DarterBlue Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 3 hours ago, dbcaptiron said: Darter, that's totally cool, enjoy your retirement and I mean that...I'm happy that I can drop the machete and use a butter knife... Actually I asked for the 'top line' on a couple w/24kD, and would suggest to you, that the number 75 K would not make it or 'cut the mustard' (it most certainly would not here, and is unsustainable in most parts of the woods...It would need to be CONSIDERABLY higher to maintain those types of expenses, and 'probably' does not exist)...if it does here, then the 'arguments' win/win portion is the financial stupidity of the person...or their advise LOL) As I am the 'poster child' for the left's 'losing money' argument and do not...you can see why I take issue. I may have in the past (where I was more stupidly spendthrift) but that is not 'sustainable' either..... either way the 'patient' is dead... BTW: I am not finance either, but a long career of designing and implementing the systems that those accountants and actuarial's use, have led to many debates....apologies if my thinking you were one was taken insultingly. You actually had a REALLY good post(s) on the 'market' a while back and I pegged you as 'someone' who has a better approach than most 'financial analysts', so in that light maybe you could just take it as a compliment... My take was, 'Don't try and use ME' to prove any conjecture when I'm the one paying the $, and know what I write on the checks. I have called many out to give examples (as I'm sure that 'some' do exist), and most don't even try. Your numbers seem more reasonable (even if asspulled or exaggerated), and a butter knife says that 'you would about break even' if you consider that all your 'charitable expenses' are now being paid to the government instead (which you can highlight for future arguments) and one point that I have not argued, as it is true.... Your 'medical expenses' also tip to the fact that a person with those so high, is most likely not actively working full time with insurance (or patient severely wounded at least LOL). I was more into 'numbers' yesterday, but have no problem sharing my experience. We can debate, as that is good as people can see it, but I prefer to debate actual numbers not conjecture as most do.... cool? We are okay. I will say this, though. While my example was somewhat extreme, pretty much any individual or couple earning between $75k and $165k, especially if they have kids and itemize in 2017, and if the itemized expenses amount to more than 1.67 times their current standard deduction will end up being no better off and likely worse off in 2018 than they were for 2017. This is due to the loss of the personal and dependent exemptions which more than offsets any reduction in marginal tax rates at those levels of income. The larger the family, the worse off they will be. This effect goes away at higher income levels due to lower incremental tax rates relative to what exists for 2017 and the fact that all but a few filers will now escape the AMT in 2018. The fact that the IRS has not come out with a timely, revised W-4, will only exacerbate this problem as it means that many will be under withheld during the year and consequently will have to give back all (and in some cases more) or a substantial portion of the increase they have seen in their paychecks. Those that work for smaller companies, with less competent payroll and accounting personnel will be most affected particularly if they don't themselves run the numbers just released through the just released IRS calculator (and make adjustments if necessary by informing payroll). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcaptiron Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 35 minutes ago, DarterBlue said: We are okay. I will say this, though. While my example was somewhat extreme, pretty much any individual or couple earning between $75k and $165k, especially if they have kids and itemize... good. and You really don't have to explain to me...who is the reality of that example you propose, for quite some time now (like decades)...and things did not just change overnight because people like to project conjecture.... but you can see where I am coming from as the 'jump to conclusioners' and pundits do nothing but put forth extreme examples beyond the scope of even slanted reality....does nothing but cloudy the waters... You know this, and still post extreme (Purely BS from a numbers standpoint and stay alive) and make people think that this example could 'actually happen' somewhere in Nebraska........IT CAN'T... At least the entire internet and many accountants has yet to show me an example (real life).. so you are not alone Just putting notches in belts then I guess... .For a rule of thumb I would say that those hardworking 'low income' people effected, have at least double the average american take home pay.....you could scramble numbers all day, and I like playing chess....but the game's that are the same can get boring.... Most interesting point every time though is what was noted prior....the shift from 'charity' to 'government' payments....worth noting... PS...maybe all those low earners need to take up the slack from all them 'high earners' getting 'SCREWED' here then........maybe some of them can start donating, with the new wealth they have been 'given' .......to make up the difference....novel idea no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.