LordMortis wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:05 pm
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to put this here, healthcare reform, Trump, economic turmoil, employment, or investor enclave thread
I chose here because tax reform and the speculation is what has my 401k up nearly 30% over the last 12 months and I afraid both to put more money in and to not put more money in.
Still, Pfizer isn’t hurting for money. The company is set to win big from the tax overhaul, but they’re passing the money on to investors instead of funding research and development. The company plans to spend about $10 billion buying back shares of its own stock, adding to the $6.4 billion it previously greenlit. It will also increase its dividend rate by six percent to 34 cents per share. That money could fund multiple clinical trials.
That's a bit of irresponsible reporting and is one of the biggest issues I have with media that either doesn't understand business or doesn't want to.
They spend much of the article explaining how much is spent treating Alzheimers, how many people have it, and how many people it kills. Then they try to say Pfizer is spending money on stock buybacks instead of research.
I can 100% guarantee that with a market that big, Pfizer would LOVE to have an Alzheimer's drug, but instead they haven't had enough promising research to justify the investment. Associating the tax cut to a reduction in a specific type of research is poor reporting.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
I agree with ND in the sense that it’s not an either or proposition. Pfizer isn’t being faced with the choice between paying off investors or curing Alzheimer’s.
That said, it points out the farce that this tax cut was about jobs. This tax cut was about enriching investors, and that’s it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
There is plenty of promising research but it's in early stages. Too bad we can't count on Trump research initiatives.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
Remember former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's "full flop" on the question of needing a filibuster-proof majority to confirm judicial nominees? Or that golden moment right after the contested 2000 election where the Republicans suddenly championed federal sovereignty and the Democrats supported state's rights in attempts to win Bush v. Gore? You get the idea: The Dems and the GOP pretend to have principles but they abandon them the minute they sniff out a political opportunity.
...
We have, of course, seen this movie before. Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and White House under the first several years of George W. Bush and, despite the passage of tax cuts and oh-so-sincere promises to reduce spending, they absolutely kicked out the jams on outlays like nobody's business. The chart above and to the right shows total federal outlays in nominal dollars. If you believe that the real cost of government is what it spends, it's hard to argue that the GOP is in any way the party of small government. At best, they are the party of small-government rhetoric. And even there, don't get them started on issues such as immigration, gay marriage, and drug legalization.
None of this lets the Democrats off the hook, by the way. As Matt Welch refused to forget, Barack Obama campaigned on enacting "a net spending cut" in which "every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches." When the Dems briefly won back control of the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that her party would cut spending. They didn't even try, of course, and who can blame him? When you get to funnel spending to your favored constituents, suddenly it's a real Sophie's choice to cut even the tiniest, most useless program. But just as our elected leaders have veered into open nihilism when it comes to principles, so too have they long been incapable of passing budgets in the very years that such bills are supposed to cover.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
From Debbie Wasserman Shultz: "Frankly, if you look at the bonuses, which I haven't heard of a corporate bonus more than $1,000 so far—which by the way is taxed, so it's not $1,000," Schultz said. "And then you spread $1,000 over the course of a year—to think of about how much that is—of course they get it all at once. But I'm not sure that $1,000—which is taxed, taxable—goes very far for almost anyone."
From Nancy Pelosi: "There's a cartoon that I just love," Pelosi said. "There's a little mouse trap who's got a little piece of cheese on there, and there's a mouse about to take it and that's called the middle class … And around it are fat cats," or big businesses.
"And that’s the thing," Pelosi continued. "You get this little thing and we get this big bonanza. You get the crumb, we get the banquet."
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
They may need to message it better, but it's ultimately true. If you get a bonus, it's a one-time thing. If you get a raise, then you get that additional money every year (plus you increase the basis number for ongoing years of your annual raise). Corporations are going to get the benefit of the tax break every year, but employees are only seeing the benefit of it once. I'm fairly certain my company is going to keep the same crappy raise percentages we've had for a while now even though we were the poster company for the $1000 bonuses.
ImLawBoy wrote:They may need to message it better, but it's ultimately true. If you get a bonus, it's a one-time thing. If you get a raise, then you get that additional money every year (plus you increase the basis number for ongoing years of your annual raise). Corporations are going to get the benefit of the tax break every year, but employees are only seeing the benefit of it once. I'm fairly certain my company is going to keep the same crappy raise percentages we've had for a while now even though we were the poster company for the $1000 bonuses.
And the cheese gets even smaller in a couple of years when those tax breaks for working Americans expire.
"Who's going to tell him that the job he's currently seeking might just be one of those Black jobs?"
-Michelle Obama 2024 Democratic Convention
Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?
ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:42 pm
They may need to message it better, but it's ultimately true. If you get a bonus, it's a one-time thing. If you get a raise, then you get that additional money every year (plus you increase the basis number for ongoing years of your annual raise). Corporations are going to get the benefit of the tax break every year, but employees are only seeing the benefit of it once. I'm fairly certain my company is going to keep the same crappy raise percentages we've had for a while now even though we were the poster company for the $1000 bonuses.
Oh, I don't disagree with them much. I think we've all been or are in a spot where an extra $1,000 makes a major difference in our quality of life. It's not the principle of what they said, but I guarantee that the way they said it will be replayed and used against them over and over and over again.
Something like: "We're glad that companies have chosen to reward some middle-class Americans with an immediate bonus. However, that bonus will be quickly offset by stagnant wages, inflation, and additional costs they will have have to pay for insurance." sounds so much better than "$1,000? That amount of money only matters to you peasants."
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:42 pm
They may need to message it better, but it's ultimately true. If you get a bonus, it's a one-time thing. If you get a raise, then you get that additional money every year (plus you increase the basis number for ongoing years of your annual raise). Corporations are going to get the benefit of the tax break every year, but employees are only seeing the benefit of it once. I'm fairly certain my company is going to keep the same crappy raise percentages we've had for a while now even though we were the poster company for the $1000 bonuses.
Oh, I don't disagree with them much. I think we've all been or are in a spot where an extra $1,000 makes a major difference in our quality of life. It's not the principle of what they said, but I guarantee that the way they said it will be replayed and used against them over and over and over again.
Something like: "We're glad that companies have chosen to reward some middle-class Americans with an immediate bonus. However, that bonus will be quickly offset by stagnant wages, inflation, and additional costs they will have have to pay for insurance." sounds so much better than "$1,000? That amount of money only matters to you peasants."
Yeah, but the other thing you have to remember is that sensible things that Pelosi and the like say don't get quoted and replayed ad infinitum. So like, if she says 999 eminently reasonable things and 1 thing that sounds crazy / out-of-touch (out of context), it's the last thing that gets replayed (especially by political opponents). And it's not really possible to regularly talk about things without saying at least one thing that sounds weird out of context.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:42 am
Yeah, but the other thing you have to remember is that sensible things that Pelosi and the like say don't get quoted and replayed ad infinitum. So like, if she says 999 eminently reasonable things and 1 thing that sounds crazy / out-of-touch (out of context), it's the last thing that gets replayed (especially by political opponents). And it's not really possible to regularly talk about things without saying at least one thing that sounds weird out of context.
Can you imagine if this were true of Trump? He'd have to talk nonstop just to make up for the crazy. Are there even enough hours?
El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:42 am
Yeah, but the other thing you have to remember is that sensible things that Pelosi and the like say don't get quoted and replayed ad infinitum. So like, if she says 999 eminently reasonable things and 1 thing that sounds crazy / out-of-touch (out of context), it's the last thing that gets replayed (especially by political opponents). And it's not really possible to regularly talk about things without saying at least one thing that sounds weird out of context.
Can you imagine if this were true of Trump? He'd have to talk nonstop just to make up for the crazy. Are there even enough hours?
Trump really is a giant DDOS crazy attack on the press.
Just finished a tax conference. Some comments:
* Who could imagine these changes? But they did it anyway, and it come out of nowhere.
* The statute doesn't match what they said they were doing.
* If you need the "mother of all" tax corrections bills, you can't give Schumer and Pelosi nothing in return. They'll ask for the State and Local Tax deductions back. The Republicans can't give that back, so it's not getting fixed. And that was before they were treated badly.
* The IRS has to rewrite every tax form. It's a huge project that they then have to undo in 2025 if not in 2020. Does anyone think they can do a good job?
Darkest timeline.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
It looks like the reform is on my check and it's going to be about a difference of 4% in my take home pay. I have no idea what it will mean come tax time though.
Actually, yeah, I just looked at my pay statements, and the first one of this year is about $40 less than all the ones from last year.
But that can't be right. I was assured everyone would get a huge raise because of this bill.
I can't imagine, even at my most inebriated, hearing a bouncer offering me an hour with a stripper for only $1,400 and thinking That sounds like a reasonable idea.-Two Sheds
Hit my paycheck as well. My take home increased 2.55%. I currently claim 6 exemptions which seems like the wrong thing at this point, but I don't know what to change it to.
I'm going to need to adjust our withholding regardless, as it looks like my wife's employer was withholding a comically low percentage of her paycheck this past year - around 6%. So, that's looking like a fun tax bill. I guess the good news is that I'd need to look at our withholding anyway in light of the GOP tax bill, so that's efficient. #ThanksTrump
stessier wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:02 pm
Hit my paycheck as well. My take home increased 2.55%. I currently claim 6 exemptions which seems like the wrong thing at this point, but I don't know what to change it to.
I claim zero. Gub'ment still said I owed them money every year until I maxed my 401k. We'll see how this plays out in the wash come April next. My 4% raise could be a myth or it could be a whole lot more as someone who was already claiming the standard deduction and receiving no tax breaks beyond deferring my 401k taxes to a later date.
stessier wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:02 pm
Hit my paycheck as well. My take home increased 2.55%. I currently claim 6 exemptions which seems like the wrong thing at this point, but I don't know what to change it to.
I claim zero. Gub'ment still said I owed them money every year until I maxed my 401k. We'll see how this plays out in the wash come April next. My 4% raise could be a myth or it could be a whole lot more as someone who was already claiming the standard deduction and receiving no tax breaks beyond deferring my 401k taxes to a later date.
You need to get married and have 2 kids. Or you did. Not sure what you have to do now.
LordMortis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:03 pm
If my raise holds out through my returns and I don't rise to it, that 4% will advance my retirement age by almost one month a year.
Mine is already at age 162. Not sure I'd bother figuring out how much further off the new taxes are going to advance it.
hepcat wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:36 pm
Oh sweet! Trump's tax reform pushed me into a new bracket and I'm now making less,
Sorry.
Are you sure that's what it was though? Just looking at the brackets, that doesn't seem possible. You may end up paying more because of deductions (or the lack there of), but if you just pay based on the table, you'll end up paying less.
hepcat wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:36 pm
Oh sweet! Trump's tax reform pushed me into a new bracket and I'm now making less,
Sorry.
Are you sure that's what it was though? Just looking at the brackets, that doesn't seem possible. You may end up paying more because of deductions (or the lack there of), but if you just pay based on the table, you'll end up paying less.
NEW OLD
10% — 0 to $9,525 10% — 0 to $9,325
12% — $9,525 to $38,700 15% — $9,325 to $37,950
22% — $38,700 to $82,500 25% — $37,950 to $91,900
24% — $82,500 to $157,500 28% — $91,900 to $191,650
32% — $157,500 to $200,000 33% — $191,650 to $416,700
35% — $200,000 to $500,000 35% — $416,700 to $418,400
37% — $500,000 and up 39.6% — $418,400 and up
May be a false alarm. Looks like the "catch up" mechanic for my 401k is adding an additional 6000 a year to my deductions. I had to pour over my check line by line to find out what was happening. I was just looking at the direct deposit number and was annoyed to see a drop. When I referred to the tax brackets, I realized I was right on the cusp of a change and immediately assumed that was it.
hepcat wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:59 pm
May be a false alarm. Looks like the "catch up" mechanic for my 401k is adding an additional 6000 a year to my deductions.
You're old, and yeah going from 18,000 to 24,500 would make a big difference in your check.