Wouldn't the withholdings decrease in proportion to the new brackets? Just doing some incredibly rough math here, and it would seem noticeable if I'm working it out correctly. It sure looks like pretty much everyone in the lower-middle/middle/upper-middle brackets is going to see 3-4% more, and if you happen to fall in one of what appear to be some sweet spots here, significantly more than that. (A married couple whose income remains static in the 76-77K range from 2017 to 2018 drops from 25% to 12%????? Am I reading that correctly?)

Isn't it too late for that for 2018? My rates are set for 2018 now, and I won't know my 2019 rates until we get our 2019 open enrollment information.

{pauses writing post to double-check old emails}

Yup, just as I suspected: if past years are any indicator, I should expect to find out my 2019 insurance rates...wait for it....

about a week after the 2018 midterms.

No idea how standard that is, but I seem to recall that ACA open enrollment is also right around the same time.

Democratic analysts are the ones that care about 2027, because regardless of what happens in 2020, a Democrat is likely going to win the 2024 election, and be in office for the exact four years that middle class voters will see their taxes rise. And guess which party is going to campaign on a middle class tax cut to offset that nasty rise in taxation under a Democrat president?

ACA Open Enrollment has been in mid-October, though they have moved the date later and later each year. OE2018 started on Nov 1, and OE2019 is currently scheduled to start on Nov 1, 2018.

Anyone here know the effect of the new 'Tax Plan' on those of us paying alimony - is this within the 10k cap which has been mentioned or apart from it?

Nikki Haley has learned well from the Chief Bully of State:

Nikki Haley warns U.S. allies Donald Trump will take Jerusalem vote at United Nations "personally" - CBS News

My parents are about as apolitical as you can get.

The only thing I've seen them post on social media that even sniffs at politics is that realm of ranty memes about Social Security/Medicare not being entitlements, because they've paid for them their entire lives. As you might expect, my parents are retired. It's a big deal to them, even down to the language used to talk about it.

If the GOP thinks my parents and people like them care more about "doing something about the debt" than they do about their monthly checks, they're going to be in for a hard lesson in '18.

You think the NRA is a tough lobby? The AARP will eat your liver.

What Nikki Haley hasn't realized is that the rest of the world thinks Donald Trump is a tool.

Yes, I'm sure now that they are all quivering in their boots and will follow Herr Trump now..

It looks like I'm going to get a fairly substantial tax increase from this bill. Yay blue state penalties!

Ehh..the AARP has opposed a bunch of these bills and it didn't matter. They'll put stuff in their newsletters but they don't have the lobbying power of private equity firms.

The thing with SS and Medicare is the cuts won't come down till a decade or later down the line. They did this with the health bill and even tax bill. People on it will get their cut now and screw over the next generation.

This is why baby boomers are the worst generation this country has ever had.

the german nicknames translate much less flattering ;) That orange pissant really has watched too many Mafia-movies, hasn't he ?

Should be a good tax cut for Susan Sarandon and most of the privileged, spoiled, elitist morons who voted for Jill Stein.

The 2006 wave was largely about Bush going after entitlements and the 2010 wave was made by telling seniors that Obama is coming for your Medicare.

In the VA delegate race, a ballot was successfully challenged, so the official result is a tie. The winner will be chosen by lot. If the GOP wins, they retain control of the House, if the Dem wins the House is split 50/50.

wow again. You would think they would have something better than "chosen by lot" after all these years-who does the "chosen by lot?"

I'm so old I remember when Obama was too arrogant and egotistical.

What she has realized, however, is that allies who don't play ball are pretty damned irrelevant. It's well past time that some folks are brought to heel, and woe unto them & their houses if they fail to do so.

In other words, fuck them & the horse(s) they rode in on. Well beyond time that we stopped worrying about them.

A literal tool, too.

I would think most people's tax bill should go down. If you are a working couple with kids and combine for an income of ($110K, ie, you make 60K and 50K), your tax bill should get a lot lower. Not only do you get the marginal rate breaks, but you can actually now get a child tax credit (something you were phased out of in 2017).

But won't most people only notice that in 2019 when they file?

And somewhere around 3/4 of households make less than 110k.

I was reading earlier that even Bush's checks to every individual made very little difference in approval numbers for him or Congress.

I think the withholding from checks are based on marginal rates, correct? So I'm guessing that should go into effect as soon as the rate changes do.

I think all this is short term benefit. It basically fucks the younger generations. Most of the people who put it in place will be dead and won't care which is why boomers are such trash for this country.

You have to make over 75k to get to 100$ a month. Split that over two or four checks and take out health insurance increases and it isn't an eye catching number for most households. How many people will get fired up to vote GOP when they see ten dollars more in their paycheck? (If they even notice their direct deposit increase.)

This is exactly what happened with the stimulus, where the average person got a tax cut, but the average person also said their taxes went up.

We may run a one trillion dollar deficit next year with close to full employment. What happens during the next recession?

I saw that. I was watching it thinking Trump was gonna orgasm at the end. I bet Pence has to give a speech like that every week. And Carson's prayer was basically the same thing.

One thing we're forgetting is without the mandate, premiums are going to skyrocket. So any tax savings are likely lost after that.

The entire thing rests on the shoulders of the lazy people on welfare. Once they start working the economy will be unstoppable. It doesn't matter that 80% already work, once they get off the govt tit, productivity and tax income goes off the charts positive. It's all part of the Ryan plan.

They had a printed release with a summation of positive comments about Trump from every cabinet member.

They find a scapegoat and borrow more money.

We bomb someone to fuel job creation in the military.

Sad to say but I think we really know the tax savings were not focused on "those" people requiring Obamacare.

Lots of Gen X in Congress right now.

I don't know what it takes - Dems & Reps both say the right things when they are in the minority but when they get their chance, the deficit and debt goes up.

Been reading that next year is entitlement reform. Not a thing with the 2018 elections but am interested in hearing the options and pros/cons.

I don't know what they can cut. Most people paid their whole lives into SS and Medicare so cutting that is a pretty big scam. They might have to do it to give the big tax cut to the rich but I'd be pissed.

A relatively easy one is to increase age for SS. Also, I believe what people pay into SS is not near what they will eventually get from SS. With longer life span and less younger folks to support it, I think it makes sense to increase eligible age.

Its a "tax" but also increase the current SS payroll tax cap on taxable income from approx $128K to higher. Not sure if that would make a dent though.

It's worse than that. For decades after the "fix" in the 80s people paid in more than the trust fund was paying out. Instead of saving that money(which admittedly has it's problems) it was spent through the general fund. In essence, taxes on the wealthy were kept artificially low and replaced by taxes on the poor and middle class. Now all that tax money is going to be recouped by cutting the benefits of the people that paid extra taxes.

And raising the eligibility age hammers people who do manual labor. It's another way to funnel benefits to the generally wealthy and healthy.

I'm sure she's picked up on that, but I'm with her on this one. If Israel says Jerusalem is its capital, why wouldn't we put our embassy in West Jerusalem near their center of government? And why would we let other countries (most of whom hate Israel and are just using this despite its lack of merit) dictate to us how we can conduct unilateral relations with a specific country? I'd be just as opposed if we were pushing a resolution demanding the 31 UN countries left who don't recognize Israel or the others with embassies in Tel Aviv move them to Jerusalem.

I think the easy way to do it is to start adding the tax to capital gains. Why do we punish one form of income over the other?

No idea if this is accurate, but...

Tax Plan Calculator by Maxim Lott

Heh, that one is worse than the one I used yesterday...again almost all due to the blue state penalties.

Or we could have people pay SS tax on their entire income, not just a fraction of it.

No offense, but you really need to read up ob the historical background. Short version not even taking that into account: UN as a body agreed on a strategy, now Trump comes and does what he wants despite being a member. It's akin to Germany suddenly saying that North Korea is just wonderful and start sending goods and weapons their way despite the agreed upon sanctions.

Also: The UN Resolution in question does NOT request the US not move their embassy. All it does is basically say "We regret that one of our members has decided unilaterally go against UN policy" and thus merely telling everybody involved that they disagree with the US's assessment and stick with the agreed-upon policy.

Paul Ryan just said that the best news on the Tax Cut was that families living paycheck to paycheck who get $2000 less was the entire point. Now, that breaks out to about $40 per week. I do remember those days where an extra $40 per week made a big difference.....but, it's also the equivalent of a $0.50/hr raise, per person, for a family where both parents work.

It seems to me, that they could have raised the minimum wage for a more targeted and more meaningful change. Furthermore, it's not something worth singing and dancing about when the top 0.1% of income earners just saves hundreds of thousands of dollars just with the adjustment to the Inheritance Tax.

It's plain to see that with the pass through rate dropping to 21% that if you are in the higher tax brackets, you're going to be creating a personal LLC to take advantage of that.

What's lost in this entire argument is that there is no, absolutely no discussion about the cost. Not just the deficit spending, but with the lowered income, what programs are you willing to see end for that $40 per week. We're not just talking about a couple, here and there, but literally, lists and lists of programs that benefit everyone and that make our world a better place in one way or another.

Is it all worth the cost? I don't think so.

And don't forget that they also want to increase defense spending. Getting the budget to balance would require cutting everything but defense and interest by over 1/3, depending on what counts as defense, maybe 1/2.

That is never going to happen.

Ivanka today:


So much wrong in so few words.

Don't misunderstand me here: my comment doesn't have anything to do with the business at hand. I agree with the idea that we should be able to put our embassies or recognize sovereignty anywhere we damn well please.

It's really about tone here...and not even so much the tone itself as going public with the whole "we're going to be taking names" bullshit. I'm old enough to remember when this kind of arm-twisting was done through diplomatic back channels.

(Because I also support the idea that if you're not going to vote with me in things that I consider to be in my interest, then I'm not going to keep giving you free money in aid packages. I expect some quo with my quid, thank you very much.)

I can't believe you passed on the opportunity to use the Luke Skywalker quote.

The only real solution that works is to partially privatize SS after a certain age. IE, anyone over 50 is covered, 30-50 is partially covered and under 30 gets a small % of their payroll tax set aside as an untouchable "401K" until they reach retirement age. If you are a person in your 30s or early 40s, there's virtually no chance you see any kind of social security without massive reform. Given those are a big chunk of people making between $120 and $200K, you would basically be increasing their social security burden with the idea they never get anything if you up the payroll tax limit.

I, for one, don't mind increasing it if there is a plan attached to it to privatize down the road. But it would be extremely aggravating to have it increased only so it could be pissed away over the next 20 years and still insolvent for when I retire. I am not counting on any social security for my retirement, and I don't think anyone under the age of 45 should either. It's really sad, as there will be a lot of hardworking people counting on it over the next 25-35 years who end up with the shaft because this government lacks the political courage to take steps to correct this.

Even if I had to pay $2-3K more a year in taxes and get significantly fewer benefits when I retire - I would gladly do that if we had a plan to help the middle class continue to receive some form of social security 30+ years from now (and not bankrupt our kids). I'm interested to see when the climate finally shifts to where we can have a real discussions that don't involve scare tactics on each side.

According to the Trustee report in 2017, over the seventy-five year window if nothing is done to funding benefits will have to be cut by 17%. Funding could also be increased by increasing the payroll tax 2.76 percentage points, to 15.16 percent.

Social Security will only not be there for people if the government decides to kill it.

Hope she had a big piece of paper