TrumpTards are crying on twitter over their tax refunds

[JTfloyd]

From the L.A. Times.

The upshot: While some filers will owe less or get a larger-than-expected refund, many others will be in the opposite camp, especially if they did not adjust their W-4 form that determines how much of their weekly income is withheld for taxes.

In other words, people who did not change their withholding might have enjoyed more take-home pay during 2018 but now they won’t get the refund they might have expected. Uncle Sam in effect gave them more money throughout the year instead of waiting to return the cash with a refund.

That refund averaged about $2,800 for the majority of individual taxpayers last year, the Internal Revenue Service says, but that’s likely to change for 2018 returns.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc., a tax-preparation firm with nearly 6,000 U.S. offices and 20,000 preparers, said it took a recent survey that found that 72% of respondents had not updated their paycheck withholding since the tax revamp took effect, “meaning that taxpayers or their employers’ payroll systems could be using incorrect numbers.”

“Taxpayers have heard they may see more money as a result of the tax law changes, but more money doesn’t necessarily mean in their tax refund,” said Lisa Greene-Lewis, a tax expert at TurboTax, the unit of Intuit Inc. that makes do-it-yourself tax software used by more than 36 million filers. “They may have seen it throughout the year in their paychecks because the tax rates were lowered.”

So basically, 80% of Americans (according to the Treasury) got more money per paycheck and "crumbs" in the form of bonuses in the thousands of dollars, due to Trump's tax cuts, but some people forgot to update their info. Sounds more like user error (and anonymous Twitter accounts pushing a liberal agenda) trying to make Trump look bad, imo.

[elfag]

I guess these idiots just realized Trump is a billionaire who doesn't understand their middle class struggles

Fake news.

Those numbers are made up. How much income do you have to have to have 4billion in taxes?

ridiculous

But liberals all majored in gender studies and mass communication so they will believe anything you tell them with numbers in it.

[HOUDINI563]

Table of Key Findings
ESTIMATED ANNUAL SUBSIDIES AND TAX BREAKS TO WALMART AND THE WALTON FAMILY
WALMART
COST TO TAXPAYERS
Cost to taxpayers of Walmart workers relying on public assistance programs due to low wages and benefits.
$6.2 billion
Cost of federal tax breaks benefitting Walmart.
$1 billion
Cost of direct economic development subsidies by state and local governments.
$70 million
WALTON FAMILY
COST TO TAXPAYERS
Cost of preferential tax rate on Walmart divi- dends claimed by the Walton family.
$607 million
ANNUAL TOTAL
$7.8 billion
Estimated number of teachers that could be hired with $7.8 billion = 105,131

ESTIMATED ONE-TIME TAX BREAKS TO THE WALTONS
Cost of tax avoidance by Walton family through use of special estate tax trusts.
$3 billion (potential for additional tens of billions)

The reality is that BUSINESS SUBSIDIES far exceed any welfare program in terms of taxpayer dollars. For the average taxpayer making $50,000 annually $5000 of their tax bill goes to business subsidies.

[Phenom]

Dems can vote to extend a middle class tax cut.

Why wasn't the other way around

[JimRaynor]

In Trumps tax plan 80% of the benefits goto the rich, the middle class will see a tax increase over the next decade while the rich have permanent tax cuts, capital gains tax cut, permanent corporate tax cuts, LLC real estate tax cut, loop holes

Make an argument on how this is a good tax plan knowing this.

Guy, 80% of the taxes are paid by the top 20% of the countries earners, 50% of taxes are paid by the 1%.

the middle class is going to get a tax break but obviously not nearly as much as the wealthy because they don't pay nearly as much in taxes.

[JJRod]

Guy, 80% of the taxes are paid by the top 20% of the countries earners, 50% of taxes are paid by the 1%.

the middle class is going to get a tax break but obviously not nearly as much as the wealthy because they don't pay nearly as much in taxes.

This has been explained, some people just fail to do the research.

[Don Pichardo]

The tax cut was primarily for the rich. The lower classes received a token while the rich truely became richer.

And one third of the midde class got a two percent tax increase to pay for it all... ain’t that about a bit ch.

[Don Pichardo]

Basically this, you get more money in your pocket whether its $400 or $2000 and you call it a failure? You are getting more money you stupid momo, thats less money of yours that the government gets to spend.

Yea many got a few hundred or couple thousand in savings. Those in the upper middle class have the pleasure of paying $4000 to $9000 more in taxes.

Meanwhile the wealthy save millions. Tell me how you think that is fair or better yet a good idea...?

[HOUDINI563]

For the uninformed which in here are MANY. A tax cut provided to the lower classes has much more a stimulative effect upon the economy than a tax cut for the rich. Why? The lower classes have much less if any disposable income. Thus extra money in the form of a tax cut is spent for necessities. Spent money is stimulative. Tax cuts given to the rich are more than likely saved thus not economically stimulative.

So why would a tax cut declared for economic stimulus be given PRIMARILY to the rich?

Also why would a tax cut declared for economic stimulus EXPIRE for those that would spend that money but be permanent for those who would primarily save that money?

Think.

[JimRaynor]

For the uninformed which in here are MANY. A tax cut provided to the lower classes has much more a stimulative effect upon the economy than a tax cut for the rich. Why? The lower classes have much less if any disposable income. Thus extra money in the form of a tax cut is spent for necessities. Spent money is stimulative. Tax cuts given to the rich are more than likely saved thus not economically stimulative.

So why would a tax cut declared for economic stimulus be given PRIMARILY to the rich?

Also why would a tax cut declared for economic stimulus EXPIRE for those that would spend that money but be permanent for those who would primarily save that money?

Think.

Someone in the lower class who is making $500 a week and gets taxed at 20% which means he brings home $400, even if he was getting taxed at 5% and was bringing home $475, that extra $75 isn't going to stimulate shіt.


Think.