Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on November 02, 2017, 03:36:35 PM
-
This is the first I've seen regarding $$$ attached to the GOP tax rates.
Looks like for me, I will have to work on staying under $57K gross to eek under $45K AGI and get that 12% rate at the standard deduction. I haven't seen anything yet on limitations on itemizing. Itemizing might still work better for me than that $12K standard deduction.
I already had plans in the works to stay under $48K AGI because of capital gains and dividends. Though I don't know if they are going to be mucking with those to "help pay" for their tax cuts. That would piss me off, because that's a good chunk of my retirement income.
I still don't know what I think of this plan overall. I have a bit of schadenfreude regarding the limiting of state and local deductions even though it will affect me. FU CA. Plus it has been fun watching Peter King whine like a baby about New York. =D
http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/11/02/gop-tax-bill-here-is-look-at-new-brackets.html
-
If it happens my tax bill will go down to the feds. $24K joint deduction is a lot more than what I currently itemize.
Joys of living in a place with lower property taxes... etc.
-
Part of standard vs itemized for me will fall heavily on if they make any improvements to medical expenses deductions, which are crap right now. With the worthless Rs dropping the ball on health care, I'll be paying nearly ten grand next year just on health insurance. If all that was deductible, along with other stuff I can deduct, I could do a lot better itemizing than taking the standard.
-
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/11/02/oopsie-wapo-gives-democrats-4-pinocchios-for-hasty-talking-point-about-gop-tax-plan/
-
Part of standard vs itemized for me will fall heavily on if they make any improvements to medical expenses deductions, which are crap right now.
Assuming this (https://www.axios.com/heres-whats-in-the-gop-tax-plan-2505430314.html) is accurate, this plan includes the elimination of student loan and medical expense deductions and the adoption tax credit.
-
If this happens, may cause people to flee the higher property tax/housing/income tax states to ones that are lower.
-
Assuming this (https://www.axios.com/heres-whats-in-the-gop-tax-plan-2505430314.html) is accurate, this plan includes the elimination of student loan and medical expense deductions and the adoption tax credit.
Holy crap that will piss me off. The party of affordable health care are making health care more expensive, not less expensive. I'm pissed off as a healthy guy that sees the doctor once a year. I can't imagine how pissed that will make someone with cancer.
-
On first pass this may drop me into the 25% bracket.
Maybe not so great for me.
-
I was sooooo hoping the would kill the 10% income threshold to deduct medical expenses. Those should deductible from the first dollar. That would be another nail in the Obamacare coffin.
Overall it looks good. It's definitely a step in the right direction, not great, but a step.
-
Never underestimate the republicans potential to F it up
(with the democrats help of course).
-
My tax bracket is staying the same. Standard dedication goes up a bit, but it's not a huge win because I'm not married. But I lose the local/state tax deduction, but the property tax thing works for me. So mild win.
This was clearly written for donor class, rather than middle class. Thankfully they did not gut 401k's. Probably because it would have lost them the next election, plus the kickbacks from financial companies. Definitely kicking young voters with college debt and sick folks.
Oh, and of course, it's to be financed by incredibly stupid "borrow and spend" rather than the stupid but more financially responsible "tax and spend".
-
If it happens my tax bill will go down to the feds. $24K joint deduction is a lot more than what I currently itemize.
Joys of living in a place with lower property taxes... etc.
Mine too. It is not worth it for me to itemize now. The biggie for me was sales tax deduction (actual if you save your receipts) and interest paid deductions and that ended years ago. From what I know, I can't imagine how the rank and file (aka middle and lower income classes) won't support this. I got a kick out of Schumer who said that the rich get a disprotionate reduction in federal tax relative to he lower income folks. I had to laugh but the guy said it and I think he believes it. The dem's will find a way not to support this because it's what Trump wants. Trump wanted a 3 tier rate system and the Republicans came up with four.
-
Apparently there is a little tidbit in there that imposes a 6% surtax in addition to the 39.6% on incomes over a million in income. To be paid until the goobermint gets back all the revenue that it "lost" due to the other changes in the tax code. I guess that's to pacify the Democrats and RINOs. Not sure how they'll keep track of that. Getting rid of the Alt Min Tax is a boon for those making a decent living on wages.
Since I retired from my job and also from the goobermint boards I served on for which I was paid per diems, I can short form our federal taxes. We have no deductions other than property tax which in W. Michigan isn't too bad...$3000 a year. So that gives us an additional 12 grand off and we're safely in the 12% bracket. I paid around 14.5% last year, so I guess we will win if it actually becomes law as it will be 12% on a lower taxable income. Anyone in our situation with an income below the 25% bracket should do well.
Here's the thing about retirees and taxes. Most retirees are not accumulating wealth any more. We are spending what we accumulated plus our pensions and SS. Pure and simple keeping that wealth going directly into the economy without government skimming a good deal of it first. At the moment the retired portion of the population is substantial...and will be for a few more years. Thus the economy should be fired up and the government should get their mitts on all the money they think they'll lose.
-
I'm concerned about the expiration of inheritance taxes. I can understand a no taxes on inheritances below $5M because that should cover most farms and small businesses. To expire the inheritance tax may lead to aristocratic class, maybe if the 1% had a less percentage of the wealth but why encourage more money to be in the hands of so few?
-
I'm concerned about the expiration of inheritance taxes. I can understand a no taxes on inheritances below $5M because that should cover most farms and small businesses. To expire the inheritance tax may lead to aristocratic class, maybe if the 1% had a less percentage of the wealth but why encourage more money to be in the hands of so few?
Many small businesses ARE being hurt due to the inheritance tax.
Why is it the government's responsibility to socially engineer money from those who have worked their butts off all their lives to earn, to give the $$$ to others'?
If you're worried about a "aristocratic class," .... too late, it's here.
-
Many small businesses ARE being hurt due to the inheritance tax.
Why is it the government's responsibility to socially engineer money from those who have worked their butts off all their lives to earn, to give the $$$ to others'?
If you're worried about a "aristocratic class," .... too late, it's here.
Then I guess prepare for a real class warfare then, be like the early 20th century all over again.
-
I'm concerned about the expiration of inheritance taxes. I can understand a no taxes on inheritances below $5M because that should cover most farms and small businesses. To expire the inheritance tax may lead to aristocratic class, maybe if the 1% had a less percentage of the wealth but why encourage more money to be in the hands of so few?
From my point of view, the aristocratic class already exists. I hear tales in my area of the rich essentially arranging money between "money families" to keep the wealth concentrated rather than being spread out with many children or heirs.
I have not been able to claim a medical deduction in years. But if you are low income, 10% of a smaller amount is not a huge hurdle to reach. I think they should have eliminated that 10% business years ago. With the increase in the standard deduction, the trend is to essentially make the deduction for mortgage interest and state and local taxes to be mute. The rich still enjoy the deduction. I think second homes interest (mortgage interest) should not be deductible at all. It clearly favors the rich.
The simplification of the tax code will hurt the tax preparation industry. I would like to see it even simpler.
-
From my point of view, the aristocratic class already exists. I hear tales in my area of the rich essentially arranging money between "money families" to keep the wealth concentrated rather than being spread out with many children or heirs.
I have not been able to claim a medical deduction in years. But if you are low income, 10% of a smaller amount is not a huge hurdle to reach. I think they should have eliminated that 10% business years ago. With the increase in the standard deduction, the trend is to essentially make the deduction for mortgage interest and state and local taxes to be mute. The rich still enjoy the deduction. I think second homes interest (mortgage interest) should not be deductible at all. It clearly favors the rich.
The simplification of the tax code will hurt the tax preparation industry. I would like to see it even simpler.
It's happening here with people buying up farm ground, whether is be a actual farmers (Family Farms Corps) buying more ground to keep from showing profit or people buying it to put in a trust and have perpetual income for them and heirs via trusts. It's a real bitch to buy land if you want to farm.
-
From my point of view, the aristocratic class already exists. I hear tales in my area of the rich essentially arranging money between "money families" to keep the wealth concentrated rather than being spread out with many children or heirs.
I have not been able to claim a medical deduction in years. But if you are low income, 10% of a smaller amount is not a huge hurdle to reach. I think they should have eliminated that 10% business years ago. With the increase in the standard deduction, the trend is to essentially make the deduction for mortgage interest and state and local taxes to be mute. The rich still enjoy the deduction. I think second homes interest (mortgage interest) should not be deductible at all. It clearly favors the rich.
The simplification of the tax code will hurt the tax preparation industry. I would like to see it even simpler.
As someone who works in the tax preparation industry, kill us off.
Until Obamacare the medical deduction hurdle was 2.5% of income, the first year of O-care was 5% then 10% every year after that. THANKS OBAMA !!
-
It's happening here with people buying up farm ground, whether is be a actual farmers (Family Farms Corps) buying more ground to keep from showing profit or people buying it to put in a trust and have perpetual income for them and heirs via trusts. It's a real bitch to buy land if you want to farm.
This is something I've pondered on myself - same kind of thing with residential real estate, where an influx of money by people using housing as an investment product causes values to be inflated. Which sticks it to people who are buying houses to meet the basic necessity of shelter.
-
This is something I've pondered on myself - same kind of thing with residential real estate, where an influx of money by people using housing as an investment product causes values to be inflated. Which sticks it to people who are buying houses to meet the basic necessity of shelter.
History repeating itself.
-
It's happening here with people buying up farm ground, whether is be a actual farmers (Family Farms Corps) buying more ground to keep from showing profit or people buying it to put in a trust and have perpetual income for them and heirs via trusts. It's a real bitch to buy land if you want to farm.
Yes, and the problem is at the beginning of your statement "..to keep from showing a profit..". See it's government incentives/disincentives that drive that. So since it's your ox being gored, you want the "rich" to be tax at their time of death to make their heirs sell land (usually at fire sale prices), so that you can buy some.
This bill, if passed, will probably reduce the number of people needing pro tax services (my ox), yet I want them to go to a flat tax (the "You made X, multiply that times Y, then send that in) post card return, which would kill my industry and my job. I WANT THEM TO DO THAT !!!
-
Yes, and the problem is at the beginning of your statement "..to keep from showing a profit..". See it's government incentives/disincentives that drive that. So since it's your ox being gored, you want the "rich" to be tax at their time of death to make their heirs sell land (usually at fire sale prices), so that you can buy some.
This bill, if passed, will probably reduce the number of people needing pro tax services (my ox), yet I want them to go to a flat tax (the "You made X, multiply that times Y, then send that in) post card return, which would kill my industry and my job. I WANT THEM TO DO THAT !!!
I'd be totally cool with a flat tax % and no deductions other than a standard deduction for single and standard deduction for joint. Capital gains are taxed as normal income. Drop the income cap on SSN and double the quarters. Inheritance=income also.
-
This is something I've pondered on myself - same kind of thing with residential real estate, where an influx of money by people using housing as an investment product causes values to be inflated. Which sticks it to people who are buying houses to meet the basic necessity of shelter.
Seattle real estate is the very definition of this these days: investors from the People's Republic of China buying up houses, primarily as investments, secondarily as a way to have a foot in the States in case of political upheaval in the PRC. In some cases, they have a child or two stay in the house while going to college in the States.
-
I favor the flat tax as well overall. The progressive tax structure is too open for abuse or what I consider abuse.
-
On first pass this may drop me into the 25% bracket.
Maybe not so great for me.
Uh, Remember that tax rates are marginal. You pay the lower interest rates on the lower portions of income.
You wouldn't pay 25% on everything if you enter that bracket.
Doubling the standard deduction and eliminating a few tax deductions will mean vast swaths of people will take the deduction rather than itemize, a net savings for everybody because it's drastically less paper.
I like the idea of capping the home mortgage deduction, should actually put some downward pressure on home prices to be $500k or less.
-
The mortgage deduction is a blatant handout, not so much to We the People as to the banks. It amounts to an interest rate subsidy. I think it needs to go, but I will be surprised if it does. The banks are very powerful.
-
Well they have restored the adoption tax credit, but still nothing on health care deductions. Dammit. Like Scout, I want medical expenses deductible from the first dollar.
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/11/09/yes-gop-changes-tax-reform-bill-to-include-restoration-of-adoption-tax-credit/
-
Well they have restored the adoption tax credit, but still nothing on health care deductions. Dammit. Like Scout, I want medical expenses deductible from the first dollar.
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/11/09/yes-gop-changes-tax-reform-bill-to-include-restoration-of-adoption-tax-credit/
Also apparently graduate students on assistantships with tuition wavers are pitching a fit too.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/lMqx5XW.jpg)
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/i-dont-feel-wealthy-the-upper-middle-class-is-worried-about-paying-for-the-tax-overhaul/2017/11/09/a5cf1acc-c55e-11e7-aae0-cb18a8c29c65_story.html?utm_term=.48b39b3f9681
I guess that we are in the upper middle class bracket, so I will be interested to see the impact on us.
-
That's not new. Dems have fought to make sure folks under X pay next to nothing in income taxes (or make money off income tax return) and Dems/Repubs have fought to make sure plenty of tax loopholes exist if you make a couple mill. If you make more than $50k, but less than a million or whatnot, you're the one shouldering the load.
-
Sounds like this isn't going to happen, Senate and House are having different ideas.
-
Sounds like this isn't going to happen, Senate and House are having different ideas.
Agreed. The Senate version is significantly different than that of the House. I think that was done so the two can't possibly be reconciled, and the "Never Trump!" Republicans can score another win.
-
Agreed. The Senate version is significantly different than that of the House. I think that was done so the two can't possibly be reconciled, and the "Never Trump!" Republicans can score another win.
Both have a lot of issues and there is a push back from a big enough portion of the public (that may vote)
-
I think a fair plan would be to tax every person 10% of all of their income minus a personal exemption of $12,000. You could do that on a post card.
-
Both have a lot of issues and there is a push back from a big enough portion of the public (that may vote)
Also true, and likely done for the same reasons. Both are crappy bills.
-
I think a fair plan would be to tax every person 10% of all of their income minus a personal exemption of $12,000. You could do that on a post card.
Not a bad idea, grampster. But the tax code is not, and never will be, about "fair". It will always be about controlling of those that pay taxes.
-
Not a bad idea, grampster. But the tax code is not, and never will be, about "fair". It will always be about controlling of those that pay taxes.
I wonder if that would even cover a lean federal budget? Some federal budget action/items go back to 1789.
-
Under the House plan, Dems are claiming that the poor will pay more tax.... I didn't think they paid any income tax now and got a handout every year which is why they race to the mail box or online to get their tax return in. Not right. It is just another subsidy.
I would like the corporate tax rate to go down a lot and cut out a lot of the loopholes that I don't even know exist. Make capital expense (equipment and so forth) completely deductible as an expense in one year if the business wants it that way or spread it out over a couple years. This would encourage a lot of investment.
I'd like the rate to be such that all the money by US companies from overseas comes flooding in. They have to do something with it.
The people in NJ, NY, and CA are kicking over the cap on state tax deduction. The deduction artificially inflates the rates. Things need to be simple simple that even Trump can't get around.
Should be keep depreciation of assets in the system? Don't know. It's pretty ingrained into the business tax system. If that was dumped... it would completely change the playing field. Maybe for example apartment complex owners won't sell after they depreciate the asset and then it starts all over again with a new owner. I want stability and common sense to rule the day.
-
The people in NJ, NY, and CA are kicking over the cap on state tax deduction. The deduction artificially inflates the rates. Things need to be simple simple that even Trump can't get around.
Something they shouldn't be kicking over. Both them and the pols (on both sides of the aisle). My understanding is that you can still deduct up to $10K SALT under both house and senate plans. Same with property tax. That's clearly a middle class tax cut. Barring very expensive urban centers, you've got to be making a good chunk of money, or have a very expensive house to top that $10K.
I think too often people (not people on APS, but the sheep population) look at these deductions as money that's being taken away from them, versus money that just changes their AGI from $100K to $90K. That certainly can change their tax bracket if they are near a line*, but it's more like maybe $1K extra taxes to pay, which may or may not be balanced out by other stuff in the final plan.
*Another reason I wish we could go to a flat tax, which would truly be "progressive". It always bugs me that a $1000 change in income can make a significant change in the taxes you pay if it throws you into one tax bracket or another if you are on the line. Paying 10% flat on both $90K and $100K smooths that out.
-
*Another reason I wish we could go to a flat tax, which would truly be "progressive". It always bugs me that a $1000 change in income can make a significant change in the taxes you pay if it throws you into one tax bracket or another if you are on the line.
I don't think that works the way you think it works.
https://www.thesimpledollar.com/dont-fear-the-higher-tax-bracket-or-why-a-reader-needs-more-cowbell/
-
Something they shouldn't be kicking over. Both them and the pols (on both sides of the aisle). My understanding is that you can still deduct up to $10K SALT under both house and senate plans. Same with property tax. That's clearly a middle class tax cut. Barring very expensive urban centers, you've got to be making a good chunk of money, or have a very expensive house to top that $10K.
If they double the standard deduction, it makes almost any deduction for the rich, because they'll be the only ones with enough deductible expenses to beat it. The current home deduction, for example, ends up being a giant giveaway for the rich. It is a major reason why anybody with a mansion will always keep it mortgaged to the hilt, because why not? Free money. A loan at, oh, 3% or so ends up being closer to 2% after you hit the 33% tax bracket at about $200k. 2% is lower than inflation most of the time, which makes it literally free money. Advantages only increase as you get into the 39.6% rate.
I think too often people (not people on APS, but the sheep population) look at these deductions as money that's being taken away from them, versus money that just changes their AGI from $100K to $90K. That certainly can change their tax bracket if they are near a line*, but it's more like maybe $1K extra taxes to pay, which may or may not be balanced out by other stuff in the final plan.
This is a problem. Deductions just don't help much if you're in, say, the 10% bracket, because you still pay 90%. It's why I prefer credits if the government MUST subsidize something.
For example, let's take solar power subsidies. As a deduction, you putting solar panels on your roof as a middle class person with a marginal tax rate of 25%*, means that a $40k install has the feds paying you $10k to do it. If you're making closer to half a million, the government pays nearly $16k for you to put the exact same install in. I'd rather the feds just make it a credit at 25%. If they MUST do it, of course.
*Another reason I wish we could go to a flat tax, which would truly be "progressive". It always bugs me that a $1000 change in income can make a significant change in the taxes you pay if it throws you into one tax bracket or another if you are on the line. Paying 10% flat on both $90K and $100K smooths that out.
That's not how taxes work. It's more like:
10%, from 0 to 10k
15% from 10k to 38k
etc...
Make $11k and you pay $1k for your first $10k of income, then another $150 for the $1k left.
Marginal tax rate: 15% (If you earn $1 more, what percent are you paying?)
Effective tax rate: 10.5%
-
Is there any example where a tax cut to the wealthy/business that made a significant job growth and payroll taxes covered the cut?
The more I look at the house and senate plans, seems like we are going to be hosed. Appears that in time the deficit is going to be so great that taxes will be raised and services cut.
-
Is there any example where a tax cut to the wealthy/business that made a significant job growth and payroll taxes covered the cut?
The more I look at the house and senate plans, seems like we are going to be hosed. Appears that in time the deficit is going to be so great that taxes will be raised and services cut.
Has there ever been a tax cut that did NOT increase tax revenues from the resulting growth in the economy ??
(Hint: No. )
-
Is there any example where a tax cut to the wealthy/business that made a significant job growth and payroll taxes covered the cut?
Not that I'm aware of. Now, a tax cut to businesses would help, I think, because we're so far above the other nations. It's a significant tax on retirement investments and such.
That said, businesses don't expand and the wealthy don't invest unless they think they can get their money back, so when looking to stimulate the economy you need to always consider where the economy is lacking - supply or demand.
All the supply stimulus in the world won't do jack if there isn't enough demand seen to consume said supply. On the other hand, it doesn't matter how much demand there is if there isn't enough supply to go around, prices will merely rise to provide the same amount of supply.
I generally see demand stimulus as being better, because if you stimulate demand, supply WILL rise so long as there is credit available to borrow to increase supply.
Poor people, allowed to keep more of their own money, will tend to spend it, stimulating the economy faster and more reliably than giving rich people money.
Personally, I look at our historically low interest rates, and see the country and world awash in money looking for investments. Even at near 0% interest rates, there just aren't enough business cases out there that have rewards considerate with the risks.
So, supply is taken care of. Demand is what needs work.
The more I look at the house and senate plans, seems like we are going to be hosed. Appears that in time the deficit is going to be so great that taxes will be raised and services cut.
Yeah, balance the freaking budget dudes.
Has there ever been a tax cut that did NOT increase tax revenues from the resulting growth in the economy ??
Lots of them. In many cases the growth would have happened anyways. That said, deficit spending and the resulting interest that must be paid can create a false economy if the extra interest consumes the extra tax revenue and more.
We must always intelligently fight fraud, waste, and abuse. We need to cut spending before cutting taxes too much further.
-
Has there ever been a tax cut that did NOT increase tax revenues from the resulting growth in the economy ??
(Hint: No. )
Example (s) please.
-
balance the freaking budget dudes.
hahahaha :laugh: no.
That's a thing you worry about when the other party is in power, duh!
-
Example (s) please.
(https://blogs-images.forbes.com/mikepatton/files/2012/10/Federal-Revenue-Tax-Brackets5.png)
-
(https://blogs-images.forbes.com/mikepatton/files/2012/10/Federal-Revenue-Tax-Brackets5.png)
Doesn't mean a thing when you don't adjust receipts for the population. Also, the curve looks more like it doesn't care what the top marginal bracket is, more or less.
Why would the top marginal bracket matter all that much? Only a tiny fraction of people ever paid it, and usually only on a tiny amount of income.
I think that a more important graph to check would be something like gross receipts compared to average personal tax rate.
-
Poor people, allowed to keep more of their own money, will tend to spend it, stimulating the economy faster and more reliably than giving rich people money.
Ugh. OK, I'll concede that point insofar as we're discussing the low end of the consumer economy. Walmart, etc will probably do better in that case, but in terms of the overall economy that is not correct. Poor people, as you state, will tend to spend that money more so than rich people. Because rich people will invest it. Something that actually expands the economy long term.
Personally, I look at our historically low interest rates, and see the country and world awash in money looking for investments. Even at near 0% interest rates, there just aren't enough business cases out there that have rewards considerate with the risks.
So, supply is taken care of. Demand is what needs work.
If demand isn't there, it is most likely because prices are too high. Giving people more money isn't anywhere near as economically efficient as changing the environment that is causing those prices to be so high. It's more likely that punitive (or protective if you're already the big dog in the yard) regulations are the culprit for the lack of investment than supply being saturated. With less barriers to entry new participants in the marketplace will enter and be able to make use of those investment dollars looking for a place to go.
We must always intelligently fight fraud, waste, and abuse. We need to cut spending before cutting taxes too much further.
No quibbles on that statement.
-
If they double the standard deduction, it makes almost any deduction for the rich, because they'll be the only ones with enough deductible expenses to beat it. The current home deduction, for example, ends up being a giant giveaway for the rich. It is a major reason why anybody with a mansion will always keep it mortgaged to the hilt, because why not? Free money. A loan at, oh, 3% or so ends up being closer to 2% after you hit the 33% tax bracket at about $200k. 2% is lower than inflation most of the time, which makes it literally free money. Advantages only increase as you get into the 39.6% rate.
This is a problem. Deductions just don't help much if you're in, say, the 10% bracket, because you still pay 90%. It's why I prefer credits if the government MUST subsidize something.
Most people that itemize are not doubling whatever their standard deduction would be. Most a maybe a thousand or a couple thousand over what their standard deduction would normally be. $6300 for a Single person and $12,600 for Married, $9,300 for Head of Household. First, you need a mortgage, so for average middle class you're looking a $3,000 to $7,000 in mortgage interest. Property taxes average $5,000 for a house, $2500 for a condo. Illinois (now) has a 5% flat tax on income and throw in a couple hundred in charitable contributions. Then you are a grand or so over the threshold to itemize. (Yes, I didn't include medical expenses. Only those out-of-pocket expenses greater then 10% of your income are deductible. So need to have been pretty sick and not have had insurance.)
Most the time people itemizing are mostly barely over the Standard Deduction amounts. Maybe $2,000-$3,000 at the most. Doubling the standard deduction would give most people a huge tax cut.
-
I pay not quit e $12k in mortgage interest, have 4 kids, etc. I bet doubling the standard deduction would still be better for me. I
-
Some of us bunch our deductions in alternate years in order to get more deductions. Real estate taxes for one, but I am considering starting a Donor Advised Fund so I can bunch my charitable contributions as well (it's like an HSA for giving).
-
I think a fair plan would be to tax every person 10% of all of their income minus a personal exemption of $12,000. You could do that on a post card.
That's the way it should be done. A few election cycles back, Steve Forbes campaigned on a flat rate platform. IIRC he thought 15 percent was the right number.
Correction: his number was 17 percent.
-
Some of us bunch our deductions in alternate years in order to get more deductions. Real estate taxes for one, but I am considering starting a Donor Advised Fund so I can bunch my charitable contributions as well (it's like an HSA for giving).
And of course the big charitable organizations will be up in arms if any tax plan eliminates deductions for charitable giving. Because then donations would actually be charity, rather than a tax strategy.
-
Doesn't mean a thing when you don't adjust receipts for the population. Also, the curve looks more like it doesn't care what the top marginal bracket is, more or less.
Why would the top marginal bracket matter all that much? Only a tiny fraction of people ever paid it, and usually only on a tiny amount of income.
I think that a more important graph to check would be something like gross receipts compared to average personal tax rate.
What I was going to say, I really don't see what I was asking about either.
-
Most people that itemize are doubling whatever their standard deduction would be. Most a maybe a thousand or a couple thousand over what their standard deduction would normally be. $6300 for a Single person and $12,600 for Married, $9,300 for Head of Household.
Current law includes a standard deduction of $6,350 along with a personal exemption of $4,050. The proposed law gets rid of the personal exemption, but increases the standard deduction to $12,000. So let's say the net deduction increases by $1,600.
They aren't talking about the personal exemption going away.
-
I think a better way to stimulate the economy is start breaking up the large holding companies (like Berkshire Hathaway), that way the amount of upper level management will expand and start to move the money around to other groups. Maybe instead of looking at how much market share (monopoly), but look at % of GDP a company controls in total.
Not going to fight a global market, some parts of the economy is going to go to the lowest bidder and there is always a lower bidder.
-
I think a better way to stimulate the economy is start breaking up the large holding companies (like Berkshire Hathaway), that way the amount of upper level management will expand and start to move the money around to other groups. Maybe instead of looking at how much market share (monopoly), but look at % of GDP a company controls in total.
I think it would be good to break up the big tech companies like Google and Apple... they have WAY too much power in my opinion.
-
Rather than forecably breaking them up I'd favor changing the regulatory environment to encourage more competition. Let the markets decide if they should be that big. Just make sure the already big guys can't exert influence on retailers, banking/capital sources, suppliers, etc to keep the upstarts from succeeding.
-
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order. Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account.
-
Ugh. OK, I'll concede that point insofar as we're discussing the low end of the consumer economy. Walmart, etc will probably do better in that case, but in terms of the overall economy that is not correct. Poor people, as you state, will tend to spend that money more so than rich people. Because rich people will invest it. Something that actually expands the economy long term.
Except that rich people don't invest where they don't see profit. Crazy low interest rates indicate an economy where there's plenty of capital floating around to invest, it's just that it can't find much to invest in.
If demand isn't there, it is most likely because prices are too high. Giving people more money isn't anywhere near as economically efficient as changing the environment that is causing those prices to be so high. It's more likely that punitive (or protective if you're already the big dog in the yard) regulations are the culprit for the lack of investment than supply being saturated. With less barriers to entry new participants in the marketplace will enter and be able to make use of those investment dollars looking for a place to go.
I'm not going to object to that, I'll just point out that there are multiple ways to manipulate the economy. Keeping regulations manageable is always a concern, but relatively speaking, that's scalpel work, while tax rates are a hammer. Sometimes the hammer is simply the better tool for the situation.
Most the time people itemizing are mostly barely over the Standard Deduction amounts. Maybe $2,000-$3,000 at the most. Doubling the standard deduction would give most people a huge tax cut.
Which is it? Most people are doubling the standard deduction, or are mostly barely over? That said, I agree with you except for one thing: The elimination of the personal exemption. Which is $4k per person, vs the $6.3k deduction.(All figures for single people) Doubling the deduction and eliminating the exemption only puts people(Under $262k at least), ahead $2.3k in reducing taxable income. That's assuming they don't currently itemize. If they currently itemize more than $10.3k of deductions but less than $16.6k, then their taxable income is going up!
As for the home mortgage exemption, that's why I said having home mortgages be deductible is a giveaway to the rich, because it's the rich who have big enough mortgages to drastically pop the standard deduction, as in it's more than doubled right then and there. While there are plenty of middle class people taking the mortgage deduction, as you note, most of the time they barely get over the standard deduction, so doubling it would cause many of them to go to the standard deduction, at which point they lose all advantage from the mortgage deduction. I get close each year, but don't manage to bust the standard deduction, so while I have a mortgage, I don't benefit.
I'd rather do something like eliminate the mortgage deduction, and increase the personal exemption to something like $6k, call it "housing and food allowance". $500/month per person should cover the "mandatory minimum" cost of living stuff for people not living alone.
Some of us bunch our deductions in alternate years in order to get more deductions. Real estate taxes for one, but I am considering starting a Donor Advised Fund so I can bunch my charitable contributions as well (it's like an HSA for giving).
You can do that? I only pay ~$3k in interest, and ~2.2k in property taxes. I only got to itemize like my first 2 years of owning the house. 3.25% interest and under $100k left. I mean, I should probably get a home equity loan and just invest if I can get 3.25% interest because it's deductible and I'm clearing 10% on my investments, but I want my place paid off!
Charby - You say that the proposed law gets rid of the personal exemption, which I have seen as well, then you say "they aren't talking about the personal exemption going away"?
Sumpnz - I agree with you. I don't think breaking up holding companies is the answer. I think encouraging more competition is. Making it easier to enter the market by relaxing regulation would be step one. Starting with internet service providers is one I'm personally interested in, as a computer programmer the internet is a big deal, and I see the current crop doing things like making cooperative startups illegal rather than addressing that it's their utterly horrible service that is causing residents to rise up and try to make competition.
-
I mean no one from the GOP is talking about that deduction going away, kind if a bait and switch.
-
I mean no one from the GOP is talking about that deduction going away, kind if a bait and switch.
Okay, that makes sense. Given the way personal exemptions and deductions work, I rate the exemption as superior to standard deduction. Mainly because you still get the exemption if you itemize.
So yeah, it's a big bait and switch.
Just had another thought - head of household. The HoH gets an exemption for each dependent, but the standard deductible remains the standard deductible. Probably a near universal tax increase on them.
-
Also appears only 0.2% of all estates are subject to the current inheritance tax. Yeah, we don't need that to be expired, really only applies to the mega rich.
I hope this Tax change fails today. This is being coming the GOP version of the Democrats trying to ban certain firearms.
Or maybe it will pass and will cause a massive NO vote against the GOP in Nov 2018.
-
Also appears only 0.2% of all estates are subject to the current inheritance tax. Yeah, we don't need that to be expired, really only applies to the mega rich.
I hope this Tax change fails today. This is being coming the GOP version of the Democrats trying to ban certain firearms.
Or maybe it will pass and will cause a massive NO vote against the GOP in Nov 2018.
It doesn't apply to the mega-rich because they use all the legal means (trusts, foundations, etc...) to avoid the tax.
Although its a small number, family farms and family owned businesses tend to get the worst of this tax.
-
It doesn't apply to the mega-rich because they use all the legal means (trusts, foundations, etc...) to avoid the tax.
Although its a small number, family farms and family owned businesses tend to get the worst of this tax.
Farms do the same thing, family businesses should.
-
Farms do the same thing, family businesses should.
Farms often do the same thing.
And, no, they shouldn't. It is a great evil to tax a family's assets simply because the owner died. If you admit it is a bad idea to force the sale of a small business because the owner died, then the tax code ought to reflect that. Not, "well, they ought to take expensive legal steps and jump through bureaucratic loopholes so the government doesn't screw them and their employees over in the case of an unexpected death!"
-
Farms often do the same thing.
And, no, they shouldn't. It is a great evil to tax a family's assets simply because the owner died. If you admit it is a bad idea to force the sale of a small business because the owner died, then the tax code ought to reflect that. Not, "well, they ought to take expensive legal steps and jump through bureaucratic loopholes so the government doesn't screw them and their employees over in the case of an unexpected death!"
If you're business is worth more than $5.5M and you're not incorporated (or with a trust) you're an idiot. Just asking to loose everything in a liability lawsuit.
There is no free lunch in the country, just because you don't like or use a government service, doesn't mean millions of others use it or need it.
-
Incorporating does nothing for inheritance issues.
-
Incorporating does nothing for inheritance issues.
Depends how you write the rules of incorporation.
-
It appears they'll have the votes for an amended version that includes more and different rates. With just a cursory look at the new rates, for me, it looks like either a wash or a bit helpful depending on what the income ranges are. I have to see if they have done anything with dividends and capital gains, as that could have a detrimental effect on me.
Corker is the lone R holdout, out of spite it appears.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/02/senate-passes-major-tax-reform-package.html
-
And it's coming out that other than reducing the corporate tax rate it's more or less a wash?
-
The corporate tax rate is a huge deal, wish we could have a standalone bill to shine a light on it, but then again people are stupid so it would just be arglebargle bargle rich 1% evil Baron overlord Trump's cronies in the news. Nevermind that if you lower the rate you reduce the spread between compliance and the profit of dodging and more people pay. Same with personal tax too. Then maybe if we don't have the highest first world corporate tax some companies create jobs that the rest of us can get taxed on.
-
Holy hell. Every single thing the R's get passed involves the death of millions or now, Armageddon. I would normally say, "Do these people know how ridiculous they sound?", but apparently, they have a captive audience believing them. Maybe, sad to say, it is time for NK to drop a nuke on us so that people get perspective back on what suffering and hardship really are.
When a tax bill is the end of the world, it's time for RKL's plague.
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2017/12/04/oh-the-humanity-nancy-pelosi-takes-the-prize-for-hottest-tax-reform-take/
-
...and I feel fine !!!!
For RKL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhH1chIk9_0
And as reference, (With lyrics, so you can sing along): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhH1chIk9_0
-
Holy hell. Every single thing the R's get passed involves the death of millions or now, Armageddon. I would normally say, "Do these people know how ridiculous they sound?", but apparently, they have a captive audience believing them. Maybe, sad to say, it is time for NK to drop a nuke on us so that people get perspective back on what suffering and hardship really are.
When a tax bill is the end of the world, it's time for RKL's plague.
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2017/12/04/oh-the-humanity-nancy-pelosi-takes-the-prize-for-hottest-tax-reform-take/
A SMOD would suffice as well.
-
A little Irony with the current tax bills
http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/06/investing/coal-tax-cuts-robert-murray-trump/index.html