My business laptop is dying. Has been for 18 months or so; last summer I tried to get some repairs done and all the possible repair places were "ooh, you don't want to know how much that will cost." So I have been nursing it and it's been fine and I can probably get another year out of it if I need to. But this time of year, I look around for things I'm going to buy anyway because taxes, and it would really help to put that laptop on this year's expenses, I think. 

The only problem is, MacRumors says it's a particularly bad time to buy, because an upgrade is overdue, the new generation is supposed to run cooler and longer on non-Intel chips. And they *might* announce them in November. Or not at all.  It's frustrating.

But also not because the new OS is incompatible with the old Adobe software I have. So that sucks but it came out in *holy crap* 2012. Time to upgrade, yep. *sigh*

 rgio wrote:
 

 buddy wrote:
 
Tax is a combination of taxable base and rate.  The income tax rate is what started this conversation, and is the easy data element to compare.  The taxable base is much more complicated.  If you at the combination since the 50's, the costs to the top tier are down, but only (not meant as a judgment) 5%-10%.  

The problem with the focus of the chart is that it ignores the "other" taxes now collected.  Income taxes are only about one-third of the total revenue that governments receive.  Social taxes, business taxes, and value-added taxes (sales tax, real estate tax, gas taxes, vice taxes (cigarettes & alcohol), tariffs) make up the rest.  These taxes are generally at flat rates, which have gone up dramatically over the years.  

The percentage of personal income that goes toward all taxes has increased dramatically more for lower-income families than it has for the top half of Americans.  Looking at a few rates doesn't tell the story.  

There is no doubt the rules are tilted in favor of the wealthy.  In NJ for example, every fast food meal is taxed at 6.625%.  Meanwhile, NJ has a limit of $20k of tax on a yacht.  Go buy yourself a $500k boat, and it'll cost you $20k instead of the $33k it would cost buying happy meals.  The house down the street from me saves tens of thousands of dollars per year in taxes because he claims "farm rates" on his 40 acres by selling $200 worth of wood per year to someone.   

Anyone suggesting tax policy has evenly apportioned the US cost increases since the 1950's is either ignorant or dishonest.  

buddy wrote:

It's a simple statement of fact. It's true or it's not, doesn't matter where you read it.

I don't have a WSJ subscription so I had to read the article on Phil Magness' web site. His methodology is clear and his criticism is straightforward and easy to follow. His article fits in the classical tradition of intellectual inquiry: someone makes a claim, someone else challenges it, data is produced, data is criticized, multiple minds examine the problem and we get closer to the truth.

In this case it appears that the original author cherry-picked data to reach the conclusion he wanted and other economists called him on it. That (original) conclusion appeals to you, but that doesn't make it true or the analysis honest.

That news came to you (and RP) via a vector you (and RP) dismiss out of hand, apparently without examining. This ought to be a lesson to you: your biases have kept you believing something false. Not an unusual situation on the topic of taxation; misinformation abounds, and ideology often trumps data in what people believe.  When a conclusion matches your prejudices it's all the more reason to examine that conclusion.

 R_P wrote: 
There are more links, one of which takes you to the WSJ that comes to the same conclusion.

 kurtster wrote:
 
A comment you cherry-picked (must have had some special appeal to a supposed "poor person" or maybe it was just the first comment that disagreed) proves it's debunked by "serious economists?" Hardly.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 

Debunked.  In the comments you did not read.  Try again.

The data comes from Saez and Zucman whose methodology was thoroughly debunked by serious economists. Zucman had a professorship offer at Harvard withdrawn as a result.@PhilWMagness explains how recent data from the IRS completely disproves this graph.
https://t.co/WczmuCdWlR

— Rafal Konopka (@rafalkonopka) May 13, 2020

 Red_Dragon wrote:
 

IS IT TRICKLING DOWN YET? 

This is messed up.

 steeler wrote: 
Get the same message for both of us.  Filed for 2018 but not 2019 yet so the 2018 will keep us in the loop.

Who knows how it works.  We both have west coast SSN's that start with 5 and the last name starts with W.  Low numbers first, alphabetical first ?  You got me.

My bank has a page with the IRS link on it and says that going forward the payments will be issued on Wednesdays.

Still waiting for my unemployment to get processed, too.

 rgio wrote:
 
Agreed. We got our "stimulus" money on the 15th, and we certainly didn't need it. Passed it on to dear friends who are up the creek with no paddle. Not sure if they'll get anything from the Treasury for the same reason as you.

Upped our Food Bank donation too. At least our community can make sure everyone is fed.

 steeler wrote:
 
Standard SOP for new, smaller government under Trump:  Ready, Fire, Aim.

Stimulus should be sent to people who have lost their ability to earn in 2020.  I won't qualify for a payment even though I've been looking for a job for over a year.  My 2019 taxes aren't filed because I've been fighting an error-filled W-2 from a past employer that was finally resolved Wednesday night.

My daughter, who at 24 makes less than the single threshold by less than $1,000 (thanks to significant 401(k) contributions and stock options), is getting a check.  Her startup is actually thriving in this, and her job hasn't been impacted at all by this.  She doesn't deserve / need help...but help is on the way.

The money should have gone to the 20-30 million people now collecting unemployment.  No unemployment filing...no money.

 miamizsun wrote:
 

Probably by voting record, Loyalist first, high potential swing voters next, everyone else eventually, maybe. 

 steeler wrote:
 

maybe go back to the beginning

scrub your browser and grab your 2018 return ('m thinking they ask for agi) and your check book

try an off time

and see if there is any software conflict

i'd normally say give them a call but they're way underwater

has anyone from the irs revealed their plan for implementing these payments

by ss number, income, etc.?

 miamizsun wrote:
 
I filed 2018; have not filed 2019, so IRS should use 2018. I wanted to enter my direct deposit information because did not have it on 2018 return, but, as I said, I cannot get past the entry of SSN, address, and zip code. Keeps saying Status Not Available at this time.  IRS site says this means certain things, like not being eligible, but none if those apply.  Many others apparently having same problem, but many others say they have used portal without problem. Can’t figure it out.

thanks, though.

Ours arrived on Wednesday into the acc9ount we use for refunds. Nice to pay some big emergency bills.

 miamizsun wrote:
 

 steeler wrote:
 

i thought i heard a tax professional say that if they have your direct deposit info from the previous year/return they'll use it

i pay every year so i tried to log on and after a bit, i got on but it stopped me with a message like info entered didn't match their records

i have filed and paid for 2019 but the system may not reflect it, so i may have to use my 2018 info

friends and clients have rec'd stimulus so it is going out

just not sure of the order they're using

good luck and stay safe

Tried the past 2 days and today to use the IRS Get My Payment portal to enter direct deposit information for the economic stimulus checks but keep getting the “Status Unavailable” message after entering SSN, address, zip code. Not sure of the problem (maybe formatting for address), and am hearing/reading that many are having this or other problems accessing the portal.

Anyone know anything about this or had success using the portal? 

I'm a 6%er for this discussion....my taxes went up due to the limit on state and local tax deductions.

This is yet another example of Dems doing a totally crap job of defending their own policies and pointing out hypocrisy. 

When was the last time you heard a Republican praise increasing the minimum wage?  On January 1, 2020,  22 states and an equal number of cities had mandatory increases to minimum wage.  In 2018, 58.5 percent of all salaries in the US were for wage and salary workers.  Most of these measures were voted on during Obama's second term.  Washington state, for example, increased the minimum wage $1.50 last month (to $13.50 / a 12.5% raise), with the final increase to $15 coming next year.

The short term euphoria of the tax cuts was provided by a reduction in the withholding rates.  Those benefits are long gone.  In 2018 companies set a record with over $1 trillion in stock buy-backs.  That provided record dividends and an artificial increase in the markets.    Also important, all of the growth targets assumed by the White House have proven wishful thinking.  Look at the budget proposal yesterday...it assumes constant growth for the next 15 years well above the past 3-year performance of the "greatest economy in the history of the world".    None of the statements made by Trump regarding finances should be trusted...at least not until we see his tax returns.

While I'm at it....

The US unemployment rate in January 2010 was 9.8%.  When Trump took office, it was 4.7%.  It's now 3.6%.  The unemployment rate isn't a great indicator of resource utilization, but the realities of labor utilization are too complicated for most to care about.  The bottom line is that people don't "feel" better about employment...but simple metrics don't catch that.

I'm in the little to no change camp.