Tax update

[Merge]

Just finished my taxes for 2018. For the sake of avoiding to bump another old thread - Just wanted to give the results on my effective tax rate.

My effective federal tax rate decreased by 0.7% from 2017.

Without kids, my effective rate would have gone up from 2017. I'm assuming this will be the case for many others in higher property tax states without kids or with dependent children older than 16.

 

[cernjSHU]

Just finished my taxes for 2018. For the sake of avoiding to bump another old thread - Just wanted to give the results on my effective tax rate.

My effective federal tax rate decreased by 0.7% from 2017.

Without kids, my effective rate would have gone up from 2017. I'm assuming this will be the case for many others in higher property tax states without kids or with dependent children older than 16.

Thank you for shedding light in the sham of the tax cuts which was really only a tax cut for the very wealthy and corporations.

 

[SPK145]

Just finished my taxes for 2018. For the sake of avoiding to bump another old thread - Just wanted to give the results on my effective tax rate.

My effective federal tax rate decreased by 0.7% from 2017.

Without kids, my effective rate would have gone up from 2017. I'm assuming this will be the case for many others in higher property tax states without kids or with dependent children older than 16.

Incomplete information, need to know what your gross income was in 2017 and 2018 to make any meaningful analysis.

 

[SPK145]

Thank you for shedding light in the sham of the tax cuts which was really only a tax cut for the very wealthy and corporations.

Yup, if Merge's gross income was:

$50,000 = $350 savings
$75,000 = $525 savings
$100,000 = $700 savings
$150,000 = $1,050 savings

Now rich, single people like yourself, that's a different story.

 

[Merge]

Incomplete information, need to know what your gross income was in 2017 and 2018 to make any meaningful analysis.

I'd rather not give out much more here, but it's my federal taxes against my AGI each year and compared that percentage.

 

[SPK145]

I'd rather not give out much more here, but it's my federal taxes against my AGI each year and compared that percentage.

Understood but unfortunately the numbers you have given are then meaningless.

 

[Hall-line-forever]

Let’s get more collective results from general public before we label it either way.

 

[Merge]

Understood but unfortunately the numbers you have given are then meaningless.

My taxes went down, and it was because of the increase in the child tax credit. That was the point of my post.

I thought others on this board can add how they did for comparrison if they would like.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Thank you for shedding light in the sham of the tax cuts which was really only a tax cut for the very wealthy and corporations.

Actually it helps middle America a lot where annual real estate taxes are less than $2,000 a year. People getting a bigger standard deduction when you are not itemizing is a nice help. NY, NJ, California, where people have high taxes and vacation homes will lose a lot of deductions.

 

[cernjSHU]

Actually it helps middle America a lot where annual real estate taxes are less than $2,000 a year. People getting a bigger standard deduction when you are not itemizing is a nice help. NY, NJ, California, where people have high taxes and vacation homes will lose a lot of deductions.

Ok, let's see if we can put this into perspective. This tax cuts hurts the Northeast and California and other high tax state the worst for sure. I live in NJ so I care about how it affects us here in NJ. However, even in low tax states how much does it really help? $3,000 a year? That is $125 per check gross more per year.

Contrast to the the money that will be saved by Corporations and the very wealthy. Also now consider that the nation debt will rise. The middle class was bought off for pennies while the very rich are laughing and the country goes into more debt.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Ok, let's see if we can put this into perspective. This tax cuts hurts the Northeast and California and other high tax state the worst for sure. I live in NJ so I care about how it affects us here in NJ. However, even in low tax states how much does it really help? $3,000 a year? That is $125 per check gross more per year.

Contrast to the the money that will be saved by Corporations and the very wealthy. Also now consider that the nation debt will rise. The middle class was bought off for pennies while the very rich are laughing and the country goes into more debt.

You should care, this savings will definitely impact how middle America votes. $3,000 a year is something most people will be happier with.

 

[HALL85]

Ok, let's see if we can put this into perspective. This tax cuts hurts the Northeast and California and other high tax state the worst for sure. I live in NJ so I care about how it affects us here in NJ. However, even in low tax states how much does it really help? $3,000 a year? That is $125 per check gross more per year.

Contrast to the the money that will be saved by Corporations and the very wealthy. Also now consider that the nation debt will rise. The middle class was bought off for pennies while the very rich are laughing and the country goes into more debt.

That sounds a lot like Pelosi’s “crumbs” comment. In another thread there was so much concern for those government workers that live “paycheck to paycheck” so wouldn’t most of them greatly benefit from a additional $3,000 to give them more of a cushion and opportunity to save?

Need to see how the tax cuts play out in the long run but the previous administrations ran up $19 trillion in debt while giving no relief to the middle class, so now we’re asking that same group to be outraged that it’s continued to grow another trillion? That rings a little hollow to me.

There is a wealth gap that is concerning because I wonder if at some point it will result in some kind of unfortunate response from an individual or group. Hope I’m wrong.

 

[Pirata]

One data point and we have such a thorough analysis.

Too bad you weren't there for the Manhattan project. The war may have ended sooner.

By the way did you simply compare your effective rate on this year's return to the effective rate on the return you filed last year or did you compute two returns for this year, one using the current laws and another using last year's laws.

The latter would be needed to make an effective comparison. set up another way you need to determine what your effective rate would have been this year had the laws not changed.

 

[cernjSHU]

That sounds a lot like Pelosi’s “crumbs” comment. In another thread there was so much concern for those government workers that live “paycheck to paycheck” so wouldn’t most of them greatly benefit from a additional $3,000 to give them more of a cushion and opportunity to save?

Need to see how the tax cuts play out in the long run but the previous administrations ran up $19 trillion in debt while giving no relief to the middle class, so now we’re asking that same group to be outraged that it’s continued to grow another trillion? That rings a little hollow to me.

There is a wealth gap that is concerning because I wonder if at some point it will result in some kind of unfortunate response from an individual or group. Hope I’m wrong.

How are you comparing a shut down for no reason to a tax cut that benefits the wealthy inordinately and hurts the debt. How do you compare Obama who spent money in order to help the economy to get out of the worst recession since the Great Depresión?

Did you see what Apples effective tax rate was? 17%
That is less than my effective tax rate. So the richest corporation on earth, pays at a rate lower than me. Doesn’t that tell you something is wrong ?

 

[HALL85]

How are you comparing a shut down for no reason to a tax cut that benefits the wealthy inordinately and hurts the debt. How do you compare Obama who spent money in order to help the economy to get out of the worst recession since the Great Depresión?

Did you see what Apples effective tax rate was? 17%
That is less than my effective tax rate. So the richest corporation on earth, pays at a rate lower than me. Doesn’t that tell you something is wrong ?

My comments had nothing to do with the shut down but rather the middle-class people that are used as pawns to make a point. Two weeks ago there was outrage that these people had no money in the bank and we should be sympathetic. Now apparently having $3000 more to spend or save is insignificant. Which is it?

And I did say administrations. Not just blaming Obama. But since you brought him up, you can make a case that the ACA has further hamstringed the middle class.

 

[cernjSHU]

My comments had nothing to do with the shut down but rather the middle-class people that are used as pawns to make a point. Two weeks ago there was outrage that these people had no money in the bank and we should be sympathetic. Now apparently having $3000 more to spend or save is insignificant. Which is it?

And I did say administrations. Not just blaming Obama. But since you brought him up, you can make a case that the ACA has further hamstringed the middle class.

Whats say you on Apple's effective tax rate at 17%? I am not picking on Apple here. I love Apple and I am an investor. I use this as an example for how much corporations and the wealthy are actually benefiting from the tax cuts to the detriment of the country.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

How are you comparing a shut down for no reason to a tax cut that benefits the wealthy inordinately and hurts the debt. How do you compare Obama who spent money in order to help the economy to get out of the worst recession since the Great Depresión?

Did you see what Apples effective tax rate was? 17%
That is less than my effective tax rate. So the richest corporation on earth, pays at a rate lower than me. Doesn’t that tell you something is wrong ?

Here’s the problem when you talk these major companies. You forget their main objective is a healthy bottom line. Raise taxes, so their question is how do we increase our bottom line? Answer is generally....lower payroll. Hello unemployment line. Pick your poison because Apple unlike the federal government, doesn’t have to worry about the welfare of the nation. They only worry about Apple.

 

[Merge]

That sounds a lot like Pelosi’s “crumbs” comment. In another thread there was so much concern for those government workers that live “paycheck to paycheck” so wouldn’t most of them greatly benefit from a additional $3,000 to give them more of a cushion and opportunity to save?

Need to see how the tax cuts play out in the long run but the previous administrations ran up $19 trillion in debt while giving no relief to the middle class, so now we’re asking that same group to be outraged that it’s continued to grow another trillion? That rings a little hollow to me.

There is a wealth gap that is concerning because I wonder if at some point it will result in some kind of unfortunate response from an individual or group. Hope I’m wrong.

Hard to see the majority of the middle class getting near 3,000 but no one is arguing that the middle class keeping more money is bad policy.

The bad policy was the rest of and 80% of the bill that doesnt help the middle class.

There is some good in the bill for sure, but overall my view hasn't changed. The data so far shows payrolls and Capital expenditures were not really impacted as much as expected.

 

[Merge]

Here’s the problem when you talk these major companies. You forget their main objective is a healthy bottom line. Raise taxes, so their question is how do we increase our bottom line? Answer is generally....lower payroll. Hello unemployment line. Pick your poison because Apple unlike the federal government, doesn’t have to worry about the welfare of the nation. They only worry about Apple.

If a company can improve theor bottom line through payroll cuts, they are already doing that regardless of the tax rates.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

If a company can improve theor bottom line through payroll cuts, they are already doing that regardless of the tax rates.

Not true. There are a lot of companies that look to grow, but they’re not going to invest in growth at the expense of having a small or a negative bottom line.

 

[HALL85]

Hard to see the majority of the middle class getting near 3,000 but no one is arguing that the middle class keeping more money is bad policy.

The bad policy was the rest of and 80% of the bill that doesnt help the middle class.

There is some good in the bill for sure, but overall my view hasn't changed. The data so far shows payrolls and Capital expenditures were not really impacted as much as expected.

As I said earlier, you can't base success or failure after a year on policy like this...similar to the ACA. I have posted many times that the most important priority regarding tax or economic policy is to create an environment for a growing middle class. That's the group that spends money and fuels the economy. One of the important fundamentals of our nation is that there is mobility and an vibrant middle class enables mobility and provides hope to those that have the initiative and will to move up. If the tax policy ultimately materially expands the middle class, that's a great outcome.

 

[HALL85]

Whats say you on Apple's effective tax rate at 17%? I am not picking on Apple here. I love Apple and I am an investor. I use this as an example for how much corporations and the wealthy are actually benefiting from the tax cuts to the detriment of the country.

If that results in Apple investing more in capital and the business, I would hope that's a good thing. I'm sure there are also a lot of middle class Americans that have Apple stock in their 401K or IRA portfolios, so that's a good thing. As you said, you love them as an investor and I'm assuming you are in that middle class demo.

Don't get me wrong, I do have concerns about wealth disparity and the optics it creates. Every tax bracket has their hero's and bad actors. From my standpoint, how do we as a country recognize, celebrate, encourage the kind of giving back that those with incredible wealth that are leading by example and giving back the majority of their wealth (i.e. Gates Foundation, Warren Buffett, etc.).

 

[Merge]

Not true. There are a lot of companies that look to grow, but they’re not going to invest in growth at the expense of having a small or a negative bottom line.

That wasn't what you said. You said layoffs to improve a bottom line if their tax rate goes up.
That isn't true though and implies that they are being wasteful in their payroll.

Your second point could be true. If a return on investment is not high enough after taxes, it is possible they wouldn't make that investment. But after dropping the tax rates considerably, there wasn't a significant increase in capital expenditures so it is hard to argue that there were companies sitting out on investing because of a high tax rate.

 

[Merge]

As I said earlier, you can't base success or failure after a year on policy like this...similar to the ACA. I have posted many times that the most important priority regarding tax or economic policy is to create an environment for a growing middle class. That's the group that spends money and fuels the economy. One of the important fundamentals of our nation is that there is mobility and an vibrant middle class enables mobility and provides hope to those that have the initiative and will to move up.

Agree 100%. It wasn't my intention to debate the topic again.
Just wanted to give a tiny anecdotal bit of context to our previous discussions. I thought it would be interesting to see how everyone here did with their taxes.
I will give it time to play out. I initially said it would take 2-3 years before we have a decent understanding of how it is impacting the economy. I'm sticking with that.

 

[HALL85]

Agree 100%. It wasn't my intention to debate the topic again.
Just wanted to give a tiny anecdotal bit of context to our previous discussions. I thought it would be interesting to see how everyone here did with their taxes.
I will give it time to play out. I initially said it would take 2-3 years before we have a decent understanding of how it is impacting the economy. I'm sticking with that.

Agree...I'm curious too obviously and will share when I get them done.

 

[cernjSHU]

If that results in Apple investing more in capital and the business, I would hope that's a good thing. I'm sure there are also a lot of middle class Americans that have Apple stock in their 401K or IRA portfolios, so that's a good thing. As you said, you love them as an investor and I'm assuming you are in that middle class demo.

Don't get me wrong, I do have concerns about wealth disparity and the optics it creates. Every tax bracket has their hero's and bad actors. From my standpoint, how do we as a country recognize, celebrate, encourage the kind of giving back that those with incredible wealth that are leading by example and giving back the majority of their wealth (i.e. Gates Foundation, Warren Buffett, etc.).

Apple nor big corporations did not need the tax cut to invest in capital and business. Apple has been extraordinarily successful before these tax cuts. You know why? They happen to be a phenomenal company. I consider them not a bad actor at all. There was no need to have these tax cuts so giant corporations's effective tax rate is below my effective tax rate.

I think it is great that the Gates Foundation and Warrant Buffet gives back. But you know what? They should. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have more wealth than people could spend in 8 lifetimes. Gates is worth $92 BILLION! This is after what he gave to start the Foundation. If he spent a $1 million a day, it would take him 245 years to spend down his money.

 

[HALL85]

Apple nor big corporations did not need the tax cut to invest in capital and business. Apple has been extraordinarily successful before these tax cuts. You know why? They happen to be a phenomenal company. I consider them not a bad actor at all. There was no need to have these tax cuts so giant corporations's effective tax rate is below my effective tax rate.

I think it is great that the Gates Foundation and Warrant Buffet gives back. But you know what? They should. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have more wealth than people could spend in 8 lifetimes. Gates is worth $92 BILLION! This is after what he gave to start the Foundation. If he spent a $1 million a day, it would take him 245 years to spend down his money.

If you recall the objective was for the successful companies, including Apple, to Take that money and invest in plants and jobs domestically. We will see how that plays out.

If I recall, Gates and Buffett have committed to gift 95% of their wealth. Why is that not a good thing And something that should be celebrated?

 

[seton1996]

If you recall the objective was for the successful companies, including Apple, to Take that money and invest in plants and jobs domestically. We will see how that plays out.

If I recall, Gates and Buffett have committed to gift 95% of their wealth. Why is that not a good thing And something that should be celebrated?

They better give it away to charity, because if Bernie gets in, he wants to raise estate tax to 77% for estates over a billion. Better goes to something worthwhile, then wasted government spending.

 

[Blue Bloods]

I know nothing about taxes other than I have to pay them. But I often wonder, if I didn't have to pay for the healthcare, and plethora of other things, for illegals maybe my taxes wouldn't be so high. Just something to think about.

 

[Merge]

I know nothing about taxes other than I have to pay them. But I often wonder, if I didn't have to pay for the healthcare, and plethora of other things, for illegals maybe my taxes wouldn't be so high. Just something to think about.

Of course you should think about it.

While you are thinking about it, you should also put it into the context of how much more expensive all of the goods and services you purchase are because our economy doesn't rely on their exploited labor.

Unless you are self sustained, grow all of your own food, get milk from your own cows, never go to restaurants, never hire contractors, never go to a hotel etc.... you are likely economically benefiting by them being here. by all means - weigh that against the 0% less you would be paying in taxes if there were no illegal immigrants here.

 

[HALL85]

Of course you should think about it.

While you are thinking about it, you should also put it into the context of how much more expensive all of the goods and services you purchase are because our economy doesn't rely on their exploited labor.

Unless you are self sustained, grow all of your own food, get milk from your own cows, never go to restaurants, never hire contractors, never go to a hotel etc.... you are likely economically benefiting by them being here. by all means - weigh that against the 0% less you would be paying in taxes if there were no illegal immigrants here.

So you’re ok with exploiting people?

 

[Merge]

So you’re ok with exploiting people?

Good effort, but no.
I'm in favor of amnesty. It will hurt my wallet, but I believe it is the right thing to do.

 

[SPK145]

My effective tax rate fell 2.64%, thank you DC.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Out of curiousity how many here are business owners and benefiting from section 199a

 

[SPK145]

Out of curiousity how many here are business owners and benefiting from section 199a

I am.

 

[HALL85]

Out of curiousity how many here are business owners and benefiting from section 199a

Not me.

 

[Section112]

Out of curiousity how many here are business owners and benefiting from section 199a

Me

 

[Hall-line-forever]

Hello my brothers and sisters of Piratecrew.

Anyone with updates about your taxes? Better or worse?

 

[cernjSHU]

My effective tax rate fell 2.64%, thank you DC.

So how much did you save? in dollars

 

[shu09]

Another thing to point out here is, lower rates = less taxes paid = lower refunds than in the past.