Enjoying those tax cuts yet?

[Bao]

"Amazon has a history of avoiding various sales taxes and made headlines last summer after successfully convincing Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan to repeal a tax that would have helped the city’s homeless population."

[Trick]

Bezos of Amazon is an "lover of humanity" an philanthropist, isnt that more than enough

[Bao]

Bezos of Amazon is an "lover of humanity" an philanthropist, isnt that more than enough

[Steve James]

Bezos owns Amazon, but the board has a legal "fiduciary responsibility" to make money for stockholders. Bezos can give away as much money as he likes without affecting Amazon profits at all. As a stockholder, he just gets a share.

While, I don't think Amazon deserves a tax break for opening up an office, I think it might be worth it for surrounding areas and supporting businesses. I just don't think it's a solution for repairing struggling neighborhoods. Bezos can do something build a library or a health center and take a charitable contribution on his tax return.

Amazon benefits from not collecting sales tax, but it seems like it's the consumer who doesn't pay. Anyway, if it's about paying fair share of taxes, then people should be complaining because they're not paying them. I think that people will still buy from Amazon if they have to pay sales tax.

[P. Li]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/feb/10/netflix-income-tax-2018-didnt-pay

[origami_itto]

So on the whole this year my paycheck was about $40 more twice a month, so I took home $960 more after taxes.
Last year with the same deductions and my wife working less I paid $80 at tax time.
This year with the same deductions and pay but with my wife working much more, I would have owed $160 if not for being able to deduct interest from student loans which flipped it toward them owing me $130. I did not have that as a factor last year so can't say how different it wound up.

[windwalker]

Yep some are definitely not enjoying
the tax cuts.

"State financial experts on Tuesday reported fiscal year-to-date revenues are more than $2.3 billion below the expectations set by Newsom’s first spending plan.”

The reason, they believe, is that wealthy taxpayers delayed paying their taxes. Because they are no longer able to claim more than $10,000 under the SALT deduction, it made more financial sense for California’s rich to hold onto their money and earn interest until the April 15 filing deadline rather than paying the tax during 2018, as usual."

[yeniseri]

Yep some are definitely not enjoying
the tax cuts.

"State financial experts on Tuesday reported fiscal year-to-date revenues are more than $2.3 billion below the expectations set by Newsom’s first spending plan.”

The reason, they believe, is that wealthy taxpayers delayed paying their taxes. Because they are no longer able to claim more than $10,000 under the SALT deduction, it made more financial sense for California’s rich to hold onto their money and earn interest until the April 15 filing deadline rather than paying the tax during 2018, as usual."

It makes objective sense and is logical. If corporations end up paying no taxes then less taxes in the coffers meaning no revenue for any type of infrastructure.
It seems that the people making minimum wages are those paying more and said workers combined can never make up for even the largest single corporation.

[windwalker]

Yep some are definitely not enjoying
the tax cuts.

"State financial experts on Tuesday reported fiscal year-to-date revenues are more than $2.3 billion below the expectations set by Newsom’s first spending plan.”

The reason, they believe, is that wealthy taxpayers delayed paying their taxes. Because they are no longer able to claim more than $10,000 under the SALT deduction, it made more financial sense for California’s rich to hold onto their money and earn interest until the April 15 filing deadline rather than paying the tax during 2018, as usual."

It makes objective sense and is logical. If corporations end up paying no taxes then less taxes in the coffers meaning no revenue for any type of infrastructure.
It seems that the people making minimum wages are those paying more and said workers combined can never make up for even the largest single corporation.

"

You do understand that those big bad corporations that hire people above minimum wages are responsible to their shareholders
"stockholders" to make a profit. Their function is not about infrastructure.
They can always make their factories overseas and sell in the US.

This yr didn't pay any taxes,,,in fact all that was taken out by the federal gov was returned as a refund.
Those making minimum wage or below don't pay for the most part any fed taxes...could be wrong.



https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page ... come-taxes

The IRS has recently released an analysis of the distribution of the income tax burden for Tax Year 2016. The new data shows that the top one percent of income earners bear the burden of 37 percent of all income taxes. This is nearly twice as much as their share of income (19.7 percent). The top 25 percent of earners shoulder nearly 86 percent of the income tax load. Combined, the top 50 percent of earners are responsible for 97 percent income taxes collected. The other half of filers pay just 3 percent of all income taxes.

NTUF has compiled historical data tracking the distribution of the federal income tax burden back to 1980. In that year, the top one percent of filers’ income tax share was 19 percent – that’s nearly half of what it is now. On the other side of the spectrum, the bottom fifty percent’s share has been cut from 7 percent to 3 percent over the past 38 years. And this happened despite the top marginal income tax rate falling from 70 percent in 1980 to 39.6 percent by 2016.

The trends are clear: the code has become increasingly progressive, and when people are allowed to keep more of their own money, they prosper, move up the economic ladder, and pay a bigger part of the income tax bill for those who aren’t."

[Steve James]

The trends are clear: the code has become increasingly progressive, and when people are allowed to keep more of their own money, they prosper, move up the economic ladder, and pay a bigger part of the income tax bill for those who aren’t."

That is an opinion that's similar to the opinion that if the rich keep more it will trickle down to the middle class. There were tax cut under Bush, remember? The result was not prosperity.

But, let's say accept the general premise that when people bring home more money they can spend more. Well, then raising the minimum wage obviously increases take home pay. No? Ensuring equal pay for equal work also increases family take home pay, especially if the single parent is male or female.

Income tax may be a burden, but it's as low as its ever been, and there's no evidence that the people on the whole are better off. Consumer spending was down this season, iirc. I haven't read many stories of people being pleasantly surprised by the results of the new tax laws. I do not see how they will increase the budget for fixing and maintaining the bridges, tunnels, and highways that are already in disrepair. Our new infrastructure project, "The Wall," will require maintenance and upkeep after construction ... forever, or it will rust away. Not to mention (again) that some form of sea wall till be necessary ... but then there's Canada. But, that's just a costly digression. My point is that unless the government steals money or just prints it up, the corporate sector will not provide the funds needed. Consequently, either income taxes will rise --ideally along with income-- or infrastructure will continue to degrade.

It's also unlikely that much new infrastructure will be created. Trump just cancelled $900 million for a high speed railroad in California, for ex. Anyway, at some point, someone will have to pay. I'm guessing that there'll be a necessary tax increase, and someone will have to be blamed. It'll be the Democrats. And, the Republicans will say that taxes need to be cut more.

[grzegorz]

Americans shocked by impact of new tax law | Times Leader
https://www.timesleader.com/business/73 ... ew-tax-law

[Steve James]

For example, GM is paying zilch and claiming a $104 million refund on $11.8 billion of profits. Amazon is paying no taxes and claiming a $129 million refund on profits of $11.2 billion. (This is after New York offered it $3 billion to put its second headquarters there.)

[Steve James]

Ooh boy, it's almost the 15th. I remember being promised the new system will be simpler.
I heard that we're going to get another one right before the election. Fingers crossed.
Oh well, only shmucks pay taxes, anyway. Right? The money just goes to lazy people who don't want to work.

[Steve James]

Yep, this tax cut makes sure that working people are taken care of well.

The list of no-longer deductible items was fairly long:

Union dues;
Tools and supplies used for work;
Work clothes and uniforms, if required and not suitable for everyday use;
Work-related travel, transportation and meal expenses;
Depreciation on a computer or mobile phone that your employer requires you to use in your work;
Work-related education;
Home office expenses for part of your home used regularly and exclusively in your work;
Expenses of looking for a new job in your present occupation, including travel;
Legal fees related to work;
Subscriptions to trade journals or magazines;
Business liability insurance premiums; and
Dues to professional societies.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Drain that swamp.