Are most of you seeing drastic changes in your tax refund this year?

[GregInPitt]

thinking
1.if we are going to lock immigrant kids in cages and indefinitely separate them from their parents or 2. talk about the "fine people" involved in a KKK rally that at least I can benefit financially from this complete four year embarrassment to our nation. And admittedly, who knows? I don't have an economics degree. Maybe this tax bill was a great economic move and everything I hear from the right about how to run an economy is actually correct? So, bring on tax season...

So, happy me come tax time. Wife and I do really well in 2018, we have a lot of deductions, retirement contributions, charity contributions, rental property, two dependents, and a good faith hope that things had been made better for us and our money with the tax bill that everyone on the right championed (especially since I still have to pay out of pocket for my kids' college and pay for my family's healthcare costs, none of which this tax bill helped alleviate from my plate).

After working and b!tching with my accountant, no one is "sick of winning" in my house this tax season. I have no idea who benefitted from this supposedly huge tax bill, but it sure wasn't me. It's just money and I'll pay it, but if this is the best result right wing economic theory can produce, someone come up with a better idea and fast.

1. The immigration policies you brought up were begun under Obama and the Dems, who took the opportunity to make an issue of it once Trump took over.
2. I don't believe the Dems should be hitting the racist issue too hard given Obama's support of Farrakhan and the election to congress of life long anti-Semitic Muslims. Oh wait, she said she was sorry.... She sure is.

Those that are winning are particularly those that are now employed by the jobs created by the business tax reduction and the pull back from the over regulation that the previous administration enacted to save the world.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Blindly following a left wig narrative? Dude, I did my taxes and owe more when I was told I was being given a tax break.

And insinuated you make in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Probably own high end property too.

No one ever said this tax cut was going to help rich guys like YOU except your Left wing friends and the media. It was designed to help businesses at the upper end, and working people at the lower end of the spectrum. People "making in the hundreds of thousands of dollars" are not the people this tax cut targeted even though the media and Democrats kept trying to push that narrative. You'll have to quit getting your news from CNN, MSNBC, and Colbert.

 

[WDLion]

Lets hope your sorry ass never needs the military to protect your little corner of the bubble

Hey bonehead. Many do join for the reason i stated and many join out of patriotic duty. I'm not bashing either group. Appreciate both.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

Lifelong democrat here..... (especially since I still have to pay out of pocket for my kids' college and pay for my family's healthcare costs, none of which this tax bill helped alleviate from my plate).....

Your writing seems to suggest that you believe someone else should be paying for your kid's college and your family's healthcare. Who would that be?

 

[roswelllion]

Did my taxes over the weekend. Paying about 2/3 more than previous years. Had to take the standard deduction and I had probably donated more to charity in 2018 than ever before. Rethinking now how much I donate going forward.

Are you saying you are paying more right now or are you saying you paid 2/3 more taxes for all of calendar year 18.

 

[roswelllion]

Tell ya what, give every state a dollar for dollar payout and see what happens to the taker states. They wil have to increase state taxes. I as a nyer am paying more than my fair share

You do realize one has absolutely nothing to do with other right?

 

[roswelllion]

I'm not dissing California. I know it is a wonderful place to live and the people produce a vast amount of goods.

Money isn't everything. I wonder what fraction of those serving in the military come from California versus the deplorable southern red states? I did a quick Google search and found this link. On a per capita basis California is number 53 (territories like Puerto Rico are included) out of 55. Many of the deplorable Southern states are well above average in military service. On a per capita basis Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana citizens are over 10 times more likely to volunteer for military service than those in California. It looks to me like the poor red states are getting California's money but the citizens in those same states are much more likely to shed their blood to keep Californians free and safe.

Great point. Those poor southern red states will defend Gregg and his NY and Ca millionaires while they bitch about not getting big enough deductions.

 

[Woodpecker]

anti-Semitic Muslims

Wasn't Muhammad a Semite?

 

[4rosco]

A Better question is why should California already be paying Iowa to just exist.
Iowa needs federal dollars to function. California doesn't.

California get more in tax dollars per person than Iowa.
Iowa $7,028 per capita
California $7,433 per capita

https://www.usaspending.gov/#/state/06

 

[GreggK]

California get more in tax dollars per person than Iowa.
Iowa $7,028 per capita
California $7,433 per capita

https://www.usaspending.gov/#/state/06

good lord. That number alone should have you shaking your head.
California PAYS much more than Iowa so they get back less per dollar.

California pays about 406 Billion in federal taxes. Their population is 39 million
Therefore they pay in $10,264 per person
(obviously I know some pay and others don't but for the sake of this)

Iowa pays about 23 Billion and has a population of 3 million
Therefore they pay in $7,600 per person

I am not sure where you got your numbers, but the 2013 were the most recent I could find.
Iowa received $8,375 dollars per person
California received $8,967 dollars per person

California receives $1,297 LESS than they pay in per capita
Iowa receives $775 MORE than they pay in per capita

That includes Retirement benefits, nonretirement benefits, grants, contracts and wages.
Iowa is in the good business of sucking on the tit of the richer states.

THIS WAS BEFORE THE REDUCTION OF SALT DEDUCTIONS!!!!!!!!!!! BEFORE!

it is even worse now. So yes, I have a problem with the other states not paying their fair share.

Also, BTW, I do not live in California, I live in New York and NY is also a net giver.
The California/Iowa example is an average example. There are much more extreme examples. For instance, New Jersey pays waaaay more than they get back and Oklahoma gets back way MORE THAN THEY PAY.

 

[GreggK]

And insinuated you make in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Probably own high end property too.
No one ever said this tax cut was going to help rich guys like YOU except your Left wing friends and the media. It was designed to help businesses at the upper end, and working people at the lower end of the spectrum. People "making in the hundreds of thousands of dollars" are not the people this tax cut targeted even though the media and Democrats kept trying to push that narrative. You'll have to quit getting your news from CNN, MSNBC, and Colbert.

Buffalo, even you must realize, middle class isn't a set tier everywhere. Someone living in New York City who is living a middle class life, or new jersey etc, would be considered rich in Alabama, Mississippi. It is the difference in cost of living. Now, someone like you would say, it is my choice to live where I live. I get that. However, if I were to go to Alabama, or Mississippi, I would not be making as much money and therefore not be paying as much federal taxes.

I would venture to say that my day to day worries are exactly the same as someone who is middle class living in Georgia. The pot is bigger but so are the expenses and the net effect is that I am middleclass.

I can see both sides of the argument to a point, but for someone in Iowa or Georgia to complain that people in California or NY are NOT paying their fair share when the fact is that Iowa and Georgia are actually the ones taking more than they pay in is ridiculous to me. Also, it is an attempt to try to force people to move from those places. Which is curious considering huge increases in Military spending and a decrease of revenue. You would think you would want people to stay in places where you make more in order to help pay for the 22 trillion dollar deficit we now have.

 

[4rosco]

good lord. That number alone should have you shaking your head.
California PAYS much more than Iowa so they get back less per dollar.

California pays about 406 Billion in federal taxes. Their population is 39 million
Therefore they pay in $10,264 per person
(obviously I know some pay and others don't but for the sake of this)

Iowa pays about 23 Billion and has a population of 3 million
Therefore they pay in $7,600 per person

I am not sure where you got your numbers, but the 2013 were the most recent I could find.
Iowa received $8,375 dollars per person
California received $8,967 dollars per person

California receives $1,297 LESS than they pay in per capita
Iowa receives $775 MORE than they pay in per capita

That includes Retirement benefits, nonretirement benefits, grants, contracts and wages.
Iowa is in the good business of sucking on the tit of the richer states.

THIS WAS BEFORE THE REDUCTION OF SALT DEDUCTIONS!!!!!!!!!!! BEFORE!

it is even worse now. So yes, I have a problem with the other states not paying their fair share.

Also, BTW, I do not live in California, I live in New York and NY is also a net giver.
The California/Iowa example is an average example. There are much more extreme examples. For instance, New Jersey pays waaaay more than they get back and Oklahoma gets back way MORE THAN THEY PAY.

My numbers are from USA Spending website and the link was included in my post and the data is from the trailing 12 months. I used California as that is the state you used to compare to Iowa.

So how are people collecting retirement, SS, medicare benefits that they paid in considered takers?
How about all of the snow birds who move south and collect social security/medicare in states where the weather is better and taxes are lowered. Are they part of the takers?

 

[Pardlion]

California receives $1,297 LESS than they pay in per capita
Iowa receives $775 MORE than they pay in per capita

That includes Retirement benefits, nonretirement benefits, grants, contracts and wages.
Iowa is in the good business of sucking on the tit of the richer states.

THIS WAS BEFORE THE REDUCTION OF SALT DEDUCTIONS!!!!!!!!!!! BEFORE!

it is even worse now. So yes, I have a problem with the other states not paying their fair share.

Also, BTW, I do not live in California, I live in New York and NY is also a net giver.
The California/Iowa example is an average example. There are much more extreme examples. For instance, New Jersey pays waaaay more than they get back and Oklahoma gets back way MORE THAN THEY PAY.

So, you object to the rich paying more in taxes. Are you favor of a flat tax?

 

[GreggK]

So, you object to the rich paying more in taxes. Are you favor of a flat tax?

First off, tax rules are complicated by nature. Anyone who is cunning enough, or dumb enough to pretend they can go on a postcard should not be listened to.
And to be honest, I am still thinking this through. It is a complex issue that I can't quite put my finger on the solution yet, however, what we were given is NOT the answer.
So what is below is partially me thinking aloud as to what makes sense to me.

I do not object to the rich paying more in taxes. Obviously there are gradients, but someone making $250,000 a year in NYC is much different than the same number in Alabama.
Now, the argument you will make is why should someone in Alabama who makes $250,000 pay more in taxes on that than someone making the same in NYC.
The answer is, they don't exactly, but with the net effect of SALT deductions allowed for that to essentially happen.

That being said, the amount of people making $250,000 in Alabama is FAR lower than the households in NYC. Like it or not, that amount of money has drastic different meanings in each place.

It would seem to make more sense to have a shifting scale depending on where someone lives. Cost of living matters.
State and local taxes are higher in places where it is more densely populated. It isn't right or wrong, it is just a fact.
Saying that higher state and local taxes are WRONG is just ignoring the reality that infrastructure and systems in a small area for a huge population cost money.

Now, from a federal tax stand point, the government DEPENDS on these areas. Every single state that was hurt by the SALT rule were states that already pay the majority of taxes in this country.
Including the middle class of these states, who by the way, are a large percentage of the population.

It seems wrong to me to punish these people in such a targeted way. Again, they are already subsidizing places like Mississippi, West virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina, Arkansas Missouri etc.

In fact, one could argue that their lack of services is the reason they need more taxes per captia in the first place. Poor healthcare, poor education etc leads to bad results.
Why is it, that a Alabama receives $11,743 per capita while California receives $8,967?Alabama receives more in both Retirement Benefits and nonretirement benefits per capita. More in contracts and more in wages per capita. (this is before the SALT reduction, how it is more in favor of Alabama)

And yet, you would lead me to believe that it is in fact California who wasn't paying their fair share?

 

[LemonEars]

good lord. That number alone should have you shaking your head.
California PAYS much more than Iowa so they get back less per dollar.

California pays about 406 Billion in federal taxes. Their population is 39 million
Therefore they pay in $10,264 per person
(obviously I know some pay and others don't but for the sake of this)

Iowa pays about 23 Billion and has a population of 3 million
Therefore they pay in $7,600 per person

I am not sure where you got your numbers, but the 2013 were the most recent I could find.
Iowa received $8,375 dollars per person
California received $8,967 dollars per person

California receives $1,297 LESS than they pay in per capita
Iowa receives $775 MORE than they pay in per capita

That includes Retirement benefits, nonretirement benefits, grants, contracts and wages.
Iowa is in the good business of sucking on the tit of the richer states.

THIS WAS BEFORE THE REDUCTION OF SALT DEDUCTIONS!!!!!!!!!!! BEFORE!

it is even worse now. So yes, I have a problem with the other states not paying their fair share.

Also, BTW, I do not live in California, I live in New York and NY is also a net giver.
The California/Iowa example is an average example. There are much more extreme examples. For instance, New Jersey pays waaaay more than they get back and Oklahoma gets back way MORE THAN THEY PAY.

The people who live in Iowa are significantly older on average than those who live in California. The bulk of federal payments to Iowa and California are in Social Security and Medicare benefits. The people who live in Iowa have paid into these systems longer than those in California and thus are currently getting more from the systems. You keep trying to paint the picture that there is a conspiracy against California and that Iowa is getting preferential treatment. Give it up! It's nonsense and you know it.

 

[LemonEars]

First off, tax rules are complicated by nature. Anyone who is cunning enough, or dumb enough to pretend they can go on a postcard should not be listened to.
And to be honest, I am still thinking this through. It is a complex issue that I can't quite put my finger on the solution yet, however, what we were given is NOT the answer.
So what is below is partially me thinking aloud as to what makes sense to me.

I do not object to the rich paying more in taxes. Obviously there are gradients, but someone making $250,000 a year in NYC is much different than the same number in Alabama.
Now, the argument you will make is why should someone in Alabama who makes $250,000 pay more in taxes on that than someone making the same in NYC.
The answer is, they don't exactly, but with the net effect of SALT deductions allowed for that to essentially happen.

That being said, the amount of people making $250,000 in Alabama is FAR lower than the households in NYC. Like it or not, that amount of money has drastic different meanings in each place.

It would seem to make more sense to have a shifting scale depending on where someone lives. Cost of living matters.
State and local taxes are higher in places where it is more densely populated. It isn't right or wrong, it is just a fact.
Saying that higher state and local taxes are WRONG is just ignoring the reality that infrastructure and systems in a small area for a huge population cost money.

Now, from a federal tax stand point, the government DEPENDS on these areas. Every single state that was hurt by the SALT rule were states that already pay the majority of taxes in this country.
Including the middle class of these states, who by the way, are a large percentage of the population.

It seems wrong to me to punish these people in such a targeted way. Again, they are already subsidizing places like Mississippi, West virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina, Arkansas Missouri etc.

In fact, one could argue that their lack of services is the reason they need more taxes per captia in the first place. Poor healthcare, poor education etc leads to bad results.
Why is it, that a Alabama receives $11,743 per capita while California receives $8,967?Alabama receives more in both Retirement Benefits and nonretirement benefits per capita. More in contracts and more in wages per capita. (this is before the SALT reduction, how it is more in favor of Alabama)

And yet, you would lead me to believe that it is in fact California who wasn't paying their fair share?

Maybe Alabama gets more federal funding than California because the people in Alabama are willing to work hard for a decent wage instead of sitting around all day drinking lattes and posting on message boards about how bad their life is because they have to pay a bit more in taxes.

 

[GreggK]

Maybe Alabama gets more federal funding than California because the people in Alabama are willing to work hard for a decent wage instead of sitting around drinking lattes and bitching about bad their life is because they have to pay a bit more in taxes.

If that was the case, then why is California paying more per person than Alabama?
Wouldn't it be less?

 

[GreggK]

The people who live in Iowa are significantly older on average than those who live in California. The bulk of federal payments to Iowa and California are in Social Security and Medicare benefits. The people who live in Iowa have paid into these systems longer than those in California and thus are currently getting more from the systems. You keep trying to paint the picture that there is a conspiracy against California and that Iowa is getting preferential treatment. Give it up! It's nonsense and you know it.

the median age in Iowa is 38.3. The median age in California is 36.5.
statistically speaking, they are right in the middle.

For instance, Utah is 31 and Maine is 44.6. Florida is 42 for that matter.

 

[LemonEars]

If that was the case, then why is California paying more per person than Alabama?
Wouldn't it be less?

It would be interesting to see what the median tax payment is in California rather than the mean tax payment. I expect that California has tons of super high earning people (movie stars, silicon valley execs, etc. ) who skew the average tax payments high.

 

[4rosco]

Maybe Alabama gets more federal funding than California because the people in Alabama are willing to work hard for a decent wage instead of sitting around all day drinking lattes and posting on message boards about how bad their life is because they have to pay a bit more in taxes.

There are a lot of different factors that go into federal spending across the states and its hard to do an true apples to apples comparison.

There are more military bases in the south than in the North. That's all government spending.
Government contractors set up shop in states where there are lower taxes or more business friending.

In Texas 24% of the federal dollars they receive are for work on government contracts while in NY it is 6%. A lot the contract spending in Texas is driven by Lockheed having their F35 plant there.

Look at DC where the per capita spending is $45K a year. A guess they should be considered a taker state even though that is where the federal government is located and there are 100's of thousands of government employees and contractors who work there.

 

[BiochemPSU]

The "free tax advice" was to illustrate that the new tax bill probably actually helped you (along with millions of others). Not hurt you. Too many people just blindly follow the media and Left wing narrative instead of learning the facts.

It didn't help me, I ran my numbers multiple times with several good people in the tax world. If others benefitted, that's great. But, I am not blindly following anyone.

 

[GreggK]

There are a lot of different factors that go into federal spending across the states and its hard to do an true apples to apples comparison.

There are more military bases in the south than in the North. That's all government spending.
Government contractors set up shop in states where there are lower taxes or more business friending.

In Texas 24% of the federal dollars they receive are for work on government contracts while in NY it is 6%. A lot the contract spending in Texas is driven by Lockheed having their F35 plant there.

Look at DC where the per capita spending is $45K a year. A guess they should be considered a taker state even though that is where the federal government is located and there are 100's of thousands of government employees and contractors who work there.

It is an inconvenient fact that the red states are takers. But it is true.
You can try to talk your way out of it but it is simply fact.

Texas is also a giver BTW. One of the few red states who is and the only one of any consequence.

Maybe a reworking of the 16th amendment is in order.

Also, your number is wrong. 24% of the federal dollars Texas received is not for government contracts.

According to the Office of economic adjustment, Texas received 33 billion in defense spending in 2016. They get far more than 132 billion. Even then, they are still net payers, not takers.

 

[4rosco]

It is an inconvenient fact that the red states are takers. But it is true.
You can try to talk your way out of it but it is simply fact.

Texas is also a giver BTW. One of the few red states who is and the only one of any consequence.

Maybe a reworking of the 16th amendment is in order.

Fact based on what? You are only looking at the total dollars versus and not what the money is spent on.

So Lockheed Martin decides to built a plant in Texas to build planes and all of the government spending there should be treated differently since the government is receiving a product/service for it.
Same thing applies all over the country especially DC where close to 70% of the spending there is supporting the federal government and day to day operations but the majority of the people live in Maryland or Virginia. So MD and VA get credit for the federal taxes paid not DC.

If someone works in NY for their entire career and pays taxes there and the retires in FL and collects SS and Medicare. NY get credit for the years they paid taxes and FL takes a hit because the person receives their SS and Medicare payments there.

40% of all federal $ spent in FL is for SS plus close to 30% for medicare but they would be considered a taker state to you even though these are benefits that were paid for during their working career which for many was in a different state.

 

[Pardlion]

It seems wrong to me to punish these people in such a targeted way. Again, they are already subsidizing places like Mississippi, West virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina, Arkansas Missouri etc.

I'm with you there, brother. I hate the fact that I have to pay taxes just to support all of those people who don't make enough to have a tax liability. Shoot, I don't even know what federal government services I get for my taxes.

 

[BiochemPSU]

Your writing seems to suggest that you believe someone else should be paying for your kid's college and your family's healthcare. Who would that be?

I don't think anyone should pay for it, but I think as a society in the wealthiest place on earth we can better prioritize our goals and resources so that we can make college and healthcare less of a burden on joe citizen. I am all for getting rid of the medical idiots, the lobbyists, insurance, and the whole industry around them who have completely fleeced the golden goose of medical costs/expenses for decades. They had their run, made trillions, and now it's over. Medicare for all and be done with it.

 

[GreggK]

I'm with you there, brother. I hate the fact that I have to pay taxes just to support all of those people who don't make enough to have a tax liability. Shoot, I don't even know what federal government services I get for my taxes.

I don't hate paying my taxes. I hate paying more taxes because a certain party wanted to target a certain population that didn't agree with them.

 

[BiochemPSU]

Those that are winning are particularly those that are now employed by the jobs created by the business tax reduction and the pull back from the over regulation that the previous administration enacted to save the world.

No one ever said this tax cut was going to help rich guys like YOU except your Left wing friends and the media. It was designed to help businesses at the upper end, and working people at the lower end of the spectrum. People "making in the hundreds of thousands of dollars" are not the people this tax cut targeted even though the media and Democrats kept trying to push that narrative. You'll have to quit getting your news from CNN, MSNBC, and Colbert.

Just so I understand this, the winners of this past election/tax bill were people who "didn't have a job" for whatever reason before Trump became President, businesses who had "regulations" removed from them, "upper end" businesses, and "working people at the lower end." That might be the most nebulous group of winners I have ever heard of in my life. And it sure leaves a lot of middle ground uncovered.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

I don't think anyone should pay for it, but I think as a society in the wealthiest place on earth we can better prioritize our goals and resources so that we can make college and healthcare less of a burden on joe citizen. I am all for getting rid of the medical idiots, the lobbyists, insurance, and the whole industry around them who have completely fleeced the golden goose of medical costs/expenses for decades. They had their run, made trillions, and now it's over. Medicare for all and be done with it.

"Medicare for all" would be a complete disaster. ESPECIALLY if they outlawed any private insurance suppliments as the Left has floated.

Your case is interesting. You listed a number of areas where the new tax bill would have helped you in the abstract. Rental units, increased dependent tax credits replacing the dependent exemptions, etc. I looked back at your post to see what I missed, and you said you and your wife "did really well in 2018". Do you mean GreggK really well where you earned in the "hundreds of thousand of dollars" in 2018? Did you own a lot of high end PRIVATE property?

If that is the case, then yes, this tax cut was not targeted towards you. It was targeted towards business and working class people making up to between $100,000 and $150,000. It was designed to create jobs and help stimulate the economy.

However, I suspect you have to file a schedule C at the very least since you say you have to pay for all your own health insurance. If you are a high end earner, what kind of business do you work for on a W-2 basis that doesn't offer you health insurance? If you ARE self employed, and in addition, own rental units, and you accountant is telling you this tax bill is hurting you, it may be time for a new accountant. The new QBI deduction alone would give you an immediate additional 20% tax deduction.

I love these kinds cases, because every one is different. Most lay people have absolutely no knowledge of the tax code, and the gray areas are endless. Please be more specific on your details, because what you are saying, for the most part, just doesn't add up. That doesn't mean you aren't right. It just means there may be something I am missing like you live in the Vanderbilt mansion and own it as a private residence or something. : ^ ).

 

[broey1]

This is simple:

I owe $743 this year after getting a refund last year, BUT my taxes went down $3200. Sooooo, while I owe money at tax season I KEPT $2,457 more dollars in my pocket over the course of the year.

 

[BiochemPSU]

"Medicare for all" would be a complete disaster. ESPECIALLY if they outlawed any private insurance suppliments as the Left has floated.

Your case is interesting. You listed a number of areas where the new tax bill would have helped you in the abstract. Rental units, increased dependent tax credits replacing the dependent exemptions, etc. I looked back at your post to see what I missed, and you said you and your wife "did really well in 2018". Do you mean GreggK really well where you earned in the "hundreds of thousand of dollars" in 2018? Did you own a lot of high end PRIVATE property?

If that is the case, then yes, this tax cut was not targeted towards you. It was targeted towards business and working class people making up to between $100,000 and $150,000. It was designed to create jobs and help stimulate the economy.

However, I suspect you have to file a schedule C at the very least since you say you have to pay for all your own health insurance. If you are a high end earner, what kind of business do you work for on a W-2 basis that doesn't offer you health insurance? If you ARE self employed, and in addition, own rental units, and you accountant is telling you this tax bill is hurting you, it may be time for a new accountant. The new QBI deduction alone would give you an immediate additional 20% tax deduction.

I love these kinds cases, because every one is different. Most lay people have absolutely no knowledge of the tax code, and the gray areas are endless. Please be more specific on your details, because what you are saying, for the most part, just doesn't add up. That doesn't mean you aren't right. It just means there may be something I am missing like you live in the Vanderbilt mansion and own it as a private residence or something. : ^ ).

I disagree with dismissing Medicare for all out of hand based on some bland description such as it will be a "disaster." That doesn't address the problem, it only tries to mask it by saying it's a left wing policy so I don't like it. The truth is we are the only country in the world with an astoundingly high medical cost per person (2.5 x other countries) with a surprisingly low life expectancy. We need to add efficiency, lower cost, and have better access, so that millions more Americans will be able to get the care they need and the advice and encouragement to establish good health habits. What we have now is broke, and fixing it would help a lot more people on all of the tax brackets rather than the identified "winners" of this tax bill.

I am grateful for my circumstances and will happily pay my share; I love this country. However, I think you need to clarify who this tax bill was supposed to help. Was it for people working on the lower end or people making $100k to $150k a year? I don't think those are the same people at all. Also, I sure hope all of these "job creators" and "businesses" decide to give me and everyone else a substantial raise next year after all the tax breaks and "stimulating" they received this year. Taking any bets?

 

[roswelllion]

I don't hate paying my taxes. I hate paying more taxes because a certain party wanted to target a certain population that didn't agree with them.

Somewhere in this thread you hit on what your beef if. Taxes and benefits are not adjusted for cost of living. Maybe they should be but you talk about complex? Benefits have almost nothing to do with what state you are in. You get the same SS and Medicare regardless of where you live. If you index everything then if you live in NY you should get more SS. However if the average wage in Alabama were $100,000 they pay a much higher % of their income than the New Yorker whose income is for example $200.000.
Red states are red because they are much more rural and agricultural and thus they earn less and pay less. Your argument shouldn’t be by state. I suspect if you divided NY into 2 with NY city and surrounding counties in one group vs upstate upstate would be takers as well. Same in Ca separate coastal cities from the balance and the cities would be givers and inland would be takers. SALT has nothing to do what federal benefits you receive nor should it with what you pay in.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

I disagree with dismissing Medicare for all out of hand based on some bland description such as it will be a "disaster." That doesn't address the problem, it only tries to mask it by saying it's a left wing policy so I don't like it. The truth is we are the only country in the world with an astoundingly high medical cost per person (2.5 x other countries) with a surprisingly low life expectancy. We need to add efficiency, lower cost, and have better access, so that millions more Americans will be able to get the care they need and the advice and encouragement to establish good health habits. What we have now is broke, and fixing it would help a lot more people on all of the tax brackets rather than the identified "winners" of this tax bill.

I am grateful for my circumstances and will happily pay my share; I love this country. However, I think you need to clarify who this tax bill was supposed to help. Was it for people working on the lower end or people making $100k to $150k a year? I don't think those are the same people at all. Also, I sure hope all of these "job creators" and "businesses" decide to give me and everyone else a substantial raise next year after all the tax breaks and "stimulating" they received this year. Taking any bets?

So you want to hijack this thread and get into a "Medicare For All" discussion. I can't think of a quicker way to get this thing moved to the Test Board. Especially since you can't even give me a straight answer concerning your OWN health insurance. Why the heck are you "paying for your family's health care costs"? What gives?

If you are a high end W-2 employee, what kind of company do you work for that doesn't give or offer you health insurance? If you are self imployed, you can deduct your premiums anyway. If you are talking about the fall back Silver Plans many states use for Obamacare subsidies, what makes you think "Medicare For All" won't have the same restrictions, co-pays, and deductibles???

Let's start with a simple explanation as to why a high end guy like you has to "pay for your own family's healthcare costs". WHY????? Where do you fall through the cracks??? We don't have ESP. What the heck is your situation? Or are you just complaining to complain?

As for your question about people making up to $100,000 to $150,000 per year being on the lower end of the spectrum, that is in relation to GreggK, and possibly you, who are insinuating you make "in the hundreds of thousands of dollars" per year. Unlike what the media and Left Wing lobbyists try to tell you, this tax bill did NOT target individuals making in the "hundreds of thousands of dollars" per year. It targeted businesses and working people at the lower end. If you were a couple making up to $100,000 to $150,000 per year, and don't live in a mansion or own multiple personal residences, more often than not, you would have paid less Federal income tax in 2018 than 2017.

If you fall into that "lower end" category, and are paying more Federal tax in 2018 than 2017, please tell us why, and be specific. There ARE situations where you could fall through the cracks, but you haven't given us any yet that make any sense.