Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Tax Bill


LadySkinsFan

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

Is mom responsible for any taxes in that case (Social security, etc)? Same boat for me... we weren’t sure but thought there was tax liability, so have been paying my mother in law under the table. 

 

If there's income of any kind, the IRS expects you to report it. If mom isn't already reporting the cash, then forming an LLC and claiming a deduction would indeed draw attention to her income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

Is mom responsible for any taxes in that case (Social security, etc)? Same boat for me... we weren’t sure but thought there was tax liability, so have been paying my mother in law under the table. 

 

Depends on how much she makes.  

 

 

And now, this

 

 

 

Edited by PleaseBlitz
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LadySkinsFan said:

It's not just the Trump tax bill, that responsibility rests on every ****ing Republican who voted for it.

 

Somebody has to pay for that deficit, might as well be well off Blue Staters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Springfield said:

 

I used my mom for daycare (I pay her, but it’s just cash) so I can’t claim that.  Even so, we were above the threshold to get any credits for our kids before.

 

The standard exemption for 4 people, lowered my taxable income by $16k under the old plan though.  Plus add in another $5k that I was able to claim from SALT... now my taxable income jumps up $20k this year.

 

20k because you also lost your mortgage interest, state income, and whatever else?

 

Edited by tshile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

I could've supported that.  Too bad it went to fund massive tax breaks for the extremely wealthy.

 

That's my take as well. Philosophically, I have no problem with the upper middle to lower upper class paying more, and I can see the argument that someone living in Alabama shouldn't have to subsidize the services of people in California.

 

The whole thing is ruined by the rest of it, though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, techboy said:

 

That's my take as well. Philosophically, I have no problem with the upper middle to lower upper class paying more, and I can see the argument that someone living in Alabama shouldn't have to subsidize the services of people in California.

 

The whole thing is ruined by the rest of it, though.

 

Really?  You can see the argument that someone living in a state which receives more federal money than it pays in "shouldn't have to subsidize" somebody who lives in a state that pays in more than it gets?  

 

:) 

 

That's almost as funny as the spokesman for the party which just intentionally doubled the deficit (by changing congress' rules so that deficits caused by their tax cuts don't have to be paid for) throwing out a one-sentence post beginning with "somebody has to pay for the deficit". 

Edited by Larry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Really?  You can see the argument that someone living in a state which receives more federal money than it pays in "shouldn't have to subsidize" somebody who lives in a state that pays in more than it gets?

 

That's a simplistic view that works on a bumper sticker but not as a nuanced argument.

 

The REASON that California pays in more than it gets back is that it is a wealthier state with wealthier people. We have a progressive tax system (though Trump is trying to change that), so this is how it's supposed to work.

 

Alabama taxes subsidizing California makes the system less progressive, not more.

 

It would be akin to saying that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet should get a tax break because they already pay so much more than the middle class.

 

Oh wait, that IS what Trump said.

 

You might want to rethink your position, one way or the other.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Yeah, mortgage interest.  It’s capped at a certain point, no?

750k

 

but the bigger issue for the rest of us I believe is that you have to exceed the standard deduction.

 

which used to be easy for us, but now the calt cap of 10k makes it harder. I hit 8k in real estate taxes. So, I’ve got a lot I’d normally use to itemize that I can’t anymore. 

 

Unless im misunderstanding the rules. I haven’t done mine yet. Still waiting on paperwork from stock broker, which I think is required to be delivered by mid February. I haven’t checked yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, techboy said:

 

That's a simplistic view that works on a bumper sticker but not as a nuanced argument.

 

The REASON that California pays in more than it gets back is that it is a wealthier state with wealthier people. We have a progressive tax system (though Trump is trying to change that), so this is how it's supposed to work.

 

Alabama taxes subsidizing California makes the system less progressive, not more.

 

It would be akin to saying that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet should get a tax break because they already pay so much more than the middle class.

 

Oh wait, that IS what Trump said.

 

You might want to rethink your position, one way or the other.

 

Yes, California is a wealthier state.  

 

No, that does not mean Alabama is subsidizing California.  

 

You want to use Gates and Buffet as an analogy?  I can go along with that.  

 

Don't try to claim that Joe Sixpack is tired of his taxes subsidizing them.  (And then accuse people who point out that it's not true of making simplistic bumper sticker arguments.)  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have SALT issues, but if it weren't for my kids I would've been unintentionally break even or owing ~$1500. I say this because I have 3 kids, so $6000, but I'm getting back ~$4500. Up until last 2017, the biggest refund I'd received was ~$400. Most years I owed slightly or got back like $75—not much. But last year, "out of the blue" we got $6K back—we over withheld (because my wife took a small cash disbursement from a pension) and we didn't get want to get nailed by any potential taxes and penalties. Plus, we had a ton of deductions in 2017.

 

To file my 2018 taxes, I'm using an accountant. I get a W2 and a couple 1099s so I need to get a handle on how much we need to set our W4s. Hope they don't say I have to make quarterly estimated payments. Seriously, **** that noise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, tshile said:

Should be 12k. 6k each kid up to two kids. 

 

Are you thinking of the child and dependent care credit?  But that's capped at $6,000 ($3,000 if only one).  Child tax credit is indeed $2,000.  Thanks kids!  I love you!  Not just cause of the money! (Money helps) 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Larry said:

(And then accuse people who point out that it's not true of making simplistic bumper sticker arguments.)  

 

Dude, the standard deduction was raised to 12,000 per person. That means a married couple filing jointly gets a $24,000 deduction, right off the bat. 

 

The person in California, or D.C., or New York, or whatever who is actually impacted by the SALT cap needs to have enough deductions to eclipse $24,000, and for them to be significantly impacted, it needs to be a lot more than that. Such a person is, if not wealthy, VERY well off.

 

The waitress in Mobile is not going to be affected by that, but yes, the attorney living in San Francisco probably is (sorry @Predicto).

 

If you give the attorney in San Francisco a tax break that the waitress in Mobile doesn't (and can't) get, then the waitress is subsidizing the attorney, even though the attorney is already paying WAY more in taxes than the waitress.

 

Likewise, if the law uncapped the deduction on mortgage interest so that billionaires could take deductions on the mortgages they would suddenly acquire for their mansions, that would mean that the rest of us would be subsidizing their estates, even though they pay WAY more than they get back.

 

If you don't like having your arguments called simplistic, don't make simplistic arguments with patronizing smileys.

 

 

Edited by techboy
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Are you thinking of the child and dependent care credit?  But that's capped at $6,000 ($3,000 if only one).  Child tax credit is indeed $2,000.  Thanks kids!  I love you!  Not just cause of the money! (Money helps) 

Love came standard with the birth. Appreciation comes with the tax credit. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...