GOP Tax Plan

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
The proposal would add $1.5 trillion to the nation's debt over the next decade as Republicans largely abandoned fiscal discipline in a desire to secure a legislative achievement for Trump and score a political win ahead of next year's midterm elections.

The proposal would leave intact the existing rules on 401(k) retirement accounts and the ability of Americans to contribute up to $18,000 into the accounts tax-free. But the plan limits the widely used deduction for mortgage interest for new home loans of $500,000 or less, a sharp reduction from the current $1 million cap.

The plan also limits the deductibility of local property taxes to $10,000 while eliminating the deduction for state income taxes...

The plan shrinks the number of tax brackets from seven to three or four, with respective tax rates of 12 percent, 25 percent, 35 percent and a category still to be determined. The tax system would be simplified, and most people would be able to file their returns on a postcard-sized form.

The plan sets a 25 percent tax rate starting at $90,000 for married couples, with a 35 percent rate beginning to bite at $260,000 — which means many upper-income families whose top rate is 33 percent would face higher taxes. Individuals making $500,000 and couples earning $1 million would face the current Clinton-era top rate of 39.6 percent.

The plan slashes the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent, a demand of Trump.

The child tax credit would be increased from $1,000 to $1,600, though the $4,050 per child exemption would be repealed.

The plan calls for nearly doubling the standard deduction used by most average Americans to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for families, and increasing the per-child tax credit. On net, it could mean tax increases for many upper middle-income families.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hous...haul-keeps-retirement-083139413--finance.html
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
I don't see squat in there regarding limiting the tax rate on pass-through business income. In fact..I see virtually no positive changes in there that affect me whatsoever.

Figures. !#$
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
I think the proposed elimination of the state and local income and property tax deduction will be a problem.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I don't see squat in there regarding limiting the tax rate on pass-through business income. In fact..I see virtually no positive changes in there that affect me whatsoever.

Figures. !#$

Nope, just...

Establishes strong safeguards to distinguish between individual wage income and “pass-through” business income so Main Street tax relief goes to the local job creators it was designed to help most.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
The proposal would leave intact the existing rules on 401(k) retirement accounts and the ability of Americans to contribute up to $18,000 into the accounts tax-free. But the plan limits the widely used deduction for mortgage interest for new home loans of $500,000 or less, a sharp reduction from the current $1 million cap.

Sounds like people who spend more money on homes would be disproportionately hurt.

The plan sets a 25 percent tax rate starting at $90,000 for married couples, with a 35 percent rate beginning to bite at $260,000 — which means many upper-income families whose top rate is 33 percent would face higher taxes. Individuals making $500,000 and couples earning $1 million would face the current Clinton-era top rate of 39.6 percent.

Again, those more financially successful would be hurt disproportionately.

The plan slashes the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent, a demand of Trump.

Hidden tax reduced. That's a good thing.

On net, it could mean tax increases for many upper middle-income families.

Why is this an unending goal for so many? Why don't we have just one tax rate? "US citizen? Your tax rate is 15%" Seems so much more fair.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I think the proposed elimination of the state and local income and property tax deduction will be a problem.

Only for the states that have an income tax. Many do not. Those that do not would become more attractive in which to live by some amount per person.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure how they can call it a "simpler" tax code. Less brackets, no AMT, and one or two fewer deductions doesn't take someone from 10+ forms down to a post card. Unless you were doing a 1040ez to start with, in which case you already could do the math on a post card.

Hard to tell without all of the specifics, but it looks as though I will come out pretty close to even with last year (+- less than $1000). If I still had dependents I would probably be unhappy, and people living in states with no income taxes are probably going to be coming out well ahead.
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
this an honest to God 'REAL' Budget not a continuing resolution.

Jesus Christ...how the f*** do you post 1000 times daily and not understand that this is not a budget?

This is a bill that proposes new tax structure. It is exactly what a true Republican should absolutely hate since it is a massive addition to the debt. You ready to rescind your idiotic comment the other day about only Democrats not wanting to pay for things in your equally stupid Keynes thread?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Jesus Christ...how the f*** do you post 1000 times daily and not understand that this is not a budget?

hey Toe JAM I don''t Post 1000 times a day
Hey Toe JAM I misspoke - GFYS


This is a bill that proposes new tax structure. It is exactly what a true Republican should absolutely hate since it is a massive addition to the debt.

You ready to rescind your idiotic comment the other day about only Democrats not wanting to pay for things in your equally stupid Keynes thread?

Hey Toe JAM - as much as you follow me around reading my posts - you should be aware by now I have LONG SAID the Current iteration of the GOP Leadership is NOT Small Gov. Conservative
Hey Toe JAM - Again GFYS




:razz:
 
Last edited:

glhs837

Power with Control
Only for the states that have an income tax. Many do not. Those that do not would become more attractive in which to live by some amount per person.

Hmmm, seven out of 50, not sure if "many" applies.

Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. and NH and TN only tax dividends and investment income
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Someone enlighten me, because I'm not seeing a truly terrible outcome. 1.5 trillion over ten years - easy math - 150 billion a year.
Against a 4 trillion plus typical yearly budget - that's what, 3-4%?

THAT is the catastrophe I'm being warned against? I have to admit, spelled it, it seems like a pittance to me.
Second - what kind of economic return is giving back all this tax money going to create? Is it even likely at all to increase revenues?
Maybe - a few percent? (There's a commercial out there saying the tax cut "will HURT the economy". I'm not sure a tax cut has ever hurt an economy).

Lastly - I did a quick bit of guesswork - this will actually help me, but not a lot. With healthcare premiums and healthcare costs going nuts, I can barely keep up.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
True, but the attraction would increase.

In all fairness, I took a look at my last tax return and found if the doubling of the Standard Deduction comes true, the elimination of the "SALT" deduction wouldn't matter. I wouldn't have to itemize and could use the "short form" for filing taxes.
 
Why are we even now allowed to write off state taxes? I see it as just a money laundering game allowing states to use their citizens to syphon more money from the feds. California has a state tax rate pretty close to double that of the next highest tax rate state (NY). They get to suck in that dough all year long then when their citizens file taxes for the year allowing them to use what they paid out to the state the past year as a deduction is reimbursement on that tax burden from our federal coffers. Why wouldn't we want to remove it?
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Why are we even now allowed to write off state taxes? I see it as just a money laundering game allowing states to use their citizens to syphon more money from the feds. California has a state tax rate pretty close to double that of the next highest tax rate state (NY). They get to suck in that dough all year long then when their citizens file taxes for the year allowing them to use what they paid out to the state the past year as a deduction is reimbursement on that tax burden from our federal coffers. Why wouldn't we want to remove it?

Heck why do we have a mortgage deduction? Don't get me wrong, I am glad we have it. It's been beneficial for me numerous times. I do remember a time when pretty much all loan interest was deductible (like a car loan).

We have deductions to encourage that behavior - mostly. The other reason is - whether you agree or not - to level the playing field so to speak.
Stuff like tax credits etc. made any number of things affordable for me. Had they not been in place, I would not have done them. (e.g. we could not have afforded our adoptions without the tax credit; I'd argue that even WITH them, the adoptions were very expensive, but without them we could not have done them).
 
Top