[Cyberyeti]

 ldrews, on 2018-April-28, 10:20, said:

I would think that all of the people getting jobs, getting tax reductions, bonuses, rising wages, etc., would disagree that it is inconsequential.

Yes the rich are benefiting from all those things. The vast majority of people are not.

[ldrews]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-April-28, 11:51, said:

Yes the rich are benefiting from all those things. The vast majority of people are not.

If I remember correctly, 85% of all taxpayers received a tax cut, around $2000 a year. Are you excluding these families from your "vast majority"?

Over 500 companies have given bonuses, covering several million employees. Are you excluding these people from your "vast majority"?

Unemployment is at 45 year lows, black and hispanic unemployment are at record lows. Are you excluding these people from your "vast majority"?

Wages are starting to increase, 2+%/year on the average. Are you excluding these people from your "vast majority"?

So, who is left in your "vast majority"? Seems like it would be people who do not pay taxes and do not work.

[Cyberyeti]

 ldrews, on 2018-April-28, 12:57, said:

If I remember correctly, 85% of all taxpayers received a tax cut, around $2000 a year. Are you excluding these families from your "vast majority"?

Over 500 companies have given bonuses, covering several million employees. Are you excluding these people from your "vast majority"?

Unemployment is at 45 year lows, black and hispanic unemployment are at record lows. Are you excluding these people from your "vast majority"?

Wages are starting to increase, 2+%/year on the average. Are you excluding these people from your "vast majority"?

So, who is left in your "vast majority"? Seems like it would be people who do not pay taxes and do not work.

A lot of people don't earn enough to pay $2K in tax.

Wages rising 2% is less than the 2.4% inflation in March so they're getting poorer.

Many of the new jobs are right at the bottom of the income scale.

[Winstonm]

Money has a good breakdown of the new tax laws: http://time.com/mone...ll-affects-you/

Quote

The Lowest Earners
Who is affected: Taxpayers earning less than $25,400 a year

2019: Average tax cut of $40, or a 0.3% change in after-tax income

2025: Average tax cut of $50, or a 0.3% change in after-tax income

2027: Average tax hike of $20, or a -0.1% change in after-tax income

The Solid Middle Class
Who is affected: Taxpayers earning between $49,600 and $87,400 annually

2019: Average tax cut of $840, or a 1.4% change in after-tax income

2025: Average tax cut of $930, or a 1.3% change in after-tax income

2027: Average tax cut of $40, or a 0.1% change in after-tax income

The Wealthy
Who is affected: The top 20% of U.S. earners reporting an income greater than $150,000 annually

2019: Average tax cut of $5,420, or a 2% change in after-tax income

2025: Average tax cut of $6,540, or a 2% change in after-tax income

2027: Average tax cut of $1,860, or a 0.5% change in after-tax income

The Super-Wealthy
Who is affected: The top .1% of U.S. earners taking home $3,587,300 or more a year

2019: Average tax cut of $61,920, or a 0.8% change in after-tax income

2025: Average tax cut of $152,200, or a 1.6% change in after-tax income

2027: Average tax cut of $182,030, or a 1.7% change in after-tax income

Note that most breaks for individuals expire in 2025 but business ones are permanent.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2018-April-28, 14:11, said:

Money has a good breakdown of the new tax laws: http://time.com/mone...ll-affects-you/



Note that most breaks for individuals expire in 2025 but business ones are permanent.

I can't make much sense out of that article. They refer to the Solid Middle Class and then say Who is affected $49,600 to $87,400. Are they saying that $87,400 is the upper end of Solid Middle Class or are they saying that members of the Solid Middle Class above 87,400 are not affected? The latter seems unlikely but the next group they take seems to start at 150,000.

So maybe they are implying that those between 87,400 and 150,000 (are they called Super Solid Middle Class?) are not affected?

I seem to recall buying a copy or two of Money some years back and then not buying any more. The not buying any more part is looking like a good decision. Or maybe I am missing something, It wouldn't be the first time.

[ldrews]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-April-28, 13:24, said:

A lot of people don't earn enough to pay $2K in tax.

Wages rising 2% is less than the 2.4% inflation in March so they're getting poorer.

Many of the new jobs are right at the bottom of the income scale.

My understanding is that wages have not reason much at all for the last several years, much less 2%. Please cite your source for many of the new jobs being at the bottom of the income scale. My understanding is that many of the new jobs are major manufacturing plant reopenings, which are not low paid jobs. Auto assembly plants, iron/steel manufacturing plants, several national customer service sites, etc.

And even those jobs at the bottom of the income scale are welcome. They haven't been visible for years. Absolutely essential for training inexperienced workers.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2018-April-28, 14:11, said:

Money has a good breakdown of the new tax laws: http://time.com/mone...ll-affects-you/



Note that most breaks for individuals expire in 2025 but business ones are permanent.

Do you really expect Congress to let the individual tax cuts expire in 2025? C'mon, be serious.

The temporary nature of the individual tax cuts was imposed to satisfy the requirements necessary to avoid 60 votes in the Senate. The current tax cuts were passed under the Budget Reconciliation process.

If the Republicans achieve a veto proof majority in the Senate they will make the individual tax cuts permanent. If the Democrats gain power then the individuals are out of luck as long as the Democrats are united in opposition to Trump. In fact, the current Democratic platform for the 2018 elections includes raising taxes, not cutting them.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2018-April-28, 15:55, said:

I can't make much sense out of that article. They refer to the Solid Middle Class and then say Who is affected $49,600 to $87,400. Are they saying that $87,400 is the upper end of Solid Middle Class or are they saying that members of the Solid Middle Class above 87,400 are not affected? The latter seems unlikely but the next group they take seems to start at 150,000.

So maybe they are implying that those between 87,400 and 150,000 (are they called Super Solid Middle Class?) are not affected?

I seem to recall buying a copy or two of Money some years back and then not buying any more. The not buying any more part is looking like a good decision. Or maybe I am missing something, It wouldn't be the first time.

I took it that they mean as solid middle class those who earn between 49K and 87K.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2018-April-28, 19:10, said:

I took it that they mean as solid middle class those who earn between 49K and 87K.

So did I, but then did they just skip over the people that are between 87 and 150? Or maybe that is in the print edition and the online is just an excerpt?

Also the classification seems a little dated. In the D.C. area, and there are definitely tougher places in the nation, 50K a year, say for a family of 4, would be tough. More like Just Hangin' in There Baby Middle Class rather than Solid Middle Class. .

The magazine starts wealthy at 150K. That also seems dated to me. I think 150 is well off, but sending your kid to a private college would seriously dig into it. Wealthy people should be able to tell both their kids that they can go to any college that they can get into, both can go at the same time, and these wealthy parents should not have to fret about where they will get the cash to do this. No student loans, and no or little cutting back on their own pleasures. That sounds like wealthy to me. I don't think 150 would do it.

But regardless of terms, there seems to be this 87-150 gap.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2018-April-28, 19:56, said:

So did I, but then did they just skip over the people that are between 87 and 150?

That would be my guess. From what I see from other sources, that group - call them the upper middle class - will see tax reductions of $1600-$2000. I can only guess the author thought this group either too small to mention or a group that is not being mentioned by politicians so reader interest would be slight.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2018-April-28, 21:07, said:

That would be my guess. From what I see from other sources, that group - call them the upper middle class - will see tax reductions of $1600-$2000. I can only guess the author thought this group either too small to mention or a group that is not being mentioned by politicians so reader interest would be slight.

I think carelessness is also a possibility. Many outlets seem to be cutting back on proof readers.

As to reader interest, who reads Money? Well, I don't so I suppose I cannot really say. But it seems to me that the income range that they skipped over is both pretty good sized and is a likely source of readership. People who have little money left over have little interest in seeing how they could invest money that they don't have, people with substantial assets get individualized professional assistance with their investments. So I think it's this middle group that is their potential readership.

If an author sits down to do an analysis such sa this, leaving out a sizable group of people just seems weird. I think someone made an error rather than a conscious choice when they wrote it up. The figures for missing group is probably on his/her desk somewhere These things happen, but it does not give me confidence in the magazine.

[barmar]

They also skipped the group between "lowest earners" and "solid middle class". It looks to me like they just did this to keep the article a a manageable size, and describe several representative income ranges, rather than try to cover the entire spectrum.

These also seem to be the groups that get most discussion. Lower-class and middle-class because they're the ones whose lives are most impacted (positively or negatively) by tax policy, and upper classes because they're the ones who received disproportionate gains. Upper middle-class earners are in decent shape, and the tax changes don't really change much for them (although they're homeowners, so the changes in deductions for mortgages and state/local staxes will hit them).

So I think it was just a pragmatic editorial decision, not an attempt to ignore various groups.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2018-April-29, 13:30, said:

They also skipped the group between "lowest earners" and "solid middle class". It looks to me like they just did this to keep the article a a manageable size, and describe several representative income ranges, rather than try to cover the entire spectrum.

These also seem to be the groups that get most discussion. Lower-class and middle-class because they're the ones whose lives are most impacted (positively or negatively) by tax policy, and upper classes because they're the ones who received disproportionate gains. Upper middle-class earners are in decent shape, and the tax changes don't really change much for them (although they're homeowners, so the changes in deductions for mortgages and state/local staxes will hit them).

So I think it was just a pragmatic editorial decision, not an attempt to ignore various groups.

Well, I quote a line from the article "Wondering how the Senate tax bill would affect you? Here’s everything you need to know."

What can I say? If it really was an editorial decision, that's some editor they have. I approached my first writing assignment in College English in the same way I had in high school. I whipped something together the night before it was due and handed it in without proofreading it. I got an F. I subsequently changed my approach. This came to mind as I read this article.

[cherdano]

Ken, you usually aren't that much of caricature of a pure mathematician! (Says fellow pure mathematician.)

Obviously, they tried to convey the effects of the tax law at the hand of a few illustrative examples, rather than trying to be comprehensive.

Meanwhile, I think it's you, not Money, who is out-of-touch about family incomes. 2016 median household income in the US was 59000$. Unless you want to completely redefine "middle class" I doubt it makes a lot of sense to insist that it only starts way above the median household income.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2018-April-29, 16:01, said:

Ken, you usually aren't that much of caricature of a pure mathematician! (Says fellow pure mathematician.)

Obviously, they tried to convey the effects of the tax law at the hand of a few illustrative examples, rather than trying to be comprehensive.

Meanwhile, I think it's you, not Money, who is out-of-touch about family incomes. 2016 median household income in the US was 59000$. Unless you want to completely redefine "middle class" I doubt it makes a lot of sense to insist that it only starts way above the median household income.

You would agree, would you not, that saying "Wondering how the Senate tax bill would affect you? Here's everything you need to know." is more than a bit of an overstatement if what they are really going to do is "convey the effects of the tax law at the hand of a few illustrative examples, rather than trying to be comprehensive.".

Added: You say "I doubt it makes a lot of sense to insist that it [Middle Class] only starts way above the median household income." Looking over what I wrote, I can't see where I did.

Quoting myself:
"Also the classification seems a little dated. In the D.C. area, and there are definitely tougher places in the nation, 50K a year, say for a family of 4, would be tough. More like Just Hangin' in There Baby Middle Class rather than Solid Middle Class"
Yes, I think that sounds about right to me. I do not see this as insisting that Middle Class starts way above the median household income. I kept the classification Middle Class for 50K, but I objected to the modifier Solid Middle Class. My replacement modifier was of course a bit facetious.
It has a personal echo. Allowing for the change in the scale of money, 50K today would have been about 5K in the mid 1950s. Cars then were about 2K, gas prices were between 20 and 30 cents a gallon and so on. So a factor of 10 is about right. My father made about 5K a year. Middle class? Maybe, but we would not have claimed it. Solid Middle Class. No. Not at all. We drove a Chevrolet. There were Fords and Plymouths around. One family on the block owned a Buick. Maybe they were Solid Middle Class.

Mostly I think it's a lousy article. But if others see merit in it, I can live with that.

[kenberg]

I was thinking about the "Wondering how the Senate tax bill would affect you? Here's everything you need to know." aspect of the article.
Forget the article.
How does a person see how he will be affected?
Many of us do not have a complicated tax life.
For example, Becky and I have done absolutely nothing in response to the new tax laws. Like many others, we don't have, and don't wish to have, any knowledge at all about hedge funds. But that doesn't mean that we are totally unaffected.
So here is what would be nice.
It would be good to see the new tax forms, the ones we will be using next year.
We could take our finances from last year, our income, expenses and so on, and we could enter then on the new 2018 form, and then we could compute the tax on that just as if our 2017 income and expenses had occurred in 2018. Then we could compute the tax that we would have paid in 2017, if the 2018 laws had been in effect for 2017.

In this way we really could get a good idea of how the new tax laws will affect us. If it does not tell us everything we need to know, it would come pretty close. After doing that, a person could see how his tax had changed and why. Possibly he could then make some choices, after this understanding, that would affect his taxes.

Expecting such guidance for understanding how the new tax laws actually will affect us is probably wishing for the moon. But if someone really wishes to help us understand, I think this would largely do it. For example, I would actually do this if the forms were available. Probably I would then just get an idea of whether my taxes will go up or down, I doubt I would actually make any changes in anything, but at least I would have the information. Reading the actual tax bill is more work than I am up for.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2018-April-30, 07:54, said:

Reading the actual tax bill is more work than I am up for.

Which is why magazines like Money are in business. But if you don't like their approach, perhaps you should write them a letter.

[y66]

 kenberg, on 2018-April-30, 07:54, said:

I was thinking about the "Wondering how the Senate tax bill would affect you? Here's everything you need to know." aspect of the article.
Forget the article.
How does a person see how he will be affected?
Many of us do not have a complicated tax life.
For example, Becky and I have done absolutely nothing in response to the new tax laws. Like many others, we don't have, and don't wish to have, any knowledge at all about hedge funds. But that doesn't mean that we are totally unaffected.
So here is what would be nice.
It would be good to see the new tax forms, the ones we will be using next year.
We could take our finances from last year, our income, expenses and so on, and we could enter then on the new 2018 form, and then we could compute the tax on that just as if our 2017 income and expenses had occurred in 2018. Then we could compute the tax that we would have paid in 2017, if the 2018 laws had been in effect for 2017.

In this way we really could get a good idea of how the new tax laws will affect us. If it does not tell us everything we need to know, it would come pretty close. After doing that, a person could see how his tax had changed and why. Possibly he could then make some choices, after this understanding, that would affect his taxes.

Expecting such guidance for understanding how the new tax laws actually will affect us is probably wishing for the moon. But if someone really wishes to help us understand, I think this would largely do it. For example, I would actually do this if the forms were available. Probably I would then just get an idea of whether my taxes will go up or down, I doubt I would actually make any changes in anything, but at least I would have the information. Reading the actual tax bill is more work than I am up for.

The tax calculator that Adam Pearce and his colleagues at The Upshot at NYT created will probably give you a decent estimate.

I used Glenn Reeves's spreadsheet to check my taxes for 2017. I see he has a version for forecasting the effects of the tax law changes which he calls the 2018 tax planner. He's been maintaining his spreadsheet and making it available for 20 years or so and he's mentioned on the Bogleheads Wiki so it's probably safe to use.

[y66]

From The Wolf at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner by Jon Fasman at The Economist:

Quote

FULL disclosure: I have never been to a White House Correspondents’ Dinner; I will never go to a White House Correspondents’ Dinner. The American political press already has a bias toward reverence and access preservation; journalists yukking it up with powerful people whom they are supposed to cover impartially is unseemly. Partly for this reason, The Economist has for several years not sent anyone along. Usually the dinner passes in a flurry of photos and articles about who wore what, which celebrity sat at which publication’s table and a recounting of the hokey jokes told by whichever safe comedian they wangled into hosting. But occasionally something more interesting happens.

Over the past two days Washington has worked itself into a tizzy over Michelle Wolf’s unusually scathing monologue. She mocked everyone: Donald Trump (“the one pussy you’re not allowed to grab”), Kellyanne Conway (“If a tree falls in the woods, how do we get Kellyanne under that tree”), Ivanka Trump (“about as helpful to women as an empty box of tampons”), Sarah Huckabee Sanders (“She burns facts and then uses the ashes to create a perfect smoky eye”), and the press (“[Mr Trump] helped you sell your papers and your books and your TV. You helped create this monster, and now you’re profiting off him.”).

Matt Schlapp, a conservative lobbyist and the husband of Mercedes Schlapp, a White House communications director, tweeted that he and his wife “walked out early from the wh correspondents dinner. Enough of elites mocking all of us”—though precisely what definition of “elite” includes a stand-up comic but excludes high-ranking White House officials remains unclear. Several people, liberals as well as conservatives, demanded that Ms Wolf apologise for mocking Mrs Sanders’s appearance—though of course Mr Trump has made juvenile derision of people’s looks his stock-in-trade.

Margaret Talev, the head of the White House Correspondents’ Association, tut-tutted that Ms Wolf’s monologue “was not in the spirit of [our] mission,” which was “to offer a unifying message about our common commitment to a vigorous and free press while honouring civility [and] great reporting…not to divide people.”

Among those who failed to receive that message, apparently, was Mr Trump, who in a nifty bit of counterprogramming held a rally in Washington, Michigan during the correspondents’ dinner. He skipped the event for the second straight year. Mr Trump accused the media—whom he has previously called “the enemy of the American people”—of making up sources and hating his supporters who attended the rally. One worked-up attendee at the rally screamed at reporters, whom he called “degenerate filth”, to leave the country.

After the speech, Mr Trump’s people pressed their advantage. Mrs Schlapp told a reporter that “journalists should not be the ones to say that the president or his spokesman is lying.”

This raises an obvious question—if not journalists, then whom?—with an equally obvious answer: nobody. Mr Trump’s communication staff would prefer it if nobody pointed out when he and his media team lie.

Ms Talev invited Mrs Sanders to sit at the head table because she “thought it sent an important decision about…government and the press being able to work together.” But of course, that is precisely what should never happen, particularly with an administration as ambivalent about the First Amendment—among other norms and laws—as this one. (The Justice Department recently removed a section entitled “Need for Free Press and Public Trial” from its internal manual for federal prosecutors.)

Calls for press-corps civility are in fact calls for servility, and should be received with contempt. Some might argue that insults do not deserve the same protection as investigative journalism, but that is a distinction without a difference. Anyone who wants to outlaw or apologise for the former will end up too timid to do the latter.

In open societies, self-censorship—in the name of civility, careerism or access preservation—is a much greater threat to the media than outright repression. The only person owed an apology here is Ms Wolf, for being scolded by the very people who invited her to speak, and who purport to defend a “vigorous and free press.”

Winston Wolfe has met his match.

[cherdano]

Well I'll admit - I just had to get post #10,000 in...