With oil man George W. Bush, we saw the highest oil price ever his last summer in office. With community organizer Barack Obama, we passed out more food stamps than ever.

Since businessman Donald Trump took office stocks regularly set record highs, yet he’s asking for huge tax cuts for corporations. And he’s asking me, a middle-class school teacher, to pay for those cuts through lost property tax deductions.

It is mind-boggling that the same Wall Street corporations whose leaders make the largest multiple over average employee salary in history, need me to lose tax deductions to help their bottom line. Even more insulting is the thought that about 1/3 of U.S. corporate assets have non-U.S. owners, so my taxes are being raised to enrich foreigners.

Over the years, I’ve purchased rent houses to supplement my retirement income. My property tax bill is about $22,000 or about half my take-home salary. I never expected Republicans to force me to pay taxes on taxes so they could give large breaks to people so wealthy they still owe tax after having $10 million exempted.

Throw this “reward the wealthy” plan out and replace it with one that doesn’t raise the tax rates ordinary Americans pay.

Rodney Dunklee

League City

Locations

(31) comments

Carlos Ponce

Rodney, you're getting an increase in the standard deduction, almost doubled. This offsets the property tax deduction you are used to. The middle school subject you teach isn't math according to the SBEC records. Ask a math teacher to check the numbers for you.
And saying this is only a "reward the wealthy" tax plan is fraudulent, just a Liberal talking point. Liberals love class warfare - it's the Communist way of gaining power.

Rodney Dunklee

I took your advice and did the math. Under current law being married with two children I get standard deductions and exemptions of $28,900. According to the New York Times my GOP approved combined deduction will total $24,000 so I actually loose $4900. The math also shows the following tax rate changes for taxable dollars:
First $19,000 – tax increase of 2%
Next $58,000- decrease of 3%
Next $66,000 – no change
Next $117,800 – 3% decrease
Next $22,050 – 8% decrease
Next $164,950 – 2% increase
Next $55,100 – no change
Next $519,950 – Decrease of 4.6%
Every dollar paid by corporations: 15% decrease
So yes, the rich are clearly being rewarded and I and many other middle class citizens are paying hundreds and thousands of dollars more under this plan to fund tax reductions for the wealthiest. Why not come back with a plan that gives businesses and the rich a little less, but does not increase any taxes? Wouldn’t that be a real tax cut?
If the senate plan wins, most of my income will be in the 25% tax bracket, so the $22,000.00 in property taxes I pay will be double taxed for the first time ever to the tune of an extra $5500 out of my pocket.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the facts are about 26% of Americans earning $50,000 - $75,000, a group for whom the standard deduction increase has great impact, will be paying more in income taxes. The Rich will save thousands, and with the estate tax exemption being changed to $11,000,000.00 or maybe none at all, they will save even more.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/27/us/politics/six-charts-to-explain-the-republican-tax-plan.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/17/winners-and-losers-tax-bill-passed-house/874622001/

Carlos Ponce

Individual tax vs corporate taxes.
"The United States does have the highest statutory [corporate tax] rate among developed countries."
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/09/eric-bolling/does-us-have-highest-corporate-tax-rate-free-world/
Good or bad? VERY bad. It is what drives corporations to go overseas leading to an overall reduction in tax income. See:
"Evidence suggests that lower corporate-tax rates increase GDP and boost worker wages"
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451811/corporate-tax-cuts-benefit-ordinary-workers
"First $19,000 – tax increase of 2%" Yes, but from your NYT source: "While the lowest income rate would increase, typical families in the existing 10 percent bracket would most likely be better off because of a larger child tax credit and an increase in the standard deduction."
As to the rest of your chart: "The full effects of the plan on different groups has not yet been analyzed by experts."
Among the "losers" listed by your USA Today link are: "The sick: The bill eliminates a deduction for medical and dental expenses that exceed 7.5% of their incomes. In 2015, there were 8.8 million taxpayers who deducted $87 million." Awwwww
8.8 million taking $87 million in deductions amounts to an average $9.89 deduction per sick person.
Another "loser" are those who own vacation homes. Average Americans? I think not.
Another "loser" are Residents of high-tax regions. That's a local/state problem. Residents in New Jersey, New York, California should fix their "problem".
USA Today concludes with "The $1.5 trillion reduction in revenues will cause some economic growth, but no study has yet shown it would pay for itself."
Just the reduction in the corporate tax rate will lead to an increase in wages, lower unemployment which leads to more revenue.
Hopefully the tax bill will be passed. Then write again about your taxes.
People scoffed at the Reagan tax reduction - until they saw the increase in their accounts.

Jim Forsythe

"The United States does have the highest statutory [corporate tax] rate among developed countries may be true , but is the corporate tax rate the highest after deductions? Far from it, and it will be reduced more! Do you think that these companies will increase wages, instead of increasing profits . They have had record profits , and have not increased wages to the same level.

242 billion: This is the amount of corporate income taxes the GAO says was paid in 2012, citing Office of Management and Budget estimates. That figure compares to $845 billion collected in social insurance taxes and $1.1 trillion collected in individual income taxes. Since the early 1980s, corporate income tax has accounted for about 6% to 15% of federal revenue.
$1.1 trillion: In 2010, profitable companies reported an aggregate $1.4 trillion in pre-tax profits, while unprofitable companies reported losses of $315 billion, resulting in a net pre-tax income of $1.1 trillion for all corporations.

Carlos Ponce

Jim asks: "but is the corporate tax rate the highest after deductions?" That's why many corporate deductions are being eliminated. At the current rate taking in deductions as a factor the effective corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world-just behind New Zealand.
"The most recent estimate comes from the World Bank and International Finance Commission, which put the United States’ effective rate for 2014 at 27.9 percent. That’s second-highest behind New Zealand among OECD countries and 15th-highest among the 189 countries measured."
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/09/eric-bolling/does-us-have-highest-corporate-tax-rate-free-world/
That's pretty high, Jim. What's the matter, don't you want the corporations who moved their earnings overseas to avoid the high tax to return to the US??????

Jim Forsythe

When someone reads that companies pay 39% tax rate , they think 39% tax on what they made. If  companies would use the Effective tax rate when reporting how much they pay, it would be clearer how much companies pay. G.E.was reported to have paid a 0% Effective tax, for at least one year, which should not have happen.
You can find Effective tax rate going as high as 28%, as Carlos did, or a 22% average and as low as 10% Effective tax rate in some sectors, as I did .

Make the Effective tax rate the same for all companies!,
The more honest way would be the Government decided how much tax do they need from companies and figure out what percent 
of tax would be necessary to reach this amount. All companies would pay the same percent, with no deductions.
Is reducing the tax rate from 39% to 20%  going to have companies increasing pay, by the same percent as they save?
Are they going to reduce prices by the sane % amount, or just use it to increase profits?

 Effective Actual Federal Corporate Tax Rate, by Industry, Average 2007-2011
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 25%   Mining 20% Utilities 10%   Construction 27%   Manufacturing 22%      Non-Durables (Food, Paper, Clothing) 23%      Durables (Metal, Machinery) 22%      Chemical-Pharmaceutical 22%      Computer-Electronic 18%      Petroleum-Coal Products 25%  Wholesale-Retail 27%   Transport and Warehouse 16%    Information 21%    Insurance 22%    Finance 19%                    Real Estate 20%    Leasing (Auto, Equipment, Consumer Goods) 15%    All Services 28%
TOTAL 22% 
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/Average-Effective-Tax-Rates-2016.pdf  

The rate going from10% to 12%, is it not a increase. The poor are not the only one's that pay no taxes. That is why we need a flat type tax.
Just as now, exempt a amount, such as the poverty level, before tax starts for all.
Who pay's no tax.
Four out of five households who pay no federal income tax earn less than $30,000
44% of households paying no federal income tax are the elderly.
And about 7,000 of the households paying no federal income tax include millionaires.

Carlos Ponce

Jim posts "G.E.was reported to have paid a 0% Effective tax, for at least one year, which should not have happen."
From the Liberal factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/warren-ge-pays-no-taxes/
"On April 4, 2011, Pro Publica and Fortune co-published their own analysis of GE’s taxes and concluded that the New York Times had left the mistaken impression that GE got a $3.2 billion tax refund, when, in fact, it did not. The company also paid U.S. income taxes in 2010, the authors wrote.
Pro Publica/Fortune, April 4, 2011: Did GE pay U.S. income taxes in 2010? Yes, it paid estimated taxes for 2010, and also made payments for previous years. Think of it as your having paid withholding taxes on your salary in 2010, and sending the IRS a check on April 15, 2010, covering your balance owed for 2009.
GE chief spokesman Gary Sheffer told Pro Publica: “We expect to have a small U.S. income tax liability for 2010.” How much? The company wouldn’t say.
We emailed one of the story’s authors, Jeff Gerth of Pro Publica, a former investigative journalist with the New York Times, and asked him about Warren’s claim. Here’s what he wrote back:
Gerth, April 23: The fact is that GE’s tax returns are not public. The basis for the statement that they paid a small amount of taxes is the company’s official statements to the press. The basis for the NYT’s original report that they paid no taxes was a reading of their financial statements, which are not the same as their tax returns. I don’t know where Warren gets her facts from."
"Again, the company has clearly been aggressive in reducing its tax burden through various tax credits and deductions created by the federal government (one example is clean energy incentives). It also has been creative in moving a good deal of its profits offshore. But Warren overreached with her claim that GE pays 'zero' in taxes. The company does pay payroll taxes and local and state taxes. And GE says it also pays federal income taxes. How much? We don’t know, and GE isn’t saying. Nor is it required to."
Conclusion: Elizabeth Warren was lying and the NYT analysis was from the wrong data.

Carlos Ponce

Pro Publica/Fortune, April 4, 2011: Did GE pay U.S. income taxes in 2010?
https://www.propublica.org/article/setting-the-record-straight-on-ges-taxes

Jim Forsythe

zero-dollar tax bill
In a statement, General Electric said that it "pays what it owes under the law and is scrupulous about its compliance with tax obligations in all jurisdictions." The company claims that its zero-dollar tax bill is largely a result of losses at its financial arm, GE Capital, due to the Wall Street meltdown.

 7 percent was GE world wide tax bill, witch includes the IRS and foreign counter parts .GE's say's its tax rate's had been artificially low
It's been 25 years since the last big tax reform legislation, which cut the corporate rate to 34 percent from 46 percent and eliminated a lot of deductions and tax breaks. But a quarter-century of pushing by businesses -- of which GE has been among the most aggressive -- has left us with both the lower tax rate (now 35 percent) and lots more deductions and shelters and other tax-reducing tactics than the 1986 legislation envisioned. GE's current idea of "reform" as expounded by John Samuels, the head of its tax department, is to cut the rate, but to allow some of GE's major tax-minimizing maneuvers to remain in place. It's hard to imagine anything like that happening now.
Samuels said at a tax forum in February that GE needs a tax system that will let it compete effectively with giant, foreign-based multinationals like Mitsubishi, Siemens, and Phillips. However, their effective tax rates for earnings purposes last year were 40 percent, 31 percent and 26 percent respectively, compared with 7 percent for GE. (GE says its tax rate's been artificially low the past few years, and will soon rise.) 

from April 17, on taxes paid by GE. According to that release, GE paid an effective global tax rate of 7 percent in 2010, counting money paid “to the IRS and foreign counterparts” in other nations

Why the Sunset provision, because without it, they would have to have 60 votes. 
Republicans set the individual cuts to expire to comply with procedural rules limiting how much a tax bill can add to the deficit and still pass in the Senate with 50 votes, rather than the 60 typically needed.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [ Rodney, you're getting an increase in the standard deduction, almost doubled. This offsets the property tax deduction you are used to]

Poor Carlos, duped again.The " tax cuts" for the middle class expire quickly and then turn into a tax increase shortly thereafter.

From the Center on Budget Policies and Priorities:

_"Under the amended bill, in 2025 (when most of its provisions would be in place), high-income households would get the largest tax cuts as a share of after-tax income, on average, while households with incomes below $30,000 would on average face a tax increase. By 2027, when many of its provisions would have expired, those at the top would still get large tax cuts, but every income group below $75,000 would face tax increases, on average. Yet despite raising taxes on millions of middle- and lower-income households, the bill would add $1.5 trillion to deficits over the decade due to its large tax cuts for high-income households and corporations."_

Carlos Ponce

"The ' tax cuts' for the middle class expire quickly and then turn into a tax increase shortly thereafter."
Like all Federal provisions there should be a built in 'sunset clause" to re-evaluate and see if it is working, re-evaluate, revise if necessary or toss out if it isn't working. Or aren't you smart enough to figure that out.
The Center on Budget Policies and Priorities is HARDLY UNBIASED. "The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) is an American think tank that analyzes the impact of federal and state government budget policies from a progressive perspective. CBPP was founded in 1981 by Robert Greenstein, a former political appointee in the Jimmy Carter administration. Greenstein founded the organization, which is based in Washington, D.C., to provide an alternative perspective on the social policy initiatives of the Ronald Reagan administration."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_on_Budget_and_Policy_Priorities
If I were to cite FOX NEWS, Breitbart, etc. Little Marky would throw a hissy fit.
CBPP is a FAR LEFT group - biased and WORTHLESS.Might as well be citing the Communist Manifesto.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [If I were to cite FOX NEWS, Breitbart, etc. Little Marky would throw a hissy fit.
CBPP is a FAR LEFT group - biased and WORTHLESS.]

Unlike Fox News and Breitbart, The Center on Budget Policies and Priorities does not have to traffic in lies. I got the link from Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman. Professor Krugman has never let me down on quality sources. I think I'll take his recommendation over yours Carlos.

Jim Forsythe

"Like all Federal provisions there should be a built in 'sunset clause" to re-evaluate and see if it is working, re-evaluate, revise if necessary or toss out if it isn't working. Or aren't you smart enough to figure that out."

Is a sunset provision included in the corporate tax rate?

Mark Aaron

From CNBC:

_"The latest Senate tax plan would not spark enough economic growth to pay for sharp tax cuts, a new independent analysis projects.

The amended Senate GOP proposal would reduce federal revenues by between $1.3 trillion and $1.5 trillion in the decade through 2027, even with modestly stronger gross domestic product growth, the Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated Tuesday. U.S. debt would rise in a range of $1.4 trillion to $1.6 trillion in that period, driven by increased debt service, the analysis said.

~~ The Senate bill as amended last week would temporarily cut many individual taxes, while permanently chopping the corporate tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent. Individual changes expire to help the plan to comply with Senate budget rules.

While the GOP hopes to eventually extend individual tax cuts, the Penn analysis assumes they expire before 2027, as written. "_

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/21/senate-tax-bill-would-not-pay-for-itself-penn-wharton-report-says.html

Carlos Ponce

"Unlike Fox News and Breitbart, The Center on Budget Policies and Priorities does not have to traffic in lies." Thanks for the laugh, Little Marky!

Carlos Ponce

Jim asks "Is a sunset provision included in the corporate tax rate?"
Think about the corporation that has moved out of country. Would they move back to the USA knowing the lower rate will be rescinded? No, they'd keep away. Keeping the corporate tax rate low will benefit workers with more jobs with higher wages. Are you against that, Jim?

Mark Aaron

Link to the Center on Budget Policies and Priorities:

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/jct-estimates-amended-senate-tax-bill-skewed-to-top-hurts-many-low-and-middle

Carlos Ponce

CBPP is still a Liberal Leftist web site. No credibility here.

Doyle Beard

What's mind boggling is that people come to a conclusion without all the facts.

Mark Aaron

Doyle: [What's mind boggling is that people come to a conclusion without all the facts.]

Do you believe you have all of the facts Doyle?

Doyle Beard

I I only said its mind bobbling about people coming to a conclusion without all the facts and that includes you . I never mentioned I had all the facts as you always try to make everyone you are the only one with facts so how could I or anyone else have all the facts.

Jean Casanave

So far, it seems like the middle class will benefit from the bill that passed. Lets see what happens with the ACA mandate-if that goes away, awesome! BTW, aren't the property taxes mostly taxes from schools? In my opinion, those huge tax bills people get can be dealt with at the local level. Not federal.

Jarvis Buckley

Our country needs this Tax break for all working folks & small business's
as well as our corporations being able to create new jobs

Mark Aaron

Jarvis: [ Our country needs this Tax break for all working folks & small business's
as well as our corporations being able to create new jobs ]

It's a scam Jarvis. That tax cut disappears and you get an increase in return, and a multi trillion dollar deficit to boot. Are you sure that is what you want?

Gary Miller

Rodney? Those deductions you should lose are "tax Loopholes". Other Americans are subsidizing your deducting them from your income tax. You have never deserved those deductions. If you object to paying high local and state taxes you can elect politicians that lower state and local taxes. Your problem is the kind of elected officials you vote for. Your state and local taxes are yours not mine.

Rodney Dunklee

This law specifically says corporations can continue to receive this deduction but I, a middle class American have to start paying about $600.00 a month tax on money I used to pay taxes. Clearly this plan that makes me pay taxes on taxes rewards corporations, the wealthy and foreign investors who hold 1/3 of corporate assets.

Gary Miller

The biggest winners will be the people who go from 'no tax' to taxpayers. The unemployed who get off welfare by getting a job that earns taxable income. The bigger their tax increase the better.

Carlos Ponce

While unemployed the poor paid no income tax. But with a growing economy and reduction in unemployment they get a job and now have to pay income taxes. Liberals consider that a "tax increase". [cool]

Gary Miller

Rodney! Good news for you. You got bad information from CNN or another fake news outlet. There will be no change in property tax deductions. The tax deductions to be repealed are State and local "income taxes" you don't pay anyway.

Gary Miller

Rodney. Cutting corporate taxes to 20 % from 35 % is not a tax cut for wealthy corporations. Corporate taxes are taxes corporations are required to add to the price of products or services. It's a consumer tax cut. Every time you buy something you pay the corporate tax. That tax is added to exported products and makes our products non competitive on the world market. It'll be the best tax cut you ever got.

Rodney Dunklee

1. Americas 4% unemployment rate suggests anyone who wants a job can get a job. I can’t picture business owners using their tax savings to go out and hire the hard core unemployed. Your jobs argument is suspect.
2. If you look at stock prices American corporations are doing better than ever, being very profitable at current tax rates. Why? Probably because it’s great to do business in America. Yes, one high profile politician appears to have gotten away with a pay to play scheme, but we normally put people in jail who create bribery and other schemes that choose who gets access or favoritism. American corporations benefit from our law and order rather than having to make payoffs to get things done. They benefit from a trained workforce, and a generally good populous in pursuit of happiness.
So why not lower the tax rate the same amount for all levels rather than having some pay more and others reap huge benefits? How about 4% across the board rather than some tax payers getting a 15% reduction and others, like me in the middle class paying more?
I’m even cool with treating corporations the same as individual tax payers, paying a tax rate of 12% on their first $19,000.00 and 25% on the middle dollars and higher rates on dollars over $1,000,000.00 like every other tax payer who enjoys the privilege of living in this country. What I don’t like is this plan being pushed on us that places taxes on taxes for some segments, gives little to those at the bottom and huge tax breaks to wealthy taxpayers.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.