HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So the Dolt45 tax plan ki...

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 11:28 AM

So the Dolt45 tax plan kicks in ...

This year I have to pay an additional $10,700+

This really hurts.

91 replies, 4587 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 91 replies Author Time Post
Reply So the Dolt45 tax plan kicks in ... (Original post)
aggiesal Mar 2019 OP
Shell_Seas Mar 2019 #1
Loki Liesmith Mar 2019 #2
aggiesal Mar 2019 #3
metalbot Mar 2019 #5
aggiesal Mar 2019 #6
MichMan Mar 2019 #9
MrsCoffee Mar 2019 #12
unitedwethrive Mar 2019 #22
MichMan Mar 2019 #28
D_Master81 Mar 2019 #91
haele Mar 2019 #21
UniteFightBack Mar 2019 #30
Merlot Mar 2019 #45
fescuerescue Mar 2019 #13
haele Mar 2019 #23
uponit7771 Mar 2019 #8
uponit7771 Mar 2019 #7
PatSeg Mar 2019 #11
aggiesal Mar 2019 #16
ooky Mar 2019 #17
aggiesal Mar 2019 #18
meathead Mar 2019 #24
aggiesal Mar 2019 #25
underpants Mar 2019 #26
aggiesal Mar 2019 #67
hack89 Mar 2019 #31
Squinch Mar 2019 #36
hack89 Mar 2019 #46
Squinch Mar 2019 #49
hack89 Mar 2019 #50
Squinch Mar 2019 #54
hack89 Mar 2019 #55
Crabby Appleton Mar 2019 #84
Karadeniz Mar 2019 #56
hack89 Mar 2019 #58
Hoyt Mar 2019 #57
hack89 Mar 2019 #59
Hoyt Mar 2019 #60
hack89 Mar 2019 #61
aggiesal Mar 2019 #65
hack89 Mar 2019 #66
aggiesal Mar 2019 #69
hack89 Mar 2019 #70
aggiesal Mar 2019 #71
hack89 Mar 2019 #72
aggiesal Mar 2019 #73
hack89 Mar 2019 #74
aggiesal Mar 2019 #75
hack89 Mar 2019 #76
aggiesal Mar 2019 #81
hack89 Mar 2019 #83
aggiesal Mar 2019 #85
hack89 Mar 2019 #86
meathead Mar 2019 #89
aggiesal Mar 2019 #90
meathead Mar 2019 #88
metalbot Mar 2019 #38
meathead Mar 2019 #87
PatSeg Mar 2019 #19
allgood33 Mar 2019 #44
allgood33 Mar 2019 #78
aggiesal Mar 2019 #79
LenaBaby61 Mar 2019 #80
MichMan Mar 2019 #4
Blue_true Mar 2019 #63
PatSeg Mar 2019 #10
Yavin4 Mar 2019 #14
aggiesal Mar 2019 #15
workinclasszero Mar 2019 #20
rownesheck Mar 2019 #27
metalbot Mar 2019 #39
rownesheck Mar 2019 #40
DFW Mar 2019 #29
theboss Mar 2019 #32
DFW Mar 2019 #34
theboss Mar 2019 #37
DFW Mar 2019 #41
theboss Mar 2019 #42
DFW Mar 2019 #43
MichMan Mar 2019 #47
Squinch Mar 2019 #33
In It to Win It Mar 2019 #35
Kaleva Mar 2019 #48
BlueFlorida Mar 2019 #51
Turbineguy Mar 2019 #52
Zoonart Mar 2019 #53
Blue_true Mar 2019 #64
uponit7771 Mar 2019 #68
Blue_true Mar 2019 #62
dhol82 Mar 2019 #77
MichMan Mar 2019 #82

Response to aggiesal (Original post)

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 11:31 AM

1. Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Original post)

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 11:31 AM

2. Mortgage interest deduction changes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 11:54 AM

3. No ...

Deductions I was allowed to use last year,
was removed from this years tax code.

The bastard!

This is what I believe will happen to a lot of other people.

The standard deduction may have increased, but since I itemize,
the standard deduction won't apply because my itemized deduction
exceed the standard.

Except that the repub a$$holes removed all kinds of deductions
that we actually use and will make everyone's taxes higher.

For example, My property taxes are around $12,000/yr. and my State income tax was $6,600
Total $18,600

Last year I was allowed to deduct all $18,600
This year I was only allowed to deduct $10,000
There are more that I can't deduct.

If the Dems campaign correctly, they should use this as pocketbook politics,
like Ronnie Raygun did to Jimmy Carter during the 1980 election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 07:39 PM

5. How did you lose $50k in deductions?

That's insane. Especially if you only lost $8,600 on state and property tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to metalbot (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 08:49 PM

6. That was just the easist example ...

There are others, like you can only deduct mortgage interest on up to $750,000 mortgage,
My house has a much larger mortgage, so I lose that difference as well.

There are more. My tax form is 72 pages long.

The republicans only care about the 1%. If you look at any of their legislation, it's all about
what/how they can give more to the 1%.
The 1% don't want a middle class because a strong middle class demands too much. They took a
look at the 60's & 70's and didn't like people protesting everything they wanted.
The Vietnam war was all about making money for the Military Industrial Complex that
Eisenhower warned us about. That's just another simple example.
Medicare & voting rights are more examples.

This new Tax reform is all about taking money way from 99% of us, to pay for the 1% tax breaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 11:24 PM

9. Are you sure you aren't in the 1% ?

A million dollar mortgage doesn't sound very much like middle class to me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 11:41 PM

12. Median home price in Bay Area is $820,000.

If you live on the peninsula it’s well over $1M. And that’s for a basic one or very small two bedroom house.

Just an example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrsCoffee (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 19, 2019, 03:30 PM

22. Yup. Strange how the high cost of living states are all Blue States.

I'm sure it's just coincidence that those are the people most affected by this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unitedwethrive (Reply #22)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 09:13 AM

28. Should allowable deductions vary depending on where you live ?

The OP stated that the majority was due to not being able to deduct mortgage interest on a home with near a million dollar mortgage. In most parts of the country that would easily be the 1%. I thought those were the people that we wanted to eliminate these loopholes making them pay their fair share?

Should allowable deductions vary depending on where you live? 100K in mortgage interest can be deducted if you live in Manhattan, but only 10K if you live in Indiana?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #28)

Sat Mar 30, 2019, 02:28 PM

91. You cant do that

I cant see a scenario where you allow on a Federal tax form some STATES to be able to claim deductions that people in other parts of the country can't claim. This is where you really have to lobby and work on your state reps to possibly change the state return or something to help out with that until this tax law possibly changes back to the old way after 2025.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 19, 2019, 03:25 PM

21. It's not a millionaire thing. Lots of households make $100K a year with two wage earners.

These can be people who just have an associates from a local CC and a bunch of certificates making $50K - $60K each (because many National companies who do work in California will provide a locality increase in wages for lower to mid level skilled labor) doing lower to mid-level level contractor or technical work. If your'e a contractor or your job requires industry membership - even if you're only making $50K, there's the potential that you can be racking up $5K - $15K a year on what used to be deductible work expenses. Heck, drivers who get paid by the mile, or if you have travel expenses for your work, there's a lot of money out of your pocket just to do your job.

And from what I'm hearing from a lot of contracted, semi-skilled and skilled labor, those deductions are now ether seriously reduced or out and out gone.--
The reduction in mileage is especially difficult for some small indie business owners.

As for near million dollar homes - with good credit, a 20% down payment, and a history of two/three years at around a six figure household income with few debts, a middle aged couple might well have be approved for a 30 year mortgage for an $800K/$900K house in some areas of California over the past decade or so.


From my own experience - since 1992, I have always try to break even, re-setting my exemptions as soon as the new tax tables come out so that I'm usually only $200 a year to the Feds either owing or owed.

This year, I lost around $2500 in business related and SALT deductions that I would normally take, even when taking into account the Trump "Pay Raise" scam, which only would have netted me an extra $1K "in my pocket" for the remainder of 2018.
If I hadn't run numbers and switched up my exemptions right after the tax bill went into effect so that the scam was basically nullified, I would have owed around $4K instead of the $500 I ended up paying the Feds.

Haele

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 09:41 AM

30. In some areas it is...but make no mistake these people are upper middle class - they are doing

well but they just think they're not...and they like to complain they are not. I'm not saying that is what the OP is doing, I'm just thinking of people around here. They really don't understand having no money.

There are steep divisions in the term 'middle class' and it's a big stretch from lower to upper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 11:46 AM

45. Go to any real estate website and check out listings in southern california

Million dollar 2 bedroom 1000 sq ft bungalows are the norm, not the exception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 19, 2019, 01:00 AM

13. So it caps out at $750,000 for a home loan

That's going to put a real hurt on middle class millionaires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fescuerescue (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 19, 2019, 03:33 PM

23. With a 30 - 40 year mortgage and a hefty down-payment (usually a small inheritance or family "loan")

Lots of two/three income wage earners in California with good credit have bought houses for around $700K - $800K in high CoL locations.
A minimum wage worker will not be able to afford that mortgage, but a teacher and a CVN/nurse, or a SysAdmin and a teacher, or an Engineering Tech and a small business HR rep can usually get enough income between them to be able to earn the $100K a year - $120K a year that a 30 year mortgage and a "cash loan" from retired boomer parents on both sides to make up the 20% downpayment can get them into a nice 1200 sq. ft. California Bungelow with a yard in San Mateo or some place like that.

Haele

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to metalbot (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 08:52 PM

8. There are other SALT deductions that are capped and those are payroll related. Also if you have more

... than two kids the max amount of the deduction doesn't apply any longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 08:51 PM

7. This is EXACTLY our situation !!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 11:41 PM

11. I have read that it most certainly is

happening to a lot of people and the tax code doesn't care if someone is a Democrat or republican, so a lot of Trumpsters are finding out what they voted for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 19, 2019, 10:50 AM

16. I have Trumpster friends ...

when they started complaining about their taxes I tell them,
"This is what you voted for. You can't have it both ways, so stop complaining."

Seriously, we know that republicans are only going to give tax breaks for the 1%.
Why is it so hard to break through their bubble of ignorance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #16)

Tue Mar 19, 2019, 11:11 AM

17. But, but, they have their "guns".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ooky (Reply #17)

Tue Mar 19, 2019, 12:27 PM

18. They obviously have never read the 2nd amendment ...

or the Federalist Papers (28 & 43 I believe, I'll have to look it up again)
where the creators of our Constitution debated through these Papers
how/why we needed the second amendment.

2nd Amendment states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The 2nd amendment was debated not because individual would be afraid that
the Federal government would become too strong and overrun its citizens, they
were afraid that the Federal government would become too strong and overrun
the states.

To keep this from happening, the first part of the amendment was included.
They even debated how to keep a well regulated militia, by requiring the militia
to meet one weekend each month for practice.

Does this sound familiar?
It should because that how the State and National Guard operate.

They even limited how many troops the Federal Government could have during
peace time to 55,000 troops, so that they couldn't overrun any state.

So I tell my RWNJ friends, if they want to keep their guns, sign up for Guard duty.
I have no problem with people owning guns, but a requirement for owning a gun
should be mandatory Guard Duty, as the Constitution framers wanted it.

Then when they are called up to go to Iraq or Afghanistan, maybe they'll change
their minds about owning a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 21, 2019, 08:51 AM

24. Militia, State or National Guard service was never a prerequisite to gun ownership in the U.S.

How did you come up with this alternate history?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meathead (Reply #24)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 08:56 AM

25. Read the Federalist Papers ...

When they discussed this amendment, they mentioned having to do training.
Described, limiting the size of the Army, so that the Federal government could
not overrun the state militia.

This premise turn into our State & National Guard system.

Federalist Papers #29
Unlike militias of the past, (Alexander) Hamilton viewed new militias as a uniformed group similar to that of an organized military.
"It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United states."

(i.e. National Guard)

One major change would be the personnel who the militias consist of. Instead of just a disorganized group made up of random people, the militias will be composed of well trained civilians on the same level or near that of a military soldier.
"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purposes of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia,..."


As you can see the Federalist believed that a citizen militia should be trained at or near a military soldier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #25)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 09:01 AM

26. Excellent posts. Thanks

I'm bookmarking the thread just for your posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Reply #26)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 12:55 PM

67. Thank you ...

I'm not against gun ownership.
I believe that if you want a gun, join the Guard (National or State).

Also that guns should be treated like vehicles.
If you want a gun you should obtain a license.
To get that license, you should prove proficiency with that weapon.
To be proficient, you should be trained, written tested and test with
actual use of the weapon in front of a licensed trained professional.
Just like cars, written test & driving test.

Last, but not least, you should have gun liability insurance, in case
you accidentally shot someone, you should brunt medical costs.
Or if you kill someone, some insurance for civil penalties and of
course jail if proven negligent in criminal cases.
Just like cars, when you register a car, you have to prove you have
insurance (here in California).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #25)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:03 AM

31. Yet gun ownership in America has always been an individual right not linked to the miltia

Otherwise you should be able to show us all the state laws that say that.

Can you cite a single state law that says you must join the militia to own a gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #31)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:23 AM

36. Oh, for fuck's sake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #36)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 02:31 PM

46. So there are no such laws.

Never in American history have states forced people to give up their weapons for not being part of a milita. Never.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #46)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 06:14 PM

49. Go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #49)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 06:31 PM

50. Not until you concede to the truth

Or provide some links to prove me wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #50)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 07:45 PM

54. You just never get it. No one is discussing this with you. Keep screaming at the wind.

Enjoy the almighty last word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #54)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 07:54 PM

55. Except I didn't start this sub-thread

And of course you won't discuss it - you can't prove me wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #36)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 10:08 PM

84. Can't do it, ffs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #31)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 08:26 PM

56. I remember reading that this extremely wide interpretation of the second amendment

is relatively new. Also, I don't appreciate the SCOTUS undermining local attempts at gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karadeniz (Reply #56)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 08:42 PM

58. There is very little case law on the 2A

For the longest time it was never a question that gun ownership was an individual right. That is why no one can give examples of any laws where states restricted gun ownership to militia members.

Do you object to the SC undermining local laws that restrict abortion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #31)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 08:41 PM

57. With all the important stuff going on in USA, there are still a few for whom GUNZ are all important.

I'm with Squinch -- "Oh, for fuck's sake."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #57)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 08:44 PM

59. I didn't start this sub thread.

And they are not all important. Gun control is a smoking wreck in America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #59)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 08:48 PM

60. It's a wreck because of unreasonable gun owners and their lobbying groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #60)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 08:53 PM

61. No. It is because of a lack of wide and deep public support

The public wants some gun control but they don't want it that badly to make politicians take a risk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #31)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 12:31 PM

65. WHAT?

Yet gun ownership in America has always been an individual right not linked to the miltia.

What do you mean its not linked to the militia?
Did you read the 2nd amendment?

2nd Amendment states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

1st half of the amendment is always conveniently forgotten, to serve 2nd Amendment rights purpose.
The 2nd Amendment is specifically for the militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #65)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 12:52 PM

66. Then show me the case law.

show me all the state laws that implemented that. Show me the historical examples where people actually had to turn in their weapons because they were not part of the militia.

Btw, you do understand that President Obama, Hilary Clinton and Bernie all say that the 2A protects an individual right. Not only that but when President Obama ran for office, it was in the Democratic Party platform.

Your opinion is not even widely accepted within the Democratic party, much less the entire country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #66)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 05:04 PM

69. I don't give a rats ass, who it is accepted by ...

I'm reading what the framers of the Constitution debated and how/why
we have a 2nd Amendment.

This amendment has be bastardized so that all people can own guns, when
that was never the intent.

If you want examples read this:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/
So, stop saying that there were no such laws, where people turned in their weapon.

Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, invest their time and resources, and bring their families. Cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.

Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.

The practice was started in Southern states, which were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. While a few citizens challenged the bans in court, most lost. Winkler, in his book Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”


Also, on a peculiar coincidence, there is not a single word about an individual right to a gun for self-defense in the notes from the Constitutional Convention; nor in the transcripts of the ratification debates in the states; nor on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives as it marked up the Second Amendment, where every single speaker talked about the militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #69)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 05:17 PM

70. The entire Bill of Rights is about individual rights

Last edited Mon Mar 25, 2019, 08:33 PM - Edit history (1)

that is why it was added to the Constitution in the first place - to make sure the government understood its limitations. Basic civics.

Were you aware that the British had a bill of rights from the 1690s that was the basis of the US Bill of Rights? That when the founding fathers were talking about protecting their rights as Englishmen, that is what they were referring to? And that British bill of rights talks about the right to own and bear arms?

And explain the state constitutions. Why do so many from that era do not link guns to militia service

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned

Kentucky: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.


Looks like many of the founding fathers thought that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #70)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 08:20 PM

71. Yet none of them spoke about individual rights concerning guns at the Constitutional Convention ...

nor in the U.S. House of Representative when they were debating the 2nd Amendment.

Again, the US Constitution does mention militia and all states abide by this Constitution as well.
The Federalist Papers clearly states the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Let's just agree to disagree, because you won't give up your guns regardless of the framers intent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #71)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 08:36 PM

72. Yes they did.

the entire conversation on the Bill of Rights was all about enumerating individual rights to put limits on government powers.

More to the point, at every time in our history, private ownership of guns independent of membership in the militia has been the norm. What you described never happened in reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #72)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 08:50 PM

73. Except for the 2nd Amendment ...

There is no record that show anyone speaking about individual gun rights
at the Constitutional Convention and the U.S. House of Representatives during the ratification debates,
nor was there any mention in the hand written notes during those debates about individual rights as
it pertains to the 2nd amendment.

But there is plenty about 2nd Amendment on militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #73)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 08:55 PM

74. But it never happened in reality

Never. Private ownership of guns outside of the militia has always been the norm in America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #74)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 08:56 PM

75. So let's just ignore the first half of the 2nd Amendment ...

got it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #75)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 09:01 PM

76. We have ignored it our entire history

Think about it. Never has an American been told that because he was not a member of the militia he had to turn in his guns. Never.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #76)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 09:15 PM

81. Don't be such a sore winner ...

I got it.
Ignore the first half of the 2nd Amendment.
Words don't mean a thing a thing.
I understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #81)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 09:19 PM

83. They don't mean what you think they do

That is the actual point here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #83)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 11:04 PM

85. OK, so now you have to have the last word. Go for it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #85)

Tue Mar 26, 2019, 09:01 AM

86. I think I made my point .

You have handled it graciously. Thanks for keeping things civil

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #65)

Tue Mar 26, 2019, 10:27 PM

89. So no one outside our 2019 militia has guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meathead (Reply #89)

Sat Mar 30, 2019, 02:02 PM

90. I didn't say that ...

I said that the framers of our Constitution wrote the 2nd Amendment
specifically to address the militia, not individual rights.

2nd Amendment states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

1st half of the amendment is always conveniently forgotten, to serve 2nd Amendment rights purpose.
The 2nd Amendment is specifically for the militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #31)

Tue Mar 26, 2019, 10:25 PM

88. Quotes every favorable Federalist opinion, but no laws....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #25)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:31 AM

38. National Guard is _part_ of the militia

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim

There's an actual legal definition of Militia under federal law. Interestingly, there are age and gender restrictions that would likely be unconstitutional if challenged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #25)

Tue Mar 26, 2019, 10:23 PM

87. So there's no legal requirement. Thanks for the confirmation!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #16)

Tue Mar 19, 2019, 02:33 PM

19. The years of media brainwashing is pretty

pervasive and deeply embedded. Sometimes it takes a real shock to wake people up. The loss of a lot of money might work for some. I just watched the documentary The Brainwashing of My Dad on Amazon Prime and it gave me a better understanding what has happened to a lot of these people.

It didn't happen overnight, but it paved the way for one such as Donald Trump. He truly was what they were probably waiting for, but if it hadn't been him, eventually it would have been someone else. Trump filled a need that has been created by years of persistent, aggressive right-wing brainwashing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 11:15 AM

44. So state land property taxes are combined to meet the threshold?

 

That is going to hurt a lot of people, especially those in the blue states. Congress has to do something about that...maybe cut back on the funds the red states get for natural disasters. They literally live off the blue states and keep getting paid for bad decisions. The public services in most blue states far out weigh the state taxes paid when you add it al up. Floks in FL pay for everything that communities need and many of those retirement communities have very poor secwage and water services.

We are all set for more pitting the red states against the blue states. Maybe apportionment should be based on how much the states contribute to the Federal coffer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 09:07 PM

78. Sp state income taxes and property taxes are combined to meet the threshold?

 

I thought they were separate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to allgood33 (Reply #78)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 09:13 PM

79. Dolt45 changed all that ...

Threshold is $10,000 of deductions between Property Taxes and State Income Taxes.
If the sum of both is below $10,000 then you can claim 100% of each.
If the sum is greater than $10,000, you can only claim $10,000.
Your choice how you want to split them up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 09:14 PM

80. God Bless you ...

I know how you feel, because several friends who live in Northern California and their children also will be paying into the double-digits to the tax man (One friends son and his wife will be paying almost $20,000.00 to the tax man, courtesy of the fat tReasonous hog tRumputin).

Fatso put all of us blue states on his enemies list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Original post)

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 07:34 PM

4. Wow, sounds like you lost $50k in deductions then!!

Last edited Mon Mar 18, 2019, 08:06 PM - Edit history (1)

What tax bracket are you in ?

If it was 25% you would need to have lost deductions of around $50K to have your taxes go up by $10,700. That's crazy !!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:49 PM

63. A person that owns a business having a down year in revenue can easily rack that up.

In some cases, losses that big can happen in a few months. If a person can file as a C-Corp, that loss could be carried forward, farmers could average it against previous years of income and maybe wiggle out a refund, but certain classes of taxpayers get screwed if part of the loss involved things that were previously deductible like fleet mileage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Original post)

Mon Mar 18, 2019, 11:38 PM

10. Whoa!

I actually had a physical reaction to that and its not even my money. That is outrageous, I'm so sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2019, 01:09 AM

14. I feel you. I had to pay up as well.

It was a strategic move to turn voters against states with high income taxes like NY and ILL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 19, 2019, 10:45 AM

15. I agree, ...

I told my tax account that yesterday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2019, 02:40 PM

20. My wife loses all job related itemization

 

But hey we must have pity on poor billionaires, they need our tax money to stash in offshore banks, it's never enough folks!

Amazon Will Pay a Whopping $0 in Federal Taxes on $11.2 Billion Profits
By LAURA STAMPLER Updated: February 15, 2019 6:20 PM ET

Those wondering how many zeros Amazon, which is valued at nearly $800 billion, has to pay in federal taxes might be surprised to learn that its check to the IRS will read exactly $0.00.

http://fortune.com/2019/02/14/amazon-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes-2019/

Oh and Amazon actually got a tax REBATE of...wait for it.... $129 million dollars this year!

Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy all over seeing how much the federal government loves and cares for Jeff Bezos while they screw the livin shit out of the rest of us huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 09:12 AM

27. How about

we band together and none of us pay our taxes in protest. These taxes aren't going to do anything anyway. They aren't going to improve roads or bridges, they are just being funneled to the richest of the rich. They aren't going to jail all of us. If they try to garnish your wages, just quit your job. Push the democratic candidates to have a policy of zeroing out all fines and reinstatement of our jobs.

If only I had the cajones...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rownesheck (Reply #27)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:34 AM

39. Nitpick: You don't go to jail for not paying taxes

It's actually not "illegal" to not pay your taxes. It's illegal to not file a return or to lie on your return. The actual payment of your taxes is a civil matter between you and the government. They can garnish wages and seize bank accounts, but they can't actually jail you for not paying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to metalbot (Reply #39)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:36 AM

40. Oh.

Well even better, then!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 09:37 AM

29. There are a lot of American shoes I wouldn't want to be in this year.

A close relative of mine and her husband bought what was little more than a tiny shack in rural New Jersey some 15-20 years ago for about $150,000. During the crazy real estate bubble, they sold it and bought another tiny, but cozy house that was on a nearby lake. It cost them $75,000 more, but they managed to pay that off eventually. Their current house is still assessed at about $400,00 to $450,000. They take in maybe $50,000 to $70,000 in gross income, depending on if they get lucky or not, and NJ is not cheap to live in. The NJ property tax rate of 2.4% means a bill of around $10,000 before any state or Federal taxes. If it comes in at $12,500, that's an extra $2500 they don't have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #29)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:16 AM

32. They've added $325k in housing costs while...

 

Making $30k each?

Your friends have other issues that need to be addressed before we get to the tax code.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theboss (Reply #32)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:18 AM

34. No, you didn't read the post

The shack they were in had gone up as well. They only paid $75,000 more to get into their new house because they were able to get nearly as much for the shack. They were careful to stay within their means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #29)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:28 AM

37. I read that as the bought a third house?

 

So their issue is that they have no house payment in a home assessed for $400k?

I now have the opposite reaction. They are the luckiest people in America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theboss (Reply #37)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:48 AM

41. They paid the $75,000 off

They paid maybe $125,000 for the shack some 30 years ago. Its value jumped to an insane $400,000 (location, location and location), and they sold it and bought the lake house for $475,000, using the $400,000 as the downpayment. Since they paid off the $75,000 a long time ago, they only have repairs (frequent, due to the difficult area they are in) and property taxes, which did not go down even though they should have when the housing bubble burst. They could never get $475,000 for it today, but they have no say in what the county assessor says, and the assessors are under pressure to assess houses as high as possible, so as to bring in as much in property taxes as possible. They are keeping above water for now, but if they go through a few lean years, they will have to sell the house for whatever the market will bear (the assessor is under no obligation to make up the difference between the assessment and reality), and look for an apartment closer to NYC, where their jobs are.

Why are they the luckiest people in America? After all taxes, they manage, but they aren't exactly rolling in it. They still have the property taxes on the house along with the repairs, NJ state taxes and NJ cost of living, and Federal taxes. With what's left, how does that make them the luckiest people in America? By what fuzzy math does having $55 a day in disposable income for a married couple put them in the 1%?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #41)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 11:08 AM

42. They work in NYC and make a combined $60k?

 

Do they work at a gas station?

Also, I’m lost. Do they have a house payment or not? Do they live on a lake in northern New Jersey in a house that is paid off?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theboss (Reply #42)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 11:13 AM

43. Yes, they work in NYC and have a combined income of around $60,000

They both work in entertainment, so that fluctuates

The house is paid off.

That white light is fading. Doesn't the Gestapo have any spares for longer interrogations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theboss (Reply #37)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 05:14 PM

47. I wouldn't call buying a house for $125K and selling it for 400K unlucky

Seems like their issue is more with the assessment and high NJ property taxes than anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:18 AM

33. I thought I had it bad paying 5K more. You poor thing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:21 AM

35. I feel your pain...

I had to pay $5K more than I did last year.

...and outside of the FICA tax, it’s not like it’s going toward anything I believe is worth it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 05:17 PM

48. That's rather close to what I get in SSDI for 3 quarters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 06:32 PM

51. Same story everywhere

 

They conned people. I hope the trumpsters and republican middle class wakes up against this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 06:52 PM

52. Let me guess....

You forgot to borrow a few million from your parents 20 years or so ago.

I'm paying more this year too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 07:00 PM

53. My accountant just responded today...

Luckily we had increased our witholding. Getting back 800 some dollars... wait for it....over 4,000 back last year.No change in our general expenses or income.
I feel lucky. This guano bomb has not even really hit yet as most folks tend to file at the last minute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoonart (Reply #53)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:59 PM

64. I think the rule is if you file early, you expect a return, file later expect to pay.

We should begin to hear some real horror stories.

For the people saying this is a blue state issue. I have friends in Arizona, their state tax is pretty significant. I don't know much about Texas, but I guess that houses in places like Austin, Dallas, Houston cost a bit, and those people loose a good portion of the past deduction. Don't know whether Texas has a state income tax, I don't know businesspeople there or have relatives that live there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #64)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 12:57 PM

68. +1, DFW it's not the cost its the property taxes and we were able to discount sales taxes too and

... lost most of one and all of the other.

We have more than 2 kids, we were proper screwed by Red Don's middle class tax increase

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:38 PM

62. Wow. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Original post)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 09:05 PM

77. Haven't done my taxes yet but expect the same

I am in NY.
I have a very old small house that sits on 2.3 acres.
When we moved here the taxes were $5,000.
The house is still small. However, it sits on waterfront property.
My taxes this year are somewhere around $45,000.
Yup.
Will have to sell soon.
Crying. Love this house and property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Original post)

Mon Mar 25, 2019, 09:18 PM

82. Mine went down a decent amount

Married with no dependents and taking the standard deduction. Identical income as last year and my total tax decreased by $2700 compared to 2017. All in all, pretty pleased with how it turned out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread