House passes GOP tax bill - Page 23 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14875119
Godstud wrote:Lifespan after 65, when you take care of your elders isn't as important as healthcare prior to 65 since many people die prior to 65, and the duration of time spend after 65 is not 65 years more.

Statistics vary on life expectancy after 65, but it still is important to note that a lower life expectancy(overall) is indicative of a poor healthcare system. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still going to be a pig.

I agree that Obamacare is like a pig with lipstick. However, the GOP tax plan is like a Kentucky Derby winning horse with a great jockey. HalleluYah
#14875121
Private prison investors set for giant windfall from Trump tax bill
Individual investors in US private prisons are poised to collect their most lucrative earnings ever thanks to changes in the tax code signed by Donald Trump, continuing what has been a banner year for the industry since the 2016 election.

“It’s going to be great for the investors, banks and hedge funds that own shares in private prisons, and are dependent on increased incarceration and criminalization,” said Jamie Trinkle, campaign and research coordinator with the racial and economic justice coalition Enlace.

Under the new GOP law, investments in so-called “real estate investment trusts” (reits) will see a 25% reduction in tax, from 39.6% down to 29.6%.

Corecivic, formerly Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), and the Geo Group, which together own more than 80% of private prison beds in the US, both restructured as reits in 2013 after a private letter ruling by the Obama Administration IRS green-lit the change.

“This tax act is of unprecedented benefit for reit investors,” said David Miller, a tax partner at Proskauer Rose. “I think reits will explode in popularity as a result of this act.”

With dividends of more than $430m paid out by the two major private prison companies in 2017, in theory, prison investors could see an additional $50m in dividend earnings next year, thanks to the GOP legislation. The actual figure will be lower than that, however, as some proportion of those shares are owned by institutional investors which are taxed differently from individuals. The exact breakdown between the two is not available in public filings.

Even without the new lower tax rate, the reit classification was already a huge boon to the private prison industry. Before converting to a reit in 2013, Corecivic was subject to a 36% corporate tax rate. After the reorganization, it reported paying an effective tax rate in the first quarter of 2015 of just 3%.

Lauren-Brooke Eisen, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice, said: “The way they are able to get away with that, is that they’re not allowed to keep a lot of cash on hand, they have to give it back to investors though dividends. But it allows them to have an incredibly low tax rate.”

According to Eisen, prison companies have essentially argued that renting out cells to the government is the equivalent of charging a tenant rent, thus making such business primarily a real estate venture. In her new book, Inside Private Prisons, Eisen examines the way this classification has boosted industry earnings.

Oregon Democratic senator Ron Wyden, a ranking member on the finance committee, has called the use of the reit structure by prisons “unfair” and “unjust”. In 2016, after being pressed by Enlace, he introduced legislation to end such practices. The bill was reintroduced this year but it has yet to make it out of committee and is not likely to do so any time soon.

A CoreCivic representative told the Guardian that, in their view, “there are far more pressing matters for Congress to pursue” than the reit tax classifications. The Geo Group added they are “treated exactly the same as other real estate investment trusts without any special tax treatments or loopholes”. The point that activists make, though, is that treating prisons as real estate is a loophole.

A dramatic shift
Sixteen months ago, the outlook for private prisons seemed bleak: that was when the Obama Department of Justice announced it was phasing out their use. That announcement followed the release of a scathing government report, which concluded that private facilities were less safe than government-run ones.

The announcement only applied to the 18% of federal prisoners held in private facilities, not the 8% of state prisoners or 65% of immigration detainees held in private facilities. But it still signaled serious trouble. Corecivic and the Geo Group saw their stock prices plummet by about half and trading remained cratered until Trump’s surprise election victory.

By February, Trump’s first full month in office, it had become clear that the new administration would discontinue Obama’s efforts to shrink the size of the US prison population. One of Jeff Sessions’ first acts as attorney general was to undo the DoJ directive phasing out private prisons. That month the two companies each reached two-year stock highs.

The tax bill gift to private prison investors mirrors the cosy relationship Trump has had with the industry overall. After years elsewhere, in 2017 the Geo Group hosted its annual leadership conference at the Trump National Doral golf club in Miami. The company also gave nearly half a million dollars to Trump through his inauguration committee and Super Pacs. Shortly thereafter, it secured the administration’s first contract for an immigration detention center, a deal potentially worth millions.

Despite all that momentum, though, Jamie Trinkle at Enlace still sees a potential for organizers to stem the resurgence of private prisons. Divestment campaigns have successfully pulled more than $4bn out of banks (principally Wells Fargo) and other organizations that invest in the industry.

“Since the tax benefit goes directly to the investors, I think the divestment work actually becomes more important as a way to fight back and stop the flow of capital,” Trinkle said.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... are_btn_tw
#14875128
skinster wrote:Private prison investors set for giant windfall from Trump tax bill

I am happy for them. I am also happy for myself because of the Trump tax law. Praise the Lord.
#14875132
Senator Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said, "Well, Mr. President, I have to say that you’re living up to everything I thought you would. You’re one heck of a leader, and we’re all benefitting from it. This bill could not have passed without you."

Senator Hatch continues, "All I can say is that God loves this country. We all know it. We wouldn’t be where we are without Him. And we love all of you. And we’re going to keep fighting, and we’re going to make this the greatest presidency that we’ve seen, not only in generations, but maybe ever."

#14877227
Senator Hatch continues, "All I can say is that God loves this country. We all know it. We wouldn’t be where we are without Him. And we love all of you. And we’re going to keep fighting, and we’re going to make this the greatest presidency that we’ve seen, not only in generations, but maybe ever."
:moron:

Image
Image
#14877572
And now Democrats who are all for a "progressive" tax system that soaks the rich may be doing their best to protect their rich from paying their "fair" share of state and local taxes:

Cuomo's New York Tax Plan Could Face Hurdles

    Gov. Andrew Cuomo is expected to lay out a plan early this year to overhaul New York's tax code in response to the new federal tax law, but analysts are warning such a proposal likely would pose challenges.

    Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, has lambasted the Republican-backed federal law for capping federal tax deductions in ways that disproportionately affect favorable to high-tax blue states such as New York, New Jersey and California. The governor has pledged to put that issue at the center of his 2018 legislative agenda and his aides are exploring various workarounds to the new law.

    "You have to look at each wrinkle and then try to iron that one out and then try to fix that one," said Cuomo budget director Robert Mujica, who is working on the potential state tax proposals.

    Congressional Republicans have defended the tax law as giving a break to people in most brackets and said the state and local deductions benefitted more higher-income residents than middle-income filers.

    Mr. Cuomo's plan is expected to dominate conversations in Albany for the next few months as legislators haggle over the details and analysts weigh in. Similar proposals are also being considered in New Jersey and California.

    New York's Democratic Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie said he is open to the changes. A spokesman for New York's Republican Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan said the conference is waiting to hear the governor's proposal -- expected as soon as January 16th. Mr. Flanagan has said he wants do "whatever we can. to keep aspects of state and local tax deductibility."

    Replacing Income Taxes with Payroll Taxes

    New York effectively could replace part of its income tax on individuals by making up the revenue with an equivalent payroll tax on employers, Mr. Mujica said.

    Under the new law, businesses can deduct payroll taxes from their federal income taxes, so this idea offers a way to preserve the benefits of deductibility by shifting the deduction from individuals to their employers. Individuals who didn't itemize their federal deductions under the former laws could newly benefit from this shift.

    There are practical and political challenges if Mr. Cuomo advances such a measure. Most notably, the new payroll tax likely would come out of workers' paychecks.

    "There are a lot of reasons you can't simply adjust peoples' wages with the wave of a hand," said Jared Walczak, an analyst for the conservative nonprofit the Tax Foundation. "Many individuals may not understand why their salary is going down, even if they are better off under the proposal."

    The state wants to find a way to leave take-home pay unchanged, Mr. Mujica said.

    Expanding Charitable Contributions

    New York could incentivize charitable contributions to local and state governments or to affiliated public projects and set up funds that allow individuals to donate to such funds rather than pay their full income taxes.

    Because charitable contributions aren't limited under the tax law the same way state and local tax deductions are, expanding them could preserve a benefit that charitable donors get in the form of a federal tax break.

    It is not clear yet how the state might encourage such contributions and whether the IRS would attempt to limit or bar such a practice.

    "The federal government's going to have to make decisions," Mr. Mujica said. "We think we're working within the parameters of the law."

    David Kamin, a tax professor at New York University Law School, said the Internal Revenue Service has allowed similar contributions before in other states, but would have to decide if the potential new system is a break from what the agency previously has allowed, or if it wants to "reverse its positions on these setups entirely."

    New State Deductions

    New York's Independent Democratic Conference -- a group of state Democrats who work in a bipartisan coalition with the Senate Republican majority -- have proposed letting taxpayers deduct state and local taxes that exceed the new federal cap from their state income taxes if they make less than a certain amount.

    Sen. Jeff Klein, the leader of the GOP-allied Democratic faction, said the measure would cost the state about $450 million annually, but that hopefully it would only be necessary for one year if Democrats take back Congress and change federal laws, he said. "In the meantime, we have to do everything possible right away to not devastate homeowners," he said.

    Mr. Cuomo's office didn't comment on Mr. Klein's proposal.

    Corporate Tax Changes

    Unlike individuals, corporations can still deduct state income taxes from their federal taxes. Combined with the cut in the federal corporate tax rate spurred by the new federal law -- to 21% from 35% -- that rule is leading some businesses to consider becoming corporations so they could get the full benefit of that deduction. Mr. Mujica said New York is looking at ideas to accommodate that shift.

    Kathy Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, a group of businesses, said many of the proposals would be complicated but "there was general enthusiasm from my members that the governor is taking a hard look at what could be done."

Personally, I have no problem with businesses becoming corporations to get the full benefit of the new law, and having states cut their taxes is fine by me as well. Switching to a payroll tax instead of an income tax isn't something I can complain about, though from what I've read the more progressive a state's income tax is the more problematic it is to switch. But setting up a general state fund for "charitable" donations at a one-for-one tax deduction? Nope, sorry, that's flat-out tax fraud.
#14877609
Doug64 wrote:And now Democrats who are all for a "progressive" tax system that soaks the rich may be doing their best to protect their rich from paying their "fair" share of state and local taxes:

That is because they are now afraid their rich may move out of the state to a lower tax state.
#14877679
Hindsite wrote:That is because they are now afraid their rich may move out of the state to a lower tax state.

Yup, nothing like federal subsidies of state and local governments to help make them more competitive with other states. Now that “other people’s money” is going away for the major taxpayers, we’ll get to see which states really are most attractive.
#14877685
Yup, nothing like federal subsidies of state and local governments to help make them more competitive with other states. Now that “other people’s money” is going away for the major taxpayers, we’ll get to see which states really are most attractive.


What shit. Doug. Listen up. You already know that the so-called blue states pay more to the feds as a percentage of their gdp than do the so-called red states by a big margin. Don't make me post that shit yet again. Your premise is wrong. What will happen now is that the red states will take even more away from the blue ones while contributing less.
#14877689
Drlee wrote:What shit. Doug. Listen up. You already know that the so-called blue states pay more to the feds as a percentage of their gdp than do the so-called red states by a big margin. Don't make me post that shit yet again. Your premise is wrong. What will happen now is that the red states will take even more away from the blue ones while contributing less.

You’re right, there’s no point in going over once again how that “Red State welfare queens” meme is proven false once you take out things like military spending, maintenance of land the federal government shouldn’t have to begin with, and social security and instead just focus on actual welfare. What will happen is that the big-spending states will lose much of the subsidy they’ve been receiving from Washington.

Come to think of it, I don’t think that influx of federal dollars into state economies thanks to this tax subsidy is included in the “federal spending on states” figures, I have to wonder what they’d look like if they were.
#14877690
You’re right, there’s no point in going over once again how that “Red State welfare queens” meme is proven false once you take out things like military spending, maintenance of land the federal government shouldn’t have to begin with, and social security and instead just focus on actual welfare. What will happen is that the big-spending states will lose much of the subsidy they’ve been receiving from Washington


Obviously you don't, or refuse to look at the numbers. No matter. I am not going over this old shit again. I am tired of the subject. This tax bill is a disaster for the American people.

Go tell your Mormon friends about how much they will lose with the reduced personal exemption. It is about time they had smaller families. :roll:
#14877707
Drlee wrote:Obviously you don't, or refuse to look at the numbers. No matter. I am not going over this old shit again. I am tired of the subject. This tax bill is a disaster for the American people.

Go tell your Mormon friends about how much they will lose with the reduced personal exemption. It is about time they had smaller families. :roll:

I already posted the tax savings of the median average Utah family on this thread, you can scroll down and find it if you wish. But now you’ve gotten me curious, I’ll have to see who among the states the federal welfare queens actually are when I get home from work, by combining average cost per citizen to the feds for TANF, food stamps, and the state and local tax exemption.
#14877735
The Republican plan is obvious and plain as day. A giant tax cut weighted overwhelmingly to the rich containing peanuts for the peons so that it may be crowed that "everyone" benefits. Then, cuts to Social Security and Medicare while moaning that there is no money left. Spineless Wonder Suck Up Paul Ryan set the stage with his comment that the only way to save SS and Medicare is to have more babies. This transfer of wealth to the rich is all so fucking obvious and mind blowing. The intelligence of anyone with in excess of two brain cells is massively insulted.

The good news is that the Republicans must must complete their fucking of the peons during an election year. Brace yourselves. We are about to be subjected to an expensive and massive storm of Republican propaganda as one more of Donald's lies is laid bare: "But we’re not going to hurt the people who have been paying into Social Security their whole life and then all of a sudden they’re supposed to get less." D.Trump
#14877765
But now you’ve gotten me curious, I’ll have to see who among the states the federal welfare queens actually are when I get home from work, by combining average cost per citizen to the feds for TANF, food stamps, and the state and local tax exemption


That won't tell you what you need to know. It is far to complicated for that. Pew already did your research. Check them.
#14877769
Drlee wrote:That won't tell you what you need to know. It is far to complicated for that. Pew already did your research. Check them.

My plan’s more complicated than the “total federal spending within a state’s borders” that’s the standard behind the Red State Welfare Queens meme. Do you have Pew’s link?
#14877885
I've never seen more supposed people upset that they will be paying less taxes across the board in my life. The power of fake news globalist propaganda in action. The media paints an alternate reality.

Trump could single-handedly cure cancer and the usual suspects would deem him the bane of the medical profession; having put thousands of medical researchers out of work-because fuck cancer sufferers and fuck Trump.

KEK. 2020 will be delicious. Can't wait. I expect mass suicide cults to see a dramatic rise.
#14877920
Doug64 wrote:But now you’ve gotten me curious, I’ll have to see who among the states the federal welfare queens actually are when I get home from work, by combining average cost per citizen to the feds for TANF, food stamps, and the state and local tax exemption.

Drlee wrote:That won't tell you what you need to know. It is far to complicated for that. Pew already did your research. Check them.

I found the Pew Research I think you meant, but it isn't usable for this. While it divides the federal spending into different categories (grants, payroll, etc.), not all of any category would count as federal welfare. I already have numbers for TANF and food stamps, so I added Medicaid. I couldn't find Medicaid numbers for North Dakota, but for the rest the ten most federally dependent states, with per capita federal welfare, are:

  1. New Mexico ($2,402.51)
  2. New York ($2,129.08)
  3. Kentucky ($2,020.96)
  4. Oregon ($1,903.80)
  5. West Virginia ($1,883.85)
  6. Vermont ($1,877.11)
  7. Alaska ($1,870.33)
  8. Arkansas ($1,818.52)
  9. Mississippi ($1,681.88)
  10. Rhode Island ($1,662.52)

California just misses being in the top ten, coming in at #11 with $1,622.84 per capita.

The ten states least dependent on federal welfare are:

  1. Wyoming ($622.97)
  2. Utah ($626.00)
  3. Virginia ($686.34)
  4. Nebraska ($696.80)
  5. South Dakota ($740.41)
  6. Kansas ($804.31)
  7. Idaho ($923.65)
  8. Florida ($947.73)
  9. Georgia ($958.74)
  10. Oklahoma ($1,024.96)

But then when you add in the average SALT deduction the rankings change drastically. Now the top ten states are:

  1. New York ($5,516.36)
  2. Connecticut ($5,312.92)
  3. New Jersey ($4,565.62)
  4. Massachusetts ($4,146.53)
  5. California ($4,105.69)
  6. Maryland ($3,886.77)
  7. Oregon ($3,687.82)
  8. Rhode Island ($3,583.82)
  9. Vermont ($3,518.18)
  10. Minnesota ($3,305.51)

And now the ten states least dependent on federal welfare are:

  1. South Dakota ($1,182.23)
  2. Wyoming ($1,207.45)
  3. Utah ($1,643.27)
  4. Florida ($1,684.86)
  5. Nevada ($1,685.56)
  6. Texas ($1,710.59)
  7. Tennessee ($1,712.74)
  8. Alabama ($1,719.86)
  9. Oklahoma ($1,796.08)
  10. Idaho ($1,837.50)
#14878022
Adding in the SALT deduction will not work. If you think about it you will see why.

In order for that to work you would have to use the sum of all government spending which Pew has also done. The reason you would have to use all of it is that unless you use a percentage of all taxes paid, deducted as SALT, you will arrive at an incorrect number.

That is why all of the reputable numbers do not reflect this.

I don't really care much about SALT anyway. It is a bit of a red herring. For example. In Arizona I am able to take a considerable number of specific charitable contributions, (Schools and charities for the working poor as examples) as a direct tax credit. Not deduction but a dollar for dollar credit. These contributions are then federal tax deductible as legitimate charitable contributions when I itemize. It is a bit of a legal scam but imagine if we take these numbers and play with them.

Let me point out your own state. Utah is the hands-down winner in charitable contributions mainly because of tithing to the Mormon Church. These contributions are deductible from federal taxes. I would not consider that a bad thing though those in other states could legitimately ask why they are subsidizing the Mormon church by paying a larger percentage of their income. Atheists could legitimately claim that their taxes are higher because they subsidize with their taxes (albeit a tiny amount) the proselytizing done by churches. We could also discuss the good work done with this money that reduces things like direct welfare payments and even health care. But then I see this stuff first hand and most people don't.

Clearly removing the SALT deduction was not an attempt at fairness and the republicans who make that claim are being disingenuous. As a real conservative my personal belief is that the federal government should not be involved in any direct subsidies to the states for welfare. The states should be required to raise their own money for that through state taxes. I would abolish, for example, the Department of Education and the Food Stamp program. States should handle these things themselves.

If you were a conservative instead of a big-spending Neocon you would oppose the obscene deficits raised by the new budget. And to be quite frank, you would take to the streets if your state tried to do this with its budget.

On edit.

I thought I would add a conservatives view on another aspect of this bill I touched on above. Conservatives believe that charitable giving is better than asking the government to step in. I agree. One way conservatives encouraged this was to allow charitable contributions to be deducted from income tax. Indeed they deliberately incentivized people for doing this. And not just rich people. Everyone who itemizes deductions was incentivized to do this. But these big-spending Neocons did just the opposite. Raising the standard deduction removes one incentive to donate for a great many people. Or at least to donate as much. One article said this:

The Tax Cuts Act simultaneously raises the standard deduction to $24,000 for a married couple. For millions it will no longer make sense to itemize, and that too means fewer charitable gifts: You can only deduct donations if you itemize.

Twenty years ago, the estate tax exemption was $600,000 for an individual — estates worth more than that were taxed. Next year, the exemption will be over $11.2 million for an individual. Whatever your views on estate taxes, it should be clear that exempting larger and larger amounts to lower the tax burden on heirs erodes the incentive to leave bequests to charity.


Whether it is a church or the food bank certainly the notion that one might deduct a goodly percentage of the donation will affect whether and how much we donate.

Yet we see above that the dis-incentive for the wealthy is particularly strong in estate planning. But for the very large number of Americans who deduct less than 24,000 per year from their taxes, the disincentive is a huge deal. And, by the way, the end of SALT deductions for many will greatly reduce the amount of money they have left to donate.

This tax bill is a disaster for charities and we have yet to see just how big it is. So much for the so-called conservatives encouraging charitable giving rather than government spending. Absent these contributions the local, state and federal authorities will simply have to step in.
#14878281
Drlee wrote:In Arizona I am able to take a considerable number of specific charitable contributions, (Schools and charities for the working poor as examples) as a direct tax credit...

Utah is the hands-down winner in charitable contributions mainly because of tithing to the Mormon Church. These contributions are deductible from federal taxes...

Whether it is a church or the food bank certainly the notion that one might deduct a goodly percentage of the donation will affect whether and how much we donate.

I believe that there should be no federal tax deduction for charitable donations. The federal government should stay out of the charitable business. That should be left to individuals.
  • 1
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

ISIS wants to create a division between Chechens […]

PoFo would be a strange place for them to focus o[…]

In my opinion, masculinity has declined for all o[…]

@ingliz good to know, so why have double standar[…]