This change took a lot of political courage. It's a good change because it removes tax incentive distortions. Hopefully the Congress will stay strong. The federal income taxes of the rich shouldn't change based on where they live.

Not to mention the rest of world was destroyed and only had one country to buy from to rebuild.

Strange how quickly folks are just fine with actual double taxation, after opposing it for a century or so (capital gains and estate taxes aren't actual examples of "double taxation"). Also strange how folks now are much more willing to accept greater reliance on federal taxation, rather than incentivizing state taxation as a way of funding and creating state policy. Also strange how folks who largely aggregated all taxes on income to complain about the highest marginal rates on individual earners no longer bother to make that calculation. Strange how no one points out the disparity between revenue and expense now going to lower income states (most of which skew anti-government). Strange how no one points this out.

Tax incentive distortions continue to exist, they have switched somewhat. You are mostly applauding reduced tax revenue for states, while ignoring individual tax loads. When you say "the federal income taxes of the rich shouldn't change..." you are obviously ignoring "total income taxes". One would argue that total tax load is vastly more important (and it was until six months ago). BTW, I don't really disagree with some of these tax load shifts, but we have lost the ability accurately tell a complete picture and reconcile it with our previous attitudes. It would be nice if folks would choose to see all sides of an issue.

Meh. The whole debate turns on semantics. Even if you prove double taxation -- and I contend that I have! -- it's not like anything has to change. The response is mostly: "Life's a bitch. That's the code."

State policy doesn't need excessive taxation. States shouldn't be getting a little "something extra" from the Feds by socking it to their residents. That is not a good combination IMO.

I hear you. Aggregate is still king for me. I intend to keep all my taxing authorities -- and the LR -- aware of that.

I see it pointed out all the time. I would imagine that will increase.

This didn't reduce tax loads for the states, but it will eventually lead to that because total individual tax loads are what matter to people. (So I agree with you.) In fact, I predict this could lead to lower individual tax loads for everyone, instead of having states incentivized to increase those loads at the expense of our national tax bill and finances.

capital gains and estate taxes aren't actual examples of "double taxation


Is this a case of saying something stupid multiple times you hope people will believe it?


Note: THIS IS THE 1ST TAX:


Company Makes $1,000,000 pays 21% taxes
Net $790,000


Note: THIS IS THE 2nd TIME THIS IS TAXED
Company pays is owners the $790,000 in dividends taxed at 22% taxes
Owners Net: $616,200


Since the same money is taxed twice, this is an actual example.

True, and this is an example that is extremely rare. Estate taxes and capital gains taxes are still not examples of "double taxation".


You can't come up with an entirely different example, and pretend that it disproves this statement.

capital gains and estate taxes aren't actual examples of "double taxation
You can't come up with an entirely different example, and pretend that it disproves this statement.

OK. Let's say I'm that lucky person in South Carolina and I just won the $1.5 billion. And Take the $870 Million option.

I pay a 37% tax on that (This will be the 1st tax).


When I see that I just paid $322 Million in taxes I die and my kid gets the remaining $548 million
He then pays 40% on $311 Million (This would be the 2nd tax)


Does this help?

No, you are wrong about that being an example of "double taxation".


That is a separate transfer of money (first, the state to you, then at some later point, from you to you kid). There are all sorts of transactions as money passes from hand to hand: 1.) I get a paycheck (income tax withdrawn), 2.) I then buy a pack of gum (sales tax). That isn't "double taxation" (as it has always been understood), in that these are separate transfers. Money is taxed in many ways as it passes from hand to hand.

As stated often, if you just gave the balance to your son, he would have to pay a tax on the gift. If you paid it to him, he would have to declare it as income. That isn't "double taxation". Estate tax is the big exception to the basic reality that money is usually subject to taxation when it is transferred to a different entity. Add in capital gains resetting, and this results in generational hoarding to reduce taxes. This places a great deal of wealth out of circulation, since it makes sense to wait for estate transfers to pass on untaxed benefits. (yet another problem with effectively banning estate taxes). I prefer a more consistent approach with fewer exceptions, leading to lower maarginal rates.

I just finished my taxes.

My effective rate was identical to 2018 (17.5% of my adjusted gross income), despite losing about $6000 in deductions because of the new $10,000 limit on SALT deductions.

So my verdict is nothing changed. Now, I do owe $20.00 instead of getting a $4000 refund (last year), but I was more than happy to pocket the money instead of having it held hostage for 12 months.

Is there something inherently wrong with that. I wonder what the top 1% had as much income as the entire bottom xx %

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

1.) I get a paycheck (income tax withdrawn), 2.) I then buy a pack of gum (sales tax). That isn't "double taxation"

It's not double taxation because you have a choice. You don't have to buy the gum. Plus the feds don't collect sales tax.

Explain how one can live forever to avoid the estate tax?

No transaction. I make money, then die. Taxed when I make it. Taxed when I die. Same money. 2 taxes, both federal.

Well, when the payment percentages look like this there's something wrong with worrying about small rate movements producing anti-progressiveness in the code.



No. Heck, no. We have a very progressive income tax system. This very question goes to the impression being created by the "worry" in point #1.

HUH? what you qoute me on is a statement of fact I just don't know what the xx % is. I can tell you to be in the top 1% your household income is over about $450,000 the top of the bottom 90% have a household income of $100,000.

So It doesn't surprise me that totally the income tax of all those making $450,000 up pay as much income tax as all those making less than $100,000.

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

I'm not sure it was much a of change. I live in a state with high income tax and I hit the top marginal rate of 9.9%. My itemized deduction was cut by $7K because of the $10K SALT limit. My effective tax rate was identical (17.5%) to 2017 and I actually made slightly more money.

So, reducing this deduction had no effect (for me). I realize this is just my specific example, but for all the complaining about it, I would be interested to see the data that says this is costing relatively wealthy people a lot of money (or not). I could complain that there was a supposed tax cut and my taxes stayed the same, but I don't have an issue with the idea that some should pay more. The only thing I will complain about is the government just wasting the money on stuff like wars.

Same money, different taxpayers. You can't pay the inheritance tax, you're dead. Your heirs pay inheritance tax.

No different than if I pay a roofer to put on a new roof. My money was income for me and now it's income for him.

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

We seem to be doing a little worse this year, ~$500 difference. No significant changes in income, etc.

So yes, the same money was taxed twice = double taxation.

and

So then the roofer pays a plumber, a computer repair-man and a baby-sitter. Each of them owes their own income tax. If you insist on calling that 5x taxation, you'd be wrong.

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

If you can’t see how it’s double taxation, you would be stupid.

Reading you two banter on about this has been fun, now that it has gotten to childish name calling I think its just about over, but to try and keep it work it seems you both have a different definition of double taxation, Might help the discussion if your both clearly define what double taxation is.

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

When the government taxes your money, then labels your money something different and taxes it again.

Name-calling aside, the standard definition of double taxation refers to two separate taxes levied during the same transaction/transfer on the same asset. You can redefine it to mean what you wish it to mean, but that is not the standard definition. It isn't just semantic, there are all sorts of policies which allow one to deduct the cost of the tax (limiting deductability was the big shift in the 2018 tax law). Your definition of double taxation differs significantly from common usage, whether you see it or not.

https://investinganswers.com/...double-taxation-1138

So using your definition if your income is taxed, then the money is deposited in your bank, then taxed again when you withdraw it at the ATM, you aren’t being double taxed.

Effective rate based on AGI

went down 2.5%

based on taxable (our income was a bit lower and deductions were a lot lower (now on std deduction))

went down 3.2%

Our refund went up with the same W4s (as a counter to some reports).

“This is going to be one of the great gifts to the middle-income people of this country that they’ve ever gotten for Christmas.”

Poll finds only one in five expect to pay less tax this year as a result of the 2017 tax reform. MAGA!


https://www.reuters.com/...survey-idUSKCN1QW1BY
.