Tax changes / proposals - discussion

[scripta]

You trollin?

If Wikipedia is “opinion,” then Gini coefficient is also “opinion,” as is your opinion about “Income inequality in the U.S. is greater than in any other democracy in the developed world.”.

Your summary dismissal of a valid source is absurd.

[JoeFriday]

[quote=“Bend3r, post:806, topic:1661, full:true”]

@JoeFriday

They [quintiles] used to as they were aligned with the rising inflation-adjusted Standard of Living

A quintile is 20% or 1/5th, that’s how it’s defined. The size is constant. The income or asset thresholds between the quintiles changes, but not the percentage of households in each quintile.

So if you’re defining middle class as the middle 3 quintiles, that means the middle class is always exactly 60% of the population, so they didn’t used to grow in size.[/quote]

Ah, there’s where you’ve gone off-track. It’s not quintiles of the population, but quintiles of all income. Just google IRS & quintiles, you’ll see examples.

[JoeFriday]

[quote=“scripta, post:807, topic:1661, full:true”]
You trollin?[/quote]

Oh please.

If Wikipedia is “opinion,”…

Hey, the CEO or President or whatever the title is of the head of it admitted just that. Take it up with him.

[gwraigty]

@JoeFriday

Ah, there’s where you’ve gone off-track.

@JoeFriday

When Ted Bundy was arrested, they found a set of golf clubs in the trunk of his car. Does that mean everyone with a set of golf clubs in their trunk is a serial killer ?

A perfect example of going off-track in a tax discussion.

[GodelianKnot]

@JoeFriday

Ah, there’s where you’ve gone off-track. It’s not quintiles of the population, but quintiles of all income. Just google IRS & quintiles, you’ll see examples.

What are you talking about? No one talks about quintiles of all income. If you did it this way, you’d end up with something like the bottom quintile encompassing 75% of the US population.

[JoeFriday]

Huh ?

It’s the share of aggregate income flowing to each fifth of total households.

About 52% of household income in the U.S. flowed to the top quintile in 2016, while only about 3% of U.S. household income flowed to the bottom quintile.

[Bend3r]

@JoeFriday

Huh ?

It’s the share of aggregate income flowing to each fifth of total households.

About 52% of household income in the U.S. flowed to the top quintile in 2016, while only about 3% of U.S. household income flowed to the bottom quintile.

Older comments:

@JoeFriday

The IRS defines income by quintiles. The middle three are the Middle-Class. Lower Middle-Class, Middle-Class, and Upper-Middle Class.

@JoeFriday

@Bend3r

The quintiles don’t grow or shrink. (Except with overall population change).

They used to as they were aligned with the rising inflation-adjusted Standard of Living, but there hasn’t been much of that since we were in a depression with deflation. Still have disinflation, much to the chagrin of the Fed.

You’ve confused yourself (or maybe you just figured it out and are pretending you were saying the opposite thing all along). Your last statement is different than all your previous ones and IS reasonable.

Progression of this thread of things:

1. The question was asked what thoughts are about a “shrinking middle class”, not about “the middle class having less”.
2. You said the middle 3 quintiles are “the middle class”.
3. There are 5 quintiles, each 20% of the population – That’s what a quintile is, that’s how it’s defined. If the middle class is used to refer to the middle 3 quintiles, the middle class is exactly 60% of taxpayers, 60% of households, or 60% of whatever set of entities you are referring to. The number of people or things inside the middle 3 quintiles is always 60% of the total number of people or things, it does not grow or shrink in number. I said, (paraphrase)“IF we define middle class as the middle three quintiles, THEN it is always exactly 60% of the population in the middle class and it does not grow or shrink in size.”
4. You said the quintiles used to grow in size
   4a. back and forth about not agreeing on what a quintile is and why it can or can not change in size.
5. You then just now turned it around and are referring to % of income going to each quintile, which is a different thing and can be discussed. The size of the quintiles still doesn’t grow or shrink when the income going to them grows or shrinks. The middle 3 quintiles still comprises 60% of the total number of items (persons, households, or families). Yes, the percentage of income going to each quintile can change. The middle 3 quintiles still comprises 60% of people. Yes, this IS the way it’s done. You CAN say that the middle 3 quintiles are getting less of total taxable income or more of total taxable income compared to previous years. In this case, if you define middle class as the middle three quintiles and look at change in income distribution to those quintiles, you would be arguing that the middle class is gaining or losing affluence. NOT that it’s growing or shrinking in “size”.

Edit: Random observation. I know for a FACT I have never typed the word “quintile” so many times before, in any other day, week, month, or even year of my life than I have today. That’s a weird observation.

[JoeFriday]

Eh, quintiles are of aggregate household income.

[Full_Disclosure]

@meed18

How do you define a “session?”

Shouldn’t professional gamblers have hundreds of losing sessions each year? I’m not doubting that the increased standard deduction could hurt gamblers. But will it really hurt that much for a true professional?

I can tell you how I define a session for myself (blackjack), but I have no reason to believe that my way would be any more likely to survive scrutiny from the IRS or courts than any other way. It’s really unclear. And I couldn’t provide any advice on how a poker player for instance should define a session because I don’t know enough about how professional poker works (other than WSOP tournaments, etc).

I define my sessions based on entry/exit of my players card, which usually means each time I enter or exit a pit. If I’m still playing rated without the pit boss having to enter my card again, I consider that a continuation of the same session.

As you point out, the definition of a particular session isn’t particularly relevant for professional gamblers while they are gambling professionally. The effect on professional gamblers I was referring to was the statutory change to the definition of wagering income which does, at least based on my reading, affect professional gamblers directly. I can tell you I am now keeping a much better record of my tips to the dealers.

[calwatch]

Glenn Reeves, who does the famous 1040 Excel spreadsheet, has mocked up changes for 2018 so you can compare between 2017 and 2018 easily and see how much the tax bill affects you: https://sites.google.com/site/excel1040/home/2018-tax-planner-new-tax-law

[JoeFriday]

Speaker Ryan tweeted on Saturday, celebrating a public school secretary, who said her paycheck had grown $1.50 per week larger as a result of the Republicans’ Massive Tax Cuts for the Rich & Corporate, temporary Crumbs for Everyone Else bill.

So, Ryan is cheering because a public school secretary gets an extra $1.50 a week, while JP Morgan Chase gets $2 billion, and Goldman Sachs gets $6 billion.

Outta touch, tone deaf, and clueless would all grossly under-characterize his response.

[meed18]

Hard to argue that his tweet was dumb, but also hard to argue that people are keeping more of their money at all income levels.

[JoeFriday]

@meed18

Hard to argue that his tweet was dumb, but also hard to argue that people are keeping more of their money at all income levels.

Not hard to argue at all, unless you’re overlooking the 10 million(?) whose taxes are going UP, and all those losing healthcare coverage, and all those who will have to spend lots more for healthcare coverage, and some of those tax cuts start to expire in 2019, and I could go on and on…

[meed18]

There was no way to guarantee 100% of taxpayers would receive a cut while also moving people away from itemizing deductions, which was a goal of this “reform” law. They had to reduce some things that people itemize and the SALT deduction fit the bill. The people that are harmed the most are people deducting a lot of SALT, and you don’t have a lot of SALT unless you were also a high earner. Therefore, very few middle class and below taxpayers are harmed by this tax cut. I thought you didn’t care if rich people got hosed. Why are you so concerned about rich people losing their SALT deduction?

Of course, this doesn’t take into account the thousands of businesses expanding and raising wages thanks to the corporate rate cut. Who cares since you hate those corporations and the only thing they are good for to you is fleecing the little guy.

[StatGren]

@JoeFriday

all those losing healthcare coverage

How in the hell does anyone “lose healthcare coverage” under the new tax law? Oh, do you mean the ones who may make a decision on their own that they choose to provide for their health care in another manner than buy health insurance?

[JoeFriday]

@meed18

There was no way to guarantee 100% of taxpayers would receive a cut…

Hey, you’re the one who posted:

“hard to argue that people are keeping more of their money at all income levels”

Which is it?

you don’t have a lot of SALT unless you were also a high earner

False.

Of course, this doesn’t take into account the thousands of businesses expanding and raising wages thanks to the corporate rate cut.

That’s a kneeslapper !

[JoeFriday]

@StatGren

How in the hell does anyone “lose healthcare coverage” under the new tax law?

Been there done that. Do try and keep up.

[meed18]

Most people at all income levels are seeing a cut. Only SOME people aren’t and the majority of them are people losing the SALT deduction. Both things are true.

Are you denying that hundreds of corporations have announced bonuses and raises and specifically credited the tax cut as the reason they can do it?

[ZenNuts]

Time for a PIOT thread.

[JoeFriday]

@meed18

Most people at all income levels are seeing a cut.

You must be all tuckered-out from picking-up and moving that goal post around.

“People … at all income levels”
“no way to guarantee 100% of taxpayers”
“Most people at all income levels”

Only SOME people aren’t

Ten million American taxpayers is a lotta “SOME people”.

Are you denying that hundreds of corporations have announced bonuses and raises and specifically credited the tax cut as the reason they can do it?

A) Interesting how many of them either have matters in front of the DOJ or are looking for a big favor from the administration. It’s a lot cheaper than billable hours from a lobbyist.

B) Less than 9% of the Fortune 500 (just 46) have announced any plans to share a minuscule fraction of their tax-cut wealth with their employees.