-
Taxes
If you are a partner in a PP, does anyone know if the new tax plan, if passed, would tax you as a wage earner or pass through entity?
-
204 Replies
-
You can bet, as a partner in a PP, that none of the benefits of the new tax plan will go to you.
-
Agree.
You can bet as a doctor no regulation, no matter who passes it, will benefit you.
-
The new pass through income tax does not apply to health care professionals or lawyers. Another way to to help the super rich but not us.
In fact, you are likely to pay MORE on your income taxes if you look at the new brackets.
Yay! Go Trump!
-
-
-
Anybody know if income from owning an imaging center will qualify?
Im sure professional payments wont, but what about on the technical side?
-
Not so sure… I was reading that they may say you cant claim pass through if income is greater than 500k so if you stay below that…..
I dont think they can specifically target certain professions for exclusion, so that may be the work around, followed by several loopholes and exclusions for the super rich.
But I agree this plan is shite and hopefully will die in compromise process. Particularly shameful is what they are proposing to do to graduate students.
-
The plan isnt final yet
Anything now is just speculation
-
Quote from kpack123
The plan isnt final yet
Anything now is just speculation
[link=http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pass-through-taxes-20171103-story.html]http://www.latimes.com/bu…es-20171103-story.html[/link]
For now:
” the bill makes it very difficult for lawyers, engineers, doctors, consultants and other personal services providers, who make up a good share of small businesses, to qualify for the 25% rate.”
-
Quote from dergon
Quote from kpack123
The plan isnt final yet
Anything now is just speculation
[link=http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pass-through-taxes-20171103-story.html]http://www.latimes.com/bu…es-20171103-story.html[/link]
For now:
” the bill makes it very difficult for lawyers, engineers, doctors, consultants and other personal services providers, who make up a good share of small businesses, to qualify for the 25% rate.”
Any impact on S-corp?-
Ive been advised to pay the January installment of estimated state taxes before the New Year so that its still deductible; same with any property tax youd otherwise pay early next year. Some of my partners voted for the President – in spite of their strong feeling that he is unfit for office – because they thought he would help lower our taxes at the expense of those who make less than us. As such, I find poetic justice and some schadenfreude in their current dismay of not being the beneficiaries of the proposed legislation.
-
Not much in the “tax reform” for most radiologists, probably negative as a whole. Loss of individual mandate will lead to increased uninsured, which will hurt hospital bottom line, which of course, they will take out on employees. On the private practice side, they are specifically excluding physicians from using s corp pass through.
With loss of SALT deduction, if you’re state tax is over 5% and/or you have high property taxes (over 20K per year), you will likely end up even to down. If you live in state without state tax like FL or TX, you will likely make and extra 2%.
One of the worst aspects is the loss of SALT will make the taxes on all capital gains higher, since previously, you could deduct the state tax, now you have to pay it without deduction. For example, 23.8 federal plus 5% state for long term capital gains would have previously had the state deductible, now we lose that, so anyone with any kind of state tax, which is most of us, will pay more on capital gains.
It’s very difficult to get over the standard deduction of 24K with loss of SALT. The possible 10K salt allowance doesnt help in getting itemized unless you have a huge mortgage or charitable givings.
Amazing, how much more complex the tax code is getting. I’ve been doing my taxes myself for a decade, and this is making it much more cumbersome-
Texas makes up for no income tax with abhorrently high property tax. The loss of that deduction will hurt many doctors in Texas significantly. It has been established that Trump has no love for doctors.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
How high are property taxes in tx in
Most desirable counties ?
State income tax hurts far more than property taxes. My ratio is 3:1 and Im both in a high income tax state and a high local property tax jurisdiction.-
This bill is really terrible for us so why not call your senator or representative and voice your opposition before its too late?
-
Because nobody cares. The Senate is not here to represent you, its to make certain people more wealthy. In particular, for this year, they must pass something and make it look like a halfway decent bill. Despite the fact that the bill sucks, Trump and Republicans must ask something no matter how much of a mirage it is
-
here in NYC, for me…..loss of SALT and property tax deduction is MEANINGLESS.
Has been for several years, since the AMT has entrapped me and totally negated those deductions.
Bottom line, if the AMT is really repealed is a possible minimal decrease in the top rate, with the refiguring of the brackets. As someone above said, anything now is just speculation-
Aside from SALT, real estate taxes, mortgage loan interest, what are other big ticket deductions?
Are any of these phased out once you hit a certain income level? I know that my salary as a resident significant limited how much I could deduct with respect to student loans
-
Charitable donations, professional education and maintenance (not reimbursed by employer) such as meetings, cme, travel for meetings, licensure, home office (very legit for radiologists)
-
the big ones are SALT, property taxes, mortgage. The first two more so than mortgage as that was always capped at 1 mil and in the current era of sub 4% interest loans, that at most is worth 4 k a year. Compared with State income taxes of beweeen 25k and 80k, it’ sa drop in the bucket. Property taxes can be anywhere from 5-50k depending on size and municipality/county/state.
-
@drgl yes. You need to get out of amt first. Your salary must have been low vis a vis deductions. Need about 6 combined spousal income to fully deduct about 70 of salt. Below that , amt negates some if not all of the deductions.
-
Bill is not reconciled yet but childcare and healtcare fsa also possibly eliminated. Moreover, the individual tax changes may only be temporary. When the tax reform expires, I would guess many will lose favorable deductions and brackets.
In regards to why we dont contact our local congressman, as poster above noted, they dont care. This is paid for and supports big corporations, not individuals or small business-
Quote from lk
In regards to why we dont contact our local congressman, as poster above noted, they dont care. This is paid for and supports big corporations, not individuals or small business
Yep. Below 30% popularity (like the ACA repeal) … and the GOP [b]does … not … care[/b]. This is a once in a generation opportunity to reward their true constituency of corporations and the ultra-wealthy. They aren’t going to let a bit of public disapproval get in the way.
-
-
-
Quote from wisdom
the big ones are SALT, property taxes, mortgage. The first two more so than mortgage as that was always capped at 1 mil and in the current era of sub 4% interest loans, that at most is worth 4 k a year. Compared with State income taxes of beweeen 25k and 80k, it’ sa drop in the bucket. Property taxes can be anywhere from 5-50k depending on size and municipality/county/state.
SALT, mortgage interest deduction and property tax deductions should all be eliminated.
Why should a Texan pay for a Californian’s state tax?
Why should a renter pay for a McMansion owners mortgage interest or property tax?-
One could also argue for the elimination of charitable deductions.
Why should the Gates, Buffets, Kochs, Soros’s of the world direct money to their own issues, at the expense of greater taxes for the government (to spend wisely!?)-
Because this has been the law forever and people have made long lasting decisions based on these laws. If you want to vote a gradual phase out to take place over years to come , Im more on board w that.
On a similar subject, who I should someone from Michigan have to pay for a border wall with Mexico ? I dont give a squat about it living in the north , Midwest , etc.
-
Here is an analysis of the impact of the two bills (which may or may not reflect the final law) on Bloomberg.
[link=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-13/a-tale-of-two-tax-bills-how-you-d-fare-from-manhattan-to-malibu]https://www.bloomberg.com…om-manhattan-to-malibu[/link]
It is worth noting that of the 16 permutations calculated, only 3 result in increased taxes and they are to the ‘millionaires’. Everyone else received a tax cut, until the individual reductions phase out in 9ish years.
-
Flat tax of 25%. No loopholes or deductions. At all. Only foodstamps, subsidized housing, and free healthcare for the very poor. Medicare at 65 of course. There. Fixed it. Too bad nobody will listen to me.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Closer to 2-2.2% property tax in bigger Texas cities.
[attachment=0]
[link=https://taxfoundation.org/how-high-are-property-taxes-your-state/]https://taxfoundation.org…erty-taxes-your-state/[/link]
[link=https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/proptax10_income_0.pdf]https://files.taxfoundati…proptax10_income_0.pdf[/link]
The Tax Foundation found that homeowners in these states paid the most in property taxes:
[ol][*]New Jersey – 2.38 percent [*]Illinois – 2.32 percent [*]New Hampshire – 2.15 percent [*]Connecticut – 1.98 percent [*]Wisconsin – 1.96 percent [*]Texas – 1.90 percent [*]Nebraska – 1.84 percent [*]Michigan – 1.78 percent [*]Vermont – 1.71 percent [*]Rhode Island – 1.67 percent [/ol]
-
-
Funny thing is this awful bill will likely pass. And barely a peep being made about childrens health insurance getting renewed. Merry Christmas everyone.
-
It was silly for any radiologist to vote for Trump thinking there would be some benefit tax wise. Fundamentally, the W2 high earning professionals is where the government gets all their money from. Half the population doesn’t even pay federal income taxes. Our system rewards investment income, not earned income.
-
I thought the liberals would like this plan.
You high salaried radiologists are not paying your
fair share of taxes in the first place. Any tax plan
should have you paying more as a starter. Why should you pay
less taxes than your secretaries? You always rant about higher
taxes on the wealthy and you are getting it. You are the wealthy.
Hilarious that the liberal radiologists are complaining that the proposed tax plan does not benefit radiologists.-
Yeah. Hilarious.
-
Quote from Ben Casey
I thought the liberals would like this plan.
You high salaried radiologists are not paying your
fair share of taxes in the first place. Any tax plan
should have you paying more as a starter. Why should you pay
less taxes than your secretaries? You always rant about higher
taxes on the wealthy and you are getting it. You are the wealthy.
Hilarious that the liberal radiologists are complaining that the proposed tax plan does not benefit radiologists.
I don’t want a tax cut or need one. I also didn’t vote for Trump- no intelligent and honest person could.
Inequality is getting obscene. It gets worse the higher up you go.
Lets repeal the inheritance tax to save farmers! lol NOT -Waltons get 50 billion-
Lets go back to the feudalism of the middle ages- no plutocratic Rome- the ultimate example of extreme inequality and its ultimate end.-
Perhaps the problem is that a significant proportion of our society secretly believes in the *principle* of inequality – i.e. so long as they can imagine themselves in the successful upper crust, they would like to not care about supporting the ‘poor’ majority (relatively speaking).
Yet in daily life they still belong to the ‘poor’ majority, and so their commitment to this principle of inequality is put to the test as they are the ones trampled underfoot and taking it up the a** while being told that they should blame themselves for not pulling themselves up by the bootstraps and not wasting their money. Cognitive dissonance ensues.-
I find it astonishing (not really) that presumably highly educated individuals never fail to stoop to ad hominem attacks…indicating abdication of reasonable discourse, and thus immediately losing their argument.
ie, ‘no intelligent or honest person could”… consigning 63 million of your fellow americans to that well known “basket”.
If you want more Trump, this is how you get more Trump
I wish people would compete with ideas, not insults-
Quote from drgl
I find it astonishing (not really) that presumably highly educated individuals never fail to stoop to ad hominem attacks…indicating abdication of reasonable discourse, and thus immediately losing their argument.
ie, ‘no intelligent or honest person could”… consigning 63 million of your fellow americans to that well known “basket”.
If you want more Trump, this is how you get more Trump
I wish people would compete with ideas, not insults
I apologize, the quote was rather harsh and should not apply to the uneducated masses. The plebs are often led astray by demagogues. The statement does apply to radiologists however. Radiologists should know better.
-
It’s laughable to imply the coastal states adversely affected by this blatantly partisan tax bill don’t already pay their fair share of federal taxes, considering it is the midwest and southern federal welfare red states that take in more federal revenue than they give.
-
Upon reading these comments and trying to learn–I do have a question:
Why do people insist on using “liberal” as an insult (“You Liberal Radiologists”? Why do we have to use political labels to discuss a policy, rather than just discuss the policy?
I am very unclear what “liberal” or “conservative” even mean in the scheme of these discussions. Can someone please define them for me? I am asking sincerely, and not trolling here.
Finally–I’d love some discussion on their thinking about role of government in society–and tied in, the role of taxes of funding government? That may be where “liberal” and “conservative” differ most, but I’m still unclear what it all means. Thanks. -
Quote from deadwing
It’s laughable to imply the coastal states adversely affected by this blatantly partisan tax bill don’t already pay their fair share of federal taxes, considering it is the midwest and southern federal welfare red states that take in more federal revenue than they give.
The only way you can arrive at that conclusion is by counting military and transportation spending as ‘federal welfare’ when neither of them are. Transportation funds are spent on things like interstates because they benefit the country as a whole.
Fun to look at how different states burn through federal money.
Medicaid spending per aged enrolee (KFF data):
NYS $20,888
DE $21,255
PA $20,787
AL $7,987
SC $7,051
GA $6,162
As for non-defense direct federal payments to states, it doesn’t really bear out yor statement either (US Census, statistical abstract):
Top takers: Connecticut $9,447 Kentucky $7,146 Maryland $6954
least : Alaska $3684 Utah $4,181 Nevada $4,335
Bbbbut the NY Times told me its the other way around…….
-
“Why should a hard working rad grinding it out daily like myself have to pay more so that Amazon and Apple can take in even more money? ”
Mr Amazon and Mr Apple arent making more money, but there is the possibility of real people doing so.
Does your 401k own any stocks?? if so, then YOU could benefit from lower corprate tax rate.
Will the government be better taxing 20% of 100 billion, or 39% of zero, if the capital stays abroad. That extra money would come in handy.
Maybe, just maybe apple/amazon would use that money to invest and hire folks in america, rather than Ireland and elsewhere.
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Flounce
Perhaps the problem is that a significant proportion of our society secretly believes in the *principle* of inequality – i.e. so long as they can imagine themselves in the successful upper crust, they would like to not care about supporting the ‘poor’ majority (relatively speaking).
Yet in daily life they still belong to the ‘poor’ majority, and so their commitment to this principle of inequality is put to the test as they are the ones trampled underfoot and taking it up the a** while being told that they should blame themselves for not pulling themselves up by the bootstraps and not wasting their money. Cognitive dissonance ensues.I agree. “Build a wall” really tapped into the uneducated blue collar white man’s desire to look down on someone else. I have seen it in my own extended family.
-
-
-
-
Quote from yesterdaysnews
It was silly for any radiologist to vote for Trump thinking there would be some benefit tax wise. Fundamentally, the W2 high earning professionals is where the government gets all their money from. Half the population doesn’t even pay federal income taxes. Our system rewards investment income, not earned income.
Doesn’t seem like either party give’s a rat’s a$$ about our finances. We aren’t wealthy enough for the republican plan to benefit us and we are too wealthy for any democratic plan to help us, so pick your poison-
A radiologist being taxed more to bring tax relief to those who earn less would be one thing; being taxed more to enrich those who earn much more than us is something else altogether.
-
Quote from Flounce
A radiologist being taxed more to bring tax relief to those who earn less would be one thing; being taxed more to enrich those who earn much more than us is something else altogether.
Fair point but won’t many middle-class families also receive tax cuts? Quick google search gives a mixed picture which seems greatly influenced by political ideology of the source
On a side note why do states like CA/NY/NJ have such high state income taxes? Where does this money go?-
Quote from jd4540
Fair point but won’t many middle-class families also receive tax cuts? Quick google search gives a mixed picture which seems greatly influenced by political ideology of the source
THIS.
I have basically given up trying to understand what is in complex legislation any more because I simply can’t trust any analystst to give me a complete, unbiased, picture.
Does anyone have a site they go to that is accurate?
(BTW: failed attempted troll by bencasey. Proper response by all here.)
-
Quote from Dr.Sardonicus
Quote from jd4540
Fair point but won’t many middle-class families also receive tax cuts? Quick google search gives a mixed picture which seems greatly influenced by political ideology of the source
THIS.
I have basically given up trying to understand what is in complex legislation any more because I simply can’t trust any analystst to give me a complete, unbiased, picture.
Does anyone have a site they go to that is accurate?(BTW: failed attempted troll by bencasey. Proper response by all here.)
Typical lazy response.
Democratic talking point for years has been that the wealthy don’t pay their fair
share of taxes. So explain why wealthy radiologists are complaining that the proposed
tax plan will not benefit wealthy radiologists. When liberals have no answer the playbook says to name call (troll, racist).
BTW you can get a complete, unbiased picture
if you loose the lazy attitude and do some research or study and learn about legislation yourself. -
In reply to jd4540
“On a side note why do states like CA/NY/NJ have such high state income taxes? Where does this money go? ”From CA and NY standpoint (not sure of NJ) I have intimate knowledge of both of these states. Where does the money go, I’m not sure specifically but they are GREAT places to live and thus the two largest populace states. As result they can charge more as the infrastructure to handle large populations (presumably where people want to live and work) is greater. More road miles infrastructure, more maintenance of infrastructure , more police and fire fighters needed. Presumably where there are lots of people there are lots of jobs.
With increased tax bill (above and beyond current ) without SALT market economy would presume there would be greater number of people that would leave. The large companies are having taxes reduced and thus presume jobs will not leave these states
Where does the money go, again not sure but quality of life living in these regions for those that live there apparently has been worth a certain tax bill. I once spoke to a very wealthy (00001%) individual from a foreign country who stated that his tax bill in the US was infinitely higher (20% capital gains) than that of his home country (essentially zero) and he happily pays as he can drive and go out anytime he wants and will likely be alive tomorrow, as opposed to,having to live behind a wall in his home and possibility of something bad occurring every time he walks out the fortified wall. He mentioned the only parts of his home country he sees is the road to and from the airport to his home.
In summary comfort, safety, self perceived QOL has a cost and that cost is market driven, the more people who,want or,live,somewhere the more the local can tax. We will see if this potential change in tax hit is sufficient to drive some to migrate to lower tax states. If there is an exodus and shift to other states those states will have power to increase there tax in th future as well. As an aside this also will,likely change the traditional voting demographics, look at North Carolina. Deep South state that is now increasingly purple state (red state and blue state mix)
-
Quote from xraydoc69
In reply to jd4540
“On a side note why do states like CA/NY/NJ have such high state income taxes? Where does this money go? ”From CA and NY standpoint (not sure of NJ) I have intimate knowledge of both of these states. Where does the money go, I’m not sure specifically but they are GREAT places to live and thus the two largest populace states. As result they can charge more as the infrastructure to handle large populations (presumably where people want to live and work) is greater. More road miles infrastructure, more maintenance of infrastructure , more police and fire fighters needed. Presumably where there are lots of people there are lots of jobs.
With increased tax bill (above and beyond current ) without SALT market economy would presume there would be greater number of people that would leave. The large companies are having taxes reduced and thus presume jobs will not leave these states
Where does the money go, again not sure but quality of life living in these regions for those that live there apparently has been worth a certain tax bill. I once spoke to a very wealthy (00001%) individual from a foreign country who stated that his tax bill in the US was infinitely higher (20% capital gains) than that of his home country (essentially zero) and he happily pays as he can drive and go out anytime he wants and will likely be alive tomorrow, as opposed to,having to live behind a wall in his home and possibility of something bad occurring every time he walks out the fortified wall. He mentioned the only parts of his home country he sees is the road to and from the airport to his home.
In summary comfort, safety, self perceived QOL has a cost and that cost is market driven, the more people who,want or,live,somewhere the more the local can tax. We will see if this potential change in tax hit is sufficient to drive some to migrate to lower tax states. If there is an exodus and shift to other states those states will have power to increase there tax in th future as well. As an aside this also will,likely change the traditional voting demographics, look at North Carolina. Deep South state that is now increasingly purple state (red state and blue state mix)
Thanks for the detailed response. It almost sounds like supply and demand. I would agree that QOL out in CA is great but a lot of this has to do with weather, friendly people, and vast pretty geography. Infrastructure (such as bridges/roads) is fairly good but also easier to maintain given less extreme weather. I would also think that simply having much larger populations and more people to pay taxes, there wouldn’t be a need to be such a higher rate. I guess its subjective but I would say that QOL in NY (specifically NYC and Long Island) and NJ (northern) is not as clear cut as in CA. NYC traffic/homelessness seems to get worse each time I visit. Have friends of friends where couples both making 6 figures are getting priced out of NYC. Subway system needs major overall. Have family in NJ and despite high taxes (specifically property), the local middle schools don’t offer any team sports so families need to pay out of pocket for their kids to participate and also have to deal with traveling etc. NJ roads/tunnels (despite tolls) aren’t that great. Finally having lived in a college town in a state with mid/lower level of income tax, I did not notice a drop in QOL but again guess this is subjective to some extent.
-
Quote from xraydoc69
In reply to jd4540
“On a side note why do states like CA/NY/NJ have such high state income taxes? Where does this money go? ”From CA and NY standpoint (not sure of NJ) I have intimate knowledge of both of these states. Where does the money go, I’m not sure specifically but they are GREAT places to live and thus the two largest populace states. As result they can charge more as the infrastructure to handle large populations (presumably where people want to live and work) is greater. More road miles infrastructure, more maintenance of infrastructure , more police and fire fighters needed. Presumably where there are lots of people there are lots of jobs.
With increased tax bill (above and beyond current ) without SALT market economy would presume there would be greater number of people that would leave. The large companies are having taxes reduced and thus presume jobs will not leave these states
Where does the money go, again not sure but quality of life living in these regions for those that live there apparently has been worth a certain tax bill. I once spoke to a very wealthy (00001%) individual from a foreign country who stated that his tax bill in the US was infinitely higher (20% capital gains) than that of his home country (essentially zero) and he happily pays as he can drive and go out anytime he wants and will likely be alive tomorrow, as opposed to,having to live behind a wall in his home and possibility of something bad occurring every time he walks out the fortified wall. He mentioned the only parts of his home country he sees is the road to and from the airport to his home.
In summary comfort, safety, self perceived QOL has a cost and that cost is market driven, the more people who,want or,live,somewhere the more the local can tax. We will see if this potential change in tax hit is sufficient to drive some to migrate to lower tax states. If there is an exodus and shift to other states those states will have power to increase there tax in th future as well. As an aside this also will,likely change the traditional voting demographics, look at North Carolina. Deep South state that is now increasingly purple state (red state and blue state mix)
If your radiology reports ramble as much as your posts your job is in jeopardy.
-
-
-
Quote from jd4540
On a side note why do states like CA/NY/NJ have such high state income taxes? Where does this money go?
#1 Overly generous state medicaid programs that are not eligible for the full federal match.
#2 Absurdly overpaid public employees with platinum healthcare and golden parachute pensions after short periods of service.The rest gets pissed away on moonbeam projects, climate change and corporate welfare to well connected political friends.
-
5 ways the plan benefits the very wealthy disproportionately:
1) Higher-income taxpayers will get the largest tax cuts: Taxpayers in the top 1% defined as those making over $730,000 would receive 20% of the total tax cut. They’d get an average cut of $37,000, which translates to about 2.4% of their after-tax income.
2) Estate tax
3) AMT
4) Carried interest loophole remains
5) Corporate tax cut primarily benefits shareholders, who are disproportionately wealthy.
_____
On the other side of the coin the middle/working class likely to get screwed via:
Increased health insurance premiums due to ACA mandate repeal and …. (you’ll have to wait until later in 2018 but ) …
Big cuts to entitlement spending that will now be “necessary” because of the worsening of the deficit caused by the legislation.
-
My income is well over $730,000 and running the numbers
for the senate plan would keep my effective tax rate about
the same as it is currently.
I could list more ways that middle/working class get screwed
by the current tax code.
Please describe the tax plan doesn’t disproportionately negatively
effect the middle class compared to the ultra rich.
Flat tax?
VAT?
Taxing the ultra rich 100% would not solve the problem.-
Quote from Ben Casey
My income is well over $730,000 and running the numbers
for the senate plan would keep my effective tax rate about
the same as it is currently.
I could list more ways that middle/working class get screwed
by the current tax code.
Please describe the tax plan doesn’t disproportionately negatively
effect the middle class compared to the ultra rich.
Flat tax?
VAT?
Taxing the ultra rich 100% would not solve the problem.There’s not going to much help to the middle class here but keep in mind it also goes away for anyone making under $75k in just a couple years. Paul Ryan’s GOP use case is something like single mom is going to get an extra $700 bucks. That’s not much to someone who’s making next to nothing anyway. The trickle down theory doesn’t work either. Corporations aren’t going to hire people. Profit, Profit, Profit and more Profit is what they want.
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
There’s not going to much help to the middle class here but keep in mind it also goes away for anyone making under $75k in just a couple years.
Just like the AMT, the SGR and the debt ceiling, this increase will beemporarly fixed fixed with 23rd hour law every time it comes up for renewal (except of course if the democrats get back in power, for them 110k is ‘rich’ and they just cant wait to stick it to those bowler hat wearing capitalists). -
If anyone ever gets elected who really does intend on sticking it to bowler hat wearing capitalists rather than wage slaves like us…watch out.
-
Quote from fw
Quote from DICOM_Dan
There’s not going to much help to the middle class here but keep in mind it also goes away for anyone making under $75k in just a couple years.
Just like the AMT, the SGR and the debt ceiling, this increase will beemporarly fixed fixed with 23rd hour law every time it comes up for renewal (except of course if the democrats get back in power, for them 110k is ‘rich’ and they just cant wait to stick it to those bowler hat wearing capitalists).
I don’t think it’s the person making $110K, $220k, $300k. Rather the person that that shreds a company and get’s a golden parachute of $50million. or Warren Buffet who makes more money than all the Physicians in Ohio (not sure what the real number is but exaggerating to make the point on how astoundingly wealthy he is).
-
-
Leftists would find a way to complain about a tax plan regardless of what was being advanced. I promise, if Trump had raised taxes on corporation, Leftists would be spitting and shrieking about how he was destroying the economy by disincentivizing growth (which, of course, he would be).
I also find it funny that Dergon characterizes Republicans (which I am not, FWIW) as being the party for corporations. [link]https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php[/link]
More to say when I’m on a computer.
-
Assumptions.
-
Quote from Jan the Third
Leftists would find a way to complain about a tax plan regardless of what was being advanced. I promise, if Trump had raised taxes on corporation, Leftists would be spitting and shrieking about how he was destroying the economy by disincentivizing growth (which, of course, he would be).
If the complaints against the current tax plans are legitimate, what leftists complain about in some other hypothetical situation is irrelevant. -
NY is highly overrated. The best parts of the state are those that aren't blue – i.e. those with nature and normal people. Those who glowingly review NYC living are, in my opinion, trying not so much to convince others, but to convince themselves. "The city that never sleeps" applies strictly to Midtown (and how many adults are wandering about at 3am >1x/month, anyway?). Rent prices are terrible – ~1400/month + utilities WITH roommates… and at that price, having a decent living space is no guarantee. Roaches, mice, and rats are real problems. Not much more variety in food options than one has in a small city. Etc. Except for those in high finance/law (which almost necessitate living in a huge city), almost every young person I've known who lives or has lived in NYC is or was there looking to find a long-term partner and get the hell out of Dodge.
-
@flounce, wisdom, etc.
The tax plan is flawed, and I would have been significantly less obliging toward corporations/Big Money/however one would like to view them. I have extremely little respect and lots of contempt for Wall Street, as it eats up what’s produced by Small Town America, chews it up, and spits out mangled remains in return. IMO. Corporations are also no friends to the populist Right or the American working class; if they could fire American workers and replace them with immigrants at half-wage, they’d do so in a minute. Trump knows this. In my view, this tax plan is an honest attempt to create growth in the country. Combined with the individualized trade deals he’s made overseas and the liberation of American energy production *as* we improve upon technology for renewable energy sources. Not to mention the extrication (or protection) of America from international climate deals that would place us at a significant relative disadvantage.
Like him or not, Trump is attempting to facilitate an American renaissance. He’s not getting everything right. Too involved overseas, not harsh enough on immigration, and so on. But it’s a decent start.
-
Politics brings out all the nuts on this board.
Other than paying property taxes due in feb now and paying estimated state tax in dec, anyone else have some good ideas for the potential tax reform? It seems for w2 workers there arent many options (other than moving to tx or fl). -
That only works if you are not subject to AMT.
-
Fortunate not to be hit by amt. Seems like the taxman cometh.
At least v rads and other large corporate rads may get lower taxes and put us all out of business by undercutting us[;)] -
As one of my less intelligent friends says, NY is for the young and the rich, preferably you are both.
-
Quote from NYC
As one of my less intelligent friends says, NY is for the young and the rich, preferably you are both.
Rich is the key. Living in family owned upscale real estate in Manhattan makes it much more enjoyable (having grown up on LI and seeing this in my wealthy friends)
-
I’ve lived in Manhattan my whole life and love the energy. Can’t imagine living in the suburbs. I go out all the time. Theatre, concerts, rangers, knicks, Yankees are all short cab, subway or bike ride away. Not a big Springsteen fan but saw his Broadway show recently and he was pretty amazing. If your routine is going to work, going home and watching tv every night NYC is not for you.
-
Do you have a family? That changed the equation for me. I enjoy the city life but am happy in my new money suburban bubble while I raise my kids…. almost no crime, good schools, other people in a similar stage of life, reasonable cost of living. I would not trade it right now to live in NYC or any other city.
-
Quote from Ben Casey
I've lived in Manhattan my whole life and love the energy. Can't imagine living in the suburbs. I go out all the time. Theatre, concerts, rangers, knicks, Yankees are all short cab, subway or bike ride away. Not a big Springsteen fan but saw his Broadway show recently and he was pretty amazing. If your routine is going to work, going home and watching tv every night NYC is not for you.
Luckily, they have these things called hotels in NYC. If my wife needs a weekend of city life, I load the family in the plane and hit the –> D button for Teterboro.
-
Despite the fact that I am a high earning partner in PP radiology, I don’t think I could afford to give the same quality of life to my kids in NYC as I can in a suburb. Other may be able to, kudos!
-
Funny how preferences vary so widely, which is a good thing. Im a city person but would only live in NYC if I couldnt find a job anywhere else in the country. My wife has siblings there but she cant stand it there either – even for a short trip – so weve only visited them once in the past decade.
-
Indeed, individual preferences vary, and should be respected by all.
I was born and raised in NYC, but immediately moved to the suburbs at age 4 for child, to take advantage of excellent public schools, avoid the appalling nightmare of enrolling and attending NYC private schools… and to have a “freer” lifestyle for the kid.
We moved back into NYC at college time.
However, we always had an escape hatch, ie, small mountain house upstate on a trout stream… purchased as a fellow in 1983 for the grand total of 42,000 (5% down, ie, 2k). Without that, for me, NYC would be too claustrophobic. Fortunately, it was a different time back then, probably not possible for young rads now to do the same. -
Quote from drgl
Indeed, individual preferences vary, and should be respected by all.
I was born and raised in NYC, but immediately moved to the suburbs at age 4 for child, to take advantage of excellent public schools, avoid the appalling nightmare of enrolling and attending NYC private schools… and to have a “freer” lifestyle for the kid.NYC is one of the few places left where people don’t call the police if they see a couple of elementary school kids on their way to activities without a hovering parent nearby. More freedom to grow up as a kid than in the burbs where every piano lesson requires a parent or babysitter to do the driving.
If you have the money or connections to get your kids into the right schools, it’s a great place to raise kids. -
Haha, buying a house for $42k. What a time that must have been.
-
-
[b]Inflation Causes IRS to Raise Tax Brackets[/b][/h1]
The Internal Revenue Service adjusted key tax code parameters for 2023 to reflect higher inflation, raising the standard deduction and the income thresholds where tax rates take effect, the [link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/inflation-causes-irs-to-raise-tax-brackets-standard-deduction-by-7-11666116021?mod=djemalertNEWS]Wall Street Journal[/link] reports.
The 37% top marginal tax rate will apply to individual income above $578,125 and married couples income above $693,750 next year, as those thresholds go up 7% from 2022 under inflation adjustments announced by the agency on Tuesday.
The standard deduction will climb to $27,700 for married couples and $13,850 for individuals, both also up about 7% from this year, letting taxpayers shield more of their earnings from income taxes.
-
-
@fw
Way to sneak in responsible living (aka climate change ) in there. Thats the least of the issue with spending The other parts you pointed out are the crux of the matter. We, as physicians, do derive a small benefit from slightly better Medicaid and care payments, but we also pay for it via taxes.-
Quote from wisdom
@fw
Way to sneak in responsible living (aka climate change ) in there. Thats the least of the issue with spending The other parts you pointed out are the crux of the matter. We, as physicians, do derive a small benefit from slightly better Medicaid and care payments, but we also pay for it via taxes.
Just going off the partisan LA Times article here. Proposed California budget:
60B for medi-Cal
50B for poorly performing overpaid public school teachers
15B for liberal college professors and overpaid janitors in the UC system
14B to house mexican prison gangs and the aryan brotherhood
13B for overpaid state-troopers and to build the moonbeam
California is a great place to live because it has mountains, beaches and great weather. None of these things were made with taxpayer money. I tried to drive from Santa Monica to San Diego on a weekday, it sure isn’t a great place for its roadways.
As for NY state, there is very little that makes it a livable place. If it wasn’t for a constant influx of immigrants into NYC, the place would depopulate rapidly. The taxes have been unbearable for decades, even Seinfeld made a joke about it:[i] My parents didn’t want to move to Florida, but they turned sixty and that’s the law. [/i]
[i]
[/i]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-11/gop-s-taxing-question-will-middle-class-folks-notice-their-cut]The middle class won’t even notice their tax cut.[/url]
If the amount of the cut for the middle/working class is so small as to not be economically significant while at the same time the bulk of the cut is a deficit-financed giveaway to the the ultra rich and corporations who simply pass that cut onto shareholders, it is disingenuous in the extreme to label the plan a “middle class tax cut”.
-
Where is the tax cut for the ultra rich?
Tax cut for corporations yes.
The entire tax plan could have been half a page cutting
the corporate tax rate.
Explain why you are opposed to a corporate tax cut.
There are many small businesses in this country that will
benefit.
Not every company is Amazon.
I don’t think my taxes will change much at all.
Have to say I do love the idea of repealing the estate tax.-
Tax cut for the ultra rich…. well again nothing is final yet but
The estate tax and for the most part AMT effect the ultra rich
I think that is the point
-
As for the corporate tax cut
It really isnt much because most corporations pay an effective rate of 20-25% anyway
I think they change the depreciation of capital equipment rules also it really this tax package both house and senate plan is basically a back door to eliminate the estate tax and AMT
I figured out both plans and I will probably save 4-6 grand
Also if they eliminate or increase the cutoff for the AMT I can move things around that I can eventually take advantage of more easily
Personally I dont think its great or horrible…. it is what it is…. it gives much more to the ultra rich than the average joe
-
-
My state tax rate is middle of the road. And I come out about even under the new tax reform.
This reform wasnt aimed to help those making in the mid six figures. It was made to help the middle class. Most middle class people dont even itemize and their standard deduction is now doubled.
When the middle class has good jobs and opportunity for advancement, and when the GDP cranks along at 3-4% increases, it tends to be good for Radiologists.
Pressure to cut our pay reduces. People are able to afford insurance and medical bills. Companies that produce our technologies are more free to invest and innovate. And success becomes a positive thing rather than something to be ashamed of.
Trump is doing what he said he would do. The man may have faults but despite those, he won the election and deserves the opportunity to prove that his way is a better way for America. If it turns out to be a total bust, then he will have to answer for that at re-election. If America prospers, then those who take every opportunity they can to spew hate at the man will have some reflecting to do.
-
Quote from Ben Casey
Where is the tax cut for the ultra rich?
Tax cut for corporations yes.
The entire tax plan could have been half a page cutting
the corporate tax rate.
Explain why you are opposed to a corporate tax cut.
There are many small businesses in this country that will
benefit.
Not every company is Amazon.
I don’t think my taxes will change much at all.
Have to say I do love the idea of repealing the estate tax.
Can you articulate why the estate tax should be repealed? Do you long for the days of feudal Europe?
Everyone should have a fair shot at success- we call this meritocracy and justice. Wealth should be tied to individual effort, not being a member of the lucky sperm club.-
Quote from bcov
Can you articulate why the estate tax should be repealed?
Because it is fundamentally unfair to tax something again that has been generated out of already taxed income.
But if we collect it, I am actually for a general estate tax. Just make it something that doesn’t threaten the peoples ability to keep inherited property. If a home is already your primary residence, there should be an exemption that is tied to the median home price, everything above that is subject to a 8% tax. whether you inherit 1/6th of grandmas condo in florida or whether you are one of the Mars or Koch grandchildren. We would collect tons of taxes that way and the burden would be evenly shouldered.
-
They won’t use the money to “invest” in the USA. They are already sitting on billions (Apple for example) and haven’t done jack. How does giving them more and taking away from hard working physicians help America? They will do stock buybacks and pay their executives massive bonuses. Trump and the GOP are a fraud.
The government could just force companies to repatriate that money and pay the taxes they owe on it, all of this is just BS to justify a massive handout to corporate crony friends of the GOP. Crooks, all of them.
-
Quote from General_Rad2016
How does giving them more and taking away from hard working physicians help America?
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how taxation works. It takes away, it doesn’t give. If less is taken away from you, it doesn’t mean that you are receiving anything.
If the US rate drops to a level competitive with Ireland, those companies have no more incentive to monkey around with ‘dutch sandwiches’ and other off-shore constructs to lower their tax liability. Some keep harping on the fact that ‘corporations only pay 20-25% anyway’, but that is AFTER they engaged in all kinds of strategies to lower their load. These mechanisms are most available to multinationals giving them an advantage over domestic midsize and small corporations. With a lower rate, everyone benefits, the 150 man shop in your town just the same as the Apples and Amazons.-
Why is the status quo always sacred? Why is a 35% rate sacred and a 20% rate bad? If higher is better, why not 80%, or 100%…that would certainly collect much more money (for one year).
The more you tax something, the less you get. That is even the aim of certain taxes, ie cigarettes, alcohol, sugar sodas. One of the goals is to actually reduce consumption.
Similarly, the higher a marginal rate, the less productivity. Why stay late or do extra, if the reward becomes less and less. Why take the chance of expanding your business if the potential for income is slashed. This ripples across the economy, causing stagnation. Just look at the last 8 years of 1-2% growth.-
Quote from drgl
Why is the status quo always sacred? Why is a 35% rate sacred and a 20% rate bad? If higher is better, why not 80%, or 100%…that would certainly collect much more money (for one year).
The more you tax something, the less you get. That is even the aim of certain taxes, ie cigarettes, alcohol, sugar sodas. One of the goals is to actually reduce consumption.
Similarly, the higher a marginal rate, the less productivity. Why stay late or do extra, if the reward becomes less and less. Why take the chance of expanding your business if the potential for income is slashed. This ripples across the economy, causing stagnation. Just look at the last 8 years of 1-2% growth.
Without any knowledge of economic theory (other than supply and demand and everyone searches for a profit…), how much growth is sustainable and how much growth is ideal? Does an economy always grow? Should it?
Is 1-2% bad given where 2007-08 left the economy? If an economy grows too much, doesn’t it put much pressure on the next year and “disappointing results” thus tanking the markets? A lot of meat to discuss here.-
Some one said this above not sure who
[b]Just make it something that doesn’t threaten the peoples ability to keep inherited property. If a home is already your primary residence, there should be an exemption that is tied to the median home price, everything above that is subject to a 8% tax. whether you inherit 1/6th of grandmas condo in florida or whether you are one of the Mars or Koch grandchildren.”[/b]
That statement makes no sense at all
the current estate tax exemption is 5.5 million. If you are married its essentially 11 millionSooooo ….. aint no one taking your home or grandmas condo or nearly any small business in this country because of the estate tax
Im not sure where some of this bull pookie is coming from.
That being said I do think they should readjust the AMT to the point that it was originally intended.-
Quote from kpack123
Some one said this above not sure who
[b]Just make it something that doesn’t threaten the peoples ability to keep inherited property. If a home is already your primary residence, there should be an exemption that is tied to the median home price, everything above that is subject to a 8% tax. whether you inherit 1/6th of grandmas condo in florida or whether you are one of the Mars or Koch grandchildren.”[/b]
That statement makes no sense at all
That’s because you didn’t get what I suggested. I think we don’t collect enough estate tax, but we should collect it from everyone, not just the large estates. The high percentage of the current estate tax (40%) effiectively puts a limit on the size of company that can be transferred from one generation to the other. Once you hit that limit, you have to start financial gymnastics that hobble the operation of the enterprise. And it’s not just the Waltons who get hit by this. 10mil sounds like a lot of money, once you get into things like commercial trucks, warehouses or construction equipment it doesn’t buy you all that much. Heck, a section of production land in many places shows up at 5mil in your books. -
Generational wealth is very bad for any society.
-
Quote from yesterdaysnews
Generational wealth is very bad for any society.
It’s only bad if you don’t get any of it. -
Quote from fw
Quote from kpack123
Some one said this above not sure who
[b]Just make it something that doesn’t threaten the peoples ability to keep inherited property. If a home is already your primary residence, there should be an exemption that is tied to the median home price, everything above that is subject to a 8% tax. whether you inherit 1/6th of grandmas condo in florida or whether you are one of the Mars or Koch grandchildren.”[/b]
That statement makes no sense at all
That’s because you didn’t get what I suggested. I think we don’t collect enough estate tax, but we should collect it from everyone, not just the large estates. The high percentage of the current estate tax (40%) effiectively puts a limit on the size of company that can be transferred from one generation to the other. Once you hit that limit, you have to start financial gymnastics that hobble the operation of the enterprise. And it’s not just the Waltons who get hit by this. 10mil sounds like a lot of money, once you get into things like commercial trucks, warehouses or construction equipment it doesn’t buy you all that much. Heck, a section of production land in many places shows up at 5mil in your books.
Are you implying that 5 to 10 million is not that much?
[h2]Selected Net Worth Brackets and Percentiles for the United States in 2016[/h2] There are 126.0 million households in the United States (Federal Reserve estimate). For selected percentiles, the following is net worth brackets and breakpoints:
Net Worth Percentile 2016 Dollar Cutoff
10.0% -$962.66
20.0% $4,798.06
30.0% $18,753.84
40.0% $49,132.21
50.0% $97,225.55
60.0% $169,550.64
70.0% $279,594.27
80.0% $499,263.50
90.0% $1,182,390.36
95.0% $2,377,985.22
99.0% $10,374,030.10[link=https://dqydj.com/net-worth-brackets-wealth-brackets-one-percent/]https://dqydj.com/net-wor…-brackets-one-percent/[/link]
-
Quote from bcov
Are you implying that 5 to 10 million is not that much?
It isn’t when it comes to the valuation of midsize companies, or even farms.
And whether it is much or little only matters to you socialists who want to get your grubby fingers on someone elses wealth. Appealing to the universal vice of greed you ‘just want to take from the Koch’s and Waltons’ but overlook that you are killing thousands of midsize businesses in the process.
-
0.02% of estates are subject to estate tax
Not helping the middle class wit this one
-
Quote from kpack123
0.02% of estates are subject to estate tax
Not helping the middle class wit this one
Yeah – this to me is pure political red meat baiting.
“Those really rich guys are living pretty fancy and you aren’t. There are 0.02% of them, and 99.98% of us – let’s vote to knock them down a peg or two and take the money that they have left after they have already paid tax on it. If we vote on it, it is democratic, so it’s OK, and there are more of us than them, so we will win”
-
Quote from Dr.Sardonicus
Quote from kpack123
0.02% of estates are subject to estate tax
Not helping the middle class wit this one
Yeah – this to me is pure political red meat baiting.
“Those really rich guys are living pretty fancy and you aren’t. There are 0.02% of them, and 99.98% of us – let’s vote to knock them down a peg or two and take the money that they have left after they have already paid tax on it. If we vote on it, it is democratic, so it’s OK, and there are more of us than them, so we will win”
Thats all fine and dandy but please don’t act like this is somehow a middle class tax bill
It just isnt -
@ Flounce:
You have a socialist-communist-anti-capitalist-pro-military political view. Are you from East Europe , Russia or middle east?
Mandatory military service for all: ???? Gimme a break. This is a democratic Western country called US and not a third world dictatorship. I’m surprised by your suggestion.
-
@hospital a little harsh and unwarranted.
Compulsory military service does bring ppl together a lot. As does a lot of volunteering.
Democracy here is played up more than it should be. With big money supporting politics and the news cycle becoming less and less truthful along w the d4mb POTUS shaming journalists and using his power to discredit journalism….
yea right democracy. -
Yes, I was born in mother Russia, the Des Plaines, Illinois, part.
Based on commonly accepted definitions, I would not be considered a socialist or communist and I love this country for much of what it is today, but not so much of what it may become. Im not a ten year old and am not so easily made to toe some line for fear of being called anti-capitalism. I want whats best for my family, my radiology group, my patients, my neighbors, and my fellow citizens, and if there is an idea or policy that is helpful (assigned work lists rather than shared worklists; HOA rules prohibiting painting your house purple; taxes; single payer) then I am a proponent of it, regardless of whether someone labels it or me socialist. I dont think the American way is to let your neighbors and community struggle when we can figure out a way to help them out and do better. And it doesnt mean they get to drive your hard-earned Tesla nor equality of results. Purely Eat what you kill is what cavemen do, interdependence and finding a way for more Americans to do better is hardly un-American. A patriotism that emphasizes freedom from obligations to your countrymen is no patriotism at all.
-
Trying to figure out what is fallacious about my argument
0.02% of estates are subject to estate tax
Not helping the middle class with this one
Its factual
I guess by stating facts I am now a leftist
-
@ Flounce.
There is a very thin border between a socialist democrat and a socialist communist in practice. While your post is full of beautiful words like family, neighbors, patients and “fellow citizens”, Your practical ideas are more similar to social communists and anti-capitalists and has a tint of pro-military ideology.
This is an anonymous forum but I bet you have some different background. Have you lived abroad? Compulsory military is something that does not come to most people’s mind unless they have lived or grown up in certain countries.
-
Channeling McCarthy a bit?
Dont worry, we are just talking here, no one will make you serve in the military. Though they might make you pay more taxes.
-
Germany had compulsory military service up until the beginning of this decade. Austria still has compulsory military service.
So clearly Flounce is a Nazi. -
Flounce has his own valid points but like everyone including me some of his ideas are incorrect or biased due to social circumstances and past experiences.
I will pay more tax but even if I paid less, it wouldn’t make Trump less crazy.
Mandatory military belongs to countries that has experienced war across their borders in the past or feel threatened from their neighbors like Israel or their government is controlled by military groups. It does not have anything to do with social service, equality, feeling for the poor or distribution of wealth. It is purely a defensive maneuver.
If they make it mandatory because of Flounce, he has to go on behalf of all people on this forum. -
Quote from Dr.Sardonicus
Quote from kpack123
0.02% of estates are subject to estate tax
Not helping the middle class wit this one
Yeah – this to me is pure political red meat baiting.
“Those really rich guys are living pretty fancy and you aren’t. There are 0.02% of them, and 99.98% of us – let’s vote to knock them down a peg or two and take the money that they have left after they have already paid tax on it. If we vote on it, it is democratic, so it’s OK, and there are more of us than them, so we will win”
They are rich because of the quirks of capitalism and democracy- not effort.
Effort may explain the bottom 99% but not the top .01%.
There are other options for reigning in inequality but they are much more complicated. Intellectual property rights reform, patent reform,etc.
-
You sound like Al Gore saying rich people were simply those who won in life’s lottery.
80% of millionaires are first generation.
About 30% come from poor households, close to 50% from middle class households and about 1/4 from rich households.
They work longer, the work harder, they take less sick days, they network more, they watch less TV and they spend less time surfing the internet.
We tout the virtues of private practice on this website and seems that many of those who b1tch and moan about corporate radiology stealing the fruits of our intellectual labor as radiologists are more than happy to let the government steal the fruits of others intellectual labor through taxes.
-
Quote from kpack123
0.02% of estates are subject to estate tax
Not helping the middle class wit this one
The same falacious argument you make on the corporate tax rate. That 0.02 number is after folks restructure their businesses, sell off divisions, put stock into trusts etc.
If it’s such an inconsequential tax, why are you leftists fighing tooth and nail to keep it ?
-
More name calling. Im a centrist. And more importantly, non hypocrat.
-
-
Quote from Midwest Eastern Rad
Quote from drgl
Why is the status quo always sacred? Why is a 35% rate sacred and a 20% rate bad? If higher is better, why not 80%, or 100%…that would certainly collect much more money (for one year).
The more you tax something, the less you get. That is even the aim of certain taxes, ie cigarettes, alcohol, sugar sodas. One of the goals is to actually reduce consumption.
Similarly, the higher a marginal rate, the less productivity. Why stay late or do extra, if the reward becomes less and less. Why take the chance of expanding your business if the potential for income is slashed. This ripples across the economy, causing stagnation. Just look at the last 8 years of 1-2% growth.
Without any knowledge of economic theory (other than supply and demand and everyone searches for a profit…), how much growth is sustainable and how much growth is ideal? Does an economy always grow? Should it?
Is 1-2% bad given where 2007-08 left the economy? If an economy grows too much, doesn’t it put much pressure on the next year and “disappointing results” thus tanking the markets? A lot of meat to discuss here.
Look at China for example. They’ve been trying to keep up the really high growth but they do that by building ghost cities people don’t move into, or roads in Africa. They have a replica of Paris, London, Jackson Hole that are empty. It’s all essentially a real estate bust but they drive their economy building it. At the same time they’ve taken away land from poor people to build these things. So there is some kind of number for growth that should be normal and not inflated.
[link=http://abcnews.go.com/International/chinas-fake-cities-eerie-replicas-paris-london-jackson/story?id=36525453]http://abcnews.go.com/Int…kson/story?id=36525453[/link]-
Are people referring to the Laffer curve as anything but a debunked joke? People never learn, I guess.
This is designed to be a hand out to the wealthy, to defund the government, to make way for necessary social program cuts as evidenced by soon-to-be ballooning deficits. Im sure when Medicare gets sliced to pieces and the people start demanding Medicaid for all instead many conservative rads will sing a different tune as they see fee-for-service eliminated as a payment scheme altogether!
-
I should say, it will surely enlarge our already large deficit.
-
-
-
-
Quote from fw
Quote from General_Rad2016
How does giving them more and taking away from hard working physicians help America?
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how taxation works. It takes away, it doesn’t give. If less is taken away from you, it doesn’t mean that you are receiving anything.
If the US rate drops to a level competitive with Ireland, those companies have no more incentive to monkey around with ‘dutch sandwiches’ and other off-shore constructs to lower their tax liability. Some keep harping on the fact that ‘corporations only pay 20-25% anyway’, but that is AFTER they engaged in all kinds of strategies to lower their load. These mechanisms are most available to multinationals giving them an advantage over domestic midsize and small corporations. With a lower rate, everyone benefits, the 150 man shop in your town just the same as the Apples and Amazons.
I’d agree that companies who use lawyers, accountants to lower their effective tax right having to pay 20% is good. I think GE was the famous example of a single to zero digit effective tax rate.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Statistics can be funny things. My combined income also over 730k, the “average cut” of 37K has seemingly totally bypassed me completely.
1) Higher-income taxpayers will get the largest tax cuts: Taxpayers in the top 1% defined as those making over $730,000 would receive 20% of the total tax cut. They’d get an average cut of $37,000, which translates to about 2.4% of their after-tax income.
Partial response. The top 1% pay nearly 50% fed tax, so getting 20% benefit translates into the cuts going elsewhere. as far as the 37K average benefit..see above
2) Estate tax
Partial response: the very rich NEVER pay any estate tax, their legions of lawyers see to that. But SOME non-super wealthy DO get penalized, or are forced to take actions that dont make business sense
3) AMT
Partial response: the original AMT was aimed at ~ 20 individual millionaires that paid little in tax.It has since metastasized into a nightmare of double tax return preparations for MILLIONS of folks never intended to be entrapped
4) Carried interest loophole remains
Response: I agree completely
5) Corporate tax cut primarily benefits shareholders, who are disproportionately wealthy.
Partial response: Assuming your statement is correct, dont the vast majority of american retirement account holders own shares in these companies? Doesnt that count. Also isnt taxing corporate profits at 20% preferable than receiving ZERO dollars at the 35% rate (for foreign retained money). Isnt it possible in even a small way for this money to spur the economy once it is repatriated??-
Let’s be careful posting such exorbitant salary numbers on here, right? Good for you guys though, i’m jealous.
-
-
Agree w flounce. Furthermore , Jan , you have no clue what leftists would or would not complain about. This tax plan is a farce ; whether Hillary would have created a bigger or smaller farce is irrelevant. This tax plan remains a farce.
-
Yes have family. Wife and kids. Kids attend Dalton school like I did. My wife’s company has Hq in Manhattan. My parents and siblings live here. So much for the kids to do. It is expensive as heck to line comfortably in the city. Super high tsxes. I just love the arts, culture and diversity of the city. I can certainly understand how someone not from NYC may not enjoy it though.
-
Trump himself is the king of ad hominem attacks, so not sure your point here.
-
Both sides are the same, I continue to insist as my orange dementia Fox News king accuses a sitting senator of being a wh*re via Twitter.
-
Same same same
-
Everybody has a different take on taxes. I can’t remember where I heard it proposed once but someone said we should look upon the government as we do any other business – that is, our taxes represent what we pay for the services we receive. They took the “flat tax” concept one step further. In essence, when we go to the grocery store we pay “x” amount for the milk, bread, butter, etc and we place a value on the goods/services received for the money we paid. The theory is that the government provides certain services to all of us, national defense, regulations for things like clean air/water/etc, legal structure, police / fire /EMS, etc. Since we all receive the same services, shouldn’t the burden be shared equally? They would are than no individual receives any more clean air, national security, etc than another so why should he/she pay more/less than anyone else does?
Of course that proposal would never pass, nor am I advocating it, but it was a different way of looking at taxes that I hadn’t heard. I’m sure there are probably more good arguments against it than in favor of it, I haven’t taken the time to put too much thought into it since it’ll never happen.-
On could argue that providing a stable society and economic system is also a main responsibility of the government. A non-progressive taxation system would create greater inequality and lead to societal instability and social unrest.
-
Quote from raduser1
Everybody has a different take on taxes. I can’t remember where I heard it proposed once but someone said we should look upon the government as we do any other business – that is, our taxes represent what we pay for the services we receive. They took the “flat tax” concept one step further. In essence, when we go to the grocery store we pay “x” amount for the milk, bread, butter, etc and we place a value on the goods/services received for the money we paid. The theory is that the government provides certain services to all of us, national defense, regulations for things like clean air/water/etc, legal structure, police / fire /EMS, etc. Since we all receive the same services, shouldn’t the burden be shared equally? They would are than no individual receives any more clean air, national security, etc than another so why should he/she pay more/less than anyone else does?
Of course that proposal would never pass, nor am I advocating it, but it was a different way of looking at taxes that I hadn’t heard. I’m sure there are probably more good arguments against it than in favor of it, I haven’t taken the time to put too much thought into it since it’ll never happen.The first principle of business is appetite or profit.
The first principle of government is reason or justice.
Business and government are naturally in conflict.
In the “beautiful city” appetite will not rule, reason will rule. -
Quote from raduser1
Everybody has a different take on taxes. I can’t remember where I heard it proposed once but someone said we should look upon the government as we do any other business – that is, our taxes represent what we pay for the services we receive. They took the “flat tax” concept one step further. In essence, when we go to the grocery store we pay “x” amount for the milk, bread, butter, etc and we place a value on the goods/services received for the money we paid. The theory is that the government provides certain services to all of us, national defense, regulations for things like clean air/water/etc, legal structure, police / fire /EMS, etc. Since we all receive the same services, shouldn’t the burden be shared equally? They would are than no individual receives any more clean air, national security, etc than another so why should he/she pay more/less than anyone else does?
Of course that proposal would never pass, nor am I advocating it, but it was a different way of looking at taxes that I hadn’t heard. I’m sure there are probably more good arguments against it than in favor of it, I haven’t taken the time to put too much thought into it since it’ll never happen.Thank you for that explanation raduser. My own personal argument about this theory of “equal use” is what happens when people are sick and use more EMS? What happens for people who have multiple homes or big homes or big buildings? These require more police protection, etc.
I don’t subscribe to a theory that taxes are ever fair. It’s an impossible thought. Society requires X number of dollars to function and therefore, we as participants in society have to pay to make it do so. The big debates, I guess, are who has to pay and how much? Some nations tax income 50% or more, and in our system, we get it from multiple sides including local, state, federal, sales, etc. Maybe a good answer is to lower taxes but institute a 1% or some number federal sales tax, with the idea that the more you spend, the more you “contribute” to the federal govt being able to do its tasks. Sort of like the toll roads.
Thanks for posting this comment–I found it helpful-
In that regard, people benefit financially from society to different degrees.
A “mountain man” who builds his own cabin, purifies his own water, lives off the grid, weaves his own clothes, etc, gains or loses little if society were to collapse.
The NYC enterpreneur and owner of businesses who lives in Manhattan relies on the stability offered by a well-run society – not to mention subway system, roads, street lights, law enforcement, etc, to allow customers to come to his shop and arrive unmolested to purchase his or her products, which they would not need if they were spending all of their funds on healthcare and survival. Their overall well-being is crucial to the success of his tourism/restaurant/real estate businesses. If society were to implode, this entrepreneur would lose quite a bit from his wealth and security. Whether he pays his share of taxes, he is heavily “invested” in the welfare and stability of society.
Are the mountain man and the NYC entrepreneur equally invested, and benefit equally, from civil society? Do they have the same obligation to its upkeep? Clearly not, and such is the general principle – in my simplistic view of it – of our taxation system, that works on the assumption that our individual ability to profit from a society results in a commensurate degree of obligation to its upkeep, hence the greater one’s profit, the greater one’s obligation.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from yesterdaysnews
It was silly for any radiologist to vote for Trump thinking there would be some benefit tax wise. Fundamentally, the W2 high earning professionals is where the government gets all their money from. Half the population doesn’t even pay federal income taxes. Our system rewards investment income, not earned income.
Do you have evidence to support this?
Corporate effective income tax 19% (statutory 35%), qualified dividend or cap gain 20%, Net investment income tax 3.8%. Total 42.8%!
Max W2 employee rate 39.6%
Stock Market Returns (6.5%) = Current Dividend Yield (2%) + HIstorical Growth Rate of Dividends/Earnings (4.5%)
Gordon Growth Model
Equity and bond returns driven by real economy
Unique elements driving last 30 years returns are not repeatable (declining inflation/interest rates, increasing profit margins)
Future long-term real returns could be 4.0 6.5% for equities and 0.0 2.0% for bonds
Even under extreme scenarios, equities likely to outperform bonds under most time frames
[link=https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/board-agendas/201701/day1/3.3-2018-alm_presentation-2-mckinsey.pdf]https://www.calpers.ca.go…ntation-2-mckinsey.pdf[/link]
No, our system does not reward investment income over wage income.
Now if you want to talk crony capitalism and oligopoly….
executive compensation?
healthcare industrial complex?
tax avoidance through intellectual property manipulation?As of end-2016, roughly $1tn of cash was held overseas by 50 US companies, with Apple, Microsoft, Google-owner Alphabet, Cisco and Oracle accounting for $512bn of the figure, according to rating agency Moodys.
[link=https://www.ft.com/content/86b87d04-6c35-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa]https://www.ft.com/conten…11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa[/link]
-
With the reduction in SALT deduction etc. I am pretty sure I will be paying more in taxes. Why should a hard working rad grinding it out daily like myself have to pay more so that Amazon and Apple can take in even more money? They already make sky high profits! The economy is doing pretty darn well! This whole thing is absurd and I hope GOP gets tossed out in 2018.
-
Quote from deadwing
Both sides are the same, I continue to insist as my orange dementia Fox News king accuses a sitting senator of being a wh*re via Twitter.
Lying is too fun for you to give up, eh deadwing?-
“Why is the status quo always sacred? Why is a 35% rate sacred and a 20% rate bad? If higher is better, why not 80%, or 100%…that would certainly collect much more money (for one year).
The more you tax something, the less you get. That is even the aim of certain taxes, ie cigarettes, alcohol, sugar sodas. One of the goals is to actually reduce consumption.
Similarly, the higher a marginal rate, the less productivity. Why stay late or do extra, if the reward becomes less and less. Why take the chance of expanding your business if the potential for income is slashed. This ripples across the economy, causing stagnation. Just look at the last 8 years of 1-2% growth. ”
This is the principle of the Laffer Curve Theory. An Ec Nominate on Ronald Reagan’s Economic Policy advisory board during the last major “Tax Reform”. I believe he has stated that the current form of tax bill is not ideal.
-
The laffer curve
Its a theory too
What is does is create debt
Yes it creates excess revenue at first but then it stabilizes so revenue growth doesnt occur particularly when you continue to spend like a drunken sailor
See the 80s and early 90s for an example
To attempt to answer the question….. why is 35% sacred
My opinion is because a top rate between 35-39% seems to be the sweet spot that our government pay what it wants to spend money on without exploding the debt
Yes I know the debt explodes anyway but the only near balanced budget we had was with this rate
Of course I know we spend too much and on things we dont need but it is what it is
That is the best explanation you will find
-
Funny to see a lot of my Trump voting high wage earning physician friends complain and feel “duped” by Trump now that it looks like that tax cut isn’t going to be so friendly to their wallets. I knew from the start he was just a con man and he had no love for doctors.
-
-
-
-
Don’t be a turd fw. You are supposedly a doctor not a truck driver.
When the truck driver argues against his own interest or against the good of society we can chalk it up to ignorance- not you.
-
Quote from bcov
Don’t be a turd fw. You are supposedly a doctor not a truck driver.
What’s up with the personal attacks?
I am actually a doc and a truck driver.
-
I don’t have an estate.
My parents don’t have an estate.
My kids likely won’t have an estate.
I could care less what Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, etc do with their money, to include who they leave it too.
The government isn’t entitled to the fortune they made. Period.-
[i]”””Quote from [b]bcov[/b][/i]
Don’t be a turd fw. You are supposedly a doctor not a truck driver. “””
Like I said above… ad hominem attacks = loss of argument -
Just a reflection. On issues ranging from healthcare to taxes, what Ive noticed is that the ties that bind us to our fellow citizens is surprisingly weak. We are generally unwilling to sacrifice anything – tax dollars or restrictions on our individual freedoms – for the welfare of our fellow Americans, and this seems especially true of those who wave the flag and call themselves patriots and are eager to tell others that they are not real Americans. It is not a healthy state of affairs.
I personally think that a mandatory 1-2 year military service should be a requirement for all american citizens, the way some countries have mandatory military service, except that unlike other countries, no one should be able to get out of it, no exemptions unless you are paralyzed or in a deathbed. The sons and daughters of white Wall Street CEOs, all politicians, business owners, Hollywood celebrities and professional athletes should serve alongside – and come to befriend – the children of inner city waitresses and rural farm workers. All segments of society – socioeconomic, geographic, racial, ethnic, and religious groups – should be forced to serve in the same military unit and come to know one another, and depend on one another, as colleagues and equals for a short period of time. That would be a healthy thing for all, and decrease the degree of polarization and extreme identity politics we are currently seeing. We should ALL have some skin in this game, this grand project of a United States of America.
-
Quote from Flounce
Just a reflection. On issues ranging from healthcare to taxes, what Ive noticed is that the ties that bind us to our fellow citizens is surprisingly weak. We are generally unwilling to sacrifice anything – tax dollars or restrictions on our individual freedoms – for the welfare of our fellow Americans, and this seems especially true of those who wave the flag and call themselves patriots and are eager to tell others that they are not real Americans. It is not a healthy state of affairs.
I personally think that a mandatory 1-2 year military service should be a requirement for all american citizens, the way some countries have mandatory military service, except that unlike other countries, no one should be able to get out of it, no exemptions unless you are paralyzed or in a deathbed. The sons and daughters of white Wall Street CEOs, all politicians, business owners, Hollywood celebrities and professional athletes should serve alongside – and come to befriend – the children of inner city waitresses and rural farm workers. All segments of society – socioeconomic, geographic, racial, ethnic, and religious groups – should be forced to serve in the same military unit and come to know one another, and depend on one another, as colleagues and equals for a short period of time. That would be a healthy thing for all, and decrease the degree of polarization and extreme identity politics we are currently seeing. We should ALL have some skin in this game, this grand project of a United States of America.
Flounce:
Above I asked for help at trying to define “liberal” vs. “conservative” and got no response. What I have noted is that the term “liberal” is used as a complete insult by those who are generally Republican and other personal attacks come into any of these discussions.
I like what you’ve written here and agree about the self-sacrifice. To me, maybe this is part of the definition of “liberal”–sacrificing some of one’s own personal gain for the betterment of society, rather than making each person/group fend for selves. Entitlements are part of this–social security, medicare, medicaid. I guess it’s part socialist in that sense
Conservative (economics) would seem to oppose that, with as little oversight and shared responsibility as possible.
Does that seem right? For years, I’ve struggled over trying to practically define these terms, but resent when people use them as insults (YOU LIBERAL SO AND SOs….)-
Quote from Midwest Eastern Rad
Above I asked for help at trying to define “liberal” vs. “conservative” and got no response. What I have noted is that the term “liberal” is used as a complete insult by those who are generally Republican and other personal attacks come into any of these discussions.
I like what you’ve written here and agree about the self-sacrifice. To me, maybe this is part of the definition of “liberal”–sacrificing some of one’s own personal gain for the betterment of society, rather than making each person/group fend for selves. Entitlements are part of this–social security, medicare, medicaid. I guess it’s part socialist in that sense
Conservative (economics) would seem to oppose that, with as little oversight and shared responsibility as possible.
Does that seem right? For years, I’ve struggled over trying to practically define these terms, but resent when people use them as insults (YOU LIBERAL SO AND SOs….)
It does seem hard to define these terms without incorporating negative stereotypical descriptors. Also as you alluded to, one can be liberal in one facet of their life and conservative in another facet
-
THe best definition of Liberal vs conservative is one of the oldest
See a Mountain
Liberals will say….Lets go cross it so we can see what is on the other side
Conservatives will say… Why would you want to do that when you don’t know whats there-
Good one.
-
-
Jan , it should be obvious. CEOs are predominately white. Inner-city families will have a greater diversity of blacks or children of immigrants. My idea was that the forcing of Americans of different colors and walks of life to go through a shared, equalizing experience that also serves the purpose of having them meet and come to know and depend on people who are different than them, would humanize all sides involved and make it harder to demonize those different than you. Build a stronger, more cohesive populace and shared identity. Im thinking that since it involves military service for all, those on the right side of the aisle would welcome this.
-
See, what I find interesting is that the only time you bothered to add a racial qualifier was when discussing CEOs, a group with which most have fairly negative associations.
Hmmm.
-
You got me, Jan, I am a racist. As is evident from posts.
-
Ha, I don’t use that word.
-
-
-
Quote from Flounce
Jan , it should be obvious. CEOs are predominately white. Inner-city families will have a greater diversity of blacks or children of immigrants. My idea was that the forcing of Americans of different colors and walks of life to go through a shared, equalizing experience that also serves the purpose of having them meet and come to know and depend on people who are different than them, would humanize all sides involved and make it harder to demonize those different than you. Build a stronger, more cohesive populace and shared identity. Im thinking that since it involves military service for all, those on the right side of the aisle would welcome this.
Military service for all: Hmmm… nothing takes freedom away like a compulsory exposure to a potentially fatal occupation. “liberals” of the 60’s thought this was a great idea.
Another tack: My experience growing up was in a pretty diverse community. No real rich folks, a lot of blue collar, and some racial diversity. I went to school with all these people. I noticed that some of my friends who went to less diverse schools, didn’t quite get that others could have valid reasons for feeling differently than they did.
Seems to me that a 12 year immersive exposure to other people/cultures while you are children would do a lot. My kids went to public schools also.
-
Quote from Flounce
Jan , it should be obvious. CEOs are predominately white. Inner-city families will have a greater diversity of blacks or children of immigrants. My idea was that the forcing of Americans of different colors and walks of life to go through a shared, equalizing experience that also serves the purpose of having them meet and come to know and depend on people who are different than them, would humanize all sides involved and make it harder to demonize those different than you. Build a stronger, more cohesive populace and shared identity. Im thinking that since it involves military service for all, those on the right side of the aisle would welcome this.
Medicine already does this for us Flounce. The tragedies that play out in the lower classes are readily apparent. I had no idea how others lived until the third year of medical school. No physician can proclaim ignorance of poverty- we see its effects daily.
Solidarity among any large group of people may be wishful thinking- especially the uneducated American masses.
Even physicians are slowly being divided and conquered by that great weapon of the .01%, the corporation.
The ultimate source of our ruler’s power is their Gyges ring. As long as they can cloak their actions through closed door sessions in DC or the corporate boardroom, or arcane financial rules, or the infinitely grey area of statistically significant medical research, they will win.
-
-
-
Quote from Midwest Eastern Rad
I like what you’ve written here and agree about the self-sacrifice. To me, maybe this is part of the definition of “liberal”–sacrificing some of one’s own personal gain for the betterment of society, rather than making each person/group fend for selves. Entitlements are part of this–social security, medicare, medicaid. I guess it’s part socialist in that sense
Midwest Eastern Rad: As I read this thread, I’m slowly coming to this conclusion as well. It would appear, and I am no political scientist, that most conservative positions in regards to policy coincide with whatever is most self-interested and allows one to avoid contributing to communal/societal benefit at personal expense or incovenience. If public libraries and non-private law enforcement (i.e. police departments) were not already in place and funded by tax dollars, I genuinely wonder what the conservative position would be on legislation to fund/create them.
-
-
Quote from Flounce
The sons and daughters of white Wall Street CEOs, all politicians, business owners, Hollywood celebrities and professional athletes should serve alongside – and come to befriend – the children of inner city waitresses and rural farm workers.
Nice touch, sticking that “white” in there. I don’t know what you’re trying to imply, but feel free to expound on this.
-
-
-
-
Quote from Jan the Third
Quote from Flounce
The sons and daughters of white Wall Street CEOs, all politicians, business owners, Hollywood celebrities and professional athletes should serve alongside – and come to befriend – the children of inner city waitresses and rural farm workers.
Nice touch, sticking that “white” in there. I don’t know what you’re trying to imply, but feel free to expound on this.
Jan, I think you are aware of the racial distribution of income- don’t feign ignorance.-
Yes, bcov, I’m aware of the racial distribution of income. And Asian households have the highest median income. So, I repeat my question to Flounce: what did you intend to imply with that “white” addition?
-
Hadnt heard kpacks version of liberal vs conservative.
I wont purport that the one ive heard is the best or even unverifiably argue that its “one of the oldest but I have heard:
liberals favor equality of outcomes
conservatives favor equality of opportunities-
Quote from raduser1
Hadnt heard kpacks version of liberal vs conservative.
I wont purport that the one ive heard is the best or even unverifiably argue that its “one of the oldest but I have heard:
liberals favor equality of outcomes
conservatives favor equality of opportunitiesThis is not a correct summary.
-
Quote from bcov
Quote from raduser1
Hadnt heard kpacks version of liberal vs conservative.
I wont purport that the one ive heard is the best or even unverifiably argue that its “one of the oldest but I have heard:
liberals favor equality of outcomes
conservatives favor equality of opportunitiesThis is not a correct summary … [u][i][b]in my opinion[/b][/i][/u].
Fixed it for you.-
This bill honestly isnt so terrible.
The gop seems hell bent on foolish spending either way, so Id rather the deficit get raised for a tax cut than building a freaking border wall or wasting even more money on military spending.
The Aca mandate loss could be a big blow, but remains to be seen how many actually elect to drop health insurance.
Overall, about a decade of substantially more money for everyone minus the handful of states with stupidly high taxes.
-
Those states with stupidly high taxes (NY, CA, CT, NJ) also are some of the more populated ones. Will be interested to see if people start (or continue) to leave those states and/or if those states start lowering their rates to try to prevent or reverse those migration patterns.
-
Yes maybe they will all move to Mississippi
-
More likely they just vote republicans out of office
-
Currently packing my bags to move to Alabama.
-
Quote from deadwing
Currently packing my bags to move to Alabama.
Don’t forget your Bible.
-
Quote from bcov
Quote from deadwing
Currently packing my bags to move to Alabama.
Don’t forget your Bible.
No more need for a bible. AL has been taken over by godless liberals 😉 -
Quote from kpack123
More likely they just vote republicans out of office
Those states already vote democrat. -
Phaseout is there in order to get the bill under the $1.5 trillion limit. Its bookkeeping nonsense.
-
At some point taxes will go back up.
-
-
Quote from kpack123
Yes maybe they will all move to Mississippi
Or they’ll fix their out of control state level spending. Cut back some public service pensions, axe the multitude of ‘authorities’ that blow money like it grows on trees.
-
Just like the federal government will surely curtain their spending at some point
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Jan the Third
Yes, bcov, I’m aware of the racial distribution of income. And Asian households have the highest median income. So, I repeat my question to Flounce: what did you intend to imply with that “white” addition?
Yes, Jan Asians do have the highest median income in the US and no, they don’t rule America.
The large majority of corporate directors in 2011 were white males (74.4%), and the group with the second-highest frequency was white women (13.3%)
2012 Forbes 400 by ethnic origins Summary: No dramatic departures from 2009/2010.1987 (%) 2009 (%) 2010 (%) 2012 (%)
Northwestern European 72, 51.75, 50.5, 51.25
Jewish 23, 35.5, 35.5, 34.75
Italian 2.25, 3.5, 4.25, 4.25
East Asian 0.25, 2.0, 2.0, 2.25
Middle Eastern 1.5, 2.25, 2.5, 1.75
Greek 0.5, 1.5, 1.75, 1.5
Eastern European 0.25, 1.5, 1.75, 1.75
South Asian 0.0, 1.25, 1.0, 1.5
Hispanic 0.25, 0.5, 0.5, 0.75
Black 0.0, 0.25, 0.25, 0.25[link=http://racehist.blogspot.com/2013/04/2012-forbes-400-by-ethnic-origins.html]http://racehist.blogspot….by-ethnic-origins.html[/link]
-
-
-
Yeah – sometimes with the current discourse, you get rigidly defined categories that break down immediately with any minimal examination. They don’t really function well, but are used primarily to cast pejoratives at the other side. I would prefer that instead of: “He’s a conservative (liberal) so we ALL KNOW that his opinions are invalid” we use: “His analysis is correct on these 2 points, and wrong on these 3 points”. But in the era of sound bites, where you have to make your point in 5 seconds, nuanced discussion is dead.
Another, possibly more useful, dichotomy is libertarian vs authoritarian. For myself, I bristle whenever I hear:
1) A conservative tell a woman that he will instruct her on what is moral for her particular reproductive situation. And, it doesn’t stop at abortion, some want to prescribe for others what sort of birth control is appropriate to be used. Of course invoking their infinite wisdom.
2) A liberal decide that he or she knows how the economy functions better than I do, and so, we have to have more central control over the economy so that the smart liberals can run it. (You know – Central Planning.) Again invoking their infinite wisdom.
I am happiest when [i](to the extent possible) [/i]people leave me alone, and I leave them alone.
-
Quote from Dr.Sardonicus
Yeah – sometimes with the current discourse, you get rigidly defined categories that break down immediately with any minimal examination. They don’t really function well, but are used primarily to cast pejoratives at the other side. I would prefer that instead of: “He’s a conservative (liberal) so we ALL KNOW that his opinions are invalid” we use: “His analysis is correct on these 2 points, and wrong on these 3 points”. But in the era of sound bites, where you have to make your point in 5 seconds, nuanced discussion is dead.
Another, possibly more useful, dichotomy is libertarian vs authoritarian. For myself, I bristle whenever I hear:
1) A conservative tell a woman that he will instruct her on what is moral for her particular reproductive situation. And, it doesn’t stop at abortion, some want to prescribe for others what sort of birth control is appropriate to be used. Of course invoking their infinite wisdom.
2) A liberal decide that he or she knows how the economy functions better than I do, and so, we have to have more central control over the economy so that the smart liberals can run it. (You know – Central Planning.) Again invoking their infinite wisdom.I am happiest when [i](to the extent possible) [/i]people leave me alone, and I leave them alone.
“Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god.”
Aristotle, Politics
Leave me alone doesn’t cut it- sorry.
-
