Will the new tax plan revitalize the Middle class and help Aviation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
paflyer said:
How many people would be getting pink slips if the tax converted to a flat 10% for everyone?
Click to expand...

A bunch. Same as if the legal system was simplified. I feel like I've spent a lifetime and a small fortune closing three family estates. The only people getting paid are tax pro's and lawyers.

In both cases, the code is written to drive you to require professional help. Completely non value-added. Just an unnecessary tax on society and a codified paycheck for lawyers and accountants.
 
It's very difficult to get rich on a salary or working for someone else, it takes a long time, income taxes are part of the reason.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That is EXACTLY why we are screwed.

The GOP tax plan significantly cuts revenue while the GOP controlled House and Senate have done nothing to reign in the spending that was out of control during the previous administration. If anything they have increased spending.
Click to expand...


This is getting deeply into politics. But as a moderate, I am tickled to hear the two sides switch positions for the sake of political opposition. It is not about principle, it is about fighting. For me that really takes any power out of the arguments.
 
paflyer said:
How many people would be getting pink slips if the tax converted to a flat 10% for everyone?
Click to expand...

I dont understand. Why would lowering taxes result in firings?
 
bflynn said:
I dont understand. Why would lowering taxes result in firings?
Click to expand...

Because with a flat tax, you wouldn't need all of the people working at the H&R Block McFranchises doing taxes every Spring, and much of the work done by Corporate Accountants, Tax Attorneys, and Tax Consultants would go away.
 
Ah, right. Yeah, sorry about that. But maintaining a complex tax code just to provide jobs to people to explain it seems silly.

You forgot about all the IRS workers who would be let go.
 
kyleb said:
This. There is very little (no?) real news today. There is only spin and it comes from all sides.
Click to expand...

It was always like that, as long as I can remember but FINALLY people are waking up to it now!

PaulS said:
It's very difficult to get rich on a salary or working for someone else, it takes a long time, income taxes are part of the reason.
Click to expand...

It really depends on what you do with your money...I live in Florida No state tax....I lived in New York, you had to pay State, Federal AND City taxes...How come most people that live in Florida aren't rich?
 
I'm hoping the middle class can boost the General Aviation market with used airplane purchases and avionics. GA NEEDS A BOOST!
 
FloridaPilot said:
It was always like that, as long as I can remember but FINALLY people are waking up to it now!
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm not old enough but it seems like the journalistic integrity has decreased somewhat, even in just the last decade. Maybe with the advent of the internet there is a greater rush to post a flashy article to get more clicks and ad revenue before doing the vetting?
 
I hesitate to get all political on PoA, but I must be doing something wrong.

I’m a 1%-er and from everything the media tells me, I should be getting some sort of windfall. Yet my accountant tells me I should pay about $30K more in Federal taxes next year, and my home is likely to drop a few hundred thousand in value because I happen to live in a high-tax blue state.

Not sure I can afford much more of this kind of “help”.
 
kyleb said:
An aside. (And let me go ahead and apologize to tax professionals.)

One of the reasons tax laws are so complicated is they are written by people in the tax profession who only stay employed if the tax codes are so complicated professional assistance is needed to accurately file your taxes or determine tax strategy.
Click to expand...
It definitely seems this way sometimes and tax professionals certainly benefit. But I think the main reason for the complexity is just that it is just much easier to add rules, regulations and taxes than it is to remove or simplify them. Various interest groups and their lobbyists will always have good arguments for specific tax "exceptions" which need to be written into the code. Bureaucracies and the regulations they enforce will always tend to grow in size and complexity, often to the point of absurdity.

I haven't looked closely at the new tax bill. I'm skeptical that it will be the huge simplification and middle class tax relief that was promised. But, I believe that lowering the corporate tax rate to a level which is more competitive with the rest of the world has the potential to improve the US manufacturing capability and with it employment opportunity and balance of trade. Those are good things.
 
From what I've seen it should save me money, and that means I'll have more money to spend on flying and airplane stuff.
 
The way I see it is that the only thing worse than this tax bill, is the tax code we are currently living under,
and the tax code of of most of Europe and and all the communist countries.
 
FloridaPilot said:
It was always like that, as long as I can remember but FINALLY people are waking up to it now!



It really depends on what you do with your money...I live in Florida No state tax....I lived in New York, you had to pay State, Federal AND City taxes...How come most people that live in Florida aren't rich?
Click to expand...

People in Florida still pay Fed income taxes. I said difficult to get rich with a salary, not impossible. Many do get rich by living within their means or well below their means.


Vince R said:
I hesitate to get all political on PoA, but I must be doing something wrong.

I’m a 1%-er and from everything the media tells me, I should be getting some sort of windfall. Yet my accountant tells me I should pay about $30K more in Federal taxes next year, and my home is likely to drop a few hundred thousand in value because I happen to live in a high-tax blue state.

Not sure I can afford much more of this kind of “help”.
Click to expand...

I have no idea where I fall on the spectrum, will ask my accountant in April where he thinks I stand, I will say that I pay more than my fair share of taxes.
 
Vince R said:
I hesitate to get all political on PoA, but I must be doing something wrong.

I’m a 1%-er and from everything the media tells me, I should be getting some sort of windfall. Yet my accountant tells me I should pay about $30K more in Federal taxes next year, and my home is likely to drop a few hundred thousand in value because I happen to live in a high-tax blue state.

Not sure I can afford much more of this kind of “help”.
Click to expand...
The other side needs pariahs to maintain their grip on the willfully uniformed and envious voters.
 
PaulS said:
People in Florida still pay Fed income taxes. I said difficult to get rich with a salary, not impossible. Many do get rich by living within their means or well below their means.

I have no idea where I fall on the spectrum, will ask my accountant in April where he thinks I stand, I will say that I pay more than my fair share of taxes.
Click to expand...
You are just greedy.
 
Vince R said:
I hesitate to get all political on PoA, but I must be doing something wrong.

I’m a 1%-er and from everything the media tells me, I should be getting some sort of windfall. Yet my accountant tells me I should pay about $30K more in Federal taxes next year, and my home is likely to drop a few hundred thousand in value because I happen to live in a high-tax blue state.
Click to expand...

IOW you benefited from rules that allowed you to deduct expenses you incur to live in the state of your choice from your income. What you are seeing is not an increase but the removal of a decrease that you enjoyed for many years.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That is EXACTLY why we are screwed.

The GOP tax plan significantly cuts revenue while the GOP controlled House and Senate have done nothing to reign in the spending that was out of control during the previous administration. If anything they have increased spending.
Click to expand...
What should they cut?
 
edo2000 said:
But, I believe that lowering the corporate tax rate to a level which is more competitive with the rest of the world has the potential to improve the US manufacturing capability and with it employment opportunity and balance of trade. Those are good things.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, having set up one Chinese company owned by a Singapore company owned by a Luxembourg Company owned by a US company. The two intermediate steps only exist because US corporate tax rates are substantially higher than elsewhere. So, you create a structure which allows you to get your money out of China (where it is subject to the whims of the party), but not repatriate it all the way to the US, where the tax rate kills you.
 
paflyer said:
What should they cut?
Click to expand...

I would start with the bureaucracies which make their own rules, ultimately driving a need for larger bureaucracies. As an example, I have two friends who are lawyers in the EPA. Their workload has been gutted this year. Similarly, I have an acquaintance who is an environmental lawyer and battles the EPA. His workload is substantially down this year. All of this is because the current administration has throttled the EPA to some extent.

So, you could cut the EPA. You could cut the IRS. You could streamline the acquisition and hiring processes. I'm a fan of doing away with the DOH and DOEd. But ultimately, you're going to have to cut social programs to make things balance. That ain't gonna be pretty. I think the solution will be to grandfather certain folk over a certain age into Social Security, but ramp it down for future generations. At some point, there will be decisions made on how much public money to spend on certain medical conditions.
 
I own a house with a mortgage and live in a state with income and property taxes. All signs point to me ending up with less money at the end of the month. How much less I'm not sure yet. I don't even quite break the 10% I don't think.
 
We should add a poll to this thread to see how many people have read ANY of the text of the bill.

But since this topic is 100% political...
 
kyleb said:
An aside. (And let me go ahead and apologize to tax professionals.)

One of the reasons tax laws are so complicated is they are written by people in the tax profession who only stay employed if the tax codes are so complicated professional assistance is needed to accurately file your taxes or determine tax strategy.
Click to expand...

Kind of like lawyers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
true....but they aren't the ones paying taxes....but, this will get them a higher paying job.
Click to expand...
I’ll believe that when I see it.

But I don’t think you will see any huge boom in the economy.

If anything, this will hasten the reckoning. We’ve been in a bull market since 2009. This is going to send investors into the euphoria phase of the cycle. After euphoria comes the crash.

Any jobs created by this will be lost when the economy tanks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Fearless Tower said:
I’ll believe that when I see it.

But I don’t think you will see any huge boom in the economy.

If anything, this will hasten the reckoning. We’ve been in a bull market since 2009. This is going to send investors into the euphoria phase of the cycle. After euphoria comes the crash.

Any jobs created by this will be lost when the economy tanks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You're full of solutions tonight! ;)
 
This Tax plan is a great boom for GA.

The top will have more cash in hand to spend, and since they can 100% expense business assets that will spur a flurry of aircraft purchases...which means more used aircraft on the market eventually for the rest of us!

In all seriousness, that expense provision is gonna do more for corporate investment which will mean more jobs than the tax rate reduction will...not necessarily at the purchasing company, but at the suppliers of those assets. Corporate consumption is a much bigger economic driver than consumer consumption but does not make for good soundbites.
 
Vince R said:
I hesitate to get all political on PoA, but I must be doing something wrong.

I’m a 1%-er and from everything the media tells me, I should be getting some sort of windfall. Yet my accountant tells me I should pay about $30K more in Federal taxes next year, and my home is likely to drop a few hundred thousand in value because I happen to live in a high-tax blue state.

Not sure I can afford much more of this kind of “help”.
Click to expand...
Perhaps this will be the catalyst for you to get more involved with making sure the pols of your state spend more responsibly?
 
Shawn said:
This Tax plan is a great boom for GA.

The top will have more cash in hand to spend, and since they can 100% expense business assets that will spur a flurry of aircraft purchases...which means more used aircraft on the market eventually for the rest of us!

In all seriousness, that expense provision is gonna do more for corporate investment which will mean more jobs than the tax rate will...not necessarily at the purchasing company, but at the suppliers of those assest.
Click to expand...
“Please, please, it’s too much winning, we can’t take it any more.”
 
kyleb said:
I would start with the bureaucracies which make their own rules, ultimately driving a need for larger bureaucracies. As an example, I have two friends who are lawyers in the EPA. Their workload has been gutted this year. Similarly, I have an acquaintance who is an environmental lawyer and battles the EPA. His workload is substantially down this year. All of this is because the current administration has throttled the EPA to some extent.

So, you could cut the EPA. You could cut the IRS. You could streamline the acquisition and hiring processes. I'm a fan of doing away with the DOH and DOEd. But ultimately, you're going to have to cut social programs to make things balance. That ain't gonna be pretty. I think the solution will be to grandfather certain folk over a certain age into Social Security, but ramp it down for future generations. At some point, there will be decisions made on how much public money to spend on certain medical conditions.
Click to expand...

Or saber rattling millitary.

Switching from a world occupation / nation building force to a strong defensive would be a MAJOR savings.

Removing 60% of meter maid police that don't do actual police work would help

Legalize drugs and tax them, disband the ATF and DEA, that's a huge savings.

Etc
 
More special interests are routinely against tax law changes than for it. Lots of special interest groups with lots of lobby & social media resources to trash public opinion to protect the status quo. Happened to both Reagan and Kennedy's tax overhaul. Both cases the economy boomed afterwards. There are lots of Reagan and Kennedy haters who will disagree.
 
Last edited:
Ravioli said:
We should add a poll to this thread to see how many people have read ANY of the text of the bill.

But since this topic is 100% political...
Click to expand...

Haven't tried to read the 1000+ pages of the bill, but did read a Heritage summary, which seems to coincide with the non hysterical MSM coverage. All in all, if the summary is correct, I think it will be good for the country.
 
kyleb said:
I would start with the bureaucracies which make their own rules, ultimately driving a need for larger bureaucracies. As an example, I have two friends who are lawyers in the EPA. Their workload has been gutted this year. Similarly, I have an acquaintance who is an environmental lawyer and battles the EPA. His workload is substantially down this year. All of this is because the current administration has throttled the EPA to some extent.

So, you could cut the EPA. You could cut the IRS. You could streamline the acquisition and hiring processes. I'm a fan of doing away with the DOH and DOEd. But ultimately, you're going to have to cut social programs to make things balance. That ain't gonna be pretty. I think the solution will be to grandfather certain folk over a certain age into Social Security, but ramp it down for future generations. At some point, there will be decisions made on how much public money to spend on certain medical conditions.
Click to expand...

Social security is not really the problem because theoretically the program is self sustaining. Ok, it isn't, but that is due to borrowing in the past.

Government provided welfare in the various entitlement forms consumes more than the tax revenues "income". So we give away all the money we bring in and then have to borrow to keep the government running.
 
bflynn said:
Social security is not really the problem because theoretically the program is self sustaining. Ok, it isn't, but that is due to borrowing in the past.
Click to expand...

It would be self-sustaining if it was limited to the instances spelled out in the social security act. The idea was that social security was mainly a benefit for the aged and their widows. Social security disability (SSI-DI) was thought to be a minor part of the program and reserved for those who are physically simply not able to hold any gainful employment. What has happened in recent decades is that a cottage industry of consultants and lawyers has turned SSI-DI into a mechanism to fund those chronically unwilling to work. The administration of the program involves the welfare offices run by the states, and some states see it as their job to push out as much federal benefit money as they possibly can.

SSI-DI.jpg

Keep in mind, when SSI-DI was created, people were still doing manual labor, working in fields, building ships, mining coal without respiratory protection, cook steel etc. With all of these industries gone, disabilities are seemingly still on the rise. The erosion of social securities finances are mostly a result of the increase in beneficiaries living on the SSI-DI teat.

If social security payouts were limited to the aged and those truly disabled, the system would be financially viable in perpetuity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top