Unconscionable” tax bill


#65

Can no American on this forum consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the successors of the apostles are right and the Republican Party not infallible?
Disclaimer (before I am ripped to shreds by the mob), I am not suggesting that such statements are doctrinally binding… but reading CAF one gets the impression that most here truly believe they are far, far, far wiser than those egg head bishops when it comes to “applying” doctrine in practical ways. It just doesn’t sit with me right.


#66

The phase out occurs with a modified income of $80,000 for singles, $165,000 married filing jointly… at that level your max tax savings would be $625. It’s hardly life changing at less than 1% of income.


#67

ROFL, no they don’t.

They said they might get less tax credits if they opt out of Obamacare, not pay more taxes. The reason they would opt out of ACA is to save their disposable income. NET they are still not paying taxes.

The change largely stems from the bill effectively getting rid of the Obamacare provision requiring most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty. Low-income Americans would receive fewer premium tax credits if more of them choose not to have insurance.

The CBO estimate also includes the effects of changes to spending for programs like Medicaid and Medicare. A previous Joint Committee on Taxation analysis that showed more modest effects on low-income Americans did not include the changes in those programs.


#68

I don’t know. Maybe making Congress declare war and pay for it would help.


#69

For the individual returns the only thing I find complicated is Schedule D, the reporting of capital gains and the carryover. Six different levels over several pages. The Schedule A deductions are really a piece of cake relatively speaking.

I wonder if anyone in Washington has ever worked on his own taxes. And we vote these guys in to do tax reforms?


#70

why not? do you agree 100% with anybody?

when our brother errs we are told to call them on it.


#71

Taxes are more complicated b/c of the “social engineering” politics that comes into play.

Take the Earned Income Credit for instance.

Depreciating a piece of equipment… Why does that have to be so socially engineered? Section 179’s on top of that and bonus depreciation. IRS limits depreciation on luxury vehicles, etc…

It all sounds good but it can be a nightmare.


#72

The Church is not political. The USCCB and the Church speaks for Catholicism. If they conflict with your personal politics than your personal politics conflict with the Church.


#73
  1. Education does not equal income.
  2. Equality and equity are two different things.
  3. “Taxing success”? It’s taxing income.

#74

Anybody ever get a job from a poor man? I never have.


#75

If that poor man can get a loan from Deutsche Bank, I may ask him. :slight_smile:


#76

Complicate it all you want, but he CBO says most of those earning $75K or less will pay more in taxes. What you are doing is disagreeing with their reasoning. Between you and the CBO, I trust the CBO.


#77

so who do they speak for when bishops disagree and both speak on the issue. they are only men!


#78

in 2027 just to be accurate


#79

That is true. Partly because of individual tax cuts that expire by 2025. But the corporate tax cuts have no expiration. This was a trick to try to stay within the rules of the budget reconciliation process to avoid a filibuster.


#80

It’s impossible for this to hurt the poor

  • doubling the income threshold under which families pay no taxes at all to $24,000;
  • doubling the child tax credit to $2,000;
  • eliminating the 15 percent tax rate in favor of an expanded 12 percent rate,

If someone is being hurt that makes more money, they must be using some serious loopholes.


#81

Well, yes.

Poor people buy lots of stuff. They spend what money they have. That demand creates jobs.

Lots of jobs are created by poor people.


#82

If you dig a little into the various non-binding USCCB proclamations, it is clear that they have a political agenda masquerading as the false gospel of social justice. Monsignor Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. has something to say to the social gospel crowd:

http://blog.adw.org/2015/05/beware-the-strangest-idol-of-all-a-reflection-on-how-even-works-of-charity-cannot-eclipse-obedience-to-christ/

Now, before liberal knees jerk, I don’t think anyone here, including myself, supports hunger and homelessness. We would support government programs if they actually worked and did not contribute to the taxpayer being hungry and homeless.


#83

I have heard some Catholics say that the US bishops are mistaken or ill-informed or not experts in these fields. But saying that our bishops are preaching a false gospel is a very serious charge indeed. If any one of them were to do this they would be guilty of a very serious sin. Are you sure you want to go so far as to speculate on evil motivations of our bishops? (And no mistaking it - knowingly preaching a false gospel in violation of their oaths would be a great evil and a mortal sin for them all.)


#84

I supposed that’s possible (although the scaling back of services to the poor will certainly hurt them), but it’s going to hurt the heck out of me.

The elimination of the deduction for state and local taxes will kill me, since I live in New York City. And the reduction of the mortgage interest deduction isn’t going to help, since I have a mortgage, and will have it for years to come.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.