Tax Bill

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Why would they think anyone is happy about a temporary tax cut before it rises permanently in 10 years.

 

I do not understand that thinking

 

Their donors are very happy because their assets are in stocks.  The corporate tax cuts are permanent.  

[Bozo the kKklown]

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Their donors are very happy because their assets are in stocks.  The corporate tax cuts are permanent.  

Im well aware

 

Im talking about Joe and Moe and Jill who are just regular peeps.

[PleaseBlitz]

9 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Im well aware

 

Im talking about Joe and Moe and Jill who are just regular peeps.

 

It appear that R's believe that doing something, anything, even if it ****s over Joe and Moe and Jill, is better than doing nothing, which is what they have so-far accomplished.  But mostly the donors thing.  

Edited November 17, 2017 by PleaseBlitz

[Larry]

1). They absolutely have to cut taxes on corporations and the Koch brothers. It's what they were hired to do. 

 

2). In order to make it look like they aren't exploding the deficit, (they are. In fact, exploding the deficit is one of their objectives), they have to raise taxes on somebody. 

 

3). If they raise taxes right now, on Republican voters, said voters will punish them for it. 

 

4). Therefore, they need some way that they can raise taxes on people, that won't hurt them, politically. Raising taxes on people in California and New York, and PhD candidates, won't hurt them much, politically. 

[visionary]

 

[LD0506]

 

[PeterMP]

I still remember getting my first graduate school acceptance letter as a college senior in the the 1990s.  One of the first sentences was about how my total financial package was worth $54,000 a year.  Then I kept reading.  I actually was going make $14,000.

[visionary]

 

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

 

[visionary]

 

[No Excuses]

On 11/18/2017 at 10:01 AM, PeterMP said:

I still remember getting my first graduate school acceptance letter as a college senior in the the 1990s.  One of the first sentences was about how my total financial package was worth $54,000 a year.  Then I kept reading.  I actually was going make $14,000.

 

My PhD stipend was around 30,000. My tuition "waiver" was 50,000. 

 

No way I could have done my PhD if I was being taxed at an income of $80,000.

On 11/17/2017 at 3:10 PM, tshile said:

obviously the GOP has seen the demographic reports on voter turn out

 

the uneducated vote gop

so

let's go after education

 

They are going after the education of middle class and anyone below. 

 

They are perfectly fine with an educational model, in which the wealthy have incredible options for their children, and everyone else has to make soul crushing decisions.

[TheGreatBuzz]

My wife is using my GI Bill to get her Masters.  I have no clue how that will affect our taxes but that is for her to figure out.  After all, she is the one that is smarter apparently.  

[visionary]

 

[bearrock]

14 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

My wife is using my GI Bill to get her Masters.  I have no clue how that will affect our taxes but that is for her to figure out.  After all, she is the one that is smarter apparently.  

 

I recently read a post about a family where the wife taught the husband bunch of ways to stream TV and the husband promptly forgot it.  I wonder who the smart one is in that family. 

[PleaseBlitz]

17 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

My PhD stipend was around 30,000. My tuition "waiver" was 50,000. 

 

No way I could have done my PhD if I was being taxed at an income of $80,000.

 

 

About the same for my law degree.  And i was already living hand to mouth, and my wife was working full time and supporting us.

 

But hey, its not like this country has a huge deficit of STEM education in comparison to other countries or anything.  

[Springfield]

Can someone give me a brief description of what happened to the mortgage interest deduction with this bill?

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Can someone give me a brief description of what happened to the mortgage interest deduction with this bill?

 

It cuts the max deduction in half, from $1MM to $500k for houses bought after the bill passes.  I believe that if you already own your home, it won't apply until you buy another house.  

Edited November 20, 2017 by PleaseBlitz

[nonniey]

So now that we have 14 pages of what is bad about the Bill.  What is in it that you think is good?

[Springfield]

3 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

It cuts the max deduction in half, from $1MM to $500k.  If your mortgage is less than $500k, it won't impact you (unless you get a mortgage in the future for more than that).  

 

So say I’ve paid $20,000-$30,000 in interest this year.  No change for me then.

 

Correct?

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, Springfield said:

 

So say I’ve paid $20,000-$30,000 in interest this year.  No change for me then.

 

Correct?

 

No, it applies to the amount of mortgage debt, not the amount of interest paid.  

[tshile]

29 minutes ago, nonniey said:

So now that we have 14 pages of what is bad about the Bill.  What is in it that you think is good?

Limiting tax payer funding to NFL team stadiums is good.

I like the idea of simplifying the tax code

I like the idea of increasing the standard deduction, but I think people seem confused about that part so it's created a problem

Cutting the mortgage interest cap from 1m to 500k is good

I like limiting the number of children you can claim, but I'm not sure if 1 (with a 2 parent household) was the right number

 

I'm probably going to piss people off here because most people that have posted about it have done so because they're very much against it... i don't mind the effort to curtail the academic stuff... i'm all about pumping money into grade school, but I think there is a good argument to be made that part of the reasons college is so expensive is because the gov't has worked to make it easier for so many people to get funding for it. I also think the university system is out of control in terms of what they chart, for what they offer, etc. They've been allowed to collect a lot of money from students that are making a terrible investment in terms of ROI, and gov't programs have only helped make that worse than it should be.  

 

That's all i can think of right now.

[Springfield]

44 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

No, it applies to the amount of mortgage debt, not the amount of interest paid.  

 

So I have more than $500k in mortgage debt.  What now?

[PleaseBlitz]

So, i looked at a more recent version of the House bill.  It actually only lowers the mortgage interest deduction from $1.1 million to $1 million.  It's a bit of a moving target right now with the House and Senate having different versions, and the Senate version still in flux.  

 

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

Limiting tax payer funding to NFL team stadiums is good.

I like the idea of simplifying the tax code

I like the idea of increasing the standard deduction, but I think people seem confused about that part so it's created a problem

Cutting the mortgage interest cap from 1m to 500k is good

I like limiting the number of children you can claim, but I'm not sure if 1 (with a 2 parent household) was the right number

 

 

A few thoughts on these:

 

The same provision that limits tax payer funding to NFL team stadiums also limits access to all infrastructure projects.  It's about debt financing.  So sure, cities can't build stadiums for rich NFL owners, but they also can't build an airport.  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-17/trump-vow-to-fix-third-world-u-s-airports-is-hurt-by-tax-bill

 

I, for one, DON'T like the idea of a simplified tax code.  The complexity is what allows the tax code to encourage certain behaviors.  For example, it is good for communities for people to own their homes, not rent.  It results in more stable neighborhoods where people know each other, and it is more economically beneficial.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrenceyun/2016/08/12/why-homeownership-matters/#3ee52127480f.  There are thousands of examples of this in the tax code.  In this case simple does not equal better.

 

As noted above, they may not cut the mortgage interest cap, but I don't know why anyone would think that is good unless they live in a rural area.  Doing this is just the republicans trying to stick it to liberals (who are more likely to live in cities or close-in suburbs where property is much more expensive). 

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Springfield said:

 

So I have more than $500k in mortgage debt.  What now?

 

Well, see my above post, it's not clear where this number is going to land.

 

BUT, if it does get cut to $500k, then if you have a mortgage of more than that, then that portion of interest is no longer tax deductible.  So if you have a $600k mortgage, you won't be able to deduct the interest on $100k worth of interest.  So, if you have a mortgage at 4.5%, before you would be able to deduct $2,700.  Now you will only get to deduct $2,250.  The final amount of dollars it ends up costing you will depend on your tax bracket.

[nonniey]

4 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

So I have more than $500k in mortgage debt.  What now?

You claim the interest on $500K of it.

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

The complexity is what allows the tax code to encourage certain behaviors.

Right, I get that. And I don't like it.

It's why we'll never have a flat tax with no deductions, which is my preferred model. It gets rid of the gov'ts ability to influence behavior.

 

It also lets them and the lobbyists hide their favors.

7 minutes ago, nonniey said:

You claim the interest on $500K of it.

yeah i haven't read the exact wording, but that would generally be how caps work.

 

although you could use the model that child care uses. a deduction of $x amount, unless you make over $y ammount - after $y the % of X you can claim goes down as you go up until you hit $z income a year then you can't claim anything.

Edited November 20, 2017 by tshile