Hacker News Reader

Comment by djrogers | Hacker News Reader

> In addition to the no-surprise explanation of the "tax cut" not being an actual cut at all for most people

Justify that statement please. Every single study of the 2017 tax cuts has shown that the vast majority of Americans did in fact get a tax cut. Every. Single. One. Even the New York Times admits as much. Either you haven't really looked in to this at all, or you've bought some policital rally baloney that is completey ungrounded in truth.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-t...

View on HN

I know for an undeniable fact I paid more in federal taxes (if you account for inflation) but I'm one measly anecdotal data point.

I suspect most who don't believe it are like me or saw modest cuts. Perhaps if I saw the data and analyzed it myself I might believe it, otherwise, I suspect the majority got small tax cuts while the very few ultra wealthy enjoyed significant cuts.

A lot of the people who paid more in federal taxes are the wealthy in high tax states (CA, NY, etc.).

It was an across the board tax cut, yes wealthier people get larger tax cuts because they paid more taxes in the first place. I received a $2,500 tax cut.

If your taxes did happen to increase, it was most likely because you used one of the deductions that was removed.

The biggest problem with the new tax plan is that the withholding tables changed to be more accurate. This is because a large number of people's standard deduction went up enough to almost match, or exceed, their mortgage interest and SALT deductions.

And since payroll withholding doesn't account for the mortgage interest deduction, but does count the standard deduction, they ended up taking out less taxes (basically giving everyone a couple hundred dollar "raise") during the year, which made the year-end refund much smaller.

And too many people budget big items based on that year-end overpayment refund, instead of setting aside that extra pay every month. So lots of people feel like their taxes went up.

Now what would have been nice is if there was an information campaign that would have business encourage employees (via auto payroll deposit) to divide their paycheck into checking and savings accounts, having that "extra" money go into savings automatically.

From your link:

> The middle fifth of earners got about a $780 tax cut last year on average, according to the Tax Policy Center.

> The top 20 percent of earners received more than 60 percent of the total tax savings, according to the Tax Policy Center; the top 1 percent received nearly 17 percent of the total benefit, and got an average tax cut of more than $30,000. And that’s not even factoring in the law’s huge cut to corporate taxes, which disproportionately benefit the wealthy households that own the most stock.

Hence (rightfully so) pitchforks. The average American taxpayer was bamboozled.

The median 5th of earners earned from 30-48K last year, which includes a huge chunk of people who pay zero federal income tax. A $780 tax cut in to someon who only pays $1000 is not insubstantial.

It's kinda the way math works - if you cut taxes for everyone, the people who pay the most taxes in absolute dollars will see the most benefit.

Oh, and you're not disproving my point - claiming a tax cut is not a tax cut because when people in fact paid less in taxes is kinda hard to do.

But since the top 20% of taxpayers pay 87% of income tax[1] and the top 1% pay 37%[2], this makes total sense.

1: https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-americans-will-pay-87... 2: https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-...

But it’s not how it was sold. The absolute number is not the issue, but the optics. I have seen this first hand with Trump supporters (extended family) who are having an unpleasant tax filing season (owing when they have never owed before) and feel lied to. I have delivered the bad news that their tax burden was already so low, how would they expect their tax cut to be generous? Like I said, optics.

EDIT: I know how tax refunds and liability work, but I am not the general public.

If you have to pay more or your refund is lower, that's a good thing. That means you paid less money in taxes.

The government holding onto your money until the end of the year is not a good thing. You'd be better off saving that money and investing it.

Progressive taxation makes sense, the fact that this tax law did nothing about the cap on the payroll tax should be the ultimate indicator.

I think the tax cuts were stupid, but I don't see how a tax cut can work any other way. The top 1% pay 37% of all income taxes, so getting 17% of the benefit is actually quite progressive.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-...

What an unusual way to present the "progressive" ratio of taxes being paid, basing it on the total taxes paid by percentile groups. Of course a disproportionately wealthy percentile would be expected to pay most of the taxes in absolute amount or as ratios of absolute amounts between groups, if all the percentiles paid the same amount, but also EVEN IF the tax rates slide lower (i.e. are regressive) for the wealthy.

Progressive versus regressive tax rate discussions are more typically based on the ratio of one household's tax to that household's earnings. In other words, how much of what I make goes to taxes? I think this make comparisons more fair and straightforward, instead of comparing the ratios of combined absolute taxes by group.

I mean that the tax cut is progressive. If it wasn't progressive, then the 1% would receive 37% of the tax cut savings.

It's really hard to cut the federal income taxes on the poor, who pay no federal income tax.

> the top 1 percent received nearly 17 percent of the total benefit

Given that the top 1 percent pay more in taxes than the bottom 90% combined, that doesn't seem entirely unfair.

Seems unfair that someone making 11x what another person makes used to pay 25x as much as them in taxes but now pays 40x instead (i.e. 550k vs 50k)

Not to me? Seems totally fair assuming the person making 11x is still able to afford a comfortable lifestyle (which they're more than able to)

From each according to his ability?

And to each according to his needs. Yea, it'd be nice if we could get full on communism working at some point but I'm not holding my breath, in the mean time I'm happy to live with these rough balances of the system.

I didn't get a tax cut, my bill went up.

This is just anecdotal but I have no regrets about being anecdotal in response to bald hyperbole

> Every. Single. One.

I also object that a number of arts programs that interest me have gotten budget cuts that seem (though the government is large and opaque) to outweigh the money saved by the tax cuts I've seen other people get.

I really don't care about what portion of my out-of-pocket expenses go to the government, I care about the size of my take home - so when taxes go slightly down and cost of living goes up I'm unhappy. And for me, everything went up (and my salary isn't stupid high either)

Most people did not save a meaningful amount of money while the wealthy got a massive benefit in comparison.

Taking that view further most people pay a meaningless amount of money in taxes while the wealthy pay the vast majority. The tax cut helped my family, if it didn't help yours perhaps consider if the state taxes you pay match up with the services rendered.

Not supported by facts in evidence.

Because most people likely spent the extra they got from the tax cut?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com