-
Welcome to the TSP Talk Forums forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, join our AutoTracker, and access many other special features. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. -
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
-
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
-
-
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com ...
Or you can now use TapaTalk again!
Details of Proposed Tax Plan
- Thread starter tsptalk
- Start date
- Status
Not that this helps that much but there is a small $ 300 family tax credit which may be available. Also, the haggling has only begun. I will be shocked if some form of state and local income tax doesn't survive. Good luck to us all!
Boghie
Well-known member
StockSurfer,
I do believe we are some of those who may pay a higher Federal income tax. Your local and state taxes are incredible. Yowser. You actually live in a locality/state that takes over 9% of your taxable income? Yowser Part II. I feel sorry for you...
But, those were round numbers so they may have been estimates. I'll use Kalefornea with real numbers. In the Peoples Republic of Kalefornea you would be taxed $6,010 on your $85,348 in taxable income. With that number, the resulting Federal tax would be:
- Kalefornia State Tax: $6,010
- Current Tax Schedule: $16,098
- Proposed Tax Schedule: $17,025
- Net Annual After Tax Loss: $926
By the way, I now live in North Carolina which actually DOES have a tax system you can do on a post card. They grab 5.75% with no deductions. The numbers now for me are:
- NC State Tax: $5,261
- Current Tax Schedule: $16,286
- Proposed Tax Schedule: $17,025
- Net Annual After Tax Loss: $739
So, for both of us the Federal Income Tax might be higher.
Now comes the moral question. You have chosen to live in a high tax state with hopefully high quality services. Maybe your 9.375% tax rate is buying you great service from your state and locality but why should I pay for it in my Federal income taxes? In affect, I am subsidizing your lifestyle every year by about $560 now that I live in North Cackilacki - and by about $200 when I lived in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornea. You are electing state politicians who are providing great services you want at a price you like. You have to pay for it.
So, there it is. You will likely loose if you are living in a high tax state/locality and itemize. You might even loose a little in a moderate state/local tax environment like my current situation. Like I said earlier, your taxes ARE going to stay the same or go up. We went from a debt of $9 Trillion to $20 Trillion over the past eight years. Back in the day at $9 Trillion I could offer workable solutions for a blend of spending cuts and tax incentives to pay down the debt. No can do now. Gotta grind and pay the piper. We got the 'benefit', now we got to pay da money!!!
I have been using the 'Tax-Rates.org Income Tax Calculator' which seems to generate good numbers. My personal calculations for Fed and California were very close to those generated by this calculator so I will use this for estimates.
Boghie
Well-known member
UserQue,
Back in the day of a $9 Trillion debt and an annual deficit of $160 Billion (FY2007) I could use a blend of spending cuts and revenue growth (GDP growth in tax base) to balance out and then start paying off the debt.
Now with a $20 Trillion debt and an annual deficit exceeding $600 Billion I can no longer use a blend of spending cuts and GDP revenue growth projections. The politicians do not want to admit this, but now there have to be dramatic spending cuts and probably tax increases or at least stability. It will be years before we can look at reducing tax rates - everything yammering otherwise is using smoke and mirrors (to include the corporate tax rate reduction they are yammering about). The spending cuts now have to be very deep and for a very long time.
No other way...
Not a good time to be a Fed...
Frixxxx
Moderator
I disagree, it depends on the state. People in states pay into the federal programs. In California, the return is less than the amount paid, about 86 cents per dollar. In your new state, congrats on the relocation, the return is higher, about a $1.30 per $1. So I present that as a moot point.
Boghie
Well-known member
Well, Frixxxx,
I understand that point. But I would have to look at those numbers much deeper. I would exclude major DoD bases (Ft Bragg and Camp Lejeune) because they have to be somewhere and they provide a national service - not a local one. I also think major regional or federal footprints for the IRS and Social Security Administration are here. There were lots of job openings for those entities. If you are going to have those national entities they have to have a location. Also, Social Security and Medicare benefits probably should be excluded since they are 'insurance' programs supposedly paid by the individual over their working careers. Now, I know that ain't so but it is how it is supposed to be and it is probably 75% - 80% true at this point.
I would probably try to look at pork projects and wealth transfers to get the numbers you mention. The federal footprint here in Raleigh is very light. It is rather light in North Carolina as a whole as well. And, one could easily make the case that a DoD base is an economic drain on the region rather than a plus. Look at El Torro and NTC San Diego. The state and localities are much better off financially now than when those bases were in existence.
I don't know. It is touchy and very difficult to get a handle on. The freeways out here are beautiful and well maintained. Are those for the DoD or is that federal service the result of power politics. Why are the freeways in Kalefornea lousy? Who gets more Federal gubmint largess by the mile? Can you really quantify that - I mean maybe maintaining roads out here is inexpensive and Kalefornea expensive for no reason that could be dealt with. That would be an interesting study - but my head is already hurtin'
StockSurfer
New member
Good link at 'Tax-Rates.org Income Tax Calculator' , I had been using a similar calculator, as well at this for calculating possible future impacts https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/trump-tax-reform-calculator. In terms of the specifics I provided, they were round numbers, but I can tell you that the real ife consequence for me will be a tax hike of approximately $1500.00/yr. I also wondered if it was because I am single, so I did another calculation assuming I was married filing jointly with the second wage-earner making 80% of what I used in my example. The end result was a tax hike of $1388/yr for the couple.
As far of the moral argument, one of the things that you didn't focus on is that part of the tax increase is due to the fact that folks like me that itemize can no longer take a personal exemption. So that in and of itself undermines the progressive nature of the existing tax code that includes the mortage interest deduction and property taxes as well as State income taxes. It reduces the value of itemizing for renters contemplating the purchase of a home as compared just using the standard deduction. So when they are calculating whether they can afford that mortage payment, they will lose that benefit. And speaking of the mortgage interest deduction, the cap on the mortage interest deduction will especially hurt homeowners and prospective homebuyers in high cost areas. It seems to me that all of these changes are in part subsidizing things like the elimination of the estate tax, which would be gone by 2024, meaning wealthy families will be able to pass on lavish estates and trust funds to their heirs completely tax free. At the moment, only estates worth over $4.49 million faced the estate tax. Also going away is the alternative minimum tax (AMT), a safeguard against excessive tax dodging that’s been in place since the 1969. As long as folks like me are getting a hike in taxes to pay for things like that, I fail to see a moral argument... . Finally, one can make the case that when you look at the total revenue and spending picture, the high tax states where consumers will be hurt most by the elimination of the State Income Tax deduction are disproportionately subsidizing other states, as statistics have show that they receive far less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes.
Last edited:
userque
Well-known member
The problem started before "the last eight years."
Excessive spending was taking place before "the last eight years."
The problem didn't just start in "the last eight years."
"The last eight years" are also a cumulative result of years prior.
userque
Well-known member
The below is in addition to my prior post stating that additional debt increasing mechanisms (governmental spending programs, military spending programs, etc.) were put in place prior to "the last eight years"
________
Your post referenced "the last eight years." An obvious political shot--that was allowed in this thread.
The only proper way to debate your political shot would be via a political post. Certainly, any political posts by me won't go unnoticed and un-"acted" upon. (And possibly any non-political posts I make.)
So if and until a fair political forum is opened, I am relegated to saying that "the last eight years" aren't as bad when you look at inflation-adjusted data. And if you do, you'll see which "eight year" period was actually the worst.
Everyone knows it is meaningless to compare the cost of a car now vs. the cost decades ago without adjusting for inflation.
Last edited:
userque
Well-known member
Well, Frixxxx,
I understand that point. But I would have to look at those numbers much deeper. I would exclude major DoD bases (Ft Bragg and Camp Lejeune) because they have to be somewhere and they provide a national service - not a local one. I also think major regional or federal footprints for the IRS and Social Security Administration are here. There were lots of job openings for those entities. If you are going to have those national entities they have to have a location. Also, Social Security and Medicare benefits probably should be excluded since they are 'insurance' programs supposedly paid by the individual over their working careers. Now, I know that ain't so but it is how it is supposed to be and it is probably 75% - 80% true at this point.
I would probably try to look at pork projects and wealth transfers to get the numbers you mention. The federal footprint here in Raleigh is very light. It is rather light in North Carolina as a whole as well. And, one could easily make the case that a DoD base is an economic drain on the region rather than a plus. Look at El Torro and NTC San Diego. The state and localities are much better off financially now than when those bases were in existence.
I don't know. It is touchy and very difficult to get a handle on. The freeways out here are beautiful and well maintained. Are those for the DoD or is that federal service the result of power politics. Why are the freeways in Kalefornea lousy? Who gets more Federal gubmint largess by the mile? Can you really quantify that - I mean maybe maintaining roads out here is inexpensive and Kalefornea expensive for no reason that could be dealt with. That would be an interesting study - but my head is already hurtin'
These may be helpful:
MILITARY’S IMPACT ON STATE ECONOMIES
http://www.ncsl.org/research/military-and-veterans-affairs/military-s-impact-on-state-economies.aspx
MILITARY-BASE IMPACT ON A LOCAL ECONOMY: A CASE STUDY OF THREE MILITARY BASES IN TWO METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS
http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0010488/hawkins_k.pdf
Military Bases By State
By State
Federal land ownership by state
https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state
MEASURING THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF MILITARY BASE CLOSURES
http://www.nber.org/papers/w6941.pdf
Last edited:
Leaving out the political overtones, your explanation is very good. So why assume Bogie's 8 year reference was politically intentional? Did the deficit go from 9T to 20T over the past 8 years? The accumulating debt over years past cannot be solved quickly. It is also possible that this proposed tax plan could add more to our deficit then help reduce it. That's not a political statement, just a possibility.
userque
Well-known member
Thank you. I added the "overtones" in response to the original poster's "overtones."
I say that the "eight year" reference was political;
- Because it coincides with the length of the last two-term President,
- Because no explanation was given for using that oddly specific time-frame,
- Because it was unnecessary. The debt is 20T. Whether it went from 9 to 20, or from 15 to 20 in the last (8 or 10 or 40 or 2) years, is irrelevant--unless you're making a political point. What matters for a 2017 tax plan discussion is that the debt is 20T--regardless of how fast it rose in "the last eight years."
It's obvious to me. I suspect it is obvious to most who are willing to admit it.
I have no issues or debate or proof if it is not obvious to others, only the above points.
EDIT: Maybe this'll help:
Can I just refer to the time frame that a certain POTUS has been in office while referencing negative facts? Or will I be deemed as trying to make a political post while attempting to circumvent the rules?
userque
Well-known member
I should add: Even an unintentionally political post ... is political.
The point of the prohibition on political posts, in non-political forums, relates to the resulting debates. This is regardless as to intent.
Examples:
- You can leave the grocery store with an item that you didn't pay for unintentionally; yet, still be found guilty of theft.
- You can break the speed limit unintentionally; yet, still be found guilty of speeding.
Intent is not relevant towards the determination of 'political/not-political.' (However, it may be relevant towards determining the remedy.)
Obviously, as I don't make the rules; these are my opinions on how things are, and/or/vs. how they should be.
StockSurfer
New member
One thing I am concerned about is that this tax code revision might be setting the stage for the next shoe to drop. After years of hearing about the rising deficit, all of a sudden this proposal may seriously reduce revenues. I’ll let others conjecture whether it would generate enough growth to not reduce revenues, but If it doesn’t, the only other thing Congress can do is slash expenses... necessitating much more drastic cuts to federal programs... . I really think that that’s where this leads us... Hope I’m wrong...
userque
Well-known member
Interesting point.
- Status
Similar threads
- Guest
- The Economy