Government Tax Plan Will Be Good For Business
In order to get Senator Rubio's vote on the new tax bill, the language included tax breaks for families that use childcare. Increasing the refundability of the Child Tax Credit from 55% to 70%. If it passes, this expansion will be good for daycare/childcare businesses.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/15/u...-tax-bill.html Republicans’ $1.5 Trillion Tax Plan Appears on Track to Pass Next Week "One of the biggest changes came on Friday, when lawmakers agreed to a demand by Mr. Rubio to expand the child tax credit by allowing families who owe no federal income taxes to still claim up to $1,400 of the $2,000 child tax credit, up from $1,100 in the original version. But that change was offset by limiting the bill’s benefits to some higher-income families, and by restricting it to children age 16 and below, down from 17 and below in the Senate bill. The net result was a credit that is more lucrative for lower-income earners but actually slightly less costly than the Senate bill." |
How?
I'm not trying to argue, but I don't see how this will help me. I don't have kids at home. It isn't going to make parents say, "Hmm, I think I will get a job and find daycare since they raised the child care credit." I'm almost 65, I think it is going to hurt us in ways I can't even begin to predict.
|
Originally Posted by Sunchimes: |
I haven't read much about the upcoming tax changes, ok, I haven't read any of it. :o
What other changes are happening that will affect us? Lower middle class, to be exact. :o |
Where will this tax break be funded from, though? :confused:
IME, giving young parents a break that equates to more available income does not change their priorities. How many of us have given free childcare to help out a family "in need" only to have them buy big screen TV's, gaming stations or I-Phones then post about it on Facebook? I have. I don't think this will trickle to childcare providers. Maybe it will benefit the retail and service industry as a whole. That may benefit our local economy by association. Unless, of course, the source of the funding comes from our seniors of other groups who actually put in the hard work and deserve it. |
Originally Posted by Cat Herder: How we pay for it or any expenditure is in the model that is put forth by Congress. We added a extra $10 trillion to our debt the last eight years. You can decide if it was well spent or not. Our GDP was pretty stagnant during that time around 2 % per year. Every point that it goes up, adds $3 trillion into the economy per year (says Wilbur Ross, current United States Secretary of Commerce.). We were pretty well tapped out with $20 trillion in debt but with the current GDP rising per quarter, it should allow for more headroom to borrow and spend. The coming budget bill has to still be approved but I think the added money flowing into the economy will give Congress reason to approve and pass it. GDP (Gross Domestic Product) Defined: https://www.thebalance.com/component...-chart-3306015 http://www.bushcenter.org/publicatio...r-america.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/26/tax-...-gdp-jump.html |
Well it might have some small benefits but the larger picture is that this is not good for the poor and benefits the wealthy by a large margin. I am not into kicking people when they are down.
|
This hurts me. Kids suddenly become VERY expensive at 16. We should still be getting that tax credit...it should have been expanded until 18, not reduced to 16.
|
I'm very anxious to hear Tom Copeland's view of it once he gets his highly experienced in child care issues paws on the final bill.
I'm particularly interested in deductions. Now that my son is nearly 18, I will be back to single instead of single head of household. I hope we are still able to deduct time space, payroll, and goods as we have in the past. I agree the child tax credit should have extended to 18 instead of increasing the existing credit. They are way more expensive as they get older (and more annoying which we should be compensated for in some fashion). |
Originally Posted by nannyde: Seriously, we have two kids left for the child tax credit and pay out the wazoo in taxes (both self employed, and our gross puts us in a higher tax bracket) I would like to see special needs kids have a higher deduction, for instance, and for LIFE, if they're 100% disabled and will always be a dependent (like my 16 year old son) |
Originally Posted by Michael: |
From what I read, it should benefit everyone, because it reduces rates. Of course, wealthier will be benefited more, because they pay more taxes, but I think it reduces the tax burden on the middle class as well, so hopefully everyone gets to keep more of the money they have earned.
As far as paying for it, they need to start managing things more efficiently, so our tax money goes farther. Although, I have read that our tax money actually just goes to pay the interest on our debt at this point, so it's not really aiding social programs or helping to fund the hundreds programs we have now, but regardless, the amount of money wasted is mind boggling. The defense budget is a huge portion of funds that are wasted and misused. Trillions have been spent on war and it looks to have no end in sight. There are numerous dept of the government that have been proven to be highly inefficient, yet they remain operating as usual. (The TSA is one recent one that comes to mind). All in all, though, I wanted a reduce rate and the Obama care mandate to be gone, but until the tax code is simplified to the point of being like 5 pages :lol:, it's all kind of smoke and mirrors. You think you are saving, but you are paying more somewhere else, because I really don't think our government can afford to let us keep more of our own money.:) |
I'm a big fan of trickle down economics, I do think it works. Lowering the cost to do business in America was essential to make us competitive in the global market.
The thing about this kind of plan is it will take time to see how it affects us. |
Originally Posted by midaycare: |
Originally Posted by Tigerlilly: I realize I'm a conservative (that doesn't mean Republican) and I enjoy the heck out of Trump. That doesn't make my opinions popular with many in this group, but it doesn't make me wrong. I would spend the time, effort, and energy to back up my statements, but to what purpose? You don't sound like you're in the mood to have a kind debate. This forum is for kind support of others. |
Originally Posted by Michael: I termed a family like this. They received their childcare credit, used a portion to pay their bills, but then instead of putting the rest into savings to pay future bills, they blew it. Big screen Tv's, New phones, name brand clothing for themselves, you name it. Then, August rolled around, and surprise surprise the family could not afford to pay their bills, they had fallen behind on loan payments for items they purchased with their tax money. I just see this as a continuing cycle, one that having more expendable income at the end of the year will not solve. |
Originally Posted by Miss A: Our only way of finding out if it helps will be in the way our businesses and livelihoods advance or not in the coming months and years. Just like the Legislative and Executive branches. If our lives are not better in 4 years, we get to change what is not working. If they pass this bill, at least we get to see if it works. |
New tax bill
I'm waiting for Congress to pass the bill before I write about it. I'll be posting an article about it shortly thereafter and how it affects family child care.
|
Originally Posted by midaycare: Originally Posted by midaycare: As a fellow trump supporter, I will stand up for you here. Trickle down economics WOULD work. Yes, they reduce the federal budget, but they have a multiplier effect on economic growth. Tax cuts put money back in business owners pockets- which they spend, right back into the economy. My dad owned a construction company and the 80's/under Reagan, he had over 100 employees and they had great benefits, solely because of his tax cuts. When those were rescinded, he had to let employees go. It's not just little ole college educated, upper middle class, minority, small business owning trump supporters like me who agree- many economists concur. https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...rt-laffer-says I live in NY, and my husband and I are both small business owners. Nothing screams STALLED GROWTH more than New York State. Our businesses are so over taxed it's easier to just move out of state, or shut down, or hire a better accountant to get more tax loopholes than it is to hire more employees and advance our businesses. We tend to hoard money, not spend it, because the tax breaks aren't there and we always end up paying in, to both the state and the IRS, in addition to our quarterly tax bills- which alone could easily support a family of 4. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by Michael: |
Originally Posted by Michael: All that to say I'd like to see more help for our seniors. A group I do not belong to, btw. :lol: That was my intent. |
Joint filers
12 percent: $19,050 to $77,400 22 percent: $77,400 to $165,000 :eek::eek::eek: |
I am not seeing any benefits from the plan to me (yet)..... I am waiting on others in this field like Tom to chime in.
Further, I do not understand why the Republicans would not be the party pushing for universal heath care --- based on my study of history in the past they would have been the party most likely to back something like it. |
Originally Posted by CityGarden: Health insurance should be as easy as car insurance. Without the mandate you could choose catastrophic insurance and just pay for regular medicals bills yourself. That is what I have been doing anyways with the high deductible for insurance that I couldn't use. My high cost insurance never paid for anything. Currently in California, it is against the law to buy catastrophic insurance without having standard health insurance. How about I just choose the insurance that I need. I don't need to pay for mammograms but I'm currently covered for them. As a a matter of fact, I don't go to doctors or take medication. I spend a fortune though on quality foods. I want to spend my money on what I need. I only pay a few thousand dollars on all my cars and I am covered to the max and can include a million dollar umbrella policy for a few extra hundred dollars. That is how health insurance should be. Originally Posted by CityGarden: Originally Posted by CityGarden: |
Originally Posted by Michael: Originally Posted by Michael: Originally Posted by Michael: But I am going to try to remain hopeful... |
Does anyone know if the credit is refundable from business taxes owed? So many deductions don't apply to business taxes.
|
Originally Posted by Mom2Two: |
Health insurance
Originally Posted by Michael: Secondly, car insurance is not like health insurance. Yes, an umbrella policy will cover you for most car accidents, but there is no similar policy for health insurance because of the unknowable high cost of medical expenses. That's the point of requiring everyone to get basic health insurance. The healthly subsidize the sick. Then when the healthy get sick, they know that they will be covered. And what about those, under the new law, choose not to be insured at all because the mandate is gone. When they get sick, who will pay? We all will pay. And it will be more expensive because the uninsured are less likely to seek preventative care and this will cost more in the long run. Isn't it better that we all pay in for insurance knowing that we may not need every aspect of the coverage, but knowing that everyone will be covered. When everyone is paying something for insurance, the premiums are lower for all of us. |
Originally Posted by TomCopeland: Originally Posted by TomCopeland: There are many things "Americans" can do to make our health better. When I was younger, I use to be on food stamps and welfare. It was embarrassing when, at the checkout counter, they had to tear off the food stamps in front of everyone. These days those stamps are replaced by a subsidized EBT card. Many of the people that I see using these cards are buying the most destructive foods for their bodies. Not only will it make them less healthy, but they are going to be worse off as they get older unless they change their lifestyle. The expense for bad personal health management only compounds over time. This is another part of our failed health-care system. If people can't manage their health, there is not enough money in the world to take care of them. Likewise, the unhealthy will be less likely to contribute to paying those costs. Originally Posted by TomCopeland: There should be cross-state competition, cross-country medication competition. There could be many ways to manage the costs better. Likewise, with over $20 trillion in debt, we can't afford to insure everyone totally, but we should totally insure everyone with preventative care. Whereas everyone gets basic care along with health/food/lifestyle education and management. Preconditions must be covered, but if younger citizens don't want full coverage or no coverage, that should be their choice with the consequences. Catastrophic insurance should be a stand-alone plan and not predicated on high deductibles and as a secondary insurance. Originally Posted by TomCopeland: |
Health insurance
Originally Posted by Michael: However, to focus on the lifestyles of some poor people is scapegoating. That's not what is driving up health care costs or raising insurance premiums. We certainly can afford to insure everyone if we change our nation's priorities. Dismantling the ACA will increase health care costs even more. To say that people should have the choice of whether or not to get health insurance and then suffer the consequences if they can't pay for their medical expenses is a terrible moral position to take. A twenty-one year old gets cancer and we tell her you're on your own? How about the one month old child who needs hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical treatments? Do we tell her parent she is out of luck because he parents didn't get insurance? The ACA is not bankrupting our economy. There are ways to improve our health care system - for sure. Let's not leave people behind when we improve it. |
I would say that it's a good idea to have a means-tested social safety net for those with reasonably unexpected catastrophic medical expenses. Other than that, I would leave things the way they were before ACA.
There's a medicaid waiver (I think it's state level but I'm not sure) for those with chronic illness so that they aren't bankrupted from the expenses that are on top of their health insurance. I grew up with "free" education (think limited seats at the university, no general education, no second chances, have to know what you want to "be when you grow up" at about 15 years, so that you take all the right requirements in year 11 & 12 to gain a place in the exact right program). It's waaaaaay better here. Having the market provide pressure is a good thing. For example, DS is very good at math and programming. He's going to the less expensive, local 4 year university and it will do him just fine. Universal health was implemented when I was a teen. It was originally supposed to be covered by a 1% increase in taxes. Well, of course soon that wasn't enough. And now, the health care is awful. No Aussies want to be a doctor, because they dont' get paid enough. The doctors barely speak English, because they are from Eastern Europe and other countries. A lot of care is clinic care, because the nice, red carpet office visits that we are used to are more expensive. So my sister, with gestational diabetes, gets to sit for hours, waiting her turn to be seen in clinic. People with any money buy private insurance on top of the public care. They get better care. They don't have to go on wait lists for normal care. My dad had aggressive cancer but had to go on a wait list for surgery, because he just had public health care and there were no hospital beds available. I don't think there are any perfectly pretty solutions to health care. The reality is that our technology advances, and it's expensive, and we are an ageing population. But I do think the best of the solutions is to leave the market in charge as much as possible but with the social safety net for those with the greatest need, since the poor and disabled are simply not an efficient market. |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:49 AM. |