Davin News Server

On 7/31/25 10:55, pothead wrote:
> 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 ... 

Golly, that's a whole lot of qualifiers being prefaced.

> ... 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?

It is that you're not seeking out nonpartisan business analysts to see 
what they've been reporting, but are just watching lightweight fluff.

I could offer a few pointers, but you'll immediately try to dismiss them 
as allegedly partisan.  So you'll need to post who your "precleared" 
sources are of sufficient neutrality that you find as credible.


-hh