Jump to content

CO Horn

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    238
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by CO Horn

  1. 4 hours ago, tjhooker said:

    Because the Yankees grossly overpay from some athletes to make up for it and because some people just want to play for the Yankees due to brand. 

    Furthermore, the lower taxes he will be paying in PA will yield him much more $ on his endorsement deals. 

    Bryce and agent literally said they turned down the Giants offer due to high taxes in California and you're doubting they were telling the truth?  What?  Taxes do affect business decisions. 

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/seanpackard/2019/02/28/harper-signs-with-philly-against-his-tax-advisors-advice/#183675005896

    Hmm....

  2. 17 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

    LOL Giants lose out on Bryce Harper due to the state's high taxes.  

     

    Athletes pay taxes in every location that they play games, so while th CA taxes are an issue, he would have paid some CA tax regardless. I’m sure NY taxes, including NYC, are more than CA and it doesn’t to seem to be an issue for the Yankees. 

  3. 11 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    Yeah he's maximizing his tax breaks, just like everybody does though.

    He's definitely not doing anything illegal under the law, but the clergy housing rules need to be looked at.

    • Like 1
  4. Again, few people have a higher tax liability with the new tax law. People equate a tax cut with larger refunds and this is not happening for most W-2 employees because of the wage withholding tables.  The W-4 still asks for the number of allowances that you are claiming. There are no longer personal exemptions, so not sure why the number of allowances makes a difference, other than the increased child tax credit.  The IRS should have considered this when adjusting the wage withholding tables.  To my knowledge, they still have not corrected this.

     

  5. 7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    All of which amounts to a change in take home pay of between 1.7 (single no kids) and 3.6%, or about $1200 - $2500 bucks a year,  or $23-$48 per week.

     

    And by the way - we're way better off this way than we would have been with lump sum refunds, which would have been far more costly than lowering withholdings because of the paradox of thrift, but because of the paradox of thift, the change in take home pay is less tangible and when combined with a refund that is likely to be smaller creates a misperception of effect.

    But sure, go tell all those people raising two kids in Austin on just a little less than the median family income how tangible their $39/week is, particularly when the result was a smaller refund.

    I'm lean pretty far-left leaning. but a single taxpayer earning $70K is probably paying $9K in taxes.  The tax cut reduces that to say $7,300 in your example.  It your saying that for it to be beneficial the tax cut would need to be 10% of gross, that would be a $7K reduction in tax for a tax liability of $2k. If we assume that all they get is the standard deduction, that would be $58K of taxable income, so a 3.5% tax bracket for single taxpayers on taxable income up to $58K seems rather low.

     

  6. 12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    It does feel like a tax increase if you barely notice an increase in each paycheck and because your withholding was too low you don't get a refund, get a smaller refund, or actually owe money in April.

    Again, most of the pain that individuals will feel is related to the IRS fucking up the withholding tables.  However, most of the blame lies with Treasury because they instructed the IRS to modify the tables.  

    In my experience, more than 95% of my clients will benefit from the tax law changes.  If people owe taxes, it is likely related to not having enough withheld in taxes or having a change in income which increased there liability.  In terms of income, I'm probably in the top 2%, and if my income were the same, my taxes are going to decrease by about $15K, largely due to being able to claim a $6K child tax credit, not being subject to AMT, and the QBI deduction. 

    Also, I'm 100% against the new tax law.

    • Haha 1
  7. I like Brew, am a CPA. I have about 250-300 individual returns. Last year we did a tax projection for their 2018 tax liability, assuming 2018 income would be the same as 2017 income. I had probably 3-5 clients that would have a higher liability under the new tax law. These were all individuals that high misc itemized deductions, that are no longer allowed (brokerage fees and unreimbursed employee expenses)

    If people owe tax, it’s likely a function of the new withholding tables that withheld less in taxes, or additional sources of income. None of my clients were impacted by the SALT limitation.  

    Personally, with being able to claim the child tax credit, and QBI deduction, my overall tax liability will be about 10-15 less than in 2017. 

    • Like 2
  8. 1 minute ago, DaysOff said:
    On 1/29/2019 at 3:03 PM, Sbbruin said:
    This is when being surly .000000001% really hurts.

    Has anyone normally hit by AMT done the maths yet? Since I live in a low SALT area I'm expecting no pain using just the standard deduction, but I'm getting mixed answers from peers across the country.

    The SALT limitation along with the increased phaseout of the AMT exemption means a large majority of the people previously subject to AMT no longer will be. 

  9. 23 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

    Not in this case, this was an inside hit job by the Democrats.  Do you think it is of no coincidence that this photo appears right after his remarks on third trimester abortions?  Those remarks not only made it politically impossible for that bill to pass in Virginia it is going to be too hot of an issue for it to pass in other states now as well.  To the Democratic national political machine that is as much of an unforgivable sin as Vito Corleone's driver setting him up to be whacked at the fruit stand.

    Yeah, right.  That must be it. 

  10. 5 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

    Our ability to meddle into the affairs of Iran under mullah control are a lot different than 1953 Iran with Mossadegh. No doubt engineering a coup against him was a mistake in hindsight. Iran was the first Islamist government to come to power in the world. It was a wildcard not foreseen in 1953 in the middle of the Cold War with 2 opposing worlds going at it. We can apply economic pressure on Iran and try to influence a change through our soft power. As for the British, what was the alternative besides the al-Saud family in the Arabian peninsula? From a geopolitical perspective, Saudi rule has been stable and has allowed for reliable source of hydrocarbon production.

    Say what?  What are the Saudis? Baptists?

  11. 30 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

    I'd really love to hear the counter argument to making election day a holiday. From anyone. 

    Otherwise, this just fits their anti-American strategy of controlling the vote. There are no "both-sides" on this. 

    I’ll bite. There are currently 10 Federal Holidays. Of these only 6 do most companies close. I don’t think many businesses would close if they made Election Day a National Holiday. Not saying I’m against it, just don’t see the point. 

  12. 8 minutes ago, Viper said:

     

    exactly, if you can buy all the equipment and install it all for $250,000 now but all your workers only cost $100,000, you're not going to do it until the cost gets lower. Now when the workers cost is $150,000 this year and $200,000 next year, you're going to look a lot close at automating.

     

    let's also remember that for these statewide minium wage increases, it's one thing to have a $13 wage in the city, but it also take into effect in the small towns.

    With the current state of technology, the cost of automating certain job functions is cost effective even at the current minimum wage level

  13. 1 minute ago, Viper said:

     

     

    well it's only been 29 days. may have to wait awhile for an actual study. There's also the seattle study linked to in my previous post.

     

    There have been some anecdotes of business already raising prices and cutting workers

    https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/24/minimum-wage-hikes-threaten-new-york-cit

     

    That omelet must take a long time to make to justify a $14 increase due to the increased cost of labor!!

×
×
  • Create New...