... 'too much house' Island?
 

Starting tomorrow, January 1, 2018, will the new $10,000 federal income tax limit for deducting your state's income-sales-property tax payments be a-changing the way homeowners think about their very high priced Governor's Island mega million dollar homes?

Maybe Governor's Island will become Governor's Island aka 'too much house' Island?

...................... :patriot::blush::patriot: .................... fearless Donald

Less, something tells me that the majority of the property owners on Governors Island have taxable incomes that put them above the threshold for being able to deduct any property taxes anyway. Furthermore, the actual tax dollar savings for high income individuals under the new tax plan will far exceed the minimal loss of not being able to deduct anything over $10,000 on property taxes. Therefore, the joke is on you! MAGA!!!:patriot::patriot:

Less supports massive tax breaks for the wealthy..... if he didn't he'd be cheering the 10K write off cap. For political purposes in this case it's OK to be hypocritical.

Now if Hillary or Bernie were doing the same thing, it'd be down right brilliant and he'd be a huge fan.

You are correct, Maxum. I saw this the other day and had to laugh:

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9997

You misstate the case when you suggest FLL and other Democrats are hypocritical on this. (So blatantly, I'm surprised he didn't call you on it the first time.)

While it's true that many Democrats at all income levels often support higher taxes on the rich, those tax proposals are generally to fund lower taxes for the poor, expanded social programs, or long-term investments.

This tax bill does not do those things. Instead it sends the extra money in question to other rich people and corporations, while creating a huge hole in the national debt.

Actually, if there's any hypocrisy around this bill, it's the Republicans' abandonment of conservative principles on the national debt.

Where was the outrage and concern over the national debt last 8 years? Oh I guess if your are funding entitlements it's OK.... but I would argue since when does giving anyone something they never paid for directly help them? Those people need a job not another check from Uncle Sam in the mail.

Since we have a progressive tax system in place the higher income brackets pay the most in taxes therefore.... it only stands to reason that any cut in the marginal tax rates across the board will favor those who pay the most. Nothing wrong with that.

That is of course if you actually believe the above statement to be true. Many do not in fact many including the most "celebrated" democrats seem to claim that the wealthy - individuals and businesses pay little or no taxes. That in and of itself shows their utter incompetence. If that is the case, seems that this doesn't benefit the rich at all since they pay nothing in the first place.

So which is it?

In regards to the national debt, there you and I do agree on something, I do not like the fact this country continues to operate in a way where the debt continues to rise however we likely disagree on how to fix that. There is no way to tax into oblivion the "rich" to get us out of the situation we find ourselves in. It will just further weaken our economy and kill more jobs. We need to get this country moving again, get the economy fired back up and make this US based businesses on the world stage more competitive. The only way to do that is to reduce the tax burden on the job creators and create incentive to keep jobs here which will broaden the tax base and reduce the numbers on welfare. We cannot continue to bleed jobs to "low cost" countries and not pay a long term price for that which we already are. So I look at this as an "investment" in the good people and companies of the USA. I guess we'll agree to disagree on who best to receive the benefit of those tax cuts. I prefer to see them target those that will hire more people and innovate new products and services.


Just my .02 cents (tax free)

Why are CBO projections never checked after the fact? The Reagan tax cuts and the GW Bush tax cuts both resulted in substantial increases in taxes collected, this is easily checked. Deficits are a spending problem not a collection problem.

The other issue I have with these tax discussions on fairness is that we have allowed the progressives and media to shape the discussion. These cuts are termed unfair because people who pay little or no taxes get little or no money back when you cut taxes because they are not paying the taxes being cut in the first place. We are on an unsustainable path with these deficits and the solution is not tax increases, the solution is spending control.

You wish, I doubt it will change the buying habits of the top 1% one bit.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

What people forget about the Reagan tax cuts are two fold. First, they did not generate the increased revenue hoped for and deficits grew (and yes, I know that spending is an issue in and of itself, but it is worth noting that politicians and the people who put them into office do not have the stomach to seriously cut spending, but that is a different conversation). Second, by the time his presidency was over he had increased taxes through broadening the tax base and closing so called loopholes. Economists on both sides of the aisle, if you want to believe them, support this.

The bigger issue for me is the deficit these tax cuts bring. They will ultimately do more harm than good because deficits matter - and not only do the tax cuts not pay for themselves, they significantly add to the deficit. We can argue the point, as can politicians, but the problem won’t become apparent to the masses for years - at which point those in office will come up with another short-term, feel good fix and kick the can down the road yet again. What’s the answer? I don’t know. I will benefit from the new tax cuts, but I fear the long term effect on the country.

There is an important distinction to make here, it's belongs to them and what they do with it, spend it or not is up to them not you, me or the federal government! However this does beg the question, if they don't spend it what do they do with it that is so harmful? After all they are either saving it or more likely investing it. Where is the down side to that? In fact whether saved or invested they will be taxed on gains anyways.

What fuels the economy isn't all about retail sales!

No, no. I am sure Bill Gates has all his money stuffed into mattresses in his huge house so it does no good to the economy. /s

Actually, a huge portion of Gates' money is invested in education because he understands that not everyone is born with the same opportunities.

"Limited opportunity for too many young people results in dramatically lower life prospects for them and a worse quality of life for all of us." --Gates Foundation

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

He can use HIS money however he wishes. Money, BTW, that was generated from business activity and will probably increase as the economy grows. He can then give that new money away if he wishes to.

The key word is INVESTED. People are hired, buildings are rented or built, computers and supplies are ordered, other products are purchased, they pay electric, water and sewerage bills, and building maintenance. People working on the project travel, stay at hotels, go to restaurants to eat. The workers spin off their own economic activity; paying taxes, buying houses, cars, boats, some living the lives of the "5%". The ultimate outcome of Gate's intent, if successful, is people who are smart enough to work at yet other businesses and pay their taxes, housing costs, etc. from their earnings.

In short, even though the purpose of his education efforts may be "charitable", it carries out business activities to achieve them. Further, every dollar invested, if you follow it back to its source, comes FROM a business activity. The outcome is people prepared to WORK in society, some for Gate's companies.

COMMERCE undergirds EVERYTHING.

The raw goal of commerce is to make more money. That money is used to fuel the innumerable and dynamic goals of the billions of people on the planet. No money, the goals suffer and even fail, even to the levels of individual starvation. Unchained commerce yields more money for all purposes, even for those who want to invest it in education.

Maxum--an excellent question and a great point. I agree that it's all about retail sales.

As BiggD points out, the rich save much more than others as a percent of income. There's plenty of data on this, and it all points in the same direction.
As you can see in the link below, the middle quintile saves 11% of their income and the top 1% saves 51% of their income. So if a trillion dollar tax cut goes to the middle class, $890 billion gets spent, driving retail sales. But if we give a trillion dollar break to the top 1%, only $490 billion gets spent retail. So the best way to drive retail is to give the tax break to those still struggling financially.

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart...e-level-2013-3

Yes, yes, I think I see now, the rich steal all the poor people's money, that's how they get rich, makes perfect sense. :rolleye2:

Many of those truly struggling financially don't pay income taxes anyway so a "break" for them does nothing for them or the economy.

As to thinking that invested money doesn't help retail, that is naive. Companies that receive investments are able to hire more people or raise salaries or buy equipment (allowing other companies to hire people) to increase productivity that then allows them to raise salaries. Many of the recipients of those increases are NOT rich and spend the extra money they just got. We just had a banner sales year for Christmas. That was very likely fueled simply by the anticipation of better economic (business) times including personal benefits improving. Those $1000 bonuses we are reading about are buying TVs, home improvements, etc. Those bonuses are fueled by tax breaks and by anticipation of new investment money coming in from rich people who got tax breaks.

Investment is an essential part of the economy and directly and indirectly allows people to buy things.

Bingo! A perfect argument for mandatory redistribution of wealth. :rolleye2:

No what I said is it is NOT all about retail sales. If it were there would be no need for venture capitol firms and the stock market for that matter.

Investment is the lifeblood of all business.

However I'm a bit shocked that you would favor big business. Odd all things considered. Think about it if you give money to those that are going to go out and immediately spend it who does that favor? Ah the already established "big businesses" that your political philosophy regularly chastises. What about the small guy, maybe the startup that is working on something new and innovative who may not be operating on a profit and strictly on investment capitol. Guess those companies and all their employees don't matter! Who do you think funds these? Not the guy living paycheck to paycheck.

Dividing wealth doesn't create more, and when it's all gone then what?

Here are some facts - over the past couple decades, the income gap between those at the top and the rest of the population has grown exponentially. The national debt continues to increase at rates that are not sustainable. The biggest corporations and their leadership have had the most profitable period of growth in modern times.

These tax cuts are not going to fix any of the above. What do they mean for me? I will make out well. My income will go up allowing me to continue to make smart investments. Companies I invest in will, I hope, buy back stock and increase their dividends which will help me build more wealth. I already have plenty of money for consumer goods (and have too much "stuff" already) so my money will not be spent at the local Walmart. I think time will show there are more of the tax cut recipients like me than there are those who are increasing wages. Reagan's trickle down economics didn't work in the 80's and it won't work today. The Just Say No to drugs campaign was a similar failure, but I bet that gets resurrected as well!

Sorry for misquoting you.

Starting again from your post--I've spent over 20 years in venture capital, both as an investor and an entrepreneur putting in every spare penny of cash flow. From an venture investor perspective, this tax bill is friendly in that in maintains the carried interest loophole that so many in both parties dislike as unfair, and it opens up a new pass-through entity tax break. Yea! We'll be even richer!

But for an entrepreneur at a venture-backed company, there is very little here to like. They could have benefitted from accelerated depreciation on capital expenditures, or a tax credit for new job creation, just for example. And as someone who's been on both sides on the investor-entrepreneur table, it makes me laugh to think that tax breaks for the VCs will make entrepreneurs lives easier.

Garcia has it right on the destination for the tax savings.

This right here.
No way should ANYONE get welfare for life because they CHOSE to have 12-15 kids and not work! We need to define a shorter term for welfare recipients. After 2 kids.... You are out of the program. You do not get 4, 5, 7 tries.

Oh my :eek:

Outdoorman....where do you get your informtion? As I see it the most conservative Republicans are pro-birth, not pro-life. Women must have children, but no one cares what happens to those children once born. Seems to me if the government does not want to support children they should not force women to have them:)

You are spot on!

Our leaders profess to be Christians and probably know what the bible says about having children, here is one of many verses that are in the bible:

"Psalm 127:3-5
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate."

I won't begin to say that bill is perfect, a lot more could have been done and certainly some things differently - you do make some good points too in highlighting it's shortcomings, however as a whole I believe it will be beneficial. Time will tell what's done is done.

We could probably argue the merits of various aspects of this till we crash the web master's server for chewing up to much space! However I think this illustrates one thing, and I nod my head to you and others who have made your points eloquently and in a reasonable manner, opinions vary! It's nice to have a rational discussion about them from varying points of view in a civilized manner. To bad the fruitcakes in DC can't do the same, and that I think it something we all can agree on!!!

True - but alas the bible also says this!

Second Thessalonians 3:10-12 “For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.”

The government is not forcing women to have children. There are plenty of choices, among them birth control or abstinence. "Women must have children"? That is a choice, not a mandatory requirement for anyone.

Welfare was once a safety net but it has become a hammock and a way of life rife with fraud that continues through generations. The government must come up with a way to wean people off of it rather than continue to make it easy and more lucrative than having a job.

Section 8 housing is another widely abused government handout. As a landlord, I have had approximately 35 tenants who have had their rent paid or subsidized by the government. After getting to know their situation I would say 5 of them needed some help, the rest were scamming the system. Despite making numerous reports about the fraud, I could get no action from anyone in the system. The people administering the welfare programs depend on clients for job security. They have no interest in cleaning it up.

I hear this canard all the time, I'm always amazed at the convolutions people will twist themselves into and the lies they make up to justify killing babies. I see variations on the above progressive talking point all the time and it is very dishonest. The people who repeat it are either dishonest themselves or very misinformed.

This train has certainly jumped off the tracks.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Agreed. But the subject and discussion revolved around taxes and where this thread has gone is certainly related to taxes.

If anyone would like an example of how misinformed people are about taxes being the source of funds for government you need only listen to this. The end is astonishing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85hzg2SMF9U

Uneducated and misinformed to say the least. It is a shame there are many like this. No matter what side of the fence you reside on everyone should at least be educated enough to have an intelligent discussion and form an opinion based on facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

When people start quoting the bible in a thread about taxes, I,m outa here!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I agree with that quote but it doesn't take away from the fact that we will always take care of children whether it's from taxes or charity.

Supposedly more clarity and guidance about the new tax bill is going to come out in the next few weeks.

Just curious - how many people are aware that over 90% of all entitlement money goes to seniors, the disabled, or members of working households? Not saying reforms aren't needed, they are, but the idea that the vast majority of entitlement spending goes to able-bodied people who choose not to work is misinformed and quite wrong.

Agreed--Cheers!

Hmmm, your numbers sound off, but even so, 10% fraud rate is pretty substantial and a great place to start cutting.

My numbers are on the conservative side - and while yes there is fraud and waste, one cannot simply assume that every able bodied person on welfare is abusing the system. A starting point for reform? Yes. But, a drop in the bucket when we look at the overall cost and the impact on the national debt.

Entitlement Programs also include Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment insurance. I am not against any AMERICAN with a legitimate claim who has paid into the system utilizing the available benefits through Medicare, Social Security, or Unemployment. There are numerous examples of phony disability claims for Social Security which also entitles the recipient to Medicare at an early age.

Welfare makes up 10% of the entire Federal budget and in my opinion, based on my experience, 90% of the people collecting should be and could be working. There have been numerous examples of people using the cash portion of their benefits on cruise ships and at casinos. There is something about that that that makes me think these people aren't too needy.

A close friend had a part time employee and he offered to upgrade her to full time. She declined saying it would screw up her welfare. These things are happening every day across the country. The system has made it too easy to take the free ride.

The last point is valid and shows why the system needs to be reformed. I also know someone who declined full time work as it would throw off her benefits. For her, she would make less, and be further below the poverty line, if she worked full time than part time with SNAP benefits. She is perfectly willing to work full time and have her benefits adjusted so that she is not worse off working full-time, but the program won't do that.

Regardless, these are eye-catching examples of a broken system that help to prove individual points and perspectives but do very little to address the real problem. I don't know the answer, but I wonder how much could be put back into the federal government if we clamped down on both corporations and individuals who are abusing the federal tax codes (and the medicare/medicaid billing process) through fraud? My guess, and it is just that, is that from an economic point of view our country would be better off chasing down those dollars.

A quick look says that the uncollected taxes amount to $400 billion annually with $235 billion spent annually on programs to support the nonworking poor. Quick math shows how we can continue to offer welfare and still come out $165 billion ahead! How do we make this happen?:rolleye2::confused:

The welfare system needs a complete overhaul to reduce the abuse of the system.