Senate bill is looking pretty good for us now....
« prev   poltics

6
6

Senate bill is looking pretty good for us now....

By anonymous following x   2017 Dec 2, 8:39am 2,477 views   134 comments   watch   quote     share    


#poltics All the changes helped my $200k dual income family.... even though we won’t itemized anymore. Losing the SALT deduction and home equity loan interest deduction make it impossible to itemize now... but atleast the lower brackets and ability to get a $2000 tax credit for our child offset any higher taxes due to not being able to itemize.

Hopefully the house passes this thing with minimal changes since the property tax deduction survived. The house bill was horrible for upper middle class earners in blue states. This softens the blow. There’s about a $3000 difference now between the senate and house bills for us.

It’s still stupid all these tax changes and it’s basically a wash for our family all said and done. Just glad we didn’t stretch and buy a really expensive house.... those people in our income level are getting screwed if they can’t combine those interest payments with SALT for a fat deduction.

« First    « Previous     Comments 49 - 88 of 134     Next »     Last »

49   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 10:18am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

HappyGilmore says
Of course. But removal of the exemptions hurts them. Removal of student loan interest hurts them.

I'm talking in totality(and in general)--winners are the super rich. Losers are everyone else.



Those are good moves IMO. The Department of Education just released data that showed that the student loan default rate from October 2013 to October 2017 has increased to 11.5 percent (roughly 600,000 defaulters). This is unacceptable. Those losses are tax payer subsidized. No one is forcing those people to take loans and taking incentives AWAY from bad borrowers is a good thing IMO.

Still, I've done the math and the 24k deduction is huge for people who aren't over borrowing. not to mention the lower tax brackets per income level overall. Also this is the largest drop to small business and corporations in 20 years (more business expansion and jobs coming).

The only people this tax cut seems to hurt are "over borrowers", people who borrowed far too much to buy a home, or borrowed far too much taxpayer money to give to some liberal arts schools.

Net positive, these tax cuts are far better for the economy.
50   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 10:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Goran_K says
Those are good moves IMO. The Department of Education just released data that showed that the student loan default rate from October 2013 to October 2017 has increased to 11.5 percent (roughly 600,000 defaulters). This is unacceptable. Those losses are tax payer subsidized. No one is forcing those people to take loans and taking incentives AWAY from bad borrowers is a good thing IMO.


Access to education should not be only available to the wealthy. That's bad policy for the US--an educated population is vastly superior to an uneducated population.

Goran_K says

Net positive, these tax cuts are far better for the economy.


Nope--I've done the calculations too. Huge net negative. Much better off simply sending all taxpayers $10K.
51   errc   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 4, 10:32am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Goran_K says
HappyGilmore says
Of course. But removal of the exemptions hurts them. Removal of student loan interest hurts them.

I'm talking in totality(and in general)--winners are the super rich. Losers are everyone else.



Those are good moves IMO. The Department of Education just released data that showed that the student loan default rate from October 2013 to October 2017 has increased to 11.5 percent (roughly 600,000 defaulters). This is unacceptable. Those losses are tax payer subsidized. No one is forcing those people to take loans and taking incentives AWAY from bad borrowers is a good thing IMO.

Still, I've done the math and the 24k deduction is huge for people who aren't over borrowing. not to mention the lower tax brackets per income level overall. Also this is the largest drop to small business and corporations in 20 years (more business expansion and jobs c...


As an American Capitalist, i see a very simple solution: bring back Capitalism so that student loan debt is discharged in chapter 7 bankruptcy. The market will sort it out
52   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 10:39am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

HappyGilmore says
Access to education should not be only available to the wealthy. That's bad policy for the US--an educated population is vastly superior to an uneducated population.


Have you seen millenials? They are already vastly uneducated despite a liberal arts degree and have high unemployment as it is.

Giving "free money" to students is not the way to give "access to education", that's just enabling bad decisions and causing inflationary pressure on the cost of education.



Nope--I've done the calculations too. Huge net negative. Much better off simply sending all taxpayers $10K.


I doubt that. You can't even come up with a situation where it actually hurts someone who isn't up to their necks in debt.
53   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 10:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

errc says
As an American Capitalist, i see a very simple solution: bring back Capitalism so that student loan debt is discharged in chapter 7 bankruptcy. The market will sort it out


As an american capitalist, then you should also be in favor of loaning money based on projected ability to pay back? Right Mr. Capitalist?
54   errc   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 4, 10:41am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Goran_K says
errc says
As an American Capitalist, i see a very simple solution: bring back Capitalism so that student loan debt is discharged in chapter 7 bankruptcy. The market will sort it out


As an american capitalist, then you should also be in favor of loaning money based on projected ability to pay back? Right Mr. Capitalist?


Of course
55   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 10:59am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Goran_K says
Giving "free money" to students is not the way to give "access to education", that's just enabling bad decisions and causing inflationary pressure on the cost of education.



If we gave free money, then you might have a point. Regardless, deciding who gets the right to an education by the birth lottery is a much worse system.


Goran_K says
I doubt that. You can't even come up with a situation where it actually hurts someone who isn't up to their necks in debt


If I had an uncivil button, I would have used it on this comment. I'd expect better from a moderator.
56   socal2   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 11:08am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

HappyGilmore says
Access to education should not be only available to the wealthy. That's bad policy for the US--an educated population is vastly superior to an uneducated population.


Just like our expensive healthcare system, when the government subsidizes something, it becomes much more expensive as it just increases the demand.

Instead of shoveling more of our tax dollars into education loans, we should be working with universities to come up with ways of reducing the cost of tuition. There is absolutely no reason why a 4 year degree should cost hundreds of thousands of dollars saddling our kids with a big fat mortgage right out of college.

Reducing education costs will require eliminating many ridiculous administrative positions to manage SJW nonsense and getting back to educating.
57   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 11:13am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

socal2 says
Instead of shoveling more of our tax dollars into education loans, we should be working with universities to come up with ways of reducing the cost of tuition. There is absolutely no reason why a 4 year degree should cost hundreds of thousands of dollars saddling our kids with a big fat mortgage right out of college.


Yep--I agree with that. Education is similar to healthcare, however, in that it has a very inelastic demand curve. People need education.
58   anon_faba8   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 11:20am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Goran_K says
Still, I've done the math and the 24k deduction is huge for people who aren't over borrowing. not to mention the lower tax brackets per income level overall. Also this is the largest drop to small business and corporations in 20 years (more business expansion and jobs coming).


So show us the math. How did you do the math when the bill isn't out of committee yet and there are two versions with some big differences?
59   WildMind   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 11:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Yo be fair, every traditional family of 4 already has a bigger than $24k standard deduction now. You get $12700 standard fling married and your 2 kids and 2 parents get a $4050 personal deduction each which comes to $28900 deduction currently. The only thing that saves them from getting screwed is the large increase in child credit and extending it to $500k income families is smart too.

I’m just so glad I didn’t roll my wife’s student loans into our home equity loan this past year like I was going to so we could write off the interest. That would have sucked since equity loan interest write offs are going away for sure.

Goran_K says
HappyGilmore says
Winners: Owners of private jets. People with estates > $11MM, people with large holdings in stocks

Losers: Everyone else.


That doesn't seem accurate. You don't think a 24k standard deduction helps a middle class family?
60   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 11:36am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

HappyGilmore says
If I had an uncivil button, I would have used it on this comment. I'd expect better from a moderator.


You misused the uncivil button before so that's probably why you lost it.

I'm simply asking you to come up with a situation where the tax reform hurts someone. Give me a scenario.
61   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 11:47am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

anon_faba8 says

So show us the math. How did you do the math when the bill isn't out of committee yet and there are two versions with some big differences?


Based on the proposed changes, the majority of those who are not in abnormally high debt, will experience a pretty good windfall.

Can you come up with a situation where the tax reform hurts someone who isn't in debt up to their necks with student loans and a jumbo mortgage? Give me a scenario.
62   socal2   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 11:54am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

HappyGilmore says
Yep--I agree with that. Education is similar to healthcare, however, in that it has a very inelastic demand curve. People need education.


Sure - but people shouldn't take out massive student loans to attend ridiculously expensive private or Ivy league schools just to get a humanities degree.

We need to increase competition in education and allow for the accreditation of more online education and commuter school options instead of shoveling more tax dollars at future students.
63   Sniper   ignore (8)   2017 Dec 4, 12:08pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Goran_K says
Still, I've done the math and the 24k deduction is huge for people who aren't over borrowing.


I will be huge for the Millennial population, who is becoming the biggest age group, since very few own houses and rent and are staying away from having kids, but getting pets. That $24K will be like hitting the lottery for them. Just think how much avocado toast they can buy with that windfall.
64   Fucking White Male   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 4, 12:14pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Sniper says
HappyGilmore says
Access to education should not be only available to the wealthy.


It's not, if you have a pulse and are breathing, you can sign on the dotted line and get money for college, regardless if you can pay it back.


I’ve posted frequently...in California, the state colleges...some of which are very good schools...are about $6-7k annually inclusive of books, parking, and student fees. Junior colleges are around $1100-1500 annually inclusive. So at 4 years you are looking at $20k...less than the price of an average new car and certainly an affordable loan to ANYONE who has a job.

College being affordable to only the rich is a lie and I’m not sure why “happy gillmore” continues to dish out blatantly false statements.
65   RC2006   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 12:26pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Fucking White Male says
Sniper says
HappyGilmore says
Access to education should not be only available to the wealthy.


It's not, if you have a pulse and are breathing, you can sign on the dotted line and get money for college, regardless if you can pay it back.


I’ve posted frequently...in California, the state colleges...some of which are very good schools...are about $6-7k annually inclusive of books, parking, and student fees. Junior colleges are around $1100-1500 annually inclusive. So at 4 years you are looking at $20k...less than the price of an average new car and certainly an affordable loan to ANYONE who has a job.

College being affordable to only the rich is a lie and I’m not sure why “happy gillmore” continues to dish out blatantly false statements.


You forgot to include apartment, food, vacations, party money, and so on which at least triples the cost. How can one just be expect to go to school and study?
66   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 12:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Fucking White Male says
College being affordable to only the rich is a lie and I’m not sure why “happy gillmore” continues to dish out blatantly false statements.


Not everyone lives in CA. I don't know if $7K annually is correct or not, but that is still cost prohibitive to someone working minimum wage.

And you can't even smell college for $7K/year in the vast majority of places.
67   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 12:28pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Sniper says
It's not, if you have a pulse and are breathing, you can sign on the dotted line and get money for college, regardless if you can pay it back.


You obviously aren't following the thread. Goran proposed eliminating college loans.
68   Fucking White Male   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 4, 1:12pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

HappyGilmore says
Fucking White Male says
College being affordable to only the rich is a lie and I’m not sure why “happy gillmore” continues to dish out blatantly false statements.


Not everyone lives in CA. I don't know if $7K annually is correct or not, but that is still cost prohibitive to someone working minimum wage.

And you can't even smell college for $7K/year in the vast majority of places.


Again not true. Just about Every state has a state college system as well as a university system.

Min wage is irrelevant. Were talking loans here which everyone will qualify for. And if you are min wage after graduating...sucks to be you.

Here’s the costs to satisfy you:
https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/compare/tables/?state=CA
2 years jc x 1500 = 3k
2 years Cal State x 8k = 16k

Total = 19k

Now will you stop posting blatantly false information?
69   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 1:13pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

HappyGilmore says
You obviously aren't following the thread. Goran proposed eliminating college loans.


Uh no I didn't. Why are you lying?

I said I am in agreement eliminating any taxpayer subsidized incentives to borrow tons of money for college that will never get paid back, in fact here's my post verbatim.

Goran_K says
Those are good moves IMO. The Department of Education just released data that showed that the student loan default rate from October 2013 to October 2017 has increased to 11.5 percent (roughly 600,000 defaulters). This is unacceptable. Those losses are tax payer subsidized. No one is forcing those people to take loans and taking incentives AWAY from bad borrowers is a good thing IMO.


These loans put extreme inflationary pressure on college costs, there's a reason why those costs have skyrocketed under FAFSA.
71   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 1:22pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Happy Gilmore, keep it on topic.

You were lying when you said "Goran proposed eliminating college loans." This isn't an opinion, it's a fact, you lied.

This whole "I would make your comments uncivil" or arguing about what is uncivil, is borderline trolling.If you want to understand what is uncivil, or not, ask yourself "Am I trolling or attempting to make this about a person rather than a point?" If you answer yes to that, then you're being "uncivil".
72   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 1:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Goran_K says
These loans put extreme inflationary pressure on college costs, there's a reason why those costs have skyrocketed under FAFSA.


Yes, allowing folks who couldn't afford higher education without loans does increase demand, but limiting access to education is a horrible way to control costs.
73   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 1:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Fucking White Male says
Again not true. Just about Every state has a state college system as well as a university system.


Yes, it is true. They have systems, but they sure as hell don't cost $7K/year.
74   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 1:28pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Fucking White Male says
Min wage is irrelevant. Were talking loans here which everyone will qualify for. And if you are min wage after graduating...sucks to be you.


No we're not--that's the point. We're talking about if those loans weren't available to everyone.
75   Fucking White Male   ignore (2)   2017 Dec 4, 2:00pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

HappyGilmore says
Fucking White Male says
Again not true. Just about Every state has a state college system as well as a university system.


Yes, it is true. They have systems, but they sure as hell don't cost $7K/year.


Post link then. A few to make sure you’re not pointing out the rare exception.
76   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 2:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

HappyGilmore says
Yes, allowing folks who couldn't afford higher education without loans does increase demand, but limiting access to education is a horrible way to control costs.


Increasing college costs through inflationary pressure puts college out of the range of more people than simply allowing the market to adjust the price. Free loans do the exact opposite of what you're proposing.
77   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 2:06pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Goran_K says
Increasing college costs through inflationary pressure puts college out of the range of more people than simply allowing the market to adjust the price.


And by inflationary pressure you mean--allowing people who couldn't otherwise afford higher education to obtain it.

Let's be clear in what you are saying.
78   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 2:09pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Fucking White Male says
Post link then. A few to make sure you’re not pointing out the rare exception.


Sure--here's the data on public school education costs:

https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/2017-18-state-tuition-and-fees-public-four-year-institutions-state-and-five-year-percentage


79   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 2:15pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

HappyGilmore says
And by inflationary pressure you mean--allowing people who couldn't otherwise afford higher education to obtain it.

Let's be clear in what you are saying.


If people can't afford a certain college, they go to a cheaper college, if they can't afford a cheap college, then they go to community college and then transfer over after saving money. If that fails, then they can go to a trade school, and make money as a tradesmen. There are plenty of market alternatives.

Or if they do indeed take a loan, they think about it real hard, the consequences of taking the loan, and consider in their minds if they might be able to pay it back.

This is all far better than government subsidized loan money with a default rate of 11.5%.
80   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 2:31pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Goran_K says
If people can't afford a certain college, they go to a cheaper college, if they can't afford a cheap college, then they go to community college and then transfer over after saving money. If that fails, then they can go to a trade school, and make money as a tradesmen. There are plenty of market alternatives.


Again, so we're clear. You advocate that ones' career opportunities are substantially based on the birth lottery. That is not unusual for Republicans.

I advocate for a merit based system where the best and brightest have the opportunity to get ahead even if they are born into a poor family.
81   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 2:37pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

HappyGilmore says
Again, so we're clear. You advocate that ones' career opportunities are substantially based on the birth lottery. That is not unusual for Republicans.

I advocate for a merit based system where the best and brightest have the opportunity to get ahead even if they are born into a poor family.



Sure, some people are born to non-wealthy parents. Like Oprah, Michael Jordan, or Steve Jobs? The "best and brightest" have found ways. Schools often offer full rides to those with special talent.

America is a ladder of opportunity, and economic mobility is high as long as you work hard and make the right decisions.

Free loan money to anyone who can sign a FAFSA form is the exact opposite of a meritocracy.
82   Sniper   ignore (8)   2017 Dec 4, 2:45pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

RC2006 says
You forgot to include apartment, food, vacations, party money, and so on which at least triples the cost. How can one just be expect to go to school and study?


Yes, the horror to be expected to learn something in between all the partying. It's so unfair!
83   socal2   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 2:52pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

HappyGilmore says
I advocate for a merit based system where the best and brightest have the opportunity to get ahead even if they are born into a poor family.


Sounds great. But the government doesn't have a great track record of making up for absent fathers and broken homes which is the biggest driver of poverty, crime and ignorance in our country.

The best thing the government could do is to try and reverse the skyrocketing rate of women having children out of wedlock. Abortion, contraception and sex education is more available now than in any time in the history of the human species. Yet more kids than ever are being born to single mothers and poverty. Could it be that our government has incentivized this behavior with well meaning welfare (including student loan) policies?

The cynic in me thinks the Democrats want more poor immigrants and poor kids from broken families for votes and power.
84   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 2:57pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

socal2 says
The cynic in me thinks the Democrats want more poor immigrants and poor kids from broken families for votes and power.


You're not being cynical. Those are just the facts. Lyndon B. Johnson said this himself when he proposed the Great Society initiative when he was supposedly heard saying "I'll Have Those N*****s Voting Democratic for 200 Years" by one of his top aides.

When Government takes the place of the nuclear family, what you get is welfare dependency and a reliable voting bloc.

Just take a look at the Democrat core voting block. Poor blacks and Hispanics are a key part of it.
85   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 3:09pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Sniper says

There you go, median cost in the US is like $9,900 a year. Where's all these big costs.


That's tuition only. Double that for room and board.
86   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 3:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Goran_K says
Sure, some people are born to non-wealthy parents. Like Oprah, Michael Jordan, or Steve Jobs? The "best and brightest" have found ways. Schools often offer full rides to those with special talent.

America is a ladder of opportunity, and economic mobility is high as long as you work hard and make the right decisions.


The exception doesn't prove the rule. That is about as dishonest a sentence as I've ever seen.
87   HappyGilmore   ignore (1)   2017 Dec 4, 3:14pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

socal2 says
The best thing the government could do is to try and reverse the skyrocketing rate of women having children out of wedlock


I agree. There is a VERY strong correlation between being poor and having out of wedlock children. Let's enact policies that reduce wealth inequality to reduce out of wedlock children.

socal2 says
The cynic in me thinks the Democrats want more poor immigrants and poor kids from broken families for votes and power.


You're not alone, but in reality Dems want fewer poor people. It's Reps who enact policy after policy that creates more poor. Reps want to drive down wages by killing unions. Reps want to enact regressive tax plans.
88   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Dec 4, 3:20pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

HappyGilmore says
The exception doesn't prove the rule.


Exceptions?

The Brookings Institute, which is a left leaning research institute btw went over decades of demographic data and found you only have to do 3 things to not end up perpetually poor in the United States.

1. Graduate high school.
2. Get a job.
3. Get married before children.

Those 3 commonalities universally always lead to people not only NOT being poor, but being solidly middle class in America.

« First    « Previous     Comments 49 - 88 of 134     Next »     Last »


Comment as anon_1e925 or log in at top of page: