Davin News Server

On 2025-07-31, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/25 16:40, pothead wrote:
>> On 2025-07-30, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/30/25 10:14, pothead wrote:
>>>> On 2025-07-30, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/30/25 05:59, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 21:18:58 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wouldn't consider no taxes on tips, overtime and additional bonus added
>>>>>>> for seniors on SS increased SALT deduction. something the rich are interested in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most tips aren't declared anyway and so aren't taxed.
>>>>>
>>>>> 84%, as per this cite:
>>>>> <http://archives.cpajournal.com/old/10428232.htm>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The change mostly means that employers now have to pay both sides
>>>>>> of FICA which will increase their labor cost.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good catch; I'd forgotten about that provision, plus even if they're
>>>>> only required to pay the employer half, that's still ~8% expense on
>>>>> those tip amounts.  If we oversimplify and say that its 9% and for
>>>>> restaurant servers that tips are a third of their income, this is a
>>>>> quick 3% increase in labor costs for their employer.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I commented yesterday evening:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Which means that this cap is more designed to send a message to those
>>>>> who can re-categorize their income to limit their level of fraud/abuse."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If overtime is not taxed weekly, smaller refunds will result each
>>>>>> spring.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The middle class may get some benefit from a higher SALT deduction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really all that much, as the Standard Deduction remains relatively
>>>>> large because what used to be, because personal deductions got rolled up
>>>>> into it.  Previously, with the two split, itemizers only had to exceed
>>>>> the Standard, and kept the personal deductions:  the 2017 TJCA had some
>>>>> pretty clever slights-of-hand in this fashion.
>>>>>> The rich may not care about any of this because it won't drive up
>>>>>> their tax bills.  What it will do is drive the deficit.
>>>>> Like how we've heard some who've claimed "an almost $6k increase in
>>>>> taxes if the BBB did not pass." ... but the income levels required to
>>>>> have that much of a one year savings is $400K+ if filing Single.  Its
>>>>> not as profound for MFJ (figure $160K), but this is just the first year
>>>>> look before any of the middle class's temporary cuts start to phase out.
>>>>>> Trump's tariffs will mitigate some of that deficit but the resultant
>>>>>> inflation will eat up the middle and working classes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tariff revenue is minuscule in comparison to the 1%'er tax breaks...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...plus if the tariffs actually accomplish what they've been claimed
>>>>> that they're for (re-shoring manufacturing) they're a decreasing revenue
>>>>> source that will never grow larger.
>>>>>
>>>>> -hh
>>>>
>>>> All fine and dandy but I'm still not seeing this BBB benefits the billionaires at
>>>> the expense of the rest of us like the democrats keep claiming.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you have some insight into this?
>>>
>>>
>>> Per your own website cite, a $5M MFJ has a single year tax savings of
>>> $52,805 + $444 = $53,249.
>> 
>> And?
>
> Nearly 10x larger than what you're claiming your savings will be.
>
>
>>> Similarly, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy's estimate is
>>> that the average tax cut for the top 1% is ~$66K:
>>>
>>> <https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/03/trump-big-beautiful-bill-gives-top-1percent-biggest-tax-cuts-in-these-states-.html>
>>>
>>> <https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2025/07/01/winners-losers-trump-big-tax-bill-senate/84391469007/>
>>>
>>> Plus its been noted that in some Red states (eg, WY, TX, SD), this can
>>> exceed $100K.
>>>
>>> TL;DR: top 5% is getting net income gains of +4%, which is twice what
>>> the best case savings is for bottom 50% (best +1.7%; -10% worst case).
>>>
>>>
>>> Plus for the wealthiest, especially private business owners:
>>>
>>> * Corporate SALT deductions:  prior limit on deductions is removed;
>>>
>>> * Section 199A 20% deduction on Qualified Business Income: permanent;
>>>
>>> * Pass-through entity tax (PTET) deductions: restrictions removed;
>>>
>>> * QSBS exclusion cap for stock raised to $15M & expanded what qualifies
>>> by 50% to $75M;
>>>
>>> * New 100% expensing provision on some commercial real property which
>>> previously required using a 39 year depreciation schedule;
>>>
>>> * Estate Tax exemption made permanent, plus increased to be $15M per
>>> individual ($30M/couple);
>>>
>>>
>>> plus others...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The top 1% or earners pay the majority of taxes.
>
> Because they also make the majority of the money.  Plus they have the 
> greatest ability to pay with least pain because core living expenses are 
> a smaller percentage of their total income, which is why US tax policy 
> is to employ a progressive tax rates.
>
>
>> Much of the above is related to business deductions, not personal.
>
> And who owns those businesses, hmmm?
>  > Poor people don't create jobs.
>
> Actually, on a dollar cost averaged basis, the poor create more jobs 
> than the wealthy do, because they have an inherently higher velocity of 
> money.  Whereas wealthy people slow the velocity of money that's 
> contributing to the GDP, as it is used to create generational wealth.
>
>
>
>> However, I do and always have, agreed that the tax structure is biased
>> towards the rich.
>> My solution is to eliminate loopholes like incorporating in Ireland.
>
> But not to also restore personal marginal income tax rates?
> That's sounding very much like a "No, Not Meeeeee!".
>
>
>
>> As a side issue regarding capital gains tax.
>> Despite what you might believe, there are a lot of farmers out where I live.
>> Their land has been in the family for generations, some going back to the 1600's.
>> Why should capital gains tax be collected each time the land owner dies and
>> the property is transferred to another family member?
>
> When its under $13.6M, they don't pay the Feds nothing.  If its above 
> that, they have no excuse to not have hired a lawyer to incorporate 
> and/or Family trust it.
>
>
>> Here's another one, this time average folks.
>> I buy a new car.
>> I pay sales tax on it.
>> I sell it to someone.
>> They pay sales tax on it and so does every other person who might
>> purchase the car.
>> Is this fair?
>> Of course not.
>
> That's a State issue, not Federal.
>
> Plus in many states, the car you traded-in for the new one is subtracted 
> from how much state sales tax is due.
>
>
>> BTW, Trump is allowing interest deductions on the purchase of American cars.
>
> Very narrow definition for what cars actually qualify as "American".
>
>> He is however wrong when he claims it's the first time it's been done.
>> Maybe the first time for American cars only but I remember way back when
>> where credit card, loan interest was tax deductible so he's wrong in this case.
>> Still it's another benefit for the middle class.
>
> Yes, he's wrong (shocking! /s): the federal income tax code used to have 
> a deduction allowed for personal interest (including credit cards too).
> That benefit disappeared in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Ronald Reagan).
>
>
>> So I'm still not seeing this BBB supports billionaires and screws the rest of
>> us claim.
>
> There's all of what I've listed, plus a lot more esoteric stuff.  Of 
> course, a big chunk has been the top marginal rate which today is at 
> just 37%, whereas before the GOP started systematically cutting it from 
> Reagan to present, was at 70%...
>
> ...and IIRC, if since 1980 the GOP had never cut income tax rates, the 
> Federal Debt today would be approximately $zero.  So much for 'fiscal 
> responsibility' /s
>
>
> -hh

To date, I have not seen, heard, read a single democrat or left supporting
MSM discuss specifics regarding the BBB, what would have changed had it been
allowed to expire nor an explanation of the statement it's tax breaks
for billionaires.

Not one.

In fact I flipped to Morning Joe and CNN early this morning and aside from
the Epstein story which runs in a loop 24x7, the Republican's are the party
of the rich mantra was in full force. In the segment I watched on MJ, he must
have uttered the phrase tax breaks for billionaires at least 5 times.
Yet he was not challenged by the rest of the panel, nor did he mention a
single specific as to how.
And there was a similar segment on CNN.

Why is that?
Do they expect people to simply trust what they say?
Or are they unwilling to not spin numbers or stop being vague?

Here is an AI answer, among others in the search results.

<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what+would+happen+if+the+trump+tax+cuts+were+not+renewed&t=brave&ia=web>



-- 
pothead

"Our lives are fashioned by our choices. First we make our choices.
 Then our choices make us."
-- Anne Frank