Menu

anyone else compare their 2018 federal taxes to old system?

Home Tax Reduction anyone else compare their 2018 federal taxes to old system?

  • MPMD MPMD 
    Participant
    Status: Physician
    Posts: 2094
    Joined: 05/01/2017

    @jacksparrow

    I call BS on people making 35-40k paying more federal income tax in 2018 compared to 2017. I’m sure a scenario where that is true could be concocted, but it would be the exception.

    Click to expand…

    i completely agree with this.

    if nothing else the elevated std deduction would revolutionize the tax situation of someone making $40k.

     

    #191835 Reply
    portlandia portlandia 
    Participant
    Status: Physician
    Posts: 366
    Joined: 07/07/2017

    Fiscal conservatism is dead when, in a rising economy, the so-called conservative party unnecessarily increases the national debt and distributes that debt in the form of temporary tax cuts and you’ve got educated people on a financial website going, “Woohoo! Look at the money I got back!”

    Click to expand…

    I hate the debt too, but I am unapologetically happy that I am paying significantly less in taxes this year.

    So long as Congress spends like drunken sailors, the national deficit and debt will continue to be a problem driven by overspending, not lack of revenue. Don’t believe me? In 1993 tax revenue was 1.15T with a population of 257M, in 2018 tax income is estimated at 3.34T with a population of 325M. So a doubling of tax revenue on a population increase of ~25% and the Congresscritters still can’t balance the budget, let alone make a dent in the debt? Increasing revenue provides these cretins more opportunity to buy votes and grease palms. What they do not and will not do with the extra revenue is to balance the budget/pay down the debt or develop some sustainable fiscal plan that adequately addresses short falls in the entitlement programs. Not gonna happen. So enjoy your tax break guilt free while Congress inflates away the debt, while preparing your own financial house for the day of national fiscal reckoning that is surely coming. A day that will come by force, not because Congress voluntarily decides that spending more than you bring in is a bad idea.

    Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”

    #191836 Reply
    Liked by ENT Doc, Dusn, Lithium
    Avatar Echo 
    Participant
    Status: Physician
    Posts: 49
    Joined: 03/09/2016

    Turbo tax shows you your effective tax rate.  Mine went from just over 24% in 2017 to 22% in 2018. I’m in a moderate tax state.  And our charitable deductions were a little higher this year (we still are able to itemize).  I’m happy to keep an extra $2,000 of every $100,000 I earn.

    #191839 Reply
    Avatar Dusn 
    Participant
    Status: Physician
    Posts: 147
    Joined: 01/02/2018

    Turbo tax shows you your effective tax rate.  Mine went from just over 24% in 2017 to 22% in 2018. I’m in a moderate tax state.  And our charitable deductions were a little higher this year (we still are able to itemize).  I’m happy to keep an extra $2,000 of every $100,000 I earn.

    Click to expand…

    What Tim says still holds true… it is very difficult to truly compare the effect of the new tax law on you unless you’re entering 2017 numbers into this year’s tax software. There are always other variables.  For example, tax loss harvesting for the first time lowered my effective tax rate compared to prior years… but am I happy that I lost 60K in the market so that it could lower my effective tax rate?  No.

    Yes, I would guess that due to the new tax law my taxes would be a little bit lower even if I got rid of all the confounding variables.  But I really don’t care enough to take the time to do that and when you’re looking at just a 2% difference, there is a margin of error.  I do know that it definitely wasn’t enough money to impact my life or retirement plans.

    #191867 Reply
    Liked by Tim
    ENT Doc ENT Doc 
    Participant
    Status: Physician
    Posts: 3008
    Joined: 01/14/2017
    “Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”

    Click to expand…

    As is the case with the drunken sailor analogy, you are being too kind.  The baby at least gets full at some point.

    #191896 Reply
    Liked by portlandia
    MPMD MPMD 
    Participant
    Status: Physician
    Posts: 2094
    Joined: 05/01/2017
    “Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.” 

    Click to expand…

    As is the case with the drunken sailor analogy, you are being too kind.  The baby at least gets full at some point.

    Click to expand…

    I at least want to give you (and @dusn, and @portlandia) credit for caring about debts and deficit on a consistent basis.

    This is one of those issues that tend to… come and go with the occupancy of the WH.

    I tend to think that it’s overly appealing to think of national debt in the same manner as household debt when in reality it seems that there are some important differences. I would also point out to you guys that if you think it’s that dire and you acknowledge that the allegedly “conservative” party is also increasing it I would be curious about your long term planning b/c it seems that you’re simultaneously saying that it’s an urgent existential problem and there is no solution. If that’s the case then things like 401ks and mortgage payoff seems kind of moot no?

    #191899 Reply
    portlandia portlandia 
    Participant
    Status: Physician
    Posts: 366
    Joined: 07/07/2017

    “Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”

    Click to expand…

    As is the case with the drunken sailor analogy, you are being too kind.  The baby at least gets full at some point.

    Click to expand…

    I at least want to give you (and @dusn, and @portlandia) credit for caring about debts and deficit on a consistent basis.

    This is one of those issues that tend to… come and go with the occupancy of the WH.

    I tend to think that it’s overly appealing to think of national debt in the same manner as household debt when in reality it seems that there are some important differences. I would also point out to you guys that if you think it’s that dire and you acknowledge that the allegedly “conservative” party is also increasing it I would be curious about your long term planning b/c it seems that you’re simultaneously saying that it’s an urgent existential problem and there is no solution. If that’s the case then things like 401ks and mortgage payoff seems kind of moot no?

    Click to expand…

    This is most definitely not a party issue as both have terrible records on budget deficits/debt.

    I don’t see this as an existential threat, but it is a problem. At some point, bond holders of US debt will likely tire of getting paid back in inflated dollars. With fewer buyers of treasuries, yields will rise which will require a greater percentage of the budget for debt service, crowding out other budgetary items. Short of this, the Fed could print more money and buy treasury bonds which will lead to more inflation. Another, though less likely option, would be for the US government to officially default on the debt. This would ruin its ability to borrow for a long time, so politicians are unlikely to go for that as they love deficit spending and under-funding entitlement programs, both of which help to get them reelected. What should be noted is the debt will never be paid off. Never.

    So what should the individual do? Carry on as normal. Get out of debt, save and invest a bunch and become FI as you will be best positioned to whether any possible storms on the horizon. Will the storms hit? I dunno for sure, but it doesn’t hurt to be prepared, especially when being FI is good advice anyway.

    #191932 Reply
    Liked by iradoc
    ENT Doc ENT Doc 
    Participant
    Status: Physician
    Posts: 3008
    Joined: 01/14/2017
    This is one of those issues that tend to… come and go with the occupancy of the WH.

    Click to expand…

    What we’ve seen is the party not in power uses the debt and deficits as a bludgeoning tool to help them get elected.  Tax overhaul was supposed to be the end of days and are to cause trillions in deficits, robbing our children of their future.  Now Democrats are more than happy to sign on to omnibus spending bills that show no fiscal restraint, and not a peep about the debt.  Republicans did it under Clinton only to run up deficits under Bush.  Same with Obama and then regaining control in 2016-2018.  Same with the Democrats under Bush and running up $10 trillion under Obama.  So yes, I agree that it comes with not being in power.  Both parties are complete hypocrites and should just shut up about the debt.  Only individuals who are opposed to deficits in good times and bad (for them politically) are ones I respect on this issue.

    I tend to think that it’s overly appealing to think of national debt in the same manner as household debt when in reality it seems that there are some important differences. I would also point out to you guys that if you think it’s that dire and you acknowledge that the allegedly “conservative” party is also increasing it I would be curious about your long term planning b/c it seems that you’re simultaneously saying that it’s an urgent existential problem and there is no solution. If that’s the case then things like 401ks and mortgage payoff seems kind of moot no?

    Click to expand…

    I suppose I’d start by asking, don’t you think our debt and interest payment on the debt is a problem?  And if not, then why not?

    Indeed important differences exist between a household running up debt and our country running up debt.  In the former case the debt is actually appointed to an individual whose responsibility it is to pay off that debt.  Mortgage under dad.  Car loan under mom.  Etc.  People are held individually accountable for their decision making on the debt.  Dad’s bad decisions about taking out too much mortgage debt doesn’t come back to haunt little Jimmy when dad is dead and buried.  Little Jimmy won’t get the house, but he was never entitled to that anyway since dad never really owned it (fully).  But Jimmy doesn’t get shackled with dad’s debt or interest payments.

    The debt situation in America is far more corrupt and immoral than household debt, and therefore this debt is a bigger problem in my mind.  Politicians run up the debt because they are too unwilling to say no, or decrease spending (as noted in my first paragraph).  And they do so in order to stay elected.  Those deficits help give benefits to current generations but burden future generations with a more full version of the costs.  That is immoral in my opinion.  It’s no different from people making arguments about destroying the environment and making our children have to pay for our excesses.  No different.  You can’t argue one of those is immoral and not the other.  It’s not like all this deficit spending is going to fund infrastructure that future generations will benefit from.  Most of it goes towards feeding the economy via paying off old people (social security, medicare), and to a larger extent these days via poor people (Medicaid).  Now I’ll grant you that some positives come out of this when that money is spent.  That’s how innovations occur in a capitalist economy – through company profits when people spend.  And the value generation benefits future generations.  But it’s not even close to a 1:1 dollar benefit, as you factor in dead weight loss with taxation/transfers, and the imperfect relationship between spending and innovation.  An increasing percentage of this spending is going to fund interest payments, a growing percentage of which flows out of the U.S. to foreign nations.  This is yet another inefficiency and why deficit spending doesn’t translate into benefits for future generations of Americans.

    I disagree with the idea that we can just print money.  The Federal Reserve is set up to be independent of our legislature and is in control of money supply.  The Fed is the legislature’s biggest threat to overspending, as are credit rating agencies.  One won’t allow rampant printing of money while the other makes the debt more expensive.  The only way out of this is through fiscal restraint and more taxation.  And since our politicians have proven to be useless with respect to the former I expect the latter to occur simply out of necessity.  I don’t know when this breaking point will occur.  But I do know that growing ranks of our (non-conservative, shall we say?) politicians think the rich seem to have an endless supply of wealth to fund all this stuff.  That is a lie.  But it doesn’t stop them from telling it.  And so the rich will be the natural target to address these issues.

    My biggest strategies for dealing with these truths have been putting more money into my Roth, probably past the point where most would consider necessary, and also allocating reasonably high payments into our childrens’ 529 plans.  The latter is an effort to get inheritance money into their hands, admittedly in a somewhat paternalistic way, so it’s not subject to the estate tax, another immoral construct IMO.  But again, even though it’s a complete lie that increasing estate taxes and decreasing exemption thresholds will make a dent in our deficits this won’t stop politicians from telling it.

    #191971 Reply
    Liked by Lordosis, Tim
    Avatar Tim 
    Participant
    Status: Accountant
    Posts: 2075
    Joined: 09/18/2018

    “Both __________ are complete hypocrites and should just shut up about. ._________.”
    Very interesting arguments. One thing I noticed is today’s problems (pick one) have existed before and will exist again. The question is what will our country look like in the future? It will certainly be different. The beauty of our system was the checks and balances. I disagree that it is political only. They represent the results of our system. As the values change, life will go on. Out with the old, in with the new. A large segment of our population is irresponsible with personal debt AND actually thinks it is ok and then wants support for basics and blames it on income disparity. Maybe that needs to be addressed. Our society has accepted “disrespect” and “deceit” as protest and justified. The rules have changed or have they? All for one and one for all doesn’t appear to be a winner.

    #191983 Reply
    MPMD MPMD 
    Participant
    Status: Physician
    Posts: 2094
    Joined: 05/01/2017
    Earnest refinancing bonus
    This is one of those issues that tend to… come and go with the occupancy of the WH. 

    Click to expand…

    What we’ve seen is the party not in power uses the debt and deficits as a bludgeoning tool to help them get elected.  Tax overhaul was supposed to be the end of days and are to cause trillions in deficits, robbing our children of their future.  Now Democrats are more than happy to sign on to omnibus spending bills that show no fiscal restraint, and not a peep about the debt.  Republicans did it under Clinton only to run up deficits under Bush.  Same with Obama and then regaining control in 2016-2018.  Same with the Democrats under Bush and running up $10 trillion under Obama.  So yes, I agree that it comes with not being in power.  Both parties are complete hypocrites and should just shut up about the debt.  Only individuals who are opposed to deficits in good times and bad (for them politically) are ones I respect on this issue.

    I tend to think that it’s overly appealing to think of national debt in the same manner as household debt when in reality it seems that there are some important differences. I would also point out to you guys that if you think it’s that dire and you acknowledge that the allegedly “conservative” party is also increasing it I would be curious about your long term planning b/c it seems that you’re simultaneously saying that it’s an urgent existential problem and there is no solution. If that’s the case then things like 401ks and mortgage payoff seems kind of moot no? 

    Click to expand…

    I suppose I’d start by asking, don’t you think our debt and interest payment on the debt is a problem?  And if not, then why not?

    Indeed important differences exist between a household running up debt and our country running up debt.  In the former case the debt is actually appointed to an individual whose responsibility it is to pay off that debt.  Mortgage under dad.  Car loan under mom.  Etc.  People are held individually accountable for their decision making on the debt.  Dad’s bad decisions about taking out too much mortgage debt doesn’t come back to haunt little Jimmy when dad is dead and buried.  Little Jimmy won’t get the house, but he was never entitled to that anyway since dad never really owned it (fully).  But Jimmy doesn’t get shackled with dad’s debt or interest payments.

    The debt situation in America is far more corrupt and immoral than household debt, and therefore this debt is a bigger problem in my mind.  Politicians run up the debt because they are too unwilling to say no, or decrease spending (as noted in my first paragraph).  And they do so in order to stay elected.  Those deficits help give benefits to current generations but burden future generations with a more full version of the costs.  That is immoral in my opinion.  It’s no different from people making arguments about destroying the environment and making our children have to pay for our excesses.  No different.  You can’t argue one of those is immoral and not the other.  It’s not like all this deficit spending is going to fund infrastructure that future generations will benefit from.  Most of it goes towards feeding the economy via paying off old people (social security, medicare), and to a larger extent these days via poor people (Medicaid).  Now I’ll grant you that some positives come out of this when that money is spent.  That’s how innovations occur in a capitalist economy – through company profits when people spend.  And the value generation benefits future generations.  But it’s not even close to a 1:1 dollar benefit, as you factor in dead weight loss with taxation/transfers, and the imperfect relationship between spending and innovation.  An increasing percentage of this spending is going to fund interest payments, a growing percentage of which flows out of the U.S. to foreign nations.  This is yet another inefficiency and why deficit spending doesn’t translate into benefits for future generations of Americans.

    I disagree with the idea that we can just print money.  The Federal Reserve is set up to be independent of our legislature and is in control of money supply.  The Fed is the legislature’s biggest threat to overspending, as are credit rating agencies.  One won’t allow rampant printing of money while the other makes the debt more expensive.  The only way out of this is through fiscal restraint and more taxation.  And since our politicians have proven to be useless with respect to the former I expect the latter to occur simply out of necessity.  I don’t know when this breaking point will occur.  But I do know that growing ranks of our (non-conservative, shall we say?) politicians think the rich seem to have an endless supply of wealth to fund all this stuff.  That is a lie.  But it doesn’t stop them from telling it.  And so the rich will be the natural target to address these issues.

    My biggest strategies for dealing with these truths have been putting more money into my Roth, probably past the point where most would consider necessary, and also allocating reasonably high payments into our childrens’ 529 plans.  The latter is an effort to get inheritance money into their hands, admittedly in a somewhat paternalistic way, so it’s not subject to the estate tax, another immoral construct IMO.  But again, even though it’s a complete lie that increasing estate taxes and decreasing exemption thresholds will make a dent in our deficits this won’t stop politicians from telling it.

    Click to expand…

    I’ll be honest you probably know more about this than I do.

    To me the biggest points are 2 fold:

    a) the call date for this note is certainly not set and likely doesn’t exist

    b) lending money to the US gov’t is still pretty much the safest thing anyone can do

    That puts at least a long time horizon on the problem for me.

    It’s just hard for me to take this seriously b/c the people who claim to be the most serious about it are…. utterly unserious in a very consistent and predictable way.

    The point about future generations is interesting, but it’s also nearly impossible to act in a way as to avoid affecting future generations in ways that could be construed as unethical. I mean theoretically every dose of abx I give is increasing the chance that some person in 2080 dies of a virulent bug. I’m not saying it’s wrong it just strikes me more like a trolley problem for the classroom.

    I’ll leave it there, partially so we don’t just start sparring about political crap but also b/c I’m admittedly not an expert on this. Maybe you’ll change my mind like you did on loans?

    #191987 Reply
    ENT Doc ENT Doc 
    Participant
    Status: Physician
    Posts: 3008
    Joined: 01/14/2017
    This is one of those issues that tend to… come and go with the occupancy of the WH. 

    Click to expand…

    What we’ve seen is the party not in power uses the debt and deficits as a bludgeoning tool to help them get elected.  Tax overhaul was supposed to be the end of days and are to cause trillions in deficits, robbing our children of their future.  Now Democrats are more than happy to sign on to omnibus spending bills that show no fiscal restraint, and not a peep about the debt.  Republicans did it under Clinton only to run up deficits under Bush.  Same with Obama and then regaining control in 2016-2018.  Same with the Democrats under Bush and running up $10 trillion under Obama.  So yes, I agree that it comes with not being in power.  Both parties are complete hypocrites and should just shut up about the debt.  Only individuals who are opposed to deficits in good times and bad (for them politically) are ones I respect on this issue.

    I tend to think that it’s overly appealing to think of national debt in the same manner as household debt when in reality it seems that there are some important differences. I would also point out to you guys that if you think it’s that dire and you acknowledge that the allegedly “conservative” party is also increasing it I would be curious about your long term planning b/c it seems that you’re simultaneously saying that it’s an urgent existential problem and there is no solution. If that’s the case then things like 401ks and mortgage payoff seems kind of moot no? 

    Click to expand…

    I suppose I’d start by asking, don’t you think our debt and interest payment on the debt is a problem?  And if not, then why not?

    Indeed important differences exist between a household running up debt and our country running up debt.  In the former case the debt is actually appointed to an individual whose responsibility it is to pay off that debt.  Mortgage under dad.  Car loan under mom.  Etc.  People are held individually accountable for their decision making on the debt.  Dad’s bad decisions about taking out too much mortgage debt doesn’t come back to haunt little Jimmy when dad is dead and buried.  Little Jimmy won’t get the house, but he was never entitled to that anyway since dad never really owned it (fully).  But Jimmy doesn’t get shackled with dad’s debt or interest payments.

    The debt situation in America is far more corrupt and immoral than household debt, and therefore this debt is a bigger problem in my mind.  Politicians run up the debt because they are too unwilling to say no, or decrease spending (as noted in my first paragraph).  And they do so in order to stay elected.  Those deficits help give benefits to current generations but burden future generations with a more full version of the costs.  That is immoral in my opinion.  It’s no different from people making arguments about destroying the environment and making our children have to pay for our excesses.  No different.  You can’t argue one of those is immoral and not the other.  It’s not like all this deficit spending is going to fund infrastructure that future generations will benefit from.  Most of it goes towards feeding the economy via paying off old people (social security, medicare), and to a larger extent these days via poor people (Medicaid).  Now I’ll grant you that some positives come out of this when that money is spent.  That’s how innovations occur in a capitalist economy – through company profits when people spend.  And the value generation benefits future generations.  But it’s not even close to a 1:1 dollar benefit, as you factor in dead weight loss with taxation/transfers, and the imperfect relationship between spending and innovation.  An increasing percentage of this spending is going to fund interest payments, a growing percentage of which flows out of the U.S. to foreign nations.  This is yet another inefficiency and why deficit spending doesn’t translate into benefits for future generations of Americans.

    I disagree with the idea that we can just print money.  The Federal Reserve is set up to be independent of our legislature and is in control of money supply.  The Fed is the legislature’s biggest threat to overspending, as are credit rating agencies.  One won’t allow rampant printing of money while the other makes the debt more expensive.  The only way out of this is through fiscal restraint and more taxation.  And since our politicians have proven to be useless with respect to the former I expect the latter to occur simply out of necessity.  I don’t know when this breaking point will occur.  But I do know that growing ranks of our (non-conservative, shall we say?) politicians think the rich seem to have an endless supply of wealth to fund all this stuff.  That is a lie.  But it doesn’t stop them from telling it.  And so the rich will be the natural target to address these issues.

    My biggest strategies for dealing with these truths have been putting more money into my Roth, probably past the point where most would consider necessary, and also allocating reasonably high payments into our childrens’ 529 plans.  The latter is an effort to get inheritance money into their hands, admittedly in a somewhat paternalistic way, so it’s not subject to the estate tax, another immoral construct IMO.  But again, even though it’s a complete lie that increasing estate taxes and decreasing exemption thresholds will make a dent in our deficits this won’t stop politicians from telling it.

    Click to expand…

    I’ll be honest you probably know more about this than I do.

    To me the biggest points are 2 fold:

    a) the call date for this note is certainly not set and likely doesn’t exist

    b) lending money to the US gov’t is still pretty much the safest thing anyone can do

    That puts at least a long time horizon on the problem for me.

    It’s just hard for me to take this seriously b/c the people who claim to be the most serious about it are…. utterly unserious in a very consistent and predictable way.

    The point about future generations is interesting, but it’s also nearly impossible to act in a way as to avoid affecting future generations in ways that could be construed as unethical. I mean theoretically every dose of abx I give is increasing the chance that some person in 2080 dies of a virulent bug. I’m not saying it’s wrong it just strikes me more like a trolley problem for the classroom.

    I’ll leave it there, partially so we don’t just start sparring about political crap but also b/c I’m admittedly not an expert on this. Maybe you’ll change my mind like you did on loans?

    Click to expand…

    Federal debt is indeed not callable.  So to Portlandia’s point, and I think yours as well, this debt isn’t going to be paid off.  The only way to actually reduce the debt is to run surpluses for years.

    Just because politicians don’t take the issue seriously doesn’t mean it’s not serious or that we shouldn’t.

    I don’t agree with the antibiotic analogy.  The problem with antibiotics is that they are overused.  No one is advocating for stopping their use period – just when used to excess, or outside of indications.  It’s possible that future generations are affected by prescribing under very controlled circumstances, but you can’t make a moral argument to not treat someone who actually needs the antibiotic now and who will die otherwise at 100% certainty because of the possibility of future generational effects – especially when new antibiotics have yet to be discovered.  We have the means to act in a fiscally responsible way now and not let this affect future generations.  Our politicians just choose not to do it.

    I have no interest in sparring over useless political crap.  This stuff isn’t partisan – it’s pretty objective.  I think the thing people overlook with respect to bonds is the credit risk.  We’ve already had our credit downgraded once.  Countries that don’t have these debt problems are going to start looking comparatively more attractive in the future.

    #191999 Reply
    Liked by portlandia
    Avatar Tim 
    Participant
    Status: Accountant
    Posts: 2075
    Joined: 09/18/2018

    @ENT Doc,
    The credit rating argument actually impacts only the USA.
    1) Government debt is auctioned. An agency going from AAA to AAa will not impact a bidding price.
    2) Size matters. In looking at credit ratings by country, I was curious which countries would appear to be more attractive and would absorb the demand for debt instruments. GDP/Debt would kill any rating right now.
    My point is not that debt isn’t a problem, it’s just not for the rate exposure due to credit ratings.
    The market interest rate IS a very real risk though.

    #192004 Reply
    Avatar Bmac 
    Participant
    Status: Physician
    Posts: 284
    Joined: 10/21/2017

    Fortunately, if our governmental inaction on national debt doesn’t get us, its inaction on climate change will. So we’ve got that going for us. (Or at least our children). 😢

    #192060 Reply
    Avatar ITEngineer 
    Participant
    Status: Other Professional
    Posts: 301
    Joined: 05/09/2017
    unnecessarily increases the national debt

    Click to expand…

    Given all the threads here, I’m surprised we haven’t had one about the National Debt (or I have missed it). When tax rates rise, they will rise the most for those on this forum. As debt levels increase (as a % of GDP), benefits cuts or tax increases will have to be larger or larger. No one wants to see the USA turn into Greece. We take for granted our dominant economic position as the default though. It doesn’t have to stay that way in the future.

    There was a SS thread recently, but I got the impression (maybe wrongly) that most people thought they were entitled to it and were against any means testing or cuts. There wasn’t enough discussion about how to make it solvent. The reality is……our children will pay these debts (that bothers me greatly) though that argument is just an appeal to emotion  😉

    #192064 Reply
    Liked by portlandia
    ENT Doc ENT Doc 
    Participant
    Status: Physician
    Posts: 3008
    Joined: 01/14/2017
    There wasn’t enough discussion about how to make it solvent. The reality is……our children will pay these debts (that bothers me greatly) though that argument is just an appeal to emotion

    Click to expand…

    You want to make something solvent to create a sound program and to take financial ownership of the situation.  But people want the “so what?”  Why should we do that?  The “so what” is that the byproduct of a failure to be fiscally responsible is that our children will have to pay for it.  The “so what” of any argument is invariably an emotional appeal to try to turn the lightbulb on.  There’s nothing wrong with making an argument based on virtue, particularly where the evidence crosses party lines and is objectively proven.

    #192126 Reply

Reply To: anyone else compare their 2018 federal taxes to old system?

In case of a glitch or error, please save your text elsewhere, clear browser cache, close browser, open browser and refresh the page.

Notifications Mark all as read  |  Clear