What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Eddie Teach]

I'm not for low taxes. 

[Jacob]

I'm not for low taxes. 

Wasn't calling you a hypocrite

[Admiral Yi]

Totally was.

Really? When sbr asked why he should be taxed twice, he was asking what the motivation of the bill backers was?  Really?

[DGuller]

I honestly don't care about my own taxes.  I consider myself lucky to not be overly concerned with money past a point that provides for comfortable living, and I'm lucky enough that I've crossed that point a while ago. 

What really dismays me is observing yet another attempt to deliberately mismanage this country by a party that just keeps becoming more and more unhinged.  There are certain mental illness that make people act in obviously self-destructive ways, and I feel like we're living in times where this dynamic is manifesting itself on a national level.

[Jacob]

Totally was.

Really? When sbr asked why he should be taxed twice, he was asking what the motivation of the bill backers was?  Really?

Why don't you answer sbr's question instead of picking yet another semantic yicratic bullshit argument with me?

[Admiral Yi]

Why don't you answer sbr's question instead of picking yet another semantic yicratic bullshit argument with me?

Fuck off.

[Eddie Teach]

A lot of short tempers lately.

[crazy canuck]

Jacob you're aware we don't have any provincial tax deduction in Canada, right?  Our income gets "taxed" twice, by both the Feds and the province.

While theoretically we could deduct based on provincial taxes, you'd just have to raise base rates to compensate so I'm not sure what that would accomplish.  Although we don't have the same level of disparity in provincial income tax rates

That's not really relevant though.

Actually, what he said was relevant, but not for the reason he thought.  It is surprising that BB does not know about the transfer of tax points in our Federal system.  But, Yi didnt understand how American Federal tax policy works either. 

The American and Canadian systems both recognize that in a Federal State with dual taxing authorities the tax payor must be protected against double taxation.  Our two systems achieve that in different ways but the same principle applies.

[Jacob]

Why don't you answer sbr's question instead of picking yet another semantic yicratic bullshit argument with me?

Fuck off.

Exactly.

[dps]

Jacob you're aware we don't have any provincial tax deduction in Canada, right?  Our income gets "taxed" twice, by both the Feds and the province.

While theoretically we could deduct based on provincial taxes, you'd just have to raise base rates to compensate so I'm not sure what that would accomplish.  Although we don't have the same level of disparity in provincial income tax rates

That's not really relevant though.

Actually, what he said was relevant, but not for the reason he thought.  It is surprising that BB does not know about the transfer of tax points in our Federal system.  But, Yi didnt understand how American Federal tax policy works either. 

The American and Canadian systems both recognize that in a Federal State with dual taxing authorities the tax payor must be protected against double taxation.  Our two systems achieve that in different ways but the same principle applies.

I don't have a clue how the Canadian system works, but if you're saying that in the US the mechanism to protect the taxpayer against double taxation is the deduction for state income tax, it doesn't really work for most people, because to claim it you have to itemize your deductions, and most people don't itemize.  Which gets us back to my argument that if you want to cut taxes for lower-income taxpayers, the way to do it is to raise the standard deduction while eliminating other deductions.  Wish Minsky would answer my question about that.

[The Minsky Moment]

There are lots of ways to reduce tax burden on people with lower income.  Like for example, expanding EITC.  And there are lots of ways to pay for that.  That's an interesting policy question, but doesn't address the current legislation.

Right nealry half of households with AGI between 50-100K itemize.  This isn't a lower income group, but at least in the region where I live, it's not easy to meet the cost of living on that level of income.

The way itemization works in the current system is that once AGI hits 250-300, itemized deductions start to get phased out.  Also higher income taxpayers are more likely to get caught under the AMT, which eliminates many deductions (including SALT)For very high income taxpayers, therefore, itemization is not really a significant factor.

If the idea is increase taxes on people in the 50-250K AGI range to finance relief for lower income taxpayer people, OK. 
But if the idea is to do that to finance opening new loopholes for the most wealthy earners, as the House legislation does, not so OK.

[Grey Fox]

I honestly don't care about my own taxes.  I consider myself lucky to not be overly concerned with money past a point that provides for comfortable living, and I'm lucky enough that I've crossed that point a while ago. 

What really dismays me is observing yet another attempt to deliberately mismanage this country by a party that just keeps becoming more and more unhinged.  There are certain mental illness that make people act in obviously self-destructive ways, and I feel like we're living in times where this dynamic is manifesting itself on a national level.

Because their aim is the effective destruction of the American government apparatus.

[grumbler]

Because their aim is the effective destruction of the American government apparatus.

That's the one unhinged group.  The other unhinged group's goal is the effective destruction of the American business apparatus.

[sbr]

Oh gee what a surprise, yet another religious freak/anti- gay zealot appears to be a kiddie fiddler.

[Admiral Yi]

90% of the benefit of SALT deduction goes to people making more than 100K.  From The Economist.