Tax Bill

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

I didn't think about it that way.

 

I don't know. Are people who have kids that shouldn't even aware of what their tax rate is? I'm pretty much being an ass here, I'm aware. I'm not convinced I'm wrong though, yet.

You have to sell it to the dumb people.  Get a used car salesman and one of thise wacky waiving inflateable arm guys and make commercials "Uncle Sam will give you $500 a year every year that you dont have a child!"

[Fergasun]

There are a couple comments:

- Repeal of the estate tax tells me who this is targetted at

- Although standard deduction is doubled, personal exemptions are removed.  This hoses huge families (think quiverful movment)

- I just bought a house, not sure I could itemize if this plan goes through, especially with repeal of state and local exemptions.  This is ths big item that will harm middle class.

 

- They like to point to Regan tax cuts, but Bush cuts designed same way and not gonna work... also Regan cuts bipartisan.

 

I understand why they want a partisan plan, but GOP can never **** about deficit again.

 

Starving government like this is dumb... I would rather see GOP push through deficit reduction in a bipartisan way... oh wait, forgot they dont care.

 

[tshile]

NNevermind I'm confused

Edited September 28, 2017 by tshile

[Fergasun]

I only itemized once -- I had an inheritance and gave a huge charitable contribution and had huge medical bills.... I have been using standard.

 

I also got audited that year... BTW the IRS never followed up with me when I objected to their findings... so I have never had my audit closed I suppose, and I never asked them about it.  Basically 95% of my deductions were correct, and 1 of them was improper.  So I figure I will never be a political appointee...

 

But this year, I bought a house and live in a coastal state.  Since mortgage interest is frontloaded I would probably have enough plus state taxes (like property) in the next 3 years at least to itemize again.

 

Also, I have no problems to continue to use Turbotax... 

 

These tax cuts, like Bush will damage the country.  Do we have amnesia about how supply side does not work?  

 

Here's an experiment... how about cuf taxes on the middle class and pay for it with taxes on rich and see if that grows economy.  Slightly increase the estate tax....

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Itemize and calculate with standard deduction. This next year will be the last year I can itemize since I am selling my house. 

 

It will be interesting to see what I have to do about capital gains when I have to declare my house sale since I am not buying another.

 

Republicans don't care what happens to the country as long as they get to keep their money.  

Edited September 28, 2017 by LadySkinsFan

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Itemize and calculate with standard deduction. This next year will be the last year I can itemize since I am selling my house. 

 

It will be interesting to see what I have to do about capital gains when I have to declare my house sale since I am not buying another.

Nothing. Well, in most cases nothing

 

You get 250k in gains tax free so long as you lived in the house and you can claim that every 2 years. You don't have to buy another.

 

If you're filing jointly you can claim up to 500k.

 

I just sold my house and looked into it.

 

 

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/sale-of-residence-real-estate-tax-tips

 

It gets messy if you rented it and claimed depreciation 

Edited September 28, 2017 by tshile

[The Evil Genius]

The State and local sales tax repeal proposal is a just another **** you from the GOP to California and New York. All so the the 1% can get richer.

 

**** that ****.

[Fergasun]

9 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

The State and local sales tax repeal proposal is a just another **** you from the GOP to California and New York. All so the the 1% can get richer.

 

**** that ****.

LA times had a good article in that. How can GOP California House  members stand by this?

 

TBH why not phase it out at $150k to 250l?  The truth is that they don't care about the middle class.

 

Edit:  And TBH, phase out mortgage interest and charitable giving as well for "upper middle".

 

Edited September 28, 2017 by Fergasun

[skinsmarydu]

I'll pay half of what I do now.  I can assume that I'll receive half the services.

I can't imagine what would happen if the traffic lights only worked half of the time.

[Fergasun]

If I was a Democrat looking to compromise on this, this would be my.approach:

- Estate tax repeal must not be in, this is blatant tax cut for rich.

 

- If state/local tax deduction are on the table, so are charitable giving and mortgage interest deduction.  Don't eliminate, but phase out at higher incomes for all.   This is blatent red state on blue state attack (sickens me to see the right attack CA...).

 

- Dont go so far on marginal highest rate reduction.

- Dont go so far on corporate rate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rocky21]

Federal revenues would fall by $6.2 trillion over the first decade.   

 

The federal debt would rise by at least $7.0 trillion over the first decade and by at least $20.7 trillion by 2036. 

 

It’s a great plan.  It really is.  It’s huuuuuge.  It’s the best tax cut plan this country has ever seen. 

[srtman04]

So wait,  my tax will INCREASE from 28% to 33%?????  This isn't good for those who make 127K - 200K.........

[steve09ru]

46 minutes ago, srtman04 said:

So wait,  my tax will INCREASE from 28% to 33%?????  This isn't good for those who make 127K - 200K.........

only for earnings once you hit 127k through 199k - all of your earnings before you reach that will be reduced so overall there's be a decrease.

[srtman04]

Just now, steve09ru said:

only for earnings once you hit 127k through 199k - all of your earnings before you reach that will be reduced so overall there's be a decrease.

 

Yeah but still,  that sounds like a bad deal to have a tax increase in this particular bracket when everywhere else is a decrease!  How is this even remotely fair?  I was hoping for a tax cut, not a tax increase! 

[steve09ru]

10 minutes ago, srtman04 said:

 

Yeah but still,  that sounds like a bad deal to have a tax increase in this particular bracket when everywhere else is a decrease!  How is this even remotely fair?  I was hoping for a tax cut, not a tax increase! 

yep - adding it up, for someone making $200,500 and single - there would be an increase of $1,061.25

 

$175k you would see a decrease of 213.75

$150k you would see a decrease of 1,463.75

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

42 minutes ago, srtman04 said:

 

Yeah but still,  that sounds like a bad deal to have a tax increase in this particular bracket when everywhere else is a decrease!  How is this even remotely fair?  I was hoping for a tax cut, not a tax increase! 

 

Because when you reduce the total number of tax brackets, some people are going to go up, some down.  Here is a visualization of that concept, but it is based on his plan during the campaign so it probably doesn't line up with this plan, just a visualization of the concept.  The people in red are getting screwed, people in green are making out like champs.

 

35 minutes ago, steve09ru said:

yep - adding it up, for someone making $200,500 and single - there would be an increase of $1,061.25

 

$175k you would see a decrease of 213.75

$150k you would see a decrease of 1,463.75

 

 

 

Just want to note that I appreciate you actually doing the math on these.  Very helpful.  

[PleaseBlitz]

Predictably, Trump is claiming that he will not personally benefit if his tax overhaul passes, which is just complete bull****.  A reporter should just straight up ask him that, in the even that he and his heirs do benefit, will he donate that entire amount to charity.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/09/28/fact-checking-president-trumps-tax-speech-in-indianapolis/?utm_term=.2c7991d86d83

 

Quote

Trump:  “I’m doing the right thing and it’s not good for me, believe me. … We are also repealing the alternative minimum tax, or AMT.”

 

Trump’s claim that he would not benefit from the tax plan is not credible. Of course, he has not released his tax returns, so it is difficult to know for sure. But he is certainly subject to the AMT — and the one recent tax return that has been leaked, from 2005, shows that the AMT increased his tax bill from about $5.3 million to $36.5 million. So at least in that tax year, he potentially could have saved $31 million.

 
Eliminating the estate tax, meanwhile, is likely to benefit his heirs.

 

$31 million IN ONE YEAR is not good for him, he says!  WTF!

[The Evil Genius]

Since we itemize and we live in a state with higher than average state income tax, there is no true avenue for savings under this Trump plan.

 

Make no mistake. I have no problem paying taxes. Or seeing lowered tax rates for middle and lesser income tax brackets. I do have a problem with how this is being sold. A con man with a con job to **** over states his party cannot win anymore. And to make his fellow fatcats richer.

 

****. That. ****.

Edited September 28, 2017 by The Evil Genius

[DogofWar1]

 

If there was ever a way to know a tax plan was terrible, it's when someone trying to sell it says it will pay for itself via growth.

 

This plan is officially 100% certified bull****, full stop.  If you think it's going to pay for itself, you are an idiot (all the people who are malicious know it won't but are lying).

[srtman04]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Because when you reduce the total number of tax brackets, some people are going to go up, some down.  Here is a visualization of that concept, but it is based on his plan during the campaign so it probably doesn't line up with this plan, just a visualization of the concept.  The people in red are getting screwed, people in green are making out like champs.

 

 

Just want to note that I appreciate you actually doing the math on these.  Very helpful.  

 

Count me on one that will get screwed.  I hope they make tax cuts for EVERYONE.   

[PleaseBlitz]

I end up slightly to the good, personally.  But, regardless of my personal situation, I think this is bad for the country.  The only people that this is truly good for is the ultra rich.  

[Larry]

On 9/27/2017 at 12:44 PM, Hersh said:

The GOP is easily the least fiscally responsible party in this country. 

 

I've made this point several times, now.  

 

The last time a Republican President left office with a smaller deficit than when he took office, the President was Eisenhower.  

 

The last time a Democrat President left office with a bigger deficit than when he took office, the President was FDR.  

[LadySkinsFan]

Some more information, related to how Republicans can pass this bill during budget reconciliation without a Democrat filibuster. Nearly impossible.

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/republicans-700-million-problem-could-173027048.html

 

 

[tshile]

@PleaseBlitz your graphic doesn't align with the one on the first page

 

not sure which one is right... you have the 230-250k group going up a level, front page has them going down a level.

[JSSkinz]

49 minutes ago, tshile said:

@PleaseBlitz your graphic doesn't align with the one on the first page

 

not sure which one is right... you have the 230-250k group going up a level, front page has them going down a level.

2

It would go down 8% if you are married and it would stay the same if you're single, I'm not sure where he got that graphic but the data is incorrect based on the TPC report.