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

The current fund runs out in 2035. After that, payroll taxes will only be able to cover 75% - and that's if we get 2.6+% GDP growth each year, the number of retirees doesn't go crazy and future administrations don't start taking too many IOUs out on the fund.

So, we are going to get to a point where the age will probably be raised to 70, the benefit amount will be significantly reduced and the younger population will be taxed even higher to get those "worse" benefits. At some point, the system needs to change.

Why do benefits have to be significantly reduced if the worst case scenario ends with 75% payout?

With the coming retirement crisis from unfunded pensions, we should be talking about increasing SS, not reducing it.

75% is the best case. After 2035, there basically is no "fund", it's just what the payroll tax can cover. So, if the economy hits a slide or more retirees pop in, that amount could go down. Essentially, we will be basically borrowing money every year to cover retirees. That's the problem without some type of reform.

The latest trustees report has that at 83%. There is no need to make drastic changes to Social Security. As the trustees report says, just raising the current FICA tax two+ points solves the problem. There are also other small fixes that could be combined to make SS solvent for 75 years.

The problem isn't SS, it's politicians that want to destroy it.

I think the fact that people are living so much longer than before makes it a no-brainer to push the age when benefits start to pay out. Rest assured though, the Boomers will see that they are fully taken care of and that no harm will be done to them, just like every other time.

I think a system that will continually need tax increases to stay solvent, combined with the tax being extremely regressive to lower income and younger workers is a problem. At what point is the tax too much? 16%, 20%? We just burned through the social security fund we created over the past 30 years and will be at $0 in 17-18 years. People are living longer and insurance is getting more and more expensive. Do you really think that a 12% (or even 14%) payroll tax will cover it all by 2040? Unless we agree to completely gut benefits and payouts, a higher tax bill will be due to cover it. The only reasonable long term solution is to partially privatize SS. Heck, those of us under 50 will be relying on our own privatized investments for 80+% of our retirement even in a best case. What's the big deal if a portion of the government's side is also private? Otherwise, our grandkids will be paying a massive tax so that our kids can retire.

I'm sure she can fit all 128 names on a postcard, and still have room for Ivanka's tax return... vote was 128-9 with 30+ abstains.

That's not what the Trustees for SS say at all. SS will only die if Congress chooses to kill it. Fairly modest changes can stabilize it for the 75 year window.

As for raising the retirement age, that seriously punishes manual laborers, so it shifts benefits from the poor and working classes to the middle and upper classes. Manual laborers have a life expectancy several years less than white collar workers. If the goal of reform is to help those that most need it, raising the retirement age does the opposite.

That it's a pyramid scheme & those eventually fall.

Politicians have, however, exacerbated an ultimately untenable situation.
The "borrowing" from SS is one of the most inexcusable acts the U.S. government has ever made afaic.

Today Trump commuted the sentence of Iowa's largest employer of illegal immigrants.

Everything's a con.

I'm going to take a little offense to that, because I know the historical background and I think it's the majority of Europeans who have a weird view on the events (to not even mention the general Arab viewpoint on them). Israel and the Arab states fought several wars, and even when the Arabs started them with surprise attacks Israel ultimately dominated them on the battlefield and controlled more territory at the end of each. So now they cry to the UN that they should reset the borders, despite 31 UN countries refusing to even recognize Israel as a country. Most artificially drawn borders in the Middle East and Africa by colonial powers were dumb anyways and have created conflict ever since those countries achieved independence, but why stop at 1967 borders instead of going back to 1948? Why not go back further and give it to the Ottomans? What if Germany wanted to go back to pre-1918 borders and get Alsace-Lorraine back?

Btw if you think this is Trump unilaterally deciding something you should do a little research as well. I'm sorry that Jimmy Carter let something slip through 37 years ago when he was being run out of office, but the decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem was actually passed by Congress 22 years ago, and every 6 months since the various Presidents have had to unilaterally delay it (which was easy enough to do by citing security as a rationale.) Plus, yes, this specific resolution merely recommends countries don't do it, but the one earlier this week would've actually tried to ban it and the US is never giving up sovereignty to the UN (or ICC, etc), which imo is really what really pisses most foreigners off.

The US without international help has been the driving force behind the two biggest concrete advances in Arab/Israeli peace accords, Egypt-Israel (and establishing a peacekeeping force outside the UN because of a threatened veto) and Israel-Jordan in 1994, and has tried restarting the peace process between Israel & the PA seemingly every couple years. But that last one will never be solved because neither side negotiates in good faith or will ever agree to give in on the main issues (right of return, Golan Heights), because an Israel that gives citizenship and voting rights to even 5 million+ Arabs would cease to be a Jewish state, and on the other side Syria, Lebanon, the PA & Hezbollah refuse to admit that when you start a war & lose it you don't get to cry about losing territory. Meanwhile the UN passes worthless resolutions and has 25 countries who don't recognize Israel's existence voting on a resolution that claims the US embassy being located in West Jerusalem - which is recognized by the UN as part of any future Israeli state - would be the bigger impediment to the peace process.

Yep, I was wondering why people who employ illegal immigrants seemed to be on Trump's side when he's screaming "WE'RE GOING TO BUILD THE BIGGEST WALL EVER" and "MEXICO DOESN'T SEND THEIR BEST," because it would seem to deplete their source of workers that they can pay below minimum wage and otherwise skirt labor laws.

Our Dutch ambassador is asked about his statements on no-go zones in the Netherlands and he says he never said it, and that it's fake news. The reporter shows him the clip of him saying those things and asks about calling it fake news. Our ambassador says, he never said fake news.

http://thehill.com/policy/internatio...-talking-no-go

Wharton School estimates that the effective corporate rate will drop from 23% to 9%.

Only the best people, indeed

He never said that

Trump's challenge coin has to be seen to be believed.

What an asshole. (That's Pence, Biden and Obama, from left to right.)



https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.22af52446293

"You all just got a lot richer,” Trump tells friends, referencing tax overhaul

Good to see we have a friend (bribed or not). I really don't know how this will play out. There are going to be unintended consequences from us formally recognizing Jerusalem (but there always is with any decision of significance).

I do know that status quo was not working so I'm willing to give it a shot in hopes it changes the dynamics and gets things going somehow.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/24/middle...lem/index.html

If I was China, I would pickup the difference and continue my ascent in the world stage vs US.

Chump change to them but great payback in goodwill and spite to US.

Not even on Christmas...

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump









People are proud to be saying Merry Christmas again. I am proud to have led the charge against the assault of our cherished and beautiful phrase. MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!


I love in the replies people posts tweets and videos of not only Obama saying Merry Christmas, but the number of times Trump said Happy Holidays

The last few years when I haven't been allowed to say Merry Christmas have been really difficult. Thanks for making Christmas great again Donald!

+1

And all the firm anti-Trump people think this is somehow a mistake or stupid, to put stuff out there suggesting that he has saved Christmas. They (we) think that pointing out to other firmly anti-Trump people that this is demonstrably false somehow wins the argument, and nullifies the points it scores with the gullible pro-Trump types.

The sad thing is that a proportion of his base believe he has somehow saved Christmas .. however that says a lot about the critical thinking skills of a specific demographic ... how big that demographic is I have no idea, but it scares me that it is probably far larger than I originally realized ..

I suspect that there's a ton of confirmation bias at work here. When a Democrat is in office, Christmas is under attack, and every store cashier, sign, man on the street, coffee cup, etc. that doesn't explicitly say "Merry Christmas" confirms that the liberals are de-Christianizing America. But now that Trump is in charge, we are Making Christmas Great Again. Therefore, though the percentage of cashiers, men on the street, signs, coffee cups that give a "Happy Holidays" message certainly hasn't changed much, the non-Merry-Christmas overtures get interpreted vastly differently. They're no longer more evidence of a greater conspiracy against Christmas; they are merely singular examples of a dying breed of holdout liberal vestiges of the Obama era, trying to cling desperately to the bygone days of secularism, because EVERYONE knows that now we have Made Christmas Great Again.

+1

Trump definitely knows how to play a certain subset of the population.

I think it's even simpler. It's just another way to proclaim your white nationalist bonafides.

You guys have probably seen Trump in the Hall of Presidents by now, but, just wanted to share. There's a lot of talk about how it doesn't look like him, how it might just be a refurbished Hilly robot with a wig - but it's just still bizarre to me that he's up there at all...this still feels like a Simpsons Halloween episode.

FULL Donald Trump animatronic speech in Hall of Presidents 2017, Walt Disney World - YouTube

So now Christmas is a "white nationalist" thing?

And you wonder why leftists have no credibility with sane people?

'Cause that's exactly what he said. Also I think you made his case for him.

Says the guy with no credibility whatsoever.

No, the War on Christmas is about white nationalism.

Christmas is the opposite of that. If Merry Christmas is a way to say fuck you to the libs, you're doing it wrong.

I feel like there are a lot of Christians out there who aren't necessarily racist and certainly aren't 'white nationalists' but who nonetheless miss the simple act of being able to greet people with a Merry Christmas around this time of year. And those are definitely some people that Trump is trying to reach with this stuff.

But he's also proclaiming his white nationalist bonafides.

I say Merry Christmas all the time, both in Idaho and when I'm in heathen New England. I guess the authorities just haven't caught up to me yet? Nobody's even given me a dirty look.

Man, the inconvenience of occasionally acknowledging that someone doesn't share your beliefs!

(Which, you don't REALLY have to do; just say Merry Christmas to everyone and if they correct you, that's on them. If you don't really care about trying to be considerate to others -- and that's what "Happy Holidays" as an alternative is about -- then just say what you want. *shurg*)

I got much more grief this year for saying Happy Hanukkah to random people during the holiday.

I thought we had made it thru Xmas without a bunch of dumb shit happening. No viral Starbucks cups, etc. And of course Trump can't just keep his thumbs to himself.

Good old Megan Kelly telling us how Jesus and Santa are white.

Oh goody, another meaningless precinct heard from.

Thanks for playing. Enjoy the home edition of the game.

The War on Christmas does seem like some kind of self-perpetuating bullshit from right-wing media/political sources. I can totally see how it would be fucking maddening to constantly hear reports about every possible way that individual retailers and marketers are trying to pander to as many people as possible with false inclusiveness....but like, WHY do that? Of course Christmas is fucking ruined if you want to decide a particular piece of packaging from a certain retailer is what most defines it. The irony is absolutely no liberals or leftists are ruining their holidays over holiday packaging, or even talking about it, while conservative folks have apparently integrated retail persecution and extra misery into their modern Christmas holiday process, rabidly hunting for any perceived slight, entirely by choice, and don't even realize it.

To my eyes (which are obviously biased) it sure seems like the greatest persecution by far is coming from the few minutes conservative folks are apparently forced to spend every day in the wind-up to Christmas being told that someone thinks they're not allowed to enjoy Christmas. Yes, that sucks. The solution isn't a culture war against retailers, the solution is to stop willingly listening to angry assholes who are actively trying to ruin your Christmas.

Don't get me started on the War on Advent!!

I do wonder how many of these people who get upset over perceived lack of Merry Christmas (which I have no idea where they are getting this from) actually attend Church more than twice a year?

So you do think it's rude to say Merry Christmas to someone? Maybe there's more to this war on Christmas than I thought.

Personally, I use it as a generic seasonal greeting and am not offended at all if someone wishes me happy hanukkah, kwanzaa, ramadan, or whatever (or just happy holidays). I hope someone wouldn't go through an internal editing process when greeting me.

So this is why Trump wanted the embassy in Jerusalem...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...all/983664001/

I’m amazed at the amount of effort right wing orgs use to lie to the people most likely to share their ideology. Why do so many people allow themselves to be conned?

Well, to be fair, there's certainly a number of liberal/leftist sites that are happy to paralyze anybody with constant, unnecessary updates on the most polarizing of fears as well, but the whole seasonal aspect makes it a lot easier to single out the absurdity of The Christmas Warz.

Gallup's most admired men, 2017:
1. Barack Obama
2. Donald Trump
3. Pope Francis
4. Billy Graham
5. John McCain

Women:
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Michelle Obama
3. Oprah Winfrey
4. Elizabeth Warren
5. Angela Merkelhttps://t.co/O9IyPIZTYj

— Gabriel Debenedetti (@gdebenedetti) December 27, 2017

What's interesting to me isn't that Trump became the 1st first year president not to win in 71 years. It's that not a single conservative woman made the top 5. Actually, the last time a conservative woman made the top 5 was Condoleezza Rice in 2014.

It takes a meaningless precinct to know one. You'd be hard pressed to find a person in this thread that thinks that you have anything meaningful to say. I know I don't have anything meaningful to say, but unlike you, I don't pretend I do. When your argument is that "Trump is better than the alternative," you don't have anything meaningful to say. When you cheer for "chaos", it tells me that you have no good solutions to fix the ills in the U.S. So don't pretend that you are high and mighty with your takes.

And I have the deluxe edition of the game. Let me know if you want another round.

Oh, I don't really care what brand of well-wishes I get -- they're all good. But I've grown up and lived in areas which were heterogeneous enough that I don't assume everyone celebrates Christmas. I think the "war" is viewed as such by people who seem annoyed that you can't/shouldn't assume everyone celebrates Christmas. They don't want to have to hear or say anything else.