keep more of their money?

 

[Ame®icano]

I'm not talking here about taxing the wealthy to death. I'm talking about making them pay a fair amount which people can trust in.

serious question:

how much more than 70% of all taxes paid by the top 10% of wealthiest Americans would be "fair"???

the problem with your take on this is that your solution stifles growth & creates more restrictive impediments on the middle class to actually make it into that elusive "wealthy class"

real wealth; like that of the Kennedy's & Soros' of the world, is untouched; but the EARNINGS of the little guy & the great unwashed middle class are assaulted

not to mention that people that make $100,000 are considered "rich"

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2015 Update - Tax Foundation

The problem here is this.

1) The rich get lots of incentives. Trump was paid nearly $1 billion by New York in his time to do business. Then when he earns money from this, you say he shouldn't be paying much money in taxes. You forget the percentage of what he earns and just look at the amount, which is ridiculous.

2) said incentives prevent other businesses from competing on a level playing field. Which means the rich get richer and richer and then you point out they pay lots in tax. Sure they do, but by paying LESS as a percentage the smaller businesses are paying MORE as a percentage to make up the shortfall, and therefore they're struggling even more to compete with these companies.

Do you think it's fair that the rich should pay less taxes so they can make more money so they can put smaller businesses out of business?

Depends what fair is. Care to define it?

Why you think it's fair that rich pay higher taxes than you do?

And yes, all the laws should effect everyone equally. If I get tax break, rich should get the tax break too.

 

[Ame®icano]

I didn't say it was fair to do that.

Are you just making things up that you believe I will say?

You seem very upset about the tax cut

This tax cut will help me keep more of My money

In fact, the only ones that get "hurt" are the wealthiest landowners

So why the outrage friend?

I don't know why Democrats are so upset about this new tax law. They keep saying it's bad for middle class. If true, than they should be cheering for it. If this law is sooooo wrong, than they won't have any problem wining the midterm elections and making it right.

This law is not great, bit it's a start of something better than we had. That's why Democrats are hating it, because they know that everyone, especially the middle class, will be better off, and that's the last thing Democrats want to see.

 

[Ame®icano]

I didn't say it was fair to do that.

Are you just making things up that you believe I will say?

You seem very upset about the tax cut

This tax cut will help me keep more of My money

In fact, the only ones that get "hurt" are the wealthiest landowners

So why the outrage friend?

Oh, I seem upset do I? Right... because you can tell emotion over the internet. Give me a break.

Will it help you keep more of your money?

Let's see. The last tax cuts under Bush led to a recession which lost a lot of people their homes, it lost a lot of people their jobs. Do you think they got to keep more of their money? Really?

There are bigger things that led to recession.

Does subprime landing ring a bell? How about Fannie and Freddie? How about government forcing banks to give out mortgages?

Comparing to those, Bush tax cuts were peanut sized.

 

[Ame®icano]

You seem very upset about the tax cut

This tax UT will help me keep more of My money

In fact, the only ones that get "hurt" are the wealthiest landowners

So why the outrage friend?

It's called starve the beast. Republicans run on "government doesn't work" by doing whatever they can to break it. We can't negotiate with N. Korea because Tillerson let all the folks ho knew how to do that go.

Not to mention that "folks who knew how to do that" got us where we are now.