Tax bill

[CRedskinsRule]

I wonder if this is fake news, because it sounds kind of positive:

AT&T is giving $1,000 bonuses to 200,000 employees after tax bill

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I wonder if this is fake news, because it sounds kind of positive:

AT&T is giving $1,000 bonuses to 200,000 employees after tax bill

Great to see. Hopefully this is trend

[Schneed10]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. You said the tax breaks would go away in the second year. Not a single one of the links you provided say that.

And it's really hard to take you seriously when you mix up your to/two/too and your/you're. I feel like I'm arguing with a 13 year old girl.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. You said the tax breaks would go away in the second year. Not a single one of the links you provided say that.

And it's really hard to take you seriously when you mix up your to/two/too and your/you're. I feel like I'm arguing with a 13 year old girl.

No , I said they reduce them and they do.


Use this calculator to see how the tax bill affects your paycheck - CNNPolitics


https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/...orm-calculator


these calculators are for your paycheck ,still trying to find the one about how the new bill affects home owners.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Giantone

No , I said they reduce them and they do.


Use this calculator to see how the tax bill affects your paycheck - CNNPolitics


https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/...orm-calculator


these calculators are for your paycheck ,still trying to find the one about how the new bill affects home owners.

So if in 2018 a family pays $3000 less in taxes than they do now, and in 2019 they pay $2950 less in taxes than they do now, that to you is a bad thing?

You're a fucking moron.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

And it's really hard to take you seriously when you mix up your to/two/too and your/you're. I feel like I'm arguing with a 13 year old girl.

Sorry, you could always chose not to respond.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Sorry, you could always chose not to respond.

*choose



It's like talking with a 4th grader.

[Chico23231]

AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. said they would pay a $1,000 bonus to most of their U.S. workers—more than 300,000 people combined—once the president signs the legislation. Wells Fargo & Co. and Fifth Third Bancorp said they would raise their minimum wage to $15 an hour.

-wall street journal

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. said they would pay a $1,000 bonus to most of their U.S. workers—more than 300,000 people combined—once the president signs the legislation. Wells Fargo & Co. and Fifth Third Bancorp said they would raise their minimum wage to $15 an hour.



-wall street journal

Good for them, I would love to see this become the norm but I highly doubt it will. Let’s not lose sight of who will ultimately gain from this tax bill.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. said they would pay a $1,000 bonus to most of their U.S. workers—more than 300,000 people combined—once the president signs the legislation. Wells Fargo & Co. and Fifth Third Bancorp said they would raise their minimum wage to $15 an hour.

-wall street journal

So what was the reason for not giving the bonus before the tax bill, I mean both companies had the money and were what just sitting on it? Most will see about $575 out of the $1000 since it will be maxed taxed.

[BaltimoreSkins]

What happened to flex spend money for dependent care? Did they get rid of using pre taxed plans for child care? I know the house repubs wanted to do that originally, but I can't find anything about if the senate talked some sense into them. I also hate how they add shit that has nothing to do with the bill. Drilling in ANWR? Way to provide unnecessary government subsidies to private sector. I know that this is the way it works but hate it.

[MTK]

Honestly you guys are both acting like kids

[CRedskinsRule]

I think a lot of the opponents of this are arguing semantics. 80% of the public will see positive numbers from this for the next 7 years. That seems like a good thing.

Further, I doubt that the 20% that see "pain" will see overarching NEW federal tax burdens killing them.

• it's funny to me that the ones who may see the most pain are the ones who have the highest state taxes, simple solution, vote in local legislatures that will reduce state outlays - I'm looking at you CA and NY)
• also funny, the high tax states like NY, NJ, CA, DC, OR, or CT, how many voted for Trump or Republicans? Is it really THAT shocking that they see the least benefit or are going to receive the least consideration.
• Here is a map of the senate election results - geography quiz - how many republican senators were elected from NY, NJ, CA, DC, OR, or CT?
  
• geography quiz #2 - how many high tax states have a plurality of Republicans in Congress? again, here is a map of the House votes by party holding plurality in each state to help you out
  

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I think a lot of the opponents of this are arguing semantics. 80% of the public will see positive numbers from this for the next 7 years. That seems like a good thing.

Further, I doubt that the 20% that see "pain" will see overarching NEW federal tax burdens killing them.

• it's funny to me that the ones who may see the most pain are the ones who have the highest state taxes, simple solution, vote in local legislatures that will reduce state outlays - I'm looking at you CA and NY)
• also funny, the high tax states like NY, NJ, CA, DC, OR, or CT, how many voted for Trump or Republicans? Is it really THAT shocking that they see the least benefit or are going to receive the least consideration.
• Here is a map of the senate election results - geography quiz - how many republican senators were elected from NY, NJ, CA, DC, OR, or CT?
  
• geography quiz #2 - how many high tax states have a plurality of Republicans in Congress? again, here is a map of the House votes by party holding plurality in each state to help you out
  

To the bold section. I think that was designed to directly target high state taxes by removing the federal deduction to fit congressional republican agendas. High state taxes allow states to provide essential services and rely less heavily on the federal government. Most federal money takers are low tax states. I think this causes a push towards less state reliance and decreased state taxes and will cause the states to rely more on federal funds to meet essential needs which is what congress wants imo.

To the italicized section. That was also a slight towards "blue states" Not having a voice since the republicans basically eliminated the democrats from the conversation. Is that because of an agenda to push those states into turmoil in order to gain political influence or partisan politics as usual?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

To the bold section. I think that was designed to directly target high state taxes by removing the federal deduction to fit congressional republican agendas. High state taxes allow states to provide essential services and rely less heavily on the federal government. Most federal money takers are low tax states. I think this causes a push towards less state reliance and decreased state taxes and will cause the states to rely more on federal funds to meet essential needs which is what congress wants imo.

To the italicized section. That was also a slight towards "blue states" Not having a voice since the republicans basically eliminated the democrats from the conversation. Is that because of an agenda to push those states into turmoil in order to gain political influence or partisan politics as usual?

to the first bolded part, that's an interesting take - you think Republicans want to push states to rely on more federal spending by reducing the power of state exemptions to federal tax.

on the second bolded part: Blue states are going to use attacks on Trump to gain more local power so I doubt Republicans are trying to push those states into turmoil (personal bias belief: most Blue states already are in some turmoil from years of Democratic agendas being implemented and failing). I think it's more likely a nod from Republicans that Democratic voters in those states are not going to switch, so why try to appease them when the base that has won the Republicans both state and federal elections can be strengthened by reducing things like State and Local deductions.