SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
AlterNet reports
When Republicans in Congress passed a big, fat tax break bill in December, they insisted it meant American workers would be singing "Happy Days Are Here Again" all the way to the bank. The payoff from the tax cut would be raises totaling $4,000 to $9,000, the President's Council of Economic Advisers assured workers. But something bad happened to workers on their way to the repository. They never got that money.
In fact, their real wages declined because of higher inflation. At the same time, the amount workers had to pay in interest on loans for cars and credit cards increased. And, to top it off, Republicans threatened to make workers pay for the tax break with cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. So now, workers across America are wondering, "Where's that raise?". It's nowhere to be found.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported this week that wages for production and nonsupervisory workers decreased by 0.1 percent from May 2017 to May 2018 when inflation is factored in. The compensation for all workers together, including supervisors, rose an underwhelming 0.1 percent from April 2018 to May 2018.
That's not what congressional Republicans promised workers. They said corporations, which got the biggest, fattest tax cuts of all, would use that extra money to increase wages. Some workers got one-time bonuses and an even smaller number received raises. But not many. The group Americans for Tax Fairness estimates it's 4.3 percent of all U.S. workers.
The New York Times story about this record breaker describes the phenomena this way: "Companies buy back their shares when they believe they have nothing better to do with their money than to return capital to shareholders." So despite promises from the GOP and the President's Council of Economic Advisers, corporations believed further enriching their own executives and shareholders was a much better way to use the money than increasing workers' wages--wages that have been stagnant for decades.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday June 21 2018, @11:43PM (6 children)
While I don't doubt that the impact of capping the SALT deduction wipes out any benefit for well off people in high-tax states. I think you're underestimating the benefit to most ordinary people in low tax states. For people who have incomes that fall into the middle class range and take the standard deduction, their tax liability was cut by 20-30%. That seems like a pretty large benefit to me.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday June 22 2018, @12:11AM (4 children)
30% of what, though?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday June 22 2018, @12:16AM (3 children)
30% of their 2017 tax liability assuming their gross income didn't change.
So those who paid 10k in taxes in 2017 are paying 7k this year.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday June 22 2018, @02:27AM (2 children)
And people who paid $1k last year are getting a $300 tax cut.
Percentage alone tells you nothing.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday June 22 2018, @05:03AM (1 child)
Someone only paying $1k in taxes last year is probably at a much higher percentage. I'd have to re-run the calcs for that case, but they might not be paying any tax at all this year with the same income.
Although, with unemployment down, maybe they will end up paying more because they found a much better paying job.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by slinches on Friday June 22 2018, @04:41PM
Just re-ran those calcs. If someone filed single last year and paid $1k in taxes, they would pay about $440 this year and would owe no taxes if they joint filed.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday June 22 2018, @12:30AM
Just to add to this. From what I can find, recent history indicates that people in the situation I was describing represent ~70% of the taxpayers (i.e. ~30% of filers choose to itemize)