Comments 1 - 37 of 37        Search these comments

1   HeadSet   2018 Apr 18, 8:46am  

Great. Now phase out all MID and "charitable" deductions.
2   FortWayne   2018 Apr 18, 8:46am  

I’ve never seen a day when Democrats weren’t crying. They are not men, just crybabies.
3   Shaman   2018 Apr 18, 9:09am  

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article209015539.html
1 HeadSet ignore (1) 2018 Apr 18, 8:46am ↑ like (0) ↓ dislike (0) quote personal
Great. Now phase out all MID and "charitable" deduction

Great plan! Shall we do away with gems like The Clinton Foundation first?
Or go straight for the ones which care for widows, orphans, and kids with cancer?
4   HeadSet   2018 Apr 18, 9:51am  

Great plan! Shall we do away with gems like The Clinton Foundation first?
Or go straight for the ones which care for widows, orphans, and kids with cancer?


You can donate all you like to whatever suits you, including the high overhead scams. You just should not be able to deduct such donations from taxes.

Maybe start by restricting charitable deductions to cash only. No more high write offs for donating used clothing, worn equipment and junk vehicles.
5   Malcolm   2018 Apr 18, 10:19am  

FortWayne says
I’ve never seen a day when Democrats weren’t crying. They are not men, just crybabies.


Hey, that's not right. I have seen some very masculine Democrats. They are the ones with vaginas.
6   bob2356   2018 Apr 18, 10:24am  

HeadSet says
You can donate all you like to whatever suits you, including the high overhead scams. You just should not be able to deduct such donations from taxes.


Great, let's start with churches.
7   FuckTheMainstreamMedia   2018 Apr 18, 10:27am  

Bahahahahaha!

"Very wealthy Californians earning more than $1 million a year will pay the lion’s share of that money, with 43,000 of them paying a combined $9 billion.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article209015539.html#storylink=cpy"

"The batch of reports the FTB published in March focused on the new cap on deductions for state and local taxes. California Democratic leaders have been wary of how the tax law will play out. Gov. Jerry Brown called it “evil in the extreme,” arguing that it primarily benefits wealthy people and swells federal deficits by hundreds of billions of dollars.

He also said in January that he’s worried that the changes will provide an incentive for wealthy Californians to leave the state, potentially starving the state of tax revenue. The state’s wealthiest 1 percent, for instance, pay about 48 percent of the state’s personal income tax."

Jerry Brown is a huge turd!
8   HeadSet   2018 Apr 18, 11:21am  

bob2356 says
HeadSet says
You can donate all you like to whatever suits you, including the high overhead scams. You just should not be able to deduct such donations from taxes.


Great, let's start with churches.


No argument here.
9   bob2356   2018 Apr 18, 11:57am  

They’re the Californians who will lose a collective $12 billion because the new law caps a deduction they have been able to take for paying their state and local taxes, according to a new analysis by the Franchise Tax Board.

Very wealthy Californians earning more than $1 million a year will pay the lion’s share of that money, with 43,000 of them paying a combined $9 billion


This is nonsense. Many of these people are way into AMT. They have been losing their deductions all along. Sure, you can play around with the "AMT sweet spot" and get some of it back, but no where near these numbers. If anything the increase in the AMT exemption from 54,900/84,500 to 70,300/109,400 plus jumping the exemption phase out from 120,700/160,900 to 500,000/1,000,000 would help blue state tax filers who were losing their deductions under AMT previously. The people with over a million in income aren't going to be panhandling because of the cut in deductions. Nor are they going to be moving to Texas.

A whole bunch of political theatre for the people unwilling to do any thinking for themselves.
10   marcus   2018 Apr 18, 12:38pm  

lostand confused says
Democrats crying because Trump forces wealthy to pay "fair share" taxes!!


Nice spin, (or troll?)

Yeah, I get it. When republicans run massive deficits, even when the economy is doing fairly well, it's good, because it crowds out democratic spending if and when they're in power. Besides, how else would republicans stand a chance in the midterms (which happen before the result are in on the Trump deficits).
11   lostand confused   2018 Apr 18, 1:03pm  

bob2356 says
A whole bunch of political theatre for the people unwilling to do any thinking for themselve

LOL!!!! Are you referring tot he sacramento bee of the state of CA franchise tax board who they quoted?
12   SunnyvaleCA   2018 Apr 18, 2:01pm  

bob2356 says
jumping the exemption phase out from 120,700/160,900 to 500,000/1,000,000 would help blue state tax filers who were losing their deductions under AMT previously.


This is exactly my situation. For my taxes I just filed I got exactly $0 deductions for SALT (state and local tax). Moving to the $500k level for exemption phaseout next year means I'll pay less under the new tax plan. Having slightly lower rates in the tax brackets means I'll save money there too.

Lots of moaning and groaning from my leftist / progressive colleagues. None of them seem to have any substantial idea about the changes, but they seem very sure that the changes are bad because ... Trump. One colleague complained that his taxes would undoubtedly be more complicated. I asked how NOT having to bother figuring out the deductible portion of property and car taxes made things more complicated ... blank stare and crickets.
13   bob2356   2018 Apr 18, 2:01pm  

lostand confused says
bob2356 says
A whole bunch of political theatre for the people unwilling to do any thinking for themselve

LOL!!!! Are you referring tot he sacramento bee of the state of CA franchise tax board who they quoted?


Partially quoted. They left out this part.

We do not have all of the data necessary to accurately calculate federal AMT under
the new law. Many taxpayers reporting SALT deductions have the value of those
deductions reduced or eliminated by the AMT. We cannot precisely estimate the
interaction between these provisions.


Many taxpayers reporting SALT deductions have the value of those deductions reduced or eliminated by the AMT MANY REDUCED OR ELIMINATED. Got that? They can't calculate the what the AMT effects were or will be. That means they aren't calculating how AMT affects the wealthiest 6% of CA taxpayers. That's a lot of tax returns to skip. But they can report a definate number of 12 billion some how.

Still LOL?
14   SunnyvaleCA   2018 Apr 18, 2:09pm  

People earning huge income (say, $1 million) would probably not hit AMT because their tax bracket is 39% — well above the AMT rate of 28%. And itemized deductions for state and local taxes are mostly phased out at some point, so they weren't able to take advantage of SALT deductions anyway.

The smartest thing for high-income individuals is to flee the state. However, I'm guessing that these people aren't earning that high income every year. Maybe just one surprise year when they exercise stock options from their billion dollar IPO or something.
15   bob2356   2018 Apr 18, 2:14pm  

SunnyvaleCA says
, but they seem very sure that the changes are bad because ... Trum


The changes are bad, they will spike the deficit and debt. You will be pocketing borrowed money. When, and it is always when never if, the economy tanks the deficit will explode to 2T plus. Giving a tax cut in an economic boom is insanity. It's all a big pump and dump for the 2020 elections. The hot cash flowing back to corporations is going to almost all end up in the stock market or real estate the next 2 years. Trump will call the stock and real estate spike prosperity until it all tanks. It will tank.
16   bob2356   2018 Apr 18, 2:21pm  

SunnyvaleCA says
People earning huge income (say, $1 million) would probably not hit AMT because their tax bracket is 39% — well above the AMT rate of 28%. And itemized deductions for state and local taxes are mostly phased out at some point, so they weren't able to take advantage of SALT deductions anyway.


That's not how AMT works. You pay the higher of the standard calculation or the AMT calculation. You could have huge deductions on 1 million + (look at trumps 1 tax return that actually got reported) and still owe a lot under AMT.
17   SunnyvaleCA   2018 Apr 18, 2:35pm  

bob2356 says
That's not how AMT works. You pay the higher of the standard calculation or the AMT calculation. You could have huge deductions on 1 million + (look at trumps 1 tax return that actually got reported) and still owe a lot under AMT


It really all depends on what kind of income and what kind of deductions. If you have a huge salary you'll miss AMT (because regular income tax will be higher) and lose SALT too because of the itemized deduction phaseout. I speak from past experience.

As far as Trump's return, I can't quite remember the specifics. His deductions were related to taking pass-through business losses. I don't recall him paying AMT that year. So, I don't think Trump would fair any worse now under Trump's tax plan.
18   bob2356   2018 Apr 18, 2:55pm  

SunnyvaleCA says

It really all depends on what kind of income and what kind of deductions. If you have a huge salary you'll miss AMT (because regular income tax will be higher) and lose SALT too because of the itemized deduction phaseout. I speak from past experience.


True, AMT is very complicated. I'm certainly not calculating my own but I try to understand how the calculations were made and why. Trump paid 31 million on AMT instead of 5.3 million owed for standard return on 150 million in income. Without all the schedules we will never know how or why.
19   RC2006   2018 Apr 18, 5:10pm  

Trump has forced them to publicly show how bizzaro fucked upside down they are are. Hillary had almost complete backing of the filthy rich and dem party and its the same all the way down.
20   bob2356   2018 Apr 18, 9:09pm  

RC2006 says
Hillary had almost complete backing of the filthy rich


HIllary had the complete backing of the koch bro's huge network of ultra rich libertarians. Jesus, the amazing things you learn on patnet. How did infowars miss that?
21   Strategist   2018 Apr 18, 9:21pm  

bob2356 says

Great, let's start with churches.

That's awesome Bob. I always knew there was hope for you.
22   Strategist   2018 Apr 18, 9:27pm  

Strategist says
bob2356 says

Great, let's start with churches.

That's awesome Bob. I always knew there was hope for you.


Wait a minute Bob. Do you literally mean Churches only, or all religious institutions like Mosques and Temples?
23   bob2356   2018 Apr 18, 9:31pm  

Strategist says
bob2356 says

Great, let's start with churches.

That's awesome Bob. I always knew there was hope for you.


Churches are the worst. They have their tax free status including no property tax, but are up to their asses in the elections.

Strategist says
Wait a minute Bob. Do you literally mean Churches only, or all religious institutions like Mosques and Temples?


All that are tax fee. Why do I have to subsidize religion? Especially the ones working their asses off to support political candidates. You can't have it both ways. If a church wants to be in politics then give up tax free first.
24   Strategist   2018 Apr 18, 9:51pm  

bob2356 says
Strategist says
Wait a minute Bob. Do you literally mean Churches only, or all religious institutions like Mosques and Temples?


All that are tax fee. Why do I have to subsidize religion? Especially the ones working their asses off to support political candidates. You can't have it both ways. If a church wants to be in politics then give up tax free first.


I totally agree. As an atheist going to hell, how can I disagree? But you keep evading my question. Should the same rules be applied to mosques?
25   bob2356   2018 Apr 19, 4:18am  

Strategist says
But you keep evading my question. Should the same rules be applied to mosques?


Yes of course. I thought the word all was unequivocal, but apparently not.
26   RC2006   2018 Apr 19, 8:23am  

bob2356 says
RC2006 says
Hillary had almost complete backing of the filthy rich


HIllary had the complete backing of the koch bro's huge network of ultra rich libertarians. Jesus, the amazing things you learn on patnet. How did infowars miss that?


Cock brothers were against Trump and put thier money towards his Republican opponents. Hillary had the majority of wealthy elite.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

Doesn't even count all of the payola going to the Clinton Foundation.
27   bob2356   2018 Apr 19, 9:54am  

RC2006 says

Cock brothers were against Trump and put thier money towards his Republican opponents. Hillary had the majority of wealthy elite.


The cook bro's network are the wealthy elite filthy rich. Now they are trumps cabinet. Are you really saying they gave almost complete backing to Hillary?

RC2006 says
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/


Want to post the parts from the article that show how much came from the "wealthy elite" and which wealthy elite. I'm not seeing it.
28   RC2006   2018 Apr 19, 11:10am  

bob2356 says
The cook bro's network are the wealthy elite filthy rich. Now they are trumps cabinet. Are you really saying they gave almost complete backing to Hillary?


They did not support Trump being president and all of their republican choices lost. I never said they backed Hillary and they are not the only wealthy people in the game. Majority of the wealthy elites backed Hillary. You keep on focusing on the cock brothers they are not everything and they didn't have a winning horse in the race not sure why you keep focusing on them, maybe they are in there now but they were not at the start.
29   LeonDurham   2018 Apr 19, 12:10pm  

RC2006 says

They did not support Trump being president and all of their republican choices lost. I never said they backed Hillary and they are not the only wealthy people in the game. Majority of the wealthy elites backed Hillary. You keep on focusing on the cock brothers they are not everything and they didn't have a winning horse in the race not sure why you keep focusing on them, maybe they are in there now but they were not at the start.


How about Sheldon Adelson? Or many others as detailed below.

http://fortune.com/2016/08/03/trump-billionaire-backers-list/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html
30   bob2356   2018 Apr 19, 12:41pm  

RC2006 says
Majority of the wealthy elites backed Hillary.


Want to name all the hillary supporters in the 100 wealthiest? Your won't have to take off your shoes to count that high, I promise.
31   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Apr 19, 12:59pm  

LeonDurham says
How about Sheldon Adelson? Or many others as detailed below.


That still doesn't detract from RC2006's point that Hillary raised more money from the Wealthy, which is a fact.

It was also the first time since the 20s or 30s that Orange County voted majority Democrat.

And the Koch Brothers refused to give Trump a dime, since he talked against wonderful wage crushing illegals and one-sided trade.

Or that the Democrats still arrange for big fundraisers to become superdelegates.
32   LeonDurham   2018 Apr 19, 1:40pm  

TwoScoopsPlissken says
That still doesn't detract from RC2006's point that Hillary raised more money from the Wealthy, which is a fact.


OK first off, RC said this:

RC2006 says
Hillary had the majority of wealthy elite.


Which is not the same as what you paraphrased above. Regardless, neither your statement nor RC's is a fact.
33   bob2356   2018 Apr 20, 4:49pm  

TwoScoopsPlissken says
That still doesn't detract from RC2006's point that Hillary raised more money from the Wealthy, which is a fact.

It was also the first time since the 20s or 30s that Orange County voted majority Democrat.

And the Koch Brothers refused to give Trump a dime, since he talked against wonderful wage crushing illegals and one-sided trade.


Nope, the majority of the wealthy elite sat on their hands.in the presidential race, Just like you said. RC said hillary had the backing of the majority of the wealthy elite. Not backing trump is not the same as backing hillary. Big logic fallacy there.
34   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Apr 20, 5:31pm  

LeonDurham says
Which is not the same as what you paraphrased above. Regardless, neither your statement nor RC's is a fact.


Oh? Evidence in favor? I've got plenty, but you go first.
35   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Apr 20, 5:36pm  

LeonDurham says
Which is not the same as what you paraphrased above. Regardless, neither your statement nor RC's is a fact.


What do you take "had the majority of the wealthy elite" to mean. To me it means money and votes. The fact that she yugely outraised Trump in wealthy donations and SuperPAC money, and that OC flipped to the Dem for the first time in almost a century, seems to me she "had the majority of the wealthy elite."

bob2356 says
Nope, the majority of the wealthy elite sat on their hands


Link? $1.2B was higher than what Obama spent in 2012. Hillary raised twice what the Donald did. Seems that the 2016 race was par for the course for the past few races in terms of big money raised SuperPAC giving was more than twice to Hillary than Trump.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/
36   bob2356   2018 Apr 21, 1:12am  

TwoScoopsPlissken says
bob2356 says
Nope, the majority of the wealthy elite sat on their hands


Link? $1.2B was higher than what Obama spent in 2012. Hillary raised twice what the Donald did. Seems that the 2016 race was par for the course for the past few races in terms of big money raised SuperPAC giving was more than twice to Hillary than Trump


Look at what you just wrote. Donations are more than just the wealthy individuals. Businesses. institutions, smaller donors make up a good chunk of donations. Dems traditionally get much more from small donors 35% to 20% and republicans get more from large donors 28% to 17%.. https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donordemographics.php

Hillary got all the usual donations including the wealthy dem supporters.. Trump got all the usual donations minus the wealthy. Hillary actually spent about 25% less than either Obama run. Trump was way down from Romney, like half, about the same as Mccain and less than Bush.



No, hillary did not have the backing of the majority of the wealthy elite. They spent their money on congressional candidates.
37   RC2006   2018 Apr 22, 8:54pm  

What's the point of democrats worrying about schools here turning the US into a third world when they put so much energy bringing the third world to the US.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions