[quote=“Zaos, post:742, topic:1661, full:true”]
The better question is, can you prepay the entire year’s interest, and have the servicer apply these payments to interest (not principal)?[/quote]
She said the prepayment had to consist of principal and interest.
RUH ROH.
[quote]Rubio said he expects corporations to pay out higher dividends to shareholders and buy back shares to increase their stock price with proceeds from the bill. “You’re going to see a lot of these multinationals buy back shares to drive up the price,” Rubio told the southwest Florida-based News-Press.
“Some of them will be forced, because they’re sitting on historic levels of cash, to pay out dividends to shareholders,” Rubio said. “That isn’t going to create dramatic economic growth.”[/quote]
He just figured that out NOW ?
I expect some companies will indeed pay higher dividends. However, saying that won’t create growth is stopping short in the analysis - what will the shareholders do with all that extra cash that they get paid? Either they spend it, creating demand for goods or services, or they invest it, which provides capital for growth. It’s not like the money is destroyed.
Excellent post, highly accurate, and thank you for posting such an informative chart. While it is true the overwhelming majority of Americans will benefit under the new tax reform law, those millions who will pay more are squealing like stuck pigs. You cannot shut 'em up. And frankly they were squealing even prior to the new law owing to TDS (Trump derangement syndrome).
Not to worry, though. Once we reach circa February first, with many tens of millions of hard-working Americans receiving their pay raise, those squeals will be overwhelmed by reality. Most of the squealers live in hard left, high tax states anyway. You would think it might occur to them to reform their avaricious state governments. I can promise you it absolutely will NOT!
[quote=“xerty, post:749, topic:1661, full:true”]
I expect some companies will indeed pay higher dividends. However, saying that won’t create growth is stopping short in the analysis - what will the shareholders do with all that extra cash that they get paid? Either they spend it, creating demand for goods or services, or they invest it, which provides capital for growth. It’s not like the money is destroyed.[/quote]
Less than 20% of taxpayers own stock directly. Almost 90% of all stock is owned by the top 10% of wealthiest households.
They are simply not significant drivers of the national economy, which is why throwing money at the wealthy never works economically.
You think “normal people” will notice $2-$15 a pay period in “less taxes” withheld, especially when their employer-approved medical plan premiums are going up $10+ per person, along with deductibles increasing by $1000+ (my own company’s medical plans example there for 2018)? And that’s still deceptive, because IF they itemize their “pay check” may rise and then they may owe more money at the end of the year, due to losing $4k of deductibility which will not be accounted for on the W-4. Plus you’ve blown the company line, it’s “January’s first paycheck!” even though obviously it was always impossible to expect to change the whole payment processing system in a week.
Yes, stock ownership is concentrated with the wealthy, but you’re wrong about the average taxpayer (unless you mean something odd by “directly”). Over half of US adults are invested in the stock market:
They are simply not significant drivers of the national economy, which is why throwing money at the wealthy never works economically.
Yes, the wealthy will benefit as they always do when asset values rise. But if companies start paying big dividends, the average buck paid is now in some rich guy’s hands and he has to either spend it or invest it. If he invests it, that either facilitates new direct investment or he buys stock from a seller in the market (which passes the buck to the seller, who faces the same choice).
True, for example I don’t own any stock – it’s all held by Cede and Co on my behalf.
Wow, this is baffling. Good catch. Has there been any gambling industry trade press discussion of this change?
This seems like a really surprising set of changes – Sheldon Adelson has been a tremendous ally of the party in power, and as owner of Las Vegas Sands (Venetian, Palazzo) he derives a fair amount of revenue from gambling.
[quote=“xerty, post:753, topic:1661, full:true”]
Yes, stock ownership is concentrated with the wealthy, but you’re wrong about the average taxpayer (unless you mean something odd by “directly”). Over half of US adults are invested in the stock market…[/quote]
Nothing “odd” about it. You’re adding in retirement accounts and such. People aren’t able to “spend it, creating demand for goods or services” out of those holdings.
But once again, they are simply not significant drivers of the national economy.
[quote=“mherdeg, post:754, topic:1661, full:true”]
True, for example I don’t own any stock – it’s all held by Cede and Co on my behalf.[/quote]
Cute try, but you already know that’s not what “directly” references.
[quote=“shinobi, post:750, topic:1661, full:true”]
Not to worry, though. Once we reach circa February first, with many tens of millions of hard-working Americans receiving their pay raise, those squeals will be overwhelmed by reality.[/quote]
There is no evidence to support that unsubstantiated assertion (or perhaps it should more appropriately be labeled hopeful wish). Guess you missed my previous post:
And this tax cut (for the Middle-Class) is much smaller, and Obama and the Dems DIDN’T throw gargantuan amounts of money at the already Rich & Corporate, and DIDN’T raise taxes on millions in the Middle-Class.
There’s your “reality” for ya.
Ever heard of the wealth effect?
I’d say the vast majority of Americans are the beneficiaries of a rising stock market. Either as beneficiaries of defined benefit or defined contribution plans. DC benefits more than DB, of course.
(Many DB benefit plans are underfunded - so they benefit by making benefit reductions less likely.)
My take is that the political effect is likely going to be muted for the GOP - many losers are in blue states that will never vote for them anyway. The bill sucks for them, because their elected representatives didn’t want to / couldn’t represent their interests.
[quote=“Zaos, post:759, topic:1661, full:true”]
Ever heard of the wealth effect?[/quote]
And ?
From your cite:
“The wealth effect is the premise that when the value of stock portfolios rises due to escalating stock prices, investors feel more comfortable and secure about their wealth, causing them to spend more”
Ah, we’ve just been through this. Stock ownership is concentrated at the top. So what if a rising stock market results in them spending more ? They are simply not significant drivers of the national economy.
You’d be wrong.
The stock markets have been rising since 2009. Heck the stock markets gained more during Obama’s first 11 months than during the last 11 months. Did any of that translate into a significantly wealthier Middle-Class ? Of course not. Income inequality in the U.S. is greater than in any other democracy in the developed world.
Throwing money at the already Rich & Corporate does not work economically. Never has, never will.
Evidence? It is common knowledge.
The delay is owing to the time it will take the IRS to update the withholding tables and get the new ones out to everyone. This has been in the news.
If it’s not already clear, I’m only responding to the parts of Joe’s posts where Joe had made actual counterpoints.
While I don’t agree with your insinuation that income inequality is all bad, that’s another discussion.
By the Gini coefficient, your argument is not true according to Wikipedia.
Doesn’t your cite show that basically only Mexico, South America, China, and South Africa are “worse” and that we’re on par with Russia? That doesn’t seem to contradict his argument or be something to be particularly proud of.
[quote=“shinobi, post:761, topic:1661, full:true”]
Evidence? It is common knowledge.[/quote]
Of what?
[quote=“Zaos, post:762, topic:1661, full:true”]
If it’s not already clear, I’m only responding to the parts of Joe’s posts where Joe had made actual counterpoints. [/quote]
???
Wikipedia is opinion.
Dumb question. It appears all the articles I found comparing brackets are using 2017 rates under past law vs 2018 from the new changes. I can’t seem to find 2018 vs 2018. Seems odd they all do this. If there really is a Democrat slant to media, I don’t know why they’d all do this to make the “changes” look more favorable. Except maybe they’re just really lazy and 2017 brackets were easier to find than calculating what the estimated 2018 would have been.
