New Tax "Reforms" offering D.C. Benefits

[garfield]

New Tax "Reforms" offering D.C. Benefits

When I initially saw the topic title I thought "Oh well, another bill that benefits Wash DC".

I was skeptical when I realized D.C. meant drum corps and Reforms was in quotes.

"Wait", I said to myself, "doesn't tax cuts mean more money in donor's pockets instead of going to the IRS?"

When did this dependent, myopic viewpoint of a fixed pie to be fought over supplant the notion that A. The pie CAN grow bigger and, B.  Drum corps has as much ability to go get the additional personal donor wealth as the United Way or any other non-profit?

 

[garfield]

50 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

yes he did...but....a lot of it started under Bush which is conveniently forgotten. TARp started as the brain child of Paulson, fleshed out by Neil Kashiri, and then Geithner, Paulson and Bernanke made it move. I believe the original bill was $750 billion, then grew. But running 2 wars and a tax cut also didn't help under Bush, and Obama was signing his death warrant if he didnt extend them. 

 

Honestly, regardless of party in office, if you want to make the governments money work better, every branch and department should go under a full forensic audit to root out the bloat and waste, lobbying curtailed, perks cut back, term limits and more. it doesnt matter who we vote in after they have been gerrymandered onto us, they are the worst examples of all that is wrong with our government.

I, of course, can't disagree that cutting costs is always a fine thing to do.  Why spend when one doesn't need to (personal or corporate).  But there's an old saying that goes "You'll never generate a profit cutting costs", meaning, at some point one has to generate revenue.

We all, here forming opinions, have to realize that there's at least one entire generation - and the case can be made that it's actually two generations - that has never experienced national wealth growth of above 3%.  The old folks here remember 5%, 6% GDP growth and more in past times and under dramatically different circumstances.  

IMO, the likely outcome of this tax bill is that charitable contribution dollars will increase, not decrease, initially as the upper-incomes begin to donate more (even to the extent of the tax benefit they supposedly are getting (they're not, but I digress)).  The question is, as it always is, a matter of time and timing.

The economy is almost certainly on a secular growth path that will have shot in the arm by a tax law change that lowers tax payments, leaves more income in individual pockets, creates wealth, and makes giving not only an actual reality for many who were paying that money to the IRS before, but also for the wealthy who've been "surviving" at their income/tax level and now, thanks to the tax law, they have an even GREATER incentive to give.  This growth path is SECULAR, in my opinion, meaning it will last a generation or more of continued growth trajectory upwards, lasting probably a decade or longer.  During that time, national wealth, and individual wealth across all income strata will increase.  The populism will provide years of increasing income and export, and will finally begin to richly reward the middle class of the United States, exactly as planned and implemented 33 years ago.  Just watch.

IMO, the non-profits that position themselves to efficiently and effectively keep their existing donor base, get more of the greater wealth of their donor group,  and work hard to justify getting more donors will be richly rewarded for their optimism and foresight.  The land is fertile and becoming rich loam to plant long-term seeds.

It's been a LONG time since we had reason to believe that effort was worthwhile.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by garfield

[garfield]

49 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

honestly, commissioned folks have the most to lose, like me. I've done the math....doubling the exemption hurts me honestly, but I'll still donate.

 

Tho I have seen his hedge funds that he targeted on the campaign trail lobbied their way out of any adjustments.

Well, there's your problem.  My industry (Mother Merrill) finally figured out the fee model 25 years ago, but I was a last holdout out of stubbornness.  When I finally made the jump to fees, I finally realized how beneficial to clients the fee model actually is.

Your industry is tougher because you are sale-focused, like brokers were 20 years ago.

 

[garfield]

55 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

honestly, commissioned folks have the most to lose, like me. I've done the math....doubling the exemption hurts me honestly, but I'll still donate.

 

Tho I have seen his hedge funds that he targeted on the campaign trail lobbied their way out of any adjustments.

Seriously, how can it?  The exemption is doubled.  If your itemized deductions are more, take that.  You said you'd give anyway.  How can doubling the exemption and the child tax credit (ahem...) make you worse off?

The only way I'll believe it is if you fall into the upper bracket that pays the 4.5% surcharge to make up for the double exemption...

Maybe you need to run your numbers on a different website (really?  You've done your taxes already?)

 

[Jeff Ream]

39 minutes ago, garfield said:

I, of course, can't disagree that cutting costs is always a fine thing to do.  Why spend when one doesn't need to (personal or corporate).  But there's an old saying that goes "You'll never generate a profit cutting costs", meaning, at some point one has to generate revenue.

We all, here forming opinions, have to realize that there's at least one entire generation - and the case can be made that it's actually two generations - that has never experienced national wealth growth of above 3%.  The old folks here remember 5%, 6% GDP growth and more in past times and under dramatically different circumstances.  

IMO, the likely outcome of this tax bill is that charitable contribution dollars will increase, not decrease, initially as the upper-incomes begin to donate more (even to the extent of the tax benefit they supposedly are getting (they're not, but I digress)).  The question is, as it always is, a matter of time and timing.

The economy is almost certainly on a secular growth path that will have shot in the arm by a tax law change that lowers tax payments, leaves more income in individual pockets, creates wealth, and makes giving not only an actual reality for many who were paying that money to the IRS before, but also for the wealthy who've been "surviving" at their income/tax level and now, thanks to the tax law, they have an even GREATER incentive to give.  This growth path is SECULAR, in my opinion, meaning it will last a generation or more of continued growth trajectory upwards, lasting probably a decade or longer.  During that time, national wealth, and individual wealth across all income strata will increase.  The populism will provide years of increasing income and export, and will finally begin to richly reward the middle class of the United States, exactly as planned and implemented 33 years ago.  Just watch.

IMO, the non-profits that position themselves to efficiently and effectively keep their existing donor base, get more of the greater wealth of their donor group,  and work hard to justify getting more donors will be richly rewarded for their optimism and foresight.  The land is fertile and becoming rich loam to plant long-term seeds.

It's been a LONG time since we had reason to believe that effort was worthwhile.

 

 

spending is good. Stupid spending isn't. Like all those millions of late fees we paid returning things from the wars in the middle east or spending millions on politicized investigations. Imagine if the waste was eliminated and used for really good purposes? It could actually help the economy far better! 

 

I'm not saying the new bill will be bad or not, tho i know it will affect me personally and my industry. I'm more worried about reckless deregulation that will put us back in 2005.

[Jeff Ream]

40 minutes ago, garfield said:

Well, there's your problem.  My industry (Mother Merrill) finally figured out the fee model 25 years ago, but I was a last holdout out of stubbornness.  When I finally made the jump to fees, I finally realized how beneficial to clients the fee model actually is.

Your industry is tougher because you are sale-focused, like brokers were 20 years ago.

 

mortgages don't keep on giving one they close. 

[Jeff Ream]

35 minutes ago, garfield said:

Seriously, how can it?  The exemption is doubled.  If your itemized deductions are more, take that.  You said you'd give anyway.  How can doubling the exemption and the child tax credit (ahem...) make you worse off?

The only way I'll believe it is if you fall into the upper bracket that pays the 4.5% surcharge to make up for the double exemption...

Maybe you need to run your numbers on a different website (really?  You've done your taxes already?)

 

what i deduct for mileage driving to 4 banks, marketing etc causes me to be a loser. i've done the math and had three tax experts look at it too. My whole industry loses

[garfield]

4 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

well, the personal stuff has expiration dates, the corporate cuts don't. The higher our debt goes, the more our borrowing costs go, which in the end costs us all.

This is just not accurate, Jeff.  "...the more our borrowing costs go,..."  Exactly WHO is charging WHOM for the debt of the US? 

It took me 20 years to understand how the Fed and our Treasury debt works.

 

[Terri Schehr]

6 hours ago, BRASSO said:

 I used to love the N.E.  winters up north... skiing, sledding, snowmobiling, snowboarding, etc. Now I  just want out. We winter in Florida for 3-4 months now. Leaving in a few weeks. Its supposed to have record breaking wind chill factors in Boston region of minus 12- 16 degrees the next couple of days. Oh Gawd, that'll make me potentially housebound and homicidal if I'm not careful.

.My plan is to spend three months in Florida every winter when the hubs retires.   It’s 11 degrees here tonight and we’re expecting a high of 3 degrees Saturday.  I’m trying to embrace winter this year. 

[Ghost]

38 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said:

     I’m trying to embrace winter this year. 

You need help Terri.