OT: Senate vs. House Tax Plan

[MBTiger23]

That calculator is far too simple for the complexity of the changes coming. For instance, any current deduction you make towards your contribution to Clemson football you will no longer be allowed to do. On the surface if you can deduct the same amount of money as years before you will always come out on top. Part of this tax cut takes away some deductions though.

 

[dpotter24]

The Senate plan is a much improved plan from the original version, because of retaining but increasing the Estate Tax and AMT tax provisions. I am on board with that part of the Senate plan. But I am very opposed to their elimination of the penalty for not carrying insurance. That is going to cause all of our insurance rates to increase significantly and that alone will wipe out any marginal savings I see from the tax bill. Also, the cuts for the extremely wealthy are still too costly and consume too much of the total cuts.

Bottom line is I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze from these two bills. I don't think the deficit increase that will occur will be offset by investment in the middle class and GDP growth. There are not enough measures to ensure the desired investment in salaries and jobs as well as GDP growth occurs. I see too much money being tacked on to the deficit to save hundreds of billions for the very wealthy while there is only a marginal decrease in taxes for the middle class and in some cases tax increases for upper middle class families.

Add in the cost increases that will result from increased insurance premiums along with the reforms that will follow to roll back Medicare and Social Security benefits that will hurt the middle class and poor in order to preserve these tax cuts for the wealthy in the face of rising deficits that will occur, and it is a bad deal for the middle class and the poor. It's a really bad deal.

Rates were already increasing at a rapid pace. The mandate puts a big strain on businesses to provide insurance to their workers. In turn, it cuts into profit margins (sometimes resulting in killing the business as it closes), results in less workers or less hours for workers (so the employer doesn’t have to offer insurance due to the cost), and the marketplace rates are ridiculously high. Fun fact: insurance rates have been increasing pretty much every year prior to ObamaCare.

 

[MBRO]

Nowhere close to Obama’s doubling of it in a mere 8 years

You’re the second person ITT to mention Obama. What does that have to do with the issue at hand?

This is not a partisan issue. Both parties are guilty of spending money they don’t have. It needs to stop. It needed to stop 30 years ago.

 

[scotchtiger]

That calculator is far too simple for the complexity of the changes coming. For instance, any current deduction you make towards your contribution to Clemson football you will no longer be allowed to do. On the surface if you can deduct the same amount of money as years before you will always come out on top. Part of this tax cut takes away some deductions though.

Agreed. Just a super simple reference point.

For example, it doesn't account for any benefit I see on the 20-25% of our income that qualifies as pass-through or for repealed AMT or increased thresholds for AMT qualification. Combined, those are major benefits to our household.

 

[scotchtiger]

For the fiscal hawks mentioning the deficit, the MAGA train is heading for welfare reform next. Encourage both sides of the aisles to reduce spending here. #handupnothandout

https://www.wsj.com/articles/after-push-on-taxes-republicans-line-up-welfare-revamp-next-1512469801

 

[1Clemzunfan]

Rates were already increasing at a rapid pace. The mandate puts a big strain on businesses to provide insurance to their workers. In turn, it cuts into profit margins (sometimes resulting in killing the business as it closes), results in less workers or less hours for workers (so the employer doesn’t have to offer insurance due to the cost), and the marketplace rates are ridiculously high. Fun fact: insurance rates have been increasing pretty much every year prior to ObamaCare.

1. Rates were climbing for insurance, but this will accelerate that. If the mandate is repealed 13 million more people will be without insurance, whether by choice or by not being able to afford it. They will still get sick. Who pays for their bills? You or your employer will through higher premiums.

2. Only businesses with greater than 50 employees have to provide insurance or else a penalty. All individuals have to have insurance or else pay a penalty. Of you are a small business owner who provides your own healthcare, you just saw your already high premiums take an even greater leap forward in price.

3. Fun fact - Insurance rates were increasing at a staggering rate prior to Obama care. It didn't start with Obama care.

4. If a worker loses their insurance but keeps their low to middle tier paying job because the mandate for insurance is removed, how does that worker come out ahead financially with this tax bill?

5. What measures does this tax bill have that ensure that the corporate tax savings and the individual tax savings are invested in jobs or increased benefits and salaries for American middle class and poor workers? What measures are in this bill to ensure that the corporate tax savings and resulting profit increases are simply not invested in stock buy backs and increased incentives/bonuses for executives? I'll hang up and listen.

 

[scotchtiger]

YOU NEED TO ADD IN DEFENSE SPENDING CUTS. AMAZING THE AMOUNT OF MILITARY WORSHIP THAT GOES ON. DEFENSE SPENDING IS SOME OF THE MOST INEFFICIENT TAX DOLLARS IMAGINABLE. WE CAN'T FIND MONEY FOR CHIP (BEFORE YOU GO ON BLAST ABOUT THIS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HEALTH INSURANCE FOR KIDS) BUT WE AUTHORIZED ANOTHER 60 BILLION FOR THE MILITARY. AND YES, I'M SURE WE WILL GET THE TIRED RESPONSES OF "FREEDOM AIN'T FREE" "WALK WITH A BIG STICK" AND "WE NEED ALL THE DEFENSE SPENDING WE CAN GET". THE FACT IS THAT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE UTTERLY WASTED EVERY YEAR VIA THE DEFENSE BUDGET BUT EVERYONE CHOOSES TO BITCH ABOUT ENTITLEMENTS (WHICH ARE A HUGE PROBLEM AS WELL). WE COULD CUT MILITARY SPENDING BY 10% AND BE JUST FINE ON THIS EARTH. NO ONE WOULD BE CLOSE TO OUR STRENGTH.

BUT, SOME OF YOU ARE COOL A BLANK CHECK TO A PRIVATE CORPORATION TO BUILD THE F-35. YES, THAT PLANE HAS YET TO BECOME OPERATIONAL BUT HAS SO FAR SPENT 410 BILLION OF OUR DOLLARS TO DEVELOP.

I think there should be a major focus on waste in the defense budget - specifically within the defense contracting sector. Agree we can reduce here as well.

 

[TAINT_PAINT]

5. What measures does this tax bill have that ensure that the corporate tax savings and the individual tax savings are invested in jobs or increased benefits and salaries for American middle class and poor workers? What measures are in this bill to ensure that the corporate tax savings and resulting profit increases are simply not invested in stock buy backs and increased incentives/bonuses for executives? I'll hang up and listen.

GOOD QUESTION.

 

[1Clemson]

For the fiscal hawks mentioning the deficit, the MAGA train is heading for welfare reform next. Encourage both sides of the aisles to reduce spending here. #handupnothandout

https://www.wsj.com/articles/after-push-on-taxes-republicans-line-up-welfare-revamp-next-1512469801

A wise person would have done that first.... but alas, all we have is Congress and the Trumpster...

 

[allorangec]

1. Rates were climbing for insurance, but this will accelerate that. If the mandate is repealed 13 million more people will be without insurance, whether by choice or by not being able to afford it. They will still get sick. Who pays for their bills? You or your employer will through higher premiums.

2. Only businesses with greater than 50 employees have to provide insurance or else a penalty. All individuals have to have insurance or else pay a penalty. Of you are a small business owner who provides your own healthcare, you just saw your already high premiums take an even greater leap forward in price.

3. Fun fact - Insurance rates were increasing at a staggering rate prior to Obama care. It didn't start with Obama care.

4. If a worker loses their insurance but keeps their low to middle tier paying job because the mandate for insurance is removed, how does that worker come out ahead financially with this tax bill?

5. What measures does this tax bill have that ensure that the corporate tax savings and the individual tax savings are invested in jobs or increased benefits and salaries for American middle class and poor workers? What measures are in this bill to ensure that the corporate tax savings and resulting profit increases are simply not invested in stock buy backs and increased incentives/bonuses for executives? I'll hang up and listen.

Every bill that has been created by Congress, there has been winners and losers.

On a positive note for Dems, this will force them to come back to the table with a public option. I highly doubt they will force citizens to buy a private plan without a public option. Which is what most liberals I know wanted all along. But couldn't get there b/c the individual mandate killed Dems in the elections.

And if there are more losers than winners from the tax plan, then you will probably see a public option become reality. If the tax plan creates more winners than losers, Dems might have a hard time winning the next election.

Its called the democratic process.

 

[other1]

Nowhere close to Obama’s doubling of it in a mere 8 years

FWIW
So under Obama, the debt has increased 70 percent after nearly six years. But let’s look at what happened under Republican hero Ronald Reagan, using the fiscal year numbers in the White House’s historical budget tables.

Size of national debt when Reagan took office:$1 trillion
Size after six years:$2.3 trillion (130 percent increase)
Size at the end of his presidency: $2.9 trillion (190 percent increase)

 

[BigPapaWhit]

We are gonna pay for healthcare regardless. Its not like the uninsured are refused service. That cost is passed on to the tax payer one way or the other. My uneducated guess would be to increase competition between the insurance companies. However, I am not sure the current rules encourages competition. Is it much different from banks? Seems like we have seen increased costs with decreased competition in that industry as well. Not sure if the person was joking but said the easiest way to get rich was to start a bank and wait to get bought out. Seen that in tech as well.

 

[dpotter24]

1. Rates were climbing for insurance, but this will accelerate that. If the mandate is repealed 13 million more people will be without insurance, whether by choice or by not being able to afford it. They will still get sick. Who pays for their bills? You or your employer will through higher premiums.

Who's saying they can afford it as it currently stands? The cost for the crappiest Obamacare plan is astronomical. I'd be willing to bet that if those people are even using the healthcare, they aren't paying the bills that come with the visits since they either can't or can barely afford the cost of the plan as it is. Still millions out there that take the penalty because it's the cheapest route.

2. Only businesses with greater than 50 employees have to provide insurance or else a penalty. All individuals have to have insurance or else pay a penalty. Of you are a small business owner who provides your own healthcare, you just saw your already high premiums take an even greater leap forward in price.

Who are you, or better yet, the federal government to dictate who has to and who doesn't have to offer insurance? 50 employees is still a small business by far. It's well documented that requiring them to offer employees coverage costs them a lot of $. If they choose not to cut back on employees hours or let go of some employees, the business risks going under for good. It's a no win situation and can be avoided by the mandate.

3. Fun fact - Insurance rates were increasing at a staggering rate prior to Obama care. It didn't start with Obama care.

I never said it did. That is why i said they were increasing prior to Obamacare. You just agreed with me on that one so I don't understand what you're referencing here.

4. If a worker loses their insurance but keeps their low to middle tier paying job because the mandate for insurance is removed, how does that worker come out ahead financially with this tax bill?

I'd be willing to bet that the cost for a private policy is roughly the same cost for coverage through their small employer (since rates are high for small businesses due to the mandate) or the cost of their Obamacare plan. Obamacare isn't cheap at all for those forced to buy it from the marketplace. Another option are HDHP HSA plans...especially for those that are healthy. Lower cost and you accumulate $ that you and/or your employer contribute to the plan. A good thing about that option is that you never lose it. It's yours until it's all used, even if you aren't working at that company anymore.

5. What measures does this tax bill have that ensure that the corporate tax savings and the individual tax savings are invested in jobs or increased benefits and salaries for American middle class and poor workers? What measures are in this bill to ensure that the corporate tax savings and resulting profit increases are simply not invested in stock buy backs and increased incentives/bonuses for executives? I'll hang up and listen.

Why are you focusing on corporations getting a little tax relief? You do understand that it's the wealthy in America that pay the most in taxes, right? They also do a lot of charitable contributions that better our communities. The standard deduction is going to nearly double. What does that mean? It means that everyone will get a large sum of money more back each year in their taxes (since the vast majority use the standard deduction rather than itemizing). This will help stimulate the economy because the more money you have, the more you spend. That money goes right back into businesses and helps to stimulate the economy.

 

[1Clemson]

We are gonna pay for healthcare regardless. Its not like the uninsured are refused service. That cost is passed on to the tax payer one way or the other. My uneducated guess would be to increase competition between the insurance companies. However, I am not sure the current rules encourages competition. Is it much different from banks? Seems like we have seen increased costs with decreased competition in that industry as well. Not sure if the person was joking but said the easiest way to get rich was to start a bank and wait to get bought out. Seen that in tech as well.

I'm starting to think its not healthcare that's broken as much as health insurance. Eliminate some of the overhead, make folks actually aware of the real costs, let them shop a bit and healthcare cost crash. Health insurance is a perfect way to destroy a market economy: compartmentalize to restrict interstate purchase and grouping, remove consumer's information on actual cost, allow insurance companies to determine drug choices, shift burden to a larger public, distort costs so that customers pay different price for same service, add 100%+ in overhead transaction cost overhead.

If healthcare is even going to be a public issue, we need to find a way to cost effectively fund BASIC healthcare. Let insurance or individuals cover everything beyond basic care

 

[dpotter24]

FWIW
So under Obama, the debt has increased 70 percent after nearly six years. But let’s look at what happened under Republican hero Ronald Reagan, using the fiscal year numbers in the White House’s historical budget tables.

Size of national debt when Reagan took office:$1 trillion
Size after six years:$2.3 trillion (130 percent increase)
Size at the end of his presidency: $2.9 trillion (190 percent increase)

You're smoking crack if you honestly think that Obama only had a 70% increase in our national debt. This isn't even debatable nor worth the effort.

 

[lcctay]

SIAP but the House plan eliminates the deductability of alimony payments.

 

[allorangec]

FWIW
So under Obama, the debt has increased 70 percent after nearly six years. But let’s look at what happened under Republican hero Ronald Reagan, using the fiscal year numbers in the White House’s historical budget tables.

Size of national debt when Reagan took office:$1 trillion
Size after six years:$2.3 trillion (130 percent increase)
Size at the end of his presidency: $2.9 trillion (190 percent increase)

Yes, and Reagan had a Democratic House his entire 8 years. Hopefully, from this process, you are learning that very little of the spending comes from the President. The President gives you a framework, Congress fills it in. Its much easier for a President to reign in his staff when it comes to spending. Its much harder for a Speaker to reign in 435 individuals of equal standing. They all want to add something to a bill. Leave their mark so to speak.

I used to hate Newt Gingrich while I was in college. But now that I look back, he's the only Speaker I know of that has limited spending by the House.

 

[other1]

You're smoking crack if you honestly think that Obama only had a 70% increase in our national debt. This isn't even debatable nor worth the effort.

I've never smoked crack, Jack!! This is where I got the figures. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-on-the-national-debt/?utm_term=.cd51f238e57f

 

[ClemsonNY13]

SIAP but the House plan eliminates the deductability of alimony payments.

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize a divorce...

 

[1Clemson]

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize a divorce...

Why should they subsidize churches, charities, home ownership, retirees, business owners, investors, property owners or children?

 

[ClemsonNY13]

Why should they subsidize churches, charities, home ownership, retirees, business owners, investors, property owners or children?

Have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[vbranno]

Great. I'll support whichever plan doesn't add to the federal debt. Until then, I'll support neither.

View embedded media

Nice numbers without context. US population is 300 million. UK 70. US GDP is 19 trillion. UK 2.5.

You can pick and choose stats to fit any agenda. Using debt to GDP, we are more fiscally responsible than any other country on that list.

 

[B. Winstonworth]

I just read the full text of the bills.

You read almost 900 pages of bills? I'm a tax lawyer and I haven't even gotten close to reading the full texts.

 

[MBRO]

Nice numbers without context. US population is 300 million. UK 70. US GDP is 19 trillion. UK 2.5.

You can pick and choose stats to fit any agenda. Using debt to GDP, we are more fiscally responsible than any other country on that list.

That's good counterpoint.

However, just because we are more fiscally responsible than others on that list doesn't mean that we are fiscally responsible. It's like being the tallest midget.

I don't see anyway to spin being $18 trillion in debt (and climbing) as being acceptable.

 

[1Clemson]

You read almost 900 pages of bills? I'm a tax lawyer and I haven't even gotten close to reading the full texts.

If you are a lawyer, you know less than half the pages of a bill are relevant. I also can’t believe you haven’t already perused the House version.

I confess to skipping the (long and tedious) reconciling sections (conforming amendments) that detail the specific lines to edit or change and focused on the sections that affect individual taxes and just skimmed the business side. It’s not hard to get the meat off the bones in a couple hours. As part of my job, I routinely read/review legislation and regulations.

You’ll spend 10 to 20 times that looking for loopholes, but that’s why people pay you.

Please let me know if my initial/superficial review is wrong. I hope like hell it is because these are not very good policy changes.

 

[1Clemson]

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize a divorce...

I’ve got no skin in this one, so this is just a policy discussion.

As a matter of economic effect it is simply a money grab by the feds- they get to tax the alimony amount at a higher rate at the same time the payor (alimony is only paid by the higher earning spouse) is deprived of the higher deduction. This will lead to more contentious divorce settlements, smaller alimony payments and both parties effectively paying the higher single deduction rate for income that attempts to create a pre-divorce balance of living standards. The payor (mostly men) get screwed by both the government and the divorce decree. The recipient gets screwed by receiving less compensation, which may lead to higher child support payments (which are also not tax deductible by the payor) and likely higher levels of WIC participation (further inefficient welfare tax cost).

I would favor tax policies that reduce government collection and redistribution of income.

 

[1Clemson]

Have to draw the line somewhere.

I agree. Let’s list and ALL income regardless of source- credit for any federal taxes already paid (OASDI, MC or business taxes proprietorships or partnerships) and NO other elective deductions and set the rate so that everyone pays something, even if it’s 1/2 %. I would bet that that the overall rates would be significantly less. Once everyone has some skin in the games and theirs less gaming, we can decide what we really need or don’t need.

We could eliminate most tax accountants/preparers, most of the IRS, most tax attorneys, and a lot of tax uncertainty.

 

[B. Winstonworth]

I agree. Let’s list and ALL income regardless of source- credit for any federal taxes already paid (OASDI, MC or business taxes proprietorships or partnerships) and NO other elective deductions and set the rate so that everyone pays something, even if it’s 1/2 %. I would bet that that the overall rates would be significantly less. Once everyone has some skin in the games and theirs less gaming, we can decide what we really need or don’t need.

We could eliminate most tax accountants/preparers, most of the IRS, most tax attorneys, and a lot of tax uncertainty.

Please define “Income.” TYIA.

Spoiler: Spoiler

It is WILDLY difficult to do and some of the greatest legal minds have been trying to do so in a fair manner (unsuccessfully) for about 50 years now. Here is a good starting point to help you answer.

 

[1Clemson]

Please define “Income.” TYIA.

Spoiler: Spoiler

It is WILDLY difficult to do and some of the greatest legal minds have been trying to do so in a fair manner (unsuccessfully) for about 50 years now. Here is a good starting point to help you answer.

I suffer as a practitioner of the dismal arts and sciences. The goal is to eliminate gaming the system or tax cheating. I would actually prefer reducing government spending paid for by a VAT, tax the spending/consumption and let income be.

I know we will never get the pure income of economics, so let’s just say cash value of: W2, 1099, business pass through, net investment, dividends, stock options, interest, annuity income, inheritance/trust, pensions, gifts, government transfer payments, in-kind proceeds or exchanges, winnings, any paid personal expenses or services including healthcare. As soon as I hit send, I am sure I will think of another measurable category of income.

 

[B. Winstonworth]

I suffer as a practitioner of the dismal arts and sciences. The goal is to eliminate gaming the system or tax cheating. I would actually prefer reducing government spending paid for by a VAT, tax the spending/consumption and let income be.

I know we will never get the pure income of economics, so let’s just say cash value of: W2, 1099, business pass through, net investment, dividends, stock options, interest, annuity income, inheritance/trust, pensions, gifts, government transfer payments, in-kind proceeds or exchanges, winnings, any paid personal expenses or services including healthcare. As soon as I hit send, I am sure I will think of another measurable category of income.

Your last sentence is the opitome of why this tax bill is such a disaster. Taxation is such a mind-blowingly complicated issue, and both bills have been slapped together so quickly that they cannot possibly be the fix it is trying to be. Either of the current bills will benefit me both personally and professionally, I just have a very difficult time believing they will benefit this country.

Tax reform needs to be a multi-year, transparent process, but such a process is impossible in the current (and possibly any) political climate.

 

[1Clemson]

Your last sentence is the opitome of why this tax bill is such a disaster. Taxation is such a mind-blowingly complicated issue, and both bills have been slapped together so quickly that they cannot possibly be the fix it is trying to be. Either of the current bills will benefit me both personally and professionally, I just have a very difficult time believing they will benefit this country.

Tax reform needs to be a multi-year, transparent process, but such a process is impossible in the current (and possibly any) political climate.

On this I agree 110%. This “reform” is not good policy for the country, it is “reform” only sufficient to get a political win.

I respect that you confessed to not having read the bills, I would bet there are about 250 Republicans in DC that also haven’t read it but voted for it anyway. Dems get no break, they probably didn’t read it either, it chose to vote against it. Both parties are moronically unqualified to lead/govern this country.

 

[bornatiger]

Great. I'll support whichever plan doesn't add to the federal debt. Until then, I'll support neither.

View embedded media

Why does that bother you so much? It is nothing we couldn't wipe out in 5 years if necessary. I'm more concerned that my money is being wasted on our own unnecessary government employees and programs. I don't mind paying taxes, but when I'm paying half my salary in taxes, and some are paying none (usually the one's bitching the loudest), it gets a little irritating at times.

 

[MBRO]

Why does that bother you so much? It is nothing we couldn't wipe out in 5 years if necessary. I'm more concerned that my money is being wasted on our own unnecessary government employees and programs. I don't mind paying taxes, but when I'm paying half my salary in taxes, and some are paying none (usually the one's bitching the loudest), it gets a little irritating at times.

You’ll have to walk me through this.

The most recent information from the CBO (2016) puts total annual revenue at $3.3 trillion and total annual spending at $3.9 trillion.

You’re proposing....what? Suspending all government spending for 5 years? No social security, medicare, military?

 

[clemben]

Nowhere close to Obama’s doubling of it in a mere 8 years

You do remember there was this small thing called the largest financial crisis in the history of the United States. Obama did have to deal with that and pull the country up by its bootstraps because of massive reckless and irresponsible practices from Wall Street, lenders, the housing market, Fannie and Freddie, etc.

Also remember that the Republican Congress made it so that the recovery bill didn't have any strings attached to it so that Wall St executives could pad their pockets because they didn't want any regulation of an industry (and really just oversight of how taxpayer dollars were going to be spent) that had just plunged us into the crisis to begin with.

Thanks Obama.

Both supposed tax CUT bills somehow RAISE my taxes. How is that possible? I'm in the middle class...

 

[bornatiger]

You’ll have to walk me through this.

The most recent information from the CBO (2016) puts total annual revenue at $3.3 trillion and total annual spending at $3.9 trillion.

You’re proposing....what? Suspending all government spending for 5 years? No social security, medicare, military?

I'd like to walk you off a ledge, but I don't have to walk you through anything.

 

[MBRO]

I'd like to walk you off a ledge, but I don't have to walk you through anything.

Um, ok. Didn’t mean to offend you. Just trying to have a discussion.

Take care.

 

[Da Swami]

You’re the second person ITT to mention Obama. What does that have to do with the issue at hand?

This is not a partisan issue. Both parties are guilty of spending money they don’t have. It needs to stop. It needed to stop 30 years ago.

Grand Wizard Trump supporters suffer WHATABOUTISM btw the plan is a copy cat from the 1929 tax bill and straight garbage for the middle class (The REAL middle class not the half million club), veterans and military families and working poor.

 

[Da Swami]

Amazing how the party of “values” is about to elect a pediphile to the senate. Republicans are sick ****s

Radical Christians of the Republican party

 

[dpotter24]

1. Rates were climbing for insurance, but this will accelerate that. If the mandate is repealed 13 million more people will be without insurance, whether by choice or by not being able to afford it. They will still get sick. Who pays for their bills? You or your employer will through higher premiums.

2. Only businesses with greater than 50 employees have to provide insurance or else a penalty. All individuals have to have insurance or else pay a penalty. Of you are a small business owner who provides your own healthcare, you just saw your already high premiums take an even greater leap forward in price.

3. Fun fact - Insurance rates were increasing at a staggering rate prior to Obama care. It didn't start with Obama care.

4. If a worker loses their insurance but keeps their low to middle tier paying job because the mandate for insurance is removed, how does that worker come out ahead financially with this tax bill?

5. What measures does this tax bill have that ensure that the corporate tax savings and the individual tax savings are invested in jobs or increased benefits and salaries for American middle class and poor workers? What measures are in this bill to ensure that the corporate tax savings and resulting profit increases are simply not invested in stock buy backs and increased incentives/bonuses for executives? I'll hang up and listen.

You do remember there was this small thing called the largest financial crisis in the history of the United States. Obama did have to deal with that and pull the country up by its bootstraps because of massive reckless and irresponsible practices from Wall Street, lenders, the housing market, Fannie and Freddie, etc.

Also remember that the Republican Congress made it so that the recovery bill didn't have any strings attached to it so that Wall St executives could pad their pockets because they didn't want any regulation of an industry (and really just oversight of how taxpayer dollars were going to be spent) that had just plunged us into the crisis to begin with.

Thanks Obama.

Both supposed tax CUT bills somehow RAISE my taxes. How is that possible? I'm in the middle class...

I’m middle class as well. The House version keeps mine the same at 25% and the Senate lowers it to 23%. I’d love to hear what you make and consider “middle class”

 

[1Clemson]

I’m middle class as well. The House version keeps mine the same at 25% and the Senate lowers it to 23%. I’d love to hear what you make and consider “middle class”

Don’t just look at the marginal rate. Look at what the ratebase also. The calculator in earlier post is very simplistic and in this case paints a most likely BEST case. Once people in the middle start seeing what is now included, it will become more apparent that the rates for everything less than ~$150k should be lower otherwise there is little or no savings for anyone other than a business owner.