Posted on 10/21/2017 6:37:10 PM PDT by Mariner
Nope. Not named sources in that article. It’s crap.
Read 54.
Don’t confuse them with facts. They are on a multi thread role.
Federal income tax, payroll tax, corporate tax, property tax, inheritance tax, gasoline tax, state income tax, capital gains tax, death tax, excise tax, import tax, home improvement tax, school tax, sin tax, road use tax, lodging tax, fast food tax, just to name a few.
Yea, I just really find it hard to believe that republicans would even consider this. Democrats, on the other hand, have been salivating thinking of getting their hands on private retirement savings for years.
When the sources are not named or primary the reporters can say anything they want. They can speculate anything they want. And they turn people against tax reform before it’s even born. Trump NEVER said anything like cutting pre tax 401K. NEVER. And he’s got to sign it before it becomes law.
All the angst over media speculation based on unnamed sources is warrantless.
This is a definitive symptom of Potomac Brain Rot. Once someone starts talking about having to "pay" for a tax cut, you know they've been assimilated. That phrase can only be uttered or written by one who believes all money belongs to them.
Hey DC geniuses: You "pay" for tax CUTS by CUTTING your absurdly wasteful spending!!
Are they trolls sent to kill tax reform or what? I’ve been asking for primary named sources and have been given none.
“Trump NEVER said anything like cutting pre tax 401K”
He didn’t SAY anything about eliminating SALT deductions for individuals either.
“All the angst over media speculation based on unnamed sources is warrantless.”
Unfortunately, we’ve got some FReepers that know nothing of the details but claims everything the liberal press is saying.
You want no changes to the tax code? My gosh you and your buddy are delusional liberals. With no changes to the tax code there is one sure way to pay less taxes - make less taxable money.
I really hope one day taxes will take a 3x5 card that has a flat tax or a fair tax arrangement. But hey we are all different.
We’re on the same page, but I already believe the government will renege on social security, at least on paying social security at the age(s) they currently give it. (I personally would be relieved if the government were to add an additional age, above 70, which you could wait until and receive a higher monthly benefit. THAT would give me hope the benefit won’t disappear entirely for people with XYZ assets. I’d be fine with agreeing to wait until age, say, 74, in exchange for a higher payment. By then, I’ll either be alive and need the money...or I won’t.)
I said I could tolerate no change, and prefer a cut.
I will NOT tolerate an increase.
Right, Trump consistently said the opposite. He won’t sign tax reform with crap in it.
Yeah as if press speculation based on un named sources is bedrock truth. Everyone should know their tactic by now.
Again this is why I’m asking for a primary named source, like Trump, or a congressman actually working on tax reform. I won’t believe it otherwise, why should I? You shouldn’t either.
I don’t know what maximum limit would be appropriate, but I would like to see the maximum contribution limit for all types of retirement plans to be the same. Right now if you self employed or work for a small business and rely on either a plane IRA or a Roth IRA your maximum limit is $5500.
How do you suppose they cut anything? They have tried many times to cut freaking Arts for God’s sake and a stupid judge tells them they can’t. It is insane that the judiciary can get involved in any of this. Planned Parenthood cuts have been revoked by judges. I don’t think you have a clue how difficult it is to cut anything with judges around.
Easy Peasy. Give you and me an afternoon; we'd have the budget balanced by beer-thirty.
GD out of control government. Just return to the size that existed under FDR and problem solved.
Three days ago: Per Capita Federal Spending Up Sevenfold Since 1941
SEVEN TIMES BIGGER PER-CAPITA!!
Using pre-tax contributions means your retirement contribution can be 25% to 40% bigger and hence will compound faster. Then, when you retire, your income (in current dollars) could be 60% to 80% of your current income (if you saved diligently). That should, hopefully, put you in a lower tax bracket when you retire. I don’t see the benefit of a ROTH from a purely financial perspective.
Deferring taxes is always the best strategy.
Lastly, it give me GREAT satisfaction to deny those _____-sucking corrupt leeches a single dime of my money as long as humanly possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.