• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

GOP Passes Historic Tax Plan

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
So pass those massive savings to whatever employees you have, or expand your business and hire more employees or give to charities. Bureaucrats in Washington know better how to spend your money than you do. They're certainly efficient at it. To the wealthy libs who are squealing like stuck pigs over these tax cuts, you can send more to the U.S. Treasury. The tax rates are just the required minimum. C'mon you bleeding heart hypocrites, lead by example and pay a 90% tax rate.

Send more money to the U.S. Treasury to enrich other motherfuckers that are already doing more than just ok, no. Yeah, I'll do that as soon as you jab a screwdriver in your left eye. I'm blessed in a lot of ways, but I don't have that kind of money...

corporations.jpg
 

Supafly

Retired Mod
Bronze Member
I will not judge this tax plan on this day.

I will judge it next year on this day, when we see which way the econmy, the job growth or decline and so on have gone.

Let us hope for all it works out.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
If mega-corporations were going to share the wealth they already would be sharing the wealth. There is no excuse why everyone that wants to work isn't making a living wage instead of doing more for less and those that can't work aren't getting enough to get by on from "benefits".
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
As far as the growing economy is concerned I am barely making any gains in my IRA and 401K accounts and I don’t know how much anyone else around here. The stock market doing great typically does not trickle down to the common man. A wise man once told me, the only gains you make by investing in IRA is the tax return you get but otherwise the people who gain from trading are the brokers.

That's odd. But if you have few gains this year, I would say that it's purely a reflection of what you're invested in. Unless you're in something that has absolutely killer fees, it has nothing to do with how IRAs or 401Ks are structured. Are you invested in equity mutual funds, stocks, bonds, CDs or a mix of some sort?

I haven't had the time to review the final legislation and I don't have an unbiased analysis at hand yet. But with all due respect (and I mean that), I do have to point out the error in the underlined statement above. While not wanting to be insulting to the man who told you that, I can say that his wisdom apparently does not extend to the investment space. An IRA, or Individual Retirement Account, offers individual investors the opportunity to invest in everything from stocks to mutual funds to ETFs (exchange traded funds... sort of like mutual funds with real time pricing and trading components) to commodities, real estate, real estate investment trusts, insurance products, bonds, CDs, etc. And I also must point out that there is a HUGE difference between trading and investing - they're totally different animals. Unless you are an experienced investor (and even then), I would caution most people not to attempt to trade the positions in their accounts. Especially in an IRA or 401k, history shows that most people are better off employing a buy & hold strategy. Even pros aren't that good at calling tops or bottoms in the equity or debt markets.

Here's a simple illustration of what I'm talking about. Assuming a person is under age 50 (income limitations aside), he can place $5500 a year in an Traditional IRA. Yes, that reduces the person's taxable income for the year. But over time, it also allows tax deferred growth. Let's say that a person chooses a low expense fee, zero commission ETF bought through a Vanguard IRA as his sole lifetime investment. Let's look at what a total stock market index ETF (representing the overall U.S. equity market) has done. Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (symbol VTI) is up approximately 20% year to date, which, by design, closely matches the overall market's gains. It's up approximately 85% over a five year period. It has a paltry .04% expense ratio and it pays a 1.6% dividend. I used a Vanguard fund simply because Vanguard is the industry leader in low expense ratio investing. But Schwab, Fidelity and many others offer the exact same type of broad index and sector funds. They're nothing special or exotic. So if you put $1000 into VTI at the beginning of this year, you'd have roughly $1200 right now. The key to investing is not scoring big gains every year, it's what you make, on average, over time.

U.S. stocks have historically appreciated at an average annual rate of about 8 to 9 percent. Combining what the average wage earner can put into an IRA and a 401k (including company match), let's assume on a $50,000/yr salary the employee has 15% going into retirement accounts. Let's further assume the employee is 30 years old when he starts investing (rather late in life, but still...). The employee never gets a raise and never rises above the 15%=$7500/yr.(let's say $1500 of that is the company match/free money)=$625/month total contribution.

So here's the bottom line: in 31 years (at age 61), this employee will have roughly $1 million in his retirement account(s).

It's just math and the power of compounded annual returns - there's no trickery. But people get lied to by politicians and by people who don't know what they're talking about. So they give up and do nothing. And that's a real shame and a real problem for our nation as people age without saving and investing. Don't believe me. Do the math for yourselves and decide what's right for you. But realize that your reality is largely based on your own decisions - not huckster politicians wearing red or blue team jerseys. And just know that you can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Two final points and I hope to get some replies on either.

One, as I've read summaries of this tax bill, the corporate tax breaks are permanent, while many of the individual income tax provisions expire in 2025. Interesting.

Two, on investing, most 401k plans and all major mutual fund companies (that you'd have access to in an IRA) offer target date funds. Call them "set it & forget it" investing. They automatically rebalance your portfolio of mutual funds from higher risk equity funds to more lower risk bond and income funds as you age. Just pick the fund based on your age or desired retirement date and put it out of your mind. As you get closer to retirement, you'll need income, in addition to lower risk. Simply a just so ya know insertion.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
I would love to ask Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, or Donald Trump why they hate children. old people, and poor people. In lieu of that, I would love to hear from anyone that supports this massive windfall to the wealthy why they think it's better to give massive tax breaks to the wealthy than it is to fund programs that help children, old people, and poor people.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

foolus.jpg
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Ahh, the American Eagle. Says the guy who put into concentration camps 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent (or orientals, for you shit kicker types).

You must have a real aversion to the word Oriental. What, exactly, is a shit kicker, and who might be that type? But naw, you're right, FDR wrongly imprisoned Japanese Americans, not that it's particularly germane to the Robber Baron bill that just passed.
 
Nothing is more funnier than hearing Libtards talk about economics lol

So as an expert please explain to us helpless retards; why was it that when Reagan reduced taxes we ended up transitioning from being a creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation?
 
AT&T is giving 200,000 of it's U.S. workers a $1000 bonus and increasing it's capital spending (read: jobs) by $1 billion

Comcast is also doing the same with it's non-executive employees.

Wells Fargo is raising it's minimum wage to $15/hr as welll as a bonus and $400 million in donations to non-profit and community organizations.

Several other companies are following suit.

All in reaction to the passage of the corporate tax rate cut.


https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/tax-reform-reaction-att-is-giving-bonuses-to-200000-employees.html

And come next November, when the economy is in hyperdrive and most Americans are taking home more money in their paychecks, they can be reminded that not a single Democrat voted for this.



 

Supafly

Retired Mod
Bronze Member
animus, you report there are american companies now handing out 1.000 dollar bonuses for their workers, and think this is some pay raise?

You are falling for a classic trick. That is what management LOVES to do when they want to get the workers on their side, but not do any actual substantual raise. A singele handout, and no permanent raise is worth jack shit. Raise payment of all lowest-earning 80% of your workers, and we are talking.

But I have the feeling that won't happen.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Anyone that gets excited over the prospect of an extra $1000 (or $5000!!, for that matter), really illustrates how broke they truly are.
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Not picking a dog in this fight, xfire - cause I don't have enough facts to go on yet. But yeah, Americans really are that broke. A Bankrate survey found that 63% of Americans didn't have enough savings to cover a $500 emergency. Only 28% had enough in savings to cover 6 months or more of expenses. The minimum emergency savings level suggested by most financial planners is 3-6 months of expenses.

Like I said above, I haven't read through the particulars of this bill yet. I know that the majority of the focus is on corporate taxes (the permanent cuts), and yes, it does seem that what's on the individual side is more of an afterthought (they're largely temporary). Personally, I was hoping to see an expansion of the HSA provision, since more companies are choosing high deductible health insurance policies for their employees. That would have at least allowed employees to use the HSA money to fully pay for deductibles (with pre-tax money) that are commonly $5,500+ for individuals (HSA limit for individuals is currently $3450 for 2018) and $11,000+ for families (HSA limit to be $6900). But they didn't do that, yet they did (the last draft that I read) maintain the carried interest provision, which ONLY benefits hedge funds and private equity managers. So there are certainly some screwy things about this bill. But net/net, I don't have a feel for how much benefit middle class Americans will get from this legislation. At a certain income level, taxpayers with children don't pay federal income taxes anyway. They do have withholding, but one would have to judge their net benefits by how much more (or less) their refunds are in the future compared to now.
 
animus, you report there are american companies now handing out 1.000 dollar bonuses for their workers, and think this is some pay raise?

You are falling for a classic trick. That is what management LOVES to do when they want to get the workers on their side, but not do any actual substantual raise. A singele handout, and no permanent raise is worth jack shit. Raise payment of all lowest-earning 80% of your workers, and we are talking.

But I have the feeling that won't happen.

As was mentioned in that article several companies are raising their minimum wage to $15/hr on top of bonuses, and when that happens those on higher pay rungs get bumped up proportionally as well. And when a company increases X amount of billions in capital spending, that not only includes more jobs but higher wages as they have to pay more to keep the good employees they have as there are more options in the job market. I've seen it firsthand.

As President Trump said, regardless of what the naysayers or even the proponents say, the results will speak for itself. The media can't lie about what's in your bank account.

$1000 is hardly chump change for most folks but if you work for a company that offers profit sharing - you ain't seen nothing yet.

I love that private sector free market. Capitalism fucking rules.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Not picking a dog in this fight, xfire - cause I don't have enough facts to go on yet. But yeah, Americans really are that broke. A Bankrate survey found that 63% of Americans didn't have enough savings to cover a $500 emergency. Only 28% had enough in savings to cover 6 months or more of expenses. The minimum emergency savings level suggested by most financial planners is 3-6 months of expenses.

Like I said above, I haven't read through the particulars of this bill yet. I know that the majority of the focus is on corporate taxes (the permanent cuts), and yes, it does seem that what's on the individual side is more of an afterthought (they're largely temporary). Personally, I was hoping to see an expansion of the HSA provision, since more companies are choosing high deductible health insurance policies for their employees. That would have at least allowed employees to use the HSA money to fully pay for deductibles (with pre-tax money) that are commonly $5,500+ for individuals (HSA limit for individuals is currently $3450 for 2018) and $11,000+ for families (HSA limit to be $6900). But they didn't do that, yet they did (the last draft that I read) maintain the carried interest provision, which ONLY benefits hedge funds and private equity managers. So there are certainly some screwy things about this bill. But net/net, I don't have a feel for how much benefit middle class Americans will get from this legislation. At a certain income level, taxpayers with children don't pay federal income taxes anyway. They do have withholding, but one would have to judge their net benefits by how much more (or less) their refunds are in the future compared to now.

Naw, I don't perceive that as picking a fight, it really just illustrates the point I was making. An extra $1k seems like a windfall to most people, but it's really just chump change and is useful for distracting the broken masses from the real money being pilfered by this tax bill.
 


What is the 'Laffer Curve'

The Laffer Curve is a theory developed by supply-side economist Arthur Laffer to show the relationship between tax rates and the amount of tax revenue collected by governments. The curve is used to illustrate Laffer’s main premise that the more an activity such as production is taxed, the less of it is generated. Likewise, the less an activity is taxed, the more of it is generated.

The Laffer Curve Explained

The first presentation of the Laffer Curve was performed on a paper napkin back in 1974, when its author was speaking with senior staff members of President Gerald Ford’s administration about the state of economic malaise that had engulfed the country. At the time, most economists were espousing a Keynesian approach to solving the problem, which advocated more government spending to stimulate demand for products. Laffer countered that the problem isn’t too little demand. Rather, it was the burden of heavy taxes and regulations that created impediments to production, which impacts government revenue.

Laffer argues that the more money taken from a business in the form of taxes, the less money it has to invest in the business. A business is more likely to find ways to protect its capital from taxation, or to relocate all or a part of its operations overseas. Investors are less likely to risk their own capital if a larger percentage of their profits are taken. When workers see increasing portion of their paychecks taken due to increased efforts on their part, they will lose the incentive to work harder. For every type of tax, there is a threshold rate above which the incentive to produce more diminishes, thereby reducing the amount of revenue the government receives.

The theory later became a cornerstone of President Ronald Reagan’s economic policy, which resulted in one of the biggest tax cuts in history. During his time in office, tax revenues received by the government increased from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988.

Laffer Curve https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp#ixzz521UHa9HC
 
Top