Just about everyone here will see their taxes go down dramatically. And once again I hate this tax bill.
I see. Now that I've debunked your claim that anyone who doesn't itemize will see their taxes go down, you want to move the goalposts. Ok. My taxes will go up significantly under either House or Senate versions.
I don't know how accurate this calculator is, but I plugged my 2016 numbers in and it told me that I would pay about $10K more under the Senate plan, and $20K more under the House plan. Pretty much because my mortgage interest, property taxes and state taxes are no longer deductible.
It looks as if my taxes will stay pretty much the same. That surprises me, I had thought that like Smurf I would lose more with my deductions than I would pick up via a slightly lower tax rate. Hmmm.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/05/heres-what-the-senates-tax-bill-means-for-your-wallet.html The very first sentence: "Households can expect to save $1,200.."
This tax calculator was posted by a friend. Not sure how much stock you can put into it. http://taxplancalculator.com/
So you believe that more than Obama's comment about insurance premiums under the ACA?? My federal taxes will increase by about 12% with either the House or Senate plan. Additionally, I will see a similar increase in state taxes unless California legislates to change its taxes (by default, it follows federal law on deductions).
Where should I start? I am troubled by the defaults. There is someone in Alabama making 50k? We just spent 2 months damning them as trailer trash because they were going to send Roy Moore to Capital Hill. Time to start picking on those hill Billies in New Hampshire and their $12 gallon ice cream.
I never said it was an accurate tax calculator. Hence, the 2nd sentence. I personally wonder how the calculations are made.
No. I know that my wonkiness lies in conservation and biology, not finance or economics. Having said that, I do know my taxes go to projects that fund education, social security, defense, social projects, as well as not so worthy projects imho. If they can be used to improve the betterment of society via highways in rural Kansas, CHIP, VA hospital funding in Idaho, or education in California, I am all for it. Furthermore, our national debt is not going to go away anytime soon and we do need to take a hard look at how we are going to chip away at it. I don't know the answer but it's not getting a tax break. Neither is taking away the safety net from people who need it. Taxes are not a dirty word for me. Or to put it simply "I like to pay taxes for schools, even though I don't personally have a kid in school: It's because I don't like living in a country with a bunch of stupid people.”
To put it more simply were taxes bad during the Clinton administration? That was the last time the US ran a surplus. I remember the Carter years. I remember people complaining about inflation and many other things. Income taxes weren't one of those things.
Somebody paid taxes so that I could attend school. Shouldn't I return the favor when I become a taxpayer? If answering Yes makes one a libtard, I am OK with being a libtard.
Refreshing to see a liberal concerned about the national debt. Where were you during the Obama years when we doubled our debt? How about this idea, we cut every budget by 1% and then only increase the next years budget if you can prove your agencies value?
YOU ARE A LIBTARD. Not because your taxes fund public education, but because you throw out red herrings that have nothing to do with the discussion. By the way, schools are funded by local taxes, so if raza saves $1,200 in federal income taxes the kids in your neighborhood are not short changed.