Tax Bill

[Weganator]

12 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Not sure i trust a calculator created by a Fox News contributor. Will wait for one from the Tax Policy Center. 

 

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/macroeconomic-analysis-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-passed-senate-finance-committee

 

The Tax Policy Center has released an analysis of the macroeconomic effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as passed by the Senate Finance Committee on November 16, 2017. We find the legislation would boost US gross domestic product (GDP) 0.7 percent in 2018, have little effect on GDP in 2027, and boost GDP 0.1 percent in 2037. The resulting increase in taxable incomes would reduce the revenue loss arising from the legislation by $179 billion from 2018 to 2027. Because most of the tax cuts expire after 2025, we expect deficits (not including interest costs) would decline from 2028 to 2037 and macroeconomic feedback would boost the deficit savings by $34 billion over that interval. Including macroeconomic effects and interest costs, the legislation is projected to increase debt as a share of GDP by over 5 percent in 2027 and by over 4 percent in 2037.

 

Its math. Either its wrong, which is definitely possible, or it isn't. The difference between these two will be in editorializing the results.

 

I am aware they don't like it, they have made that abundantly clear. I want them to verify the accuracy of what I might be getting back.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Rdskns2000 said:

A business isn't going to all of sudden invest all that money in hiring new workers

Having more money definitely factors in expanding business, boosting R&D, and easing compensation (even if it's not visible in take home pay) 

 

The problem is, according the Atlantic artic I read a few hours ago, the Republicans math factor this at 80% of the money going towards this while non-partisan organizations studying this sort of stuff peg it at around 20%

 

It's not that it doesn't happen. It's just that it isn't nearly at the level they claim it is to justify paying for their tax cuts.

 

And they know that, because majority of these people aren't stupid. It's just that the people who vote for them are easily fooled because the tax code and economics in general is not well understood by them.

[PleaseBlitz]

2 minutes ago, Weganator said:

 

Its math. Either its wrong, which is definitely possible, or it isn't. The difference between these two will be in editorializing the results.

 

I am aware they don't like it, they have made that abundantly clear. I want them to verify the accuracy of what I might be getting back.

 

Agree. 

 

Personally, according to that calculator, I make out okay, especially under the Senate bill. But that is only for the first year. I still think this bill sucks for macroeconomic reasons (i.e. i think the country is getting ****ed so billionaires can have more billions). 

[tshile]

27 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Mortgage interest only has minor effects.  You can claim the interest on the first 1 million dollars owed (Down from 1.1 million), Property Taxes and SALT is now largely unaffected for the vast majority of people as you can claim up to $10,000 of it  (Over 85% of Itemizers don't reach that).

 

So the losers for deductions are those that have Mortgages between $1 million and $1.1 million and those who pay more than $10K in taxes for property, state and sales.

 

Itemizing in New Jersey which is one of the worst states (if not worst) for taxes the average itemizer would lose about $1000-1500 in deductions (probably raise his tax bill about by $150-$200 -  but then he gains with the reduction in rates so yeah his taxes would be lower (significantly lower).  (Average Property Tax in NJ is about $8500, Income $1600, Sales $1000-1500)

 

I'm happy with that.

 

I don't know if 10k is the right place to draw the line. It benefits me, but generally I don't know if that's the best place for it.

 

At some point, your state and local taxes are going to things other people aren't getting. So you shouldn't just not owe federal taxes for that.

 

I don't know where the line should be drawn and I'm open to arguments for raising or lowering it.  I'm not against the general idea.

[Hersh]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

Right, because your business that employs 20-30 people at 4m a year revenue isn't the target.

You don't have 10m in overseas accounts from your overseas ventures that you're waiting for a lower rate to bring back to the country.

 

I'm not saying you should like it or that it's a good plan. I have my own issues with it. 

 

But your scenario doesn't in any way apply. They're not discussing your company. They're discussing companies like Apple, Microsoft, ge, and others that have money overseas that they want back in the states.

 

 

I heard a good debunking of the argument that overseas money will be invested in various R&D projects, etc. First, none of these giant companies are strapped for cash in America. Second, at any point a company could borrow against that cash sitting there to use here. 

[HOF44]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I'm happy with that.

 

I don't know if 10k is the right place to draw the line. It benefits me, but generally I don't know if that's the best place for it.

 

 

 

 

I was just under 16K for State taxes plus real estate taxes last year.  Like i said not looking good for me.  

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

I was just under 16K for State taxes plus real estate taxes last year.  Like i said not looking good for me.  

Yeah, I don't know where the line should be drawn.

 

It's also a question of what you're getting for that 16k.

 

Your money is paying for schools, infrastructure, emergency services. In some areas local tax includes recycling. 

 

So you get stuff for that money.

 

Meanwhile someone paying 1k in taxes doesn't have access to those things.

 

So why should you get your federal tax burden decreased when you're also getting all these other things?

 

In the flip side - the person paying 1k should vote for people that find a way to move your tax burden from the federal level to the state level so you see an actual return on those dollars as they are directly spent in your community.

 

I don't think it's a cut and dry argument. I think both sides have valid points. 

 

I think capping it is a good idea. I don't know what the cap should be.

 

Also - is this *all* state and local taxes? Real estate, property, and income? Cause my obligation changes quite a bit depending on that...

[HOF44]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

Yeah, I don't know where the line should be drawn.

 

It's also a question of what you're getting for that 16k.

 

Your money is paying for schools, infrastructure, emergency services. In some areas local tax includes recycling. 

 

So you get stuff for that money.

 

Meanwhile someone paying 1k in taxes doesn't have access to those things.

 

So why should you get your federal tax burden decreased when you're also getting all these other things?

 

In the flip side - the person paying 1k should vote for people that find a way to move your tax burden from the federal level to the state level so you see an actual return on those dollars as they are directly spent in your community.

 

I don't think it's a cut and dry argument. I think both sides have valid points. 

 

I think capping it is a good idea. I don't know what the cap should be.

 

Also - is this *all* state and local taxes? Real estate, property, and income? Cause my obligation changes quite a bit depending on that...

I don't mind my taxes increasing per se.  I have a problem when if I made a good amount more money they would decrease.  I've always thought that tax cuts/credits should go to the poorest.  Then up to the middle class, then upper middle, then wealthy.  If i was at the cut off and myself and everyone making more than me had to pay more I would be fine with it.  We've got a reverse Robin Hood thing going on here.  I'm no fan of it either.  

[Fergasun]

Re: SALT

Change on the code means there is no deduction for state and local taxes other than property taxes.  Only 10k of property taxes can be deducted.

 

I don't understand why it's not all, income, sales and property with a 10k cap, and I have argued that consistently.  It's crafted to hurt CA... but GOP never made a compelling argument why it should be limited to property tax.

[HOF44]

Just now, Fergasun said:

Re: SALT

Change on the code means there is no deduction for state and local taxes other than property taxes.  Only 10k of property taxes can be deducted.

 

I don't understand why it's not all, income, sales and property with a 10k cap, and I have argued that consistently.  It's crafted to hurt CA... but GOP never made a compelling argument why it should be limited to property tax.

I can't remember where but I read an article that this was a concession for Texas which has high real estate taxes and low/no income taxes.  Brought their senators on board.

[Fergasun]

To make it more clear.  Federal got is taxing us on money we paid to state.  This was a deduction because it is considered double taxation.

 

Oh, corporations did not lose this deduction.  Corporations won't be double taxed.

It is Texas...  but it was more for NJ or NY... 

[HOF44]

2 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

To make it more clear.  Federal got is taxing us on money we paid to state.  This was a deduction because it is considered double taxation.

 

Oh, corporations did not lose this deduction.  Corporations won't be double taxed.

It is Texas...  but it was more for NJ or NY... 

Any high value market really.  I thought NY, NJ was more concerned with the elimination of the state tax deduction than real estate, though I'm sure both were concerning to them.  

[nonniey]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Agree. 

 

Personally, according to that calculator, I make out okay, especially under the Senate bill. But that is only for the first year. I still think this bill sucks for macroeconomic reasons (i.e. i think the country is getting ****ed so billionaires can have more billions). 

Doesn't look like the Calculator was updated for Collins amendment.

[nonniey]

21 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

Re: SALT

Change on the code means there is no deduction for state and local taxes other than property taxes.  Only 10k of property taxes can be deducted.

 

I don't understand why it's not all, income, sales and property with a 10k cap, and I have argued that consistently.  It's crafted to hurt CA... but GOP never made a compelling argument why it should be limited to property tax.

Sen. Susan Collins‏Verified account @SenatorCollins Dec 1

More

The Senate tax bill will include my SALT amendment to allow taxpayers to deduct up to $10,000 for state and local property taxes.

 

- Looks like I misinterpreted this since she called it a SALT amendment - looks like just Property taxes.

Edited December 2, 2017 by nonniey

[LD0506]

[Hersh]

19 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Sen. Susan Collins‏Verified account @SenatorCollins Dec 1

More

The Senate tax bill will include my SALT amendment to allow taxpayers to deduct up to $10,000 for state and local property taxes.

 

- Looks like I misinterpreted this since she called it a SALT amendment - looks like just Property taxes.

 

Did she knowingly mislead or is she ignorant on the topic?

[HOF44]

35 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Did she knowingly mislead or is she ignorant on the topic?

My guess is ignorant.  A lot of the congresspeople are not very bright.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Share holder buy backs are going to be so lit in 2018 

[Grumpy Vet]

2 hours ago, Weganator said:

http://taxplancalculator.com

 

I didn't write this and I am looking to verify its accuracy. I got married this year which makes my savings a bit better than this thing can show.

 

Thanks for posting @Weganator

[Weganator]

6 minutes ago, Grumpy Vet said:

 

Thanks for posting @Weganator

No problem! Sorry it's not clear cut better you. I'm rooting for you in reconciliation.

[Grumpy Vet]

Nope - exactly what I was trying to find.  Have some family coming over tomorrow and I'm sure this will come up.  Like you said - if it goes through - during reconciliation - it would probably come to a middle ground of not a huge change for us.  I was trying to get a ballpark.  Some people coming over tomorrow will tell me I'm going to be paying $40K more in taxes next year and others will tell me that I'm going to have so much money - I won't know what to do w/ it all (once the corporations really get rolling).  It is interesting to see that it is somewhere in the middle.   Hope, whatever happens, the sage advice of a great coach resonates w/ all of you.  Stay Medium.

 

 

 

[NoCalMike]

This is Bush 43 1st term all over again.  GOP gets the White house and had a relatively decent economy left on his lap and the first thing the GOP decides is a great idea is to end all the forward positive momentum by cutting the taxes for the wealthy.  It eventually stalls out the economic progress, turns into a recession just in time for a Democratic rep to win the White House where we go back to the deficit mattering again and how a stimulus is a horrible approach, raising the taxes that are really just fixing the damaging cuts in the first place are railed against, even though they are never raised all the way back up to where they were previously. 

The only thing missing is a full on ground invasion of a middle-east country, but keep your eyes peeled as Trump has barely been in there a year.

[Burgold]

10 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

This is Bush 43 1st term all over again.  GOP gets the White house and had a relatively decent economy left on his lap and the first thing the GOP decides is a great idea is to end all the forward positive momentum by cutting the taxes for the wealthy.  It eventually stalls out the economic progress, turns into a recession just in time for a Democratic rep to win the White House where we go back to the deficit mattering again and how a stimulus is a horrible approach, raising the taxes that are really just fixing the damaging cuts in the first place are railed against, even though they are never raised all the way back up to where they were previously. 

The only thing missing is a full on ground invasion of a middle-east country, but keep your eyes peeled as Trump has barely been in there a year.

Someone wrote on Twitter that there have been only three times where the Republicans have controlled the Executive and both Legislative Houses of the federal government. The first time was the Great Depression. The second time was the Great Recession. The third time is now.

 

The most significant question for the US is will the Republican party finally **** things up so badly that the Democrats can't salvage it?

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 minutes ago, Burgold said:

 

The most significant question for the US is will the Republican party finally **** things up so badly that the Democrats can't salvage it?

Maybe it is just the cynic in me but I think the country was FUBAR a while ago.  It is a societal issue, not a Left or Right issue.

[Burgold]

8 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Maybe it is just the cynic in me but I think the country was FUBAR a while ago.  It is a societal issue, not a Left or Right issue.

Republicans are no longer a Left or Right issue, but a corrupt vs. evil issue. Okay, corrupt vs. evil vs. stupid. Not sure you can be a member of the modern GOP without being one of the above or a combination of one of the above.

 

There are good conservatives. I believe you're one. There are honorable conservatives. I know many. Are there any good or honorable politicians left in the GOP at the Federal level. I have my doubts.

 

(Probably exercising in hyperbole)