It looks like income tax went down by 1.25% and sales tax went up by 1%.
I'm terrible at math, but by my calculations, unless you spend 125% of your income on taxable goods and services, you are saving money.
What stupid thing did the GOP say or do this time? Episode 3!
- Thread starter Ironbite4
- Start date
It looks like income tax went down by 1.25% and sales tax went up by 1%.
I'm terrible at math, but by my calculations, unless you spend 125% of your income on taxable goods and services, you are saving money.
Went down for which bracket? Sales tax tends to hit the poorer people harder, since they usually don't have to pay much(if anything) in income tax(and they need that money to buy necessities). So people on the low end will likely be paying more in tax than before with those changes
More complicated than that.
It was:
Standard Deduct $4500
0-12500 - 1.85%
12500-50K - 3.5%
50K and up - 4.25%
No Standard Deduct $12500
Flat 3%
Flat tax always favors the rich. And so does sales tax. Raising the standard deductible favors the poor.
So at a few easy income levels, we can do before and after.
$15080 (Minimum Wage) - Was $195.73, now $77.40 -$118.33
$25000 - Was $511.25, now $375 -$136.25. (Or if you are a teacher -1136.25 because the state is going to cut your supplies and you'll pay for them)
$50000 - Was $1386.25, now $1125 -$261.25
$75000 - Was $2415, now $1875 -$540
$100000 - Was $3477.50, now $2625 -$1602.50
$250000 - Was $9852.50, now $7125 -$2727.50
$500000 - Was $20477.50, now $14625 -$5852.50
How much the sales tax changes things is harder to estimate. It is actually just a 0.55% increase. I'll make some rough grocery estimates. They'll be at least somewhat hamfisted, but just to get a picture.
Minimum Wage - $3000 on groceries increase sales tax $16.50, $500 on clothing increase $2.75 - Total
$25000 - $4000 on groceries increase sales tax $22, $1000 on clothing increase $5.50 - Total $27.50 ($33 if you are a teacher)
$50000 - $6000 on groceries increase sales tax $33, $2000 on clothing increase $11 - Total $44
$75000 - $9000 on groceries increase sales tax $49.50, $3000 on clothing increase $16.50 - Total $66
$100000 - $12000 on groceries increase sales tax $66, $3000 on clothing increase $16.50 - Total $82.50
$250000 - $15000 on groceries increase sales tax $82.50, $6000 on clothing increase $33 - Total $115.50
$500000 - $15000 on groceries increase sales tax $82.50, $6000 on clothing increase $33 - Total $115.50
----
That standard deductible increase makes a big impact and probably keeps anyone's taxes from going up, except teachers. But you can certainly see who loves it the most. This is a big revenue cut at the outset. Their sales pitch is that it will attract businesses, which will bring higher paying jobs and create more demand for services and all the boats float up. We'll see. In the mean time, I highly recommend being rich.
Your math is way off. Sales tax hits spending, not income, and poor people spend almost everything they earn just to survive. That 1% hike eats into their already stretched budgets, while the rich pocket huge savings from the income tax cut and barely feel the sales tax.
Stop pretending this is fair. It's a blatant giveaway to the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
I don't know that Ultra Magnus13 was pretending it was fair. He was working with the wrong numbers, but his conclusion wasn't backwards. The minimum wage guy is going to need to spend $21,623.64 at the store to spend his income tax savings and he's not going to have that much money. Everyone's taxes are going down.
But I definitely recommend being rich.
But I definitely recommend being rich.
RFK Jr likened CDC to ‘Nazi death camp’ and vaccinating children to ‘sex abuse’
Trump’s pick to become the next health secretary made the baseless comments in resurfaced footage
www.independent.co.uk
remind me again what the point is in living through this...
The point in living through this is easy - to watch this all blow up in Trump's face and hopefully create a backlash.
Now isn't the time to give up, Trump is back but he's a lame horse right out the gate. He only has 4 years to accomplish anything and only 2 years with guaranteed control of congress. It's bleak but not hopeless.
Now isn't the time to give up, Trump is back but he's a lame horse right out the gate. He only has 4 years to accomplish anything and only 2 years with guaranteed control of congress. It's bleak but not hopeless.
This is yearly amounts, hmm? So the minimum wage earner gets a staggering extra $2.26 a week. Don't spend it all in one place!
Similarly a round of tax cuts here by the incoming right wing government netted me an extra $5 a week. Meanwhile with the loss of extra income from the massive cuts the rich got, public services have had to be cut even further, and many of them were struggling as it was. Not to mention unemployment has been driven up by the number of workers laid off by the public sector.
I have found that spite can be a powerful motivator in times like these.
Michigan GOP lawmaker says gay marriage should be 'illegal again'
The Republican lawmaker from Oakland County received a swift backlash from Michigan Democrats for his posts on social media Monday.
www.detroitnews.com
just a matter of time before he gets his wish.
Or not, Paladin. Bulk of the country supports same sex marriage, and it's not a major issue most people, outside of religious zealots and actual gay people, think much about. Heck, in 2025 the Governor and the Senate of Michigan will both be controlled by Democrats and the Republicans will only have a slim majority in the House.
Conservatives are wildly successful at pumping the breaks, but it is unusual to get the truck in reverse. The slope isn't as slippery as it seems sometimes. Gay marriage has a pretty strong legal underpinning. It is very difficult to demonstrate who is damaged by it.
As much as people appreciated Roe v Wade, it was always threadbare and dependent on the good will of the Supreme Court.
As much as people appreciated Roe v Wade, it was always threadbare and dependent on the good will of the Supreme Court.
What is the strong legal underpinning? Admittedly not a lawyer, but I don't see how from an originalist viewpoint Obergfell isn't the same as Roe v Wade in being an invented right from a novel reading of an old established text. Three of the six conservatives on the Court voted against Obergfell and I'm not sure what the others' views on it are; I'm sure they've all mouthed an abiding reverence for precedent that did nothing to save an exponentially older, more established, and far more consequential-in-its-reversal precedent with Roe v Wade.
Based on age of Justices at least I think Trump is most likely to replace conservatives this go around but it's always possible they get 7-2. Granted I don't know how animated the GOP is to repeal gay marriage, how many cases there are even challening it in the legal system, and it's definitely not a movement defining cause like abortion. It doesn't seem all that far fetched, though. It's the logical conclusion of repealing Roe and the more conservatives on the Court the greater the odds they cobble together 5 or 6 votes.
Based on age of Justices at least I think Trump is most likely to replace conservatives this go around but it's always possible they get 7-2. Granted I don't know how animated the GOP is to repeal gay marriage, how many cases there are even challening it in the legal system, and it's definitely not a movement defining cause like abortion. It doesn't seem all that far fetched, though. It's the logical conclusion of repealing Roe and the more conservatives on the Court the greater the odds they cobble together 5 or 6 votes.
Overturning Obergfell is a moot point because it's not what's propping up same-sex marriage anymore. The Respect for Marriage Act superceded it, and—I've said it twice before in as many weeks but I guess it bears repeating—it's not going to be repealed anytime soon by the same Congress that passed it 328 to 193. The question now is whether the Supreme Court is extreme enough to try to declare it unconstitutional. And... I dunno. Like Ungnome said, they're a wildcard. I'd like to say there's a difference between overturning a previous ruling and overturning a whole law, but if they're dead set on legislating from the bench, they can say whatever they want.
And of course there's the matter of which branch of government is tasked with enforcing laws in the first place, and who's about to be in charge of it...
And of course there's the matter of which branch of government is tasked with enforcing laws in the first place, and who's about to be in charge of it...
The question before that question is who will take a case up the chain with a reasonable argument that OTHER people getting married is causing harm to their rights.
North Carolina elected a Democrat governor & enough Democrats to break the GOP majority in the state.
Light at the end of the tunnel for them, right?
NOPE; GOP put in a new bill & overrode the current governors' veto to cut power from the incoming administration.
Light at the end of the tunnel for them, right?
NOPE; GOP put in a new bill & overrode the current governors' veto to cut power from the incoming administration.
Attachments
