PDA

View Full Version : Details of Proposed Tax Plan



tsptalk
11-02-2017, 10:45 AM
Tax Plan Released:

GOP Tax Plan "Talking Point" Highlights Released | Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-02/gop-tax-plan-talking-point-highlights-released)


Here are the most notable changes:

Lowers individual tax rates for low- and middle-income Americans to Zero, 12%, 25%, and 35%; keeps tax rate for those making over $1 million at 39.6%

Increases the standard deduction from $6,350 to $12,000 for individuals and $12,700 to $24,000 for married couples.

Establishing a new Family Credit, which includes expanding the Child Tax Credit from $1,000 to $1,600

Preserving the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit

Preserves the Earned Income Tax Credit

Preserves the home mortgage interest deduction for existing mortgages and maintains the home mortgage interest deduction for newly purchased homes up to $500,000, half the current $1,000,000

Continues to allow people to write off the cost of state and local property taxes up to $10,000

Retains popular retirement savings options such as 401(k)s and Individual Retirement Accounts

Repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax

Lowers the corporate tax rate to 20% – down from 35%

Reduces the tax rate on business income to no more than 25%

Establishes strong safeguards to distinguish between individual wage income and “pass-through” business income

Allows businesses to immediately write off the full cost of new equipment

Retains the low-income housing tax credit


Please use this thread to discuss the tax plan, not ideological differences, if that's possible. :hitwithrock:

Warrenlm
11-02-2017, 10:56 AM
I really liked the press conference visual of the postcard that 90% of taxpayers could use to file in the future.

StockSurfer
11-02-2017, 10:59 AM
I’m just a middle class worker with a small home and fairly simple taxes. I claim the personal exemption, and itemize to deduct a small amount of mortgage interest, property taxes, and state income taxes. Now I won’t be able to claim the personal exemption, nor will I be able to claim state income taxes. I calculate that my taxes will go up by between three and four thousand dollars a year...:eek: I thought this was supposed to cut middle class taxes?

Cactus
11-02-2017, 11:05 AM
Well, it's not as bad as feared! :smile: Still, I wonder how he is going to pay for all the reductions. :suspicious:

tsptalk
11-02-2017, 11:08 AM
I’m just a middle class worker with a small home and fairly simple taxes. I claim the personal exemption, and itemize to deduct a small amount of mortgage interest, property taxes, and state income taxes. Now I won’t be able to claim the personal exemption, nor will I be able to claim state income taxes. I calculate that my taxes will go up by between three and four thousand dollars a year...:eek: I thought this was supposed to cut middle class taxes?

I'm not claiming to understanding the impact, but to me it seems like these cover the issues you mention, no? Are you married, have kids?


Lowers individual tax rates for low- and middle-income Americans to Zero, 12%, 25%, and 35%; keeps tax rate for those making over $1 million at 39.6%

Increases the standard deduction from $6,350 to $12,000 for individuals and $12,700 to $24,000 for married couples.

Establishing a new Family Credit, which includes expanding the Child Tax Credit from $1,000 to $1,600

Preserving the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit

Preserves the Earned Income Tax Credit

Preserves the home mortgage interest deduction for existing mortgages and maintains the home mortgage interest deduction for newly purchased homes up to $500,000, half the current $1,000,000

Continues to allow people to write off the cost of state and local property taxes up to $10,000

Cactus
11-02-2017, 11:13 AM
Well, the market appears to like it. :nuts:

tsptalk
11-02-2017, 11:29 AM
Continues to allow people to write off the cost of state and local property taxes up to $10,000

This $10,000 limit should only impact the higher income earners but I never thought of the state tax deduction as an issue until I heard someone talk about the reason they wanted to get rid of it.

It makes people who pay less state tax, pay more federal tax comparably.

A basic example, someone making $100,000 in Florida (0% state income tax) will pay federal tax on $100,000, while a person making $100,0000 in New York who pays say $7,000 in state tax, only pays federal tax on $93,000. Both Americans paying different amount of federal tax on same income.

So I can see that states with no state income tax would be against the deduction since its residents would pay a higher percentage of federal income tax.

It was something I never considered, although I haven't come to any conclusion on what I think about it yet.

FireWeatherMet
11-02-2017, 11:36 AM
What Paul Ryan did NOT say about this bill, which at quick glance will raise my taxes by $7,000-$8,000 dollars, and maybe even more on tens of millions of Americans.

* Elimination of the student loan interest deduction: The amount paid toward student loan interest can currently be deducted.
* Elimination of the medical expense deduction: Under current law, individuals who spend over 10% of their income on medical expenses are allowed to deduct part of those costs from their taxes. The proposed new bill would remove that deduction.
* Elimination of the moving deduction: This allows anyone who moved to a new home in the past year to deduct moving expenses.
* Elimination of the unreimbursed employee expenses: For many who use their cars for work travel, or travelling salespeople get to deduct hotel and meals (per diem), they no longer get to deduct these costs from their taxes.
* Elimination of alimony payment deduction: This allows the paying ex-spouse to deduct their payments to the receiving ex-spouse. Since receiving ex-spouses already pay taxes on this income, a repeal of alimony deductions amounts to "double taxation".

Trump, GOP tax reform bill text: changes to individual brackets, deductions, corporate rate - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-tax-reform-plan-bill-text-details-rate-2017-10?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral)

The "simplification of the tax code" seems to be a carrot dangled to the unknowing...who initially think its a great idea, but don't realize that a quicker to fill out form will likely cost them thousands of dollars of itemized deductions on home improvement, business travel, alimony payments, student loan interest, medical expenses..etc...

StockSurfer
11-02-2017, 11:45 AM
The personal exemption is eliminated for those that itemize, so I will pay taxes on the $4,000.00 as compared to before... (The standard deduction is NOT being doubled, it’s simply folding the personal exemption on top of the old standard deduction, making it unavailable to homeowners and prospective homeowners trying to see if they can afford a mortgage) ...

In terms of it lowering the tax rate, the simplification of the tax brackets into less brackets, while making things less complicated, doesn’t really translate into substantial savings when compared with the loss of the personal exemption and the state tax deduction...

I am single and no longer have children under 18, but don’t think that I should have to bear the burden of such a huge tax hike that is really the result of the elimination of the personal exemption and state tax deduction

tsptalk
11-02-2017, 12:05 PM
What Paul Ryan did NOT say about this bill, which at quick glance will raise my taxes by $7,000-$8,000 dollars, and maybe even more on tens of millions of Americans.

What tax bracket would that put you in because a $7K - $8K tax increase would mean you're talking about $50,000 to $55,000 in deductions in just those items - and that's at about an 18% effective rate. I would have $0 deductions under those items so I would pay those taxes.


Zero, 12%, 25%, and 35%;

I think no matter how you slice it, someone will win and someone will lose, and that's item by item.

On the alimony, I agree. If one person has to claim it as income, the person paying should be able to deduct.

tsptalk
11-02-2017, 12:09 PM
don’t think that I should have to bear the burden of such a huge tax hike that is really the result of the elimination of the personal exemption and state tax deduction

Is the state tax deduction going away for you? I'm just going by that article that says there's $10,000 limit, but I'm not 100% sure.


Continues to allow people to write off the cost of state and local property taxes up to $10,000

nasa1974
11-02-2017, 12:13 PM
The personal exemption is eliminated for those that itemize, so I will pay taxes on the $4,000.00 as compared to before... (The standard deduction is NOT being doubled, it’s simply folding the personal exemption on top of the old standard deduction, making it unavailable to homeowners and prospective homeowners trying to see if they can afford a mortgage) ...

In terms of it lowering the tax rate, the simplification of the tax brackets into less brackets, while making things less complicated, doesn’t really translate into substantial savings when compared with the loss of the personal exemption and the state tax deduction...

I am single and no longer have children under 18, but don’t think that I should have to bear the burden of such a huge tax hike that is really the result of the elimination of the personal exemption and state tax deduction

You must pay high state taxes.

StockSurfer
11-02-2017, 12:24 PM
Currently State income tax is deductible, as are state and/or local property taxes. They are two different things ... State income tax will no longer be deductible at all... Property taxes (what I pay to the county) will be deductible but subject to a $10,000.00 cap...

When I was renter saving to become a homeowner, a key to making homeownership affordable was that you could deduct state income tax, mortgage interest, and property taxes. This equation has now changed for many contemplating homeownership as it will reduce what they can afford. I wonder if I would have become a homeowner under the proposed tax code... it certainly would have been more difficult...

tsptalk
11-02-2017, 12:49 PM
Oh, I see - not state income taxes but state property taxes are still deductible. Thanks for the clarification.

nnuut
11-02-2017, 01:51 PM
I have no Mortgage, no debt, here in GA I qualify to pay $0.00 State taxes due to Age and income. I have to take the Standard Deduction, so the deal would be good for me.:banana:

FireWeatherMet
11-02-2017, 02:32 PM
This $10,000 limit should only impact the higher income earners but I never thought of the state tax deduction as an issue until I heard someone talk about the reason they wanted to get rid of it.

It makes people who pay less state tax, pay more federal tax comparably.

A basic example, someone making $100,000 in Florida (0% state income tax) will pay federal tax on $100,000, while a person making $100,0000 in New York who pays say $7,000 in state tax, only pays federal tax on $93,000. Both Americans paying different amount of federal tax on same income.

So I can see that states with no state income tax would be against the deduction since its residents would pay a higher percentage of federal income tax.

It was something I never considered, although I haven't come to any conclusion on what I think about it yet.

Question...the "Continues to allow people to write off the cost of state and local property taxes up to $10,000" does that assume that some property tax is state property tax and some is local property tax?
Or...is it a combination of state INCOME taxes and property tax...combined up to $10,000?

FireWeatherMet
11-02-2017, 02:42 PM
What tax bracket would that put you in because a $7K - $8K tax increase would mean you're talking about $50,000 to $55,000 in deductions in just those items - and that's at about an 18% effective rate. I would have $0 deductions under those items so I would pay those taxes.

Alimony, student loans, state income taxes...yeah close to there...maybe 45-50K in deductions. Originally in 28% current tax bracket takes me back down into 25% tax bracket I believe.
And deductions are calculated at the actual rate...not a general "effective" rate, right?

What would be cool, is if they (or anyone) came up with a tab oriented program where you quickly enter in your income and major itemized deductions allowed this year, compared to what is proposed with this new tax plan, to see if you're a winner or loser.


I think no matter how you slice it, someone will win and someone will lose, and that's item by item.

On the alimony, I agree. If one person has to claim it as income, the person paying should be able to deduct.

Yeah. Lots of Fox News ex-execs (and Hollywood types too, keeping it politically neutral :D) are gonna go ape$h!t when they start doing the math (lol).

Here's the thing...if the gov't is now going to now tax income that goes towards spousal support, shouldn't they eliminate the tax for the person receiving it?
Still a net plus for the gov't since the receiver is in a lower tax bracket.

tsptalk
11-02-2017, 02:52 PM
Question...the "Continues to allow people to write off the cost of state and local property taxes up to $10,000" does that assume that some property tax is state property tax and some is local property tax?
Or...is it a combination of state INCOME taxes and property tax...combined up to $10,000?

It sounds like, the way StockSurfer put it, the income tax deduction is out. Just property tax.

evilanne
11-02-2017, 03:15 PM
It is really hard to figure without knowing what the brackets are. If they are the same, for single you save $1,792.25 for income up to the top of the current 15% bracket and any income over the 25% Bracket is reduced by 3% or more unless you make over $1M
Table 1. Single Taxable Income Tax Brackets and Rates, 2017


Rate
From
To
Tax Owed


10% - 0%
$‎ 0
$‎ 9,325
10% of Taxable Income


15% -12%
$‎ 9,325
$‎ 37,950
$932.50 + 15% > $9325


25% -25%
$‎ 37,950
$‎ 91,900
$5,226.25 + 25% > $37,950


28%
$‎ 91,900
$‎ 191,650
$18,713.75 + 28% > $91,900


33%
$‎ 191,650
$‎ 416,700
$46,643.75 + 33% > $191,650


35%
$‎ 416,700
$‎ 418,400
$120,910.25 + 35% > $416,700


39.60%
$‎ 418,400
up
$121,505.25 + 39.6% > $418,400

tsptalk
11-02-2017, 03:20 PM
A little hard to read ...

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2017/10/21/2017-11-02%20%283%29.jpg
source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-02/gop-tax-plan-talking-point-highlights-released (http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2017/10/21/2017-11-02%20%283%29.jpg)



Please use this thread to discuss the tax plan, not ideological differences, if that's possible. :hitwithrock:

nasa1974
11-02-2017, 03:53 PM
Just looked at my 2016 taxes. Itemized deductions plus exemptions it came to $24,300. It looks like I will stay in the same tax bracket but will lose some of my itemized deductions. I will have at least $300 less in deductions for when the new tax laws take effect. So I guess that would be a break even for me.

evilanne
11-02-2017, 04:12 PM
Nevermind...if the 1st bracket starts at zero, that isn't much help.

Scout333
11-02-2017, 04:39 PM
Just keep an eye on the ball. Lots of juggling left to do! Still a little confused about where the money comes from to pay for this plan. I understand the theory is that the economy is going to grow which will create jobs, etc. but still that's a lot of cuts overall! Would be surprised if there isn't some sort of deduction for state and local income taxes included before they're done haggling. Most tax plans tend to affect all the states relatively evenly. That is how they get enough support to get passed.

nasa1974
11-02-2017, 04:44 PM
I think the create jobs is all smoke and mirrors. If I own a company now that is making a profit and I get more money from the government why would I hire more workers? Or if I can't find skilled laborers now to fill my positions why would I use the money coming from the government to try and hire more people I couldn't find already. Just more money in my pocket.

tsptalk
11-02-2017, 04:44 PM
Has anybody read any estimate on how much they would make on the 12% tax on the repatriation of overseas money coming back to the U.S.? Are they assuming all (or a percentage of) companies will bring the money back, or have they not factored that in yet?

FireWeatherMet
11-02-2017, 04:51 PM
Has anybody read any estimate on how much they would make on the 12% tax on the repatriation of overseas money coming back to the U.S.? Are they assuming all (or a percentage of) companies will bring the money back, or have they not factored that in yet?

Some would say "why would any of it come back if their not getting it taxed overseas, or still getting it taxed at a lower rate in many 3rd world banks"?
And if corporations are already hoarding record amounts of cash, why wouldn't that cash go into those corporate coffers, as opposed to going into economic development?

I don't know if I trust many of the claims made on overseas cash.

tsptalk
11-02-2017, 05:06 PM
I don't know if I trust many of the claims made on overseas cash.

I don't know if I trust many of the claims made on ... [fill in the blank]. :)

alevin
11-02-2017, 08:45 PM
My quick estimate is I'd get about 1500 back in my pocket vs what I'd be paying this year. better than I thought when I did earlier calculations on the subject. I read this morning (ZH again), that they were thinking of having the corporate tax cut only good for 10 years, then go back up to what it is now. Skeptical ZH commenters questioned how many business CEOs would repatriate and do cap ex for operations here if tax cut only good for 10 years. Guess we'll see if this does play out.

Being as how I was thinking of starting 2-3 inter-related small businesses post-retirement in 2-4 years, I don't know at this point how these changes would affect those ideas. especially since I haven't figured out what kind of biz set up would work best for those ideas. single proprietorships generally end up as pass through and rate as personal income as I understand it.

uscfanhawaii
11-02-2017, 09:16 PM
I don't mind if certain deductions go away.....but there should be a correspondingly LOWER tax rate. I don't see that in the plan.
And the oft repeated 'Individual Exemption nearly doubled' is very misleading due to other exemptions being eliminated.
Bottom line...looks like the reduction in corporate taxes is being paid for by upper middle class.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apos-home-pay-could-change-171600109.html

FireWeatherMet
11-02-2017, 10:15 PM
Sarah Huckabee gives a concise, clear cut description of how the tax plan would affect average Americans. :D


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5ifwb3SNlw

tsptalk
11-03-2017, 09:00 AM
http://www.tsptalk.com/images/mb/tax-cuts.gif

Source: Washington Post (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/taxes-and-insurance/28786-details-proposed-tax-plan-2.html#post593261) / Tax Policy Center

tsptalk
11-03-2017, 10:00 AM
As the onion gets pealed...

The hidden 46% tax bracket


House Republicans claim the tax plan they introduced Thursday keeps the top individual rate unchanged at 39.6 percent—the level at which it’s been capped for much of the past quarter-century. But a little-noticed provision effectively creates a new band in which income is taxed at over 45 percent.

Thanks to a quirky proposed surcharge, Americans who earn more than $1 million in taxable income would trigger an extra 6 percent tax on the next $200,000 they earn—a complicated change that effectively creates a new, unannounced tax bracket of 45.6 percent.

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/11/02/the-gops-hidden-46-tax-bracket-000570

FireWeatherMet
11-03-2017, 10:30 AM
As the onion gets pealed...

The hidden 46% tax bracket



https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/11/02/the-gops-hidden-46-tax-bracket-000570

Is that to make up for not paying Social Security tax on income over 120K? The wealthy have always gotten a several percent tax cut on that, that no one ever mentions.

From the article its on the next 200K of income (above 1 mil). So it would have a profound effect on those making just a little over a million, but be just a tiny blip on the radar for those making 2 Million or more.

evilanne
11-03-2017, 11:19 AM
Is that to make up for not paying Social Security tax on income over 120K? The wealthy have always gotten a several percent tax cut on that, that no one ever mentions.

From the article its on the next 200K of income (above 1 mil). So it would have a profound effect on those making just a little over a million, but be just a tiny blip on the radar for those making 2 Million or more.

SS Wage Base is $127K, however medicare applies to all wages with an extra .9% for those making over $200K that was added in support of ACA starting in 2012 https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc750/tc751 Per the article the bubble is to make up for the lower 12% rate on the 1st $45K, nothing to do with SS.

Jackbnimble
11-03-2017, 12:37 PM
While the corporate tax has an advertised rate of 35%, it has 2 of these "bubble rates". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States

The first bubble rate is to eliminate the benefit of the lower rates. So companies that make over $335,000 basically pay 34% of that amount. Historically the individual rates were such that the surtax or bubble tax was not in play. So they actually paid 15% on the first part of their income(whatever their bracket amount was depending on filing status). And 25% on the next and on and on. Never really paying the full 39.6% on their total income due to the lower reduced rates.

This bubble tax on individuals seems to be a new philosophy and as stated would only touch people with taxable income of over $1,000,000.

uscfanhawaii
11-03-2017, 03:01 PM
Sarah Huckabee gives a concise, clear cut description of how the tax plan would affect average Americans. :D


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5ifwb3SNlw

I'm not sure Ms. Huckabee Sanders was successful in defending the upper class getting a bigger piece of the tax cut pie.
looks like there will be a lot of resistance to the Tax Bill. Much like the Health Care bill.

Republicans' tax overhaul pitch faces skeptical public, Post-ABC poll finds (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-tax-overhaul-pitch-faces-skeptical-public-post-abc-poll-finds/ar-AAuomjD?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp)

uscfanhawaii
11-03-2017, 03:45 PM
Here's a somewhat humorous look at some of the lesser known provisions of the New Tax Code:

All the weird parts of the tax reform bill, in one post (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/all-the-weird-parts-of-the-tax-reform-bill-in-one-post/ar-AAupqo7?li=AA5a8k&ocid=ientp)

FireWeatherMet
11-03-2017, 05:01 PM
In a nutshell,

42483

alevin
11-03-2017, 05:15 PM
Update: I ran the math wrong earlier-I would owe approximately 2K more next year in fed tax, not 1500 less. Maybe I'll bump up my charitable contributions even further next year, at least I'll know where the money is going. and pay a little less in fed tax. makes it harder to save for business startup in a couple years, even if I can do full deduct for expenses in a given year. Got to fork out the funds for the expenses first before can deduct them. :(

I want to avoid using OPM for startup funds. Would like to not worry about loan repayments until I know I'm turning a profit, not pay interest on top of not having a net profit right away. For me, it's all about having initial savings for startup capital, and then managing cash flow. I never took any business classes, never had any interest until I started looking into what I might do in retirement to be productive, stay interested by developing current hobby interests into small biz and desired retirement lifestyle. now I'm learning biz development by bootstrap, similar to how I've learned other things over the years, as needed. :laugh:

There are other interesting items in the tax bill, at least of interest to me. won't point out all the ones of interest to me but there are some of general interest perhaps.

Think really hard about divorce, if you would be the one paying alimony. You will be paying the taxes on the alimony payment. The ex would not be paying them.
Think hard about bouncing around to new job every couple years or otherwise exchanging primary residences. No more cap gains exemption unless stay in same primary residence 5 of past 8 years.
Make suuure you get a written receipt signed and dated, for every charitable donation valued at $250 or more.

https://www.scribd.com/document/363314543/Tax-Cuts-and-Jobs-Act-Section-by-Section#from_embed

FireWeatherMet
11-03-2017, 05:58 PM
Think really hard about divorce, if you would be the one paying alimony. You will be paying the taxes on the alimony payment. The ex would not be paying them.
https://www.scribd.com/document/363314543/Tax-Cuts-and-Jobs-Act-Section-by-Section#from_embed

From the bill:
Under the provision, alimony payments would not be deductible by the payor or includible in the income of the payee.
So does this mean that the receiver of alimony doesn't have to include the alimony payment as income either?

The provision would be effective for any divorce decree or separation agreement executed after 2017.
Yipeeee! I catch a break on that one (lol)



Think hard about bouncing around to new job every couple years or otherwise exchanging primary residences. No more cap gains exemption unless stay in same primary residence 5 of past 8 years.

https://www.scribd.com/document/363314543/Tax-Cuts-and-Jobs-Act-Section-by-Section#from_embed

Wow, thats going to hurt a lot of companies looking for employees outside their local area. Could be a big impact on the economy, especially already having a worker shortage in most sectors.
Not to mention Fed agencies and those looking to move up the career ladder by moving. Wonder if the Federal Gov't and its employees get an exemption thru RITA???

alevin
11-03-2017, 06:09 PM
FWM it means the payor includes the alimony in their taxable income. not deductible for them. The receiver does not have to pay taxes on the alimony payments. And yes, you sir are safe (think dancing with the starz "safe" :cheesy:), since your situation reached resolution prior to 2018.

and yes, it does mean that someone may have to pay more in terms of salary or benefits if they really want a current or prospective employee to relocate to new location further than 50 miles from that persons current location. Especially since one of the other provisions removes the deduction for moving expenses for relocation further than 50 miles for new job. That one could impact me, as I expect to relocate post-retirement before starting any small biz, or becoming employee for anyone else (I do have an offer waiting for me when the time is ripe).

fortunately the 5 of 8 year rule for home sale will have no impact on me, but if I work for someone else post-retirement (possibility exists-with housing provided as part of the package, but I'd give it no more than a couple years before focusing 100 percent on my other plans)-would likely require an additional move elsewhere yet again in 2 years time.

FireWeatherMet
11-03-2017, 06:40 PM
FWM it means the payor includes the alimony in their taxable income. not deductible for them. The receiver does not have to pay taxes on the alimony payments. And yes, you sir are safe (think dancing with the starz "safe" :cheesy:), since your situation reached resolution prior to 2018.

and yes, it does mean that someone may have to pay more in terms of salary or benefits if they really want a current or prospective employee to relocate to new location further than 50 miles from that persons current location. Especially since one of the other provisions removes the deduction for moving expenses for relocation further than 50 miles for new job. That one could impact me, as I expect to relocate post-retirement before starting any small biz, or becoming employee for anyone else (I do have an offer waiting for me when the time is ripe).

fortunately the 5 of 8 year rule for home sale will have no impact on me, but if I work for someone else post-retirement (possibility exists-with housing provided as part of the package, but I'd give it no more than a couple years before focusing 100 percent on my other plans)-would likely require an additional move elsewhere yet again in 2 years time.

I didn't realize the trimming of Capital Gains for homeowners needing to live 5 years in a home instead of just 2.
My first 2 starter homes owned were for 3 years and 4 years respectively, and allowed me to quickly build wealth to get a top notch home.

This one hurts the average person trying to move up the socio-economic ladder...creating an even bigger buffer with the super elite who no longer have to deal with the "Estate Tax".
Also hurts the housing industry bigtime.

Between companies having an even tougher time finding workers, peoples progression from starter home to dream home and wealth slowed by many years...to the hit on the entire housing industry...it all seems to spell one thing: R-E-C-E-S-S-I-O-N

ripper
11-04-2017, 08:33 AM
I'm a bit confused on this.

My understanding is that personal exemptions - where we were able to deduct $4,050/person - would be eliminated under the new tax plan.

Is that correct?

Jackbnimble
11-04-2017, 09:08 AM
I'm a bit confused on this.

My understanding is that personal exemptions - where we were able to deduct $4,050/person - would be eliminated under the new tax plan.

Is that correct?

That is what I have read. They replace it with a credit for children (1,600) and one for non-children (300). Not clear on phase outs.


Sent from my iPhone using TSP Talk Forums (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=74921)

uscfanhawaii
11-04-2017, 09:42 AM
Update: I ran the math wrong earlier-I would owe approximately 2K more next year in fed tax, not 1500 less. Maybe I'll bump up my charitable contributions even further next year, at least I'll know where the money is going. and pay a little less in fed tax. makes it harder to save for business startup in a couple years, even if I can do full deduct for expenses in a given year. Got to fork out the funds for the expenses first before can deduct them. :(

Sorry, Charitable Gifts are no longer deductible!!

Boghie
11-04-2017, 10:10 AM
Folks,

There may be simplification in the tax code, but there can really be no tax cut. We ensured that over the past eight years - maybe longer. Our debt grew from $9T to $20T over the last eight years. The interest rate is going up now. Time to pay the piper.

By the way, the corporate tax is a sham. While a tax rate of 36% is a joke no corporation pays that. They have write-offs. The tax attorneys get the difference. A simple and fair 20% will probably result in less aggressive tax management and a higher level of compliance. That in itself may result in more tax income. At least businesses will know what their tax burden is.

Regardless, the numbers on our debt repayment no longer work. We have to pay... All those goodies are not free and the Chinese and the oldsters with bonds want their mullah... And, they should get it. A promise made is a promise kept. All we can really hope for is simplification - and, this bill may move us toward that.

Boghie
11-04-2017, 10:16 AM
Sorry, Charitable Gifts are no longer deductible!!

Charitable gifts are deductible if you itemize.

The only real difference is that fewer people will itemize because the standard deduction will be higher than the itemized deductions. That will be my situation. It is actually already my situation. I still donate to charities even though I get no deduction from it.

ripper
11-04-2017, 10:19 AM
That is what I have read. They replace it with a credit for children (1,600) and one for non-children (300). Not clear on phase outs.


Sent from my iPhone using TSP Talk Forums (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=74921)

Thanks. It's a bit misleading when they tout doubling the standard deduction without mentioning eliminating personal exemptions. Also sounds like there will no longer be an extra exemption for those 65 and older. Simpler doesn't necessarily mean fairer.

Trump tax plan: 'Doubled standard deduction' is misleading - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-plan-doubled-standard-deduction-2017-9)

alevin
11-04-2017, 10:21 AM
Good point Boghie. Yes charitable contribs will still be allowed up to 60% AGI, previously it was up to 50% AGI. 5yr carryover in excess of the limit still applies. doubt many of us are able to ever have contributed 50% of our AGI to charity, much less 60% or more. And oops, you're correct that they are part of the itemized package. I've been itemizing for a number of years, part of the package was donations, along with prop tax and state income tax. not much else in the mix since I paid off the mortgage.

The new std deduction is higher than what I was ever able to itemize, so won't be itemizing any more,but I'll still donate to charities at least at the level I have been, regardless.

burrocrat
11-04-2017, 10:29 AM
money never sleeps.

Boghie
11-04-2017, 10:43 AM
I'm a bit confused on this.

My understanding is that personal exemptions - where we were able to deduct $4,050/person - would be eliminated under the new tax plan.

Is that correct?

I've moved cross county and one of the things that did not completely move with me was my computer - so this is a new one without all the bells and whistled installed. A few months ago I would have just worked the numbers in Turbo Tax and provided solid estimates. Oh well...

One thing to remember is that the Standard Deduction almost doubles. And the child credit goes up substantially as well. The standard deduction increase is basically the equivalent of three personal exemptions (a little less than three actually). So, to lose on that based on personal exemptions means that you have more than three dependents living with you excluding you and the spouse.

Here is a good article on the plan. (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-tax-reform-plan-bill-text-details-rate-2017-10)

Of special note is the major changes in the middle class tax brackets (Married filing Jointly):

42486

In effect, you will be in a 12% tax bracket till your AGI is $114K (since you get to dump $24K as a Standard Deduction). That is not a bad deal. You were previously dumped into the 25% bracket once your AGI exceeded $88K (since you dump $12K for the Standard Deduction). That will save many middle class folks a lot of money. Also, remember that $1,000 in home interest payments only nets you $250 in deductions. So, if you pay $12,000 in home interest than you get (and still can if it is better to use itemized deductions) a $3,000 deduction in taxes paid. Remember, your Standard Deduction is about $12,000 higher now.

Finally, you do not get a 28% tax bracket. That will result is less tax for the upper middle class.

The highest brackets look like a wash.

The devil is in the details though. At the very least it is less complicated.

Boghie
11-04-2017, 11:04 AM
Folks,

If you are middle class or poor - even with a house - it will be hard to lose money with this new tax plan. As an experiment I used DinkyTowns (http://www.dinkytown.net/java/Tax10402016.html)1040 tax planner.

Assumptions:

Married filing Jointly
Gross Income: $126K
Student Loan Interest: $5K (You can currently deduct only $2,500 for student loan interest)
Itemized Deductions (House, Charity, State taxes): $16K
401(k): Nothing (I used this to increase Standard Deduction, but if used would result in better projected tax)

Current Federal Tax: $16,500
Projected Federal Tax (even including 2016 tax brackets): $14,900



Thus, you will probably save about $2,000 to $2,500 in tax money under the new plan.

evilanne
11-04-2017, 11:39 AM
I used Turbo Tax from last year to estimate taxes for 2017. Then I took the AGI and calculated with proposed rates, which came out about $600 less in taxes plus a few hundred more if capital gains/dividend are taxed at 15% instead of 25% marginal rate. It looks like new proposal will not be effective until 2018 so it looks like I will be itemizing this year. I just hope they get something done sooner rather than later so I can plan accordingly.

tsptalk
11-04-2017, 11:45 AM
If you are middle class or poor - even with a house - it will be hard to lose money with this new tax plan. As an experiment I used DinkyTowns (http://www.dinkytown.net/java/Tax10402016.html)1040 tax planner.

Assumptions:

Married filing Jointly
Gross Income: $126K
Student Loan Interest: $5K (You can currently deduct only $2,500 for student loan interest)
Itemized Deductions (House, Charity, State taxes): $16K
401(k): Nothing (I used this to increase Standard Deduction, but if used would result in better projected tax)
Current Federal Tax: $16,500
Projected Federal Tax (even including 2016 tax brackets): $14,900


Thus, you will probably save about $2,000 to $2,500 in tax money under the new plan.


I’m just a middle class worker with a small home and fairly simple taxes. I claim the personal exemption, and itemize to deduct a small amount of mortgage interest, property taxes, and state income taxes. Now I won’t be able to claim the personal exemption, nor will I be able to claim state income taxes. I calculate that my taxes will go up by between three and four thousand dollars a year...:eek: I thought this was supposed to cut middle class taxes?

I know it's not feasible to post our personal information here, but based on Boghie's post, I'm curious how someone like StockSurfer would see his taxes go up significantly as stated earlier (see quote above).

I can see why in FWM's case because he is assuming he will now have to pay taxes on nearly $50,000 worth of income that he would have been able to deduct before, but which I assume most people would not have [all of them] on their form Schedule A. I didn't have any of those deductions, of the ones he listed, on my return so this is why it would be difficult, if not downright impossible, for any tax plan to make everyone happy.


By the way... I really appreciate that everyone has kept this discussion civil and to the point about tax policy, and not politics.



Please use this thread to discuss the tax plan, not ideological differences, if that's possible. :hitwithrock:

evilanne
11-04-2017, 12:23 PM
Thanks. It's a bit misleading when they tout doubling the standard deduction without mentioning eliminating personal exemptions. Also sounds like there will no longer be an extra exemption for those 65 and older. Simpler doesn't necessarily mean fairer.

Trump tax plan: 'Doubled standard deduction' is misleading - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-plan-doubled-standard-deduction-2017-9)I don't see anything that eliminates the over 65 deduction in the proposed legislation. I was wondering the same thing because I do my mother's taxes. If you look at IRC 26 U.S. Code § 63 - Taxable income defined (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/63) Paragraph (f) Aged or blind additional amounts should still apply. It was implemented in 1988 @ $600 and has escalated over the years to $1,550 in 2016 based on paragraph (4) Adjustments for inflation

uscfanhawaii
11-04-2017, 12:55 PM
Charitable gifts are deductible if you itemize.

The only real difference is that fewer people will itemize because the standard deduction will be higher than the itemized deductions. That will be my situation. It is actually already my situation. I still donate to charities even though I get no deduction from it.

Yes, sorry....I think I was reading the earlier ‘framework’ summary. The charitable deduction survived the final detailed description.
of course, Boghie’s comment also affects it. :D

alevin
11-04-2017, 06:04 PM
Figured out the glitch in my earlier figurings. was comparing difference in tax between standard deduct vs. what would be allowed itemized (for me) next year combined with losing the exemption. tax brackets calculated as per the new rules. new standard deduction would save me a lot more for sure compared to itemizing under new rules.

However if I compare what taxes would be under current status quo, with my normal itemized items and amounts, single exemption, and current tax brackets, vs what taxes would be under standard deduction, new tax brackets and no exemption. It comes out much closer to even steven. I'd have some extra cash back in my pocket, enough to be meaningful.

nasa1974
11-04-2017, 07:04 PM
I'm not opposed to getting more money back in tax refunds, but how will this reduce the deficit?

alevin
11-04-2017, 08:30 PM
I'm not opposed to getting more money back in tax refunds, but how will this reduce the deficit?

I for one am skeptical that it will. Boghie nails it first time, every time when he brings up the national debt. imo, strictly imo.

StockSurfer
11-04-2017, 09:02 PM
I know it's not feasible to post our personal information here, but based on Boghie's post, I'm curious how someone like StockSurfer would see his taxes go up significantly as stated earlier (see quote above).

I can see why in FWM's case because he is assuming he will now have to pay taxes on nearly $50,000 worth of income that he would have been able to deduct before, but which I assume most people would not have [all of them] on their form Schedule A. I didn't have any of those deductions, of the ones he listed, on my return so this is why it would be difficult, if not downright impossible, for any tax plan to make everyone happy.


By the way... I really appreciate that everyone has kept this discussion civil and to the point about tax policy, and not politics.

Here’s the math using figures paralell to my situation - Single Homeowner who itemizes mortgage interest, property taxes and State Taxes... Bottom line, a tax Increase of $1525.00/yr

2016, old code rules:
Gross Income 109g
Minus 25 g Itemized Deduction (State Income Taxes $7500 + RETaxes $6500 + Mortgage Interest $11,000)
Minus 4 g personal exemption
Taxable Income = 80 G
Taxes (old code formula) (Single) $15,500

2016 new code rules:
Gross Income 109g
Minus 17,500 Itemized Deduction ( RE Taxes $6500 + Mortgage Interest $11,000) (State Income Taxes of $7500 not deductible)
(4 g personal exemption not available)
Taxable Income = 91,500.
Taxes (New Formula) Single $17,025. ((45 g x 12%) Plus (46,500x 25 %)) = ($5400. + $11,625)
Tax Increase $1525.00

userque
11-04-2017, 09:08 PM
Folks,

There may be simplification in the tax code, but there can really be no tax cut. We ensured that over the past eight years - maybe longer. Our debt grew from $9T to $20T over the last eight years. ...


I for one am skeptical that it will. Boghie nails it first time, every time when he brings up the national debt. imo, strictly imo.

The problem is older than "the last eight years."

Scout333
11-05-2017, 01:40 AM
Here’s the math using figures paralell to my situation - Single Homeowner who itemizes mortgage interest, property taxes and State Taxes... Bottom line, a tax Increase of $1525.00/yr

2016, old code rules:
Gross Income 109g
Minus 25 g Itemized Deduction (State Income Taxes $7500 + RETaxes $6500 + Mortgage Interest $11,000)
Minus 4 g personal exemption
Taxable Income = 80 G
Taxes (old code formula) (Single) $15,500

2016 new code rules:
Gross Income 109g
Minus 17,500 Itemized Deduction ( RE Taxes $6500 + Mortgage Interest $11,000) (State Income Taxes of $7500 not deductible)
(4 g personal exemption not available)
Taxable Income = 91,500.
Taxes (New Formula) Single $17,025. ((45 g x 12%) Plus (46,500x 25 %)) = ($5400. + $11,625)
Tax Increase $1525.00

Not that this helps that much but there is a small $ 300 family tax credit which may be available. Also, the haggling has only begun. I will be shocked if some form of state and local income tax doesn't survive. Good luck to us all!

Boghie
11-05-2017, 10:07 AM
Here’s the math using figures paralell to my situation - Single Homeowner who itemizes mortgage interest, property taxes and State Taxes... Bottom line, a tax Increase of $1525.00/yr

2016, old code rules:
Gross Income 109g
Minus 25 g Itemized Deduction (State Income Taxes $7500 + RETaxes $6500 + Mortgage Interest $11,000)
Minus 4 g personal exemption
Taxable Income = 80 G
Taxes (old code formula) (Single) $15,500

2016 new code rules:
Gross Income 109g
Minus 17,500 Itemized Deduction ( RE Taxes $6500 + Mortgage Interest $11,000) (State Income Taxes of $7500 not deductible)
(4 g personal exemption not available)
Taxable Income = 91,500.
Taxes (New Formula) Single $17,025. ((45 g x 12%) Plus (46,500x 25 %)) = ($5400. + $11,625)
Tax Increase $1525.00

StockSurfer,

I do believe we are some of those who may pay a higher Federal income tax. Your local and state taxes are incredible. Yowser. You actually live in a locality/state that takes over 9% of your taxable income? Yowser Part II. I feel sorry for you...

But, those were round numbers so they may have been estimates. I'll use Kalefornea with real numbers. In the Peoples Republic of Kalefornea you would be taxed $6,010 on your $85,348 in taxable income. With that number, the resulting Federal tax would be:


Kalefornia State Tax: $6,010
Current Tax Schedule: $16,098
Proposed Tax Schedule: $17,025
Net Annual After Tax Loss: $926



By the way, I now live in North Carolina which actually DOES have a tax system you can do on a post card. They grab 5.75% with no deductions. The numbers now for me are:


NC State Tax: $5,261
Current Tax Schedule: $16,286
Proposed Tax Schedule: $17,025
Net Annual After Tax Loss: $739



So, for both of us the Federal Income Tax might be higher.

Now comes the moral question. You have chosen to live in a high tax state with hopefully high quality services. Maybe your 9.375% tax rate is buying you great service from your state and locality but why should I pay for it in my Federal income taxes? In affect, I am subsidizing your lifestyle every year by about $560 now that I live in North Cackilacki - and by about $200 when I lived in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornea. You are electing state politicians who are providing great services you want at a price you like. You have to pay for it.

So, there it is. You will likely loose if you are living in a high tax state/locality and itemize. You might even loose a little in a moderate state/local tax environment like my current situation. Like I said earlier, your taxes ARE going to stay the same or go up. We went from a debt of $9 Trillion to $20 Trillion over the past eight years. Back in the day at $9 Trillion I could offer workable solutions for a blend of spending cuts and tax incentives to pay down the debt. No can do now. Gotta grind and pay the piper. We got the 'benefit', now we got to pay da money!!!

I have been using the 'Tax-Rates.org Income Tax Calculator' (http://www.tax-rates.org/income-tax-calculator/?ref=nav_income) which seems to generate good numbers. My personal calculations for Fed and California were very close to those generated by this calculator so I will use this for estimates.

Boghie
11-05-2017, 10:18 AM
The problem is older than "the last eight years."

UserQue,

Back in the day of a $9 Trillion debt and an annual deficit of $160 Billion (FY2007) I could use a blend of spending cuts and revenue growth (GDP growth in tax base) to balance out and then start paying off the debt.

Now with a $20 Trillion debt and an annual deficit exceeding $600 Billion I can no longer use a blend of spending cuts and GDP revenue growth projections. The politicians do not want to admit this, but now there have to be dramatic spending cuts and probably tax increases or at least stability. It will be years before we can look at reducing tax rates - everything yammering otherwise is using smoke and mirrors (to include the corporate tax rate reduction they are yammering about). The spending cuts now have to be very deep and for a very long time.

No other way...

Not a good time to be a Fed...

Frixxxx
11-05-2017, 10:24 AM
In affect, I am subsidizing your lifestyle every year by about $560 now that I live in North Cackilacki - and by about $200 when I lived in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornea.
I disagree, it depends on the state. People in states pay into the federal programs. In California, the return is less than the amount paid, about 86 cents per dollar. In your new state, congrats on the relocation, the return is higher, about a $1.30 per $1. So I present that as a moot point.

Boghie
11-05-2017, 10:57 AM
I disagree, it depends on the state. People in states pay into the federal programs. In California, the return is less than the amount paid, about 86 cents per dollar. In your new state, congrats on the relocation, the return is higher, about a $1.30 per $1. So I present that as a moot point.

Well, Frixxxx,

I understand that point. But I would have to look at those numbers much deeper. I would exclude major DoD bases (Ft Bragg and Camp Lejeune) because they have to be somewhere and they provide a national service - not a local one. I also think major regional or federal footprints for the IRS and Social Security Administration are here. There were lots of job openings for those entities. If you are going to have those national entities they have to have a location. Also, Social Security and Medicare benefits probably should be excluded since they are 'insurance' programs supposedly paid by the individual over their working careers. Now, I know that ain't so but it is how it is supposed to be and it is probably 75% - 80% true at this point.

I would probably try to look at pork projects and wealth transfers to get the numbers you mention. The federal footprint here in Raleigh is very light. It is rather light in North Carolina as a whole as well. And, one could easily make the case that a DoD base is an economic drain on the region rather than a plus. Look at El Torro and NTC San Diego. The state and localities are much better off financially now than when those bases were in existence.

I don't know. It is touchy and very difficult to get a handle on. The freeways out here are beautiful and well maintained. Are those for the DoD or is that federal service the result of power politics. Why are the freeways in Kalefornea lousy? Who gets more Federal gubmint largess by the mile? Can you really quantify that - I mean maybe maintaining roads out here is inexpensive and Kalefornea expensive for no reason that could be dealt with. That would be an interesting study - but my head is already hurtin':eek:

nnuut
11-05-2017, 11:45 AM
Just WHO do we owe that 20 Trillion Dollars to, Ourselves? If that's the case I don't want mine consider it paid, WHO'S NEXT?:cool:42489

StockSurfer
11-05-2017, 01:18 PM
StockSurfer,

I do believe we are some of those who may pay a higher Federal income tax. Your local and state taxes are incredible. Yowser. You actually live in a locality/state that takes over 9% of your taxable income? Yowser Part II. I feel sorry for you...

But, those were round numbers so they may have been estimates. I'll use Kalefornea with real numbers. In the Peoples Republic of Kalefornea you would be taxed $6,010 on your $85,348 in taxable income. With that number, the resulting Federal tax would be:


Kalefornia State Tax: $6,010
Current Tax Schedule: $16,098
Proposed Tax Schedule: $17,025
Net Annual After Tax Loss: $926


By the way, I now live in North Carolina which actually DOES have a tax system you can do on a post card. They grab 5.75% with no deductions. The numbers now for me are:


NC State Tax: $5,261
Current Tax Schedule: $16,286
Proposed Tax Schedule: $17,025
Net Annual After Tax Loss: $739


So, for both of us the Federal Income Tax might be higher.

Now comes the moral question. You have chosen to live in a high tax state with hopefully high quality services. Maybe your 9.375% tax rate is buying you great service from your state and locality but why should I pay for it in my Federal income taxes? In affect, I am subsidizing your lifestyle every year by about $560 now that I live in North Cackilacki - and by about $200 when I lived in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornea. You are electing state politicians who are providing great services you want at a price you like. You have to pay for it.

So, there it is. You will likely loose if you are living in a high tax state/locality and itemize. You might even loose a little in a moderate state/local tax environment like my current situation. Like I said earlier, your taxes ARE going to stay the same or go up. We went from a debt of $9 Trillion to $20 Trillion over the past eight years. Back in the day at $9 Trillion I could offer workable solutions for a blend of spending cuts and tax incentives to pay down the debt. No can do now. Gotta grind and pay the piper. We got the 'benefit', now we got to pay da money!!!

I have been using the 'Tax-Rates.org Income Tax Calculator' (http://www.tax-rates.org/income-tax-calculator/?ref=nav_income) which seems to generate good numbers. My personal calculations for Fed and California were very close to those generated by this calculator so I will use this for estimates.

Good link at 'Tax-Rates.org Income Tax Calculator' (http://www.tax-rates.org/income-tax-calculator/?ref=nav_income) , I had been using a similar calculator, as well at this for calculating possible future impacts https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/trump-tax-reform-calculator. In terms of the specifics I provided, they were round numbers, but I can tell you that the real ife consequence for me will be a tax hike of approximately $1500.00/yr. I also wondered if it was because I am single, so I did another calculation assuming I was married filing jointly with the second wage-earner making 80% of what I used in my example. The end result was a tax hike of $1388/yr for the couple.

As far of the moral argument, one of the things that you didn't focus on is that part of the tax increase is due to the fact that folks like me that itemize can no longer take a personal exemption. So that in and of itself undermines the progressive nature of the existing tax code that includes the mortage interest deduction and property taxes as well as State income taxes. It reduces the value of itemizing for renters contemplating the purchase of a home as compared just using the standard deduction. So when they are calculating whether they can afford that mortage payment, they will lose that benefit. And speaking of the mortgage interest deduction, the cap on the mortage interest deduction will especially hurt homeowners and prospective homebuyers in high cost areas. It seems to me that all of these changes are in part subsidizing things like the elimination of the estate tax, which would be gone by 2024, meaning wealthy families will be able to pass on lavish estates and trust funds to their heirs completely tax free. At the moment, only estates worth over $4.49 million faced the estate tax. Also going away is the alternative minimum tax (AMT), a safeguard against excessive tax dodging that’s been in place since the 1969. As long as folks like me are getting a hike in taxes to pay for things like that, I fail to see a moral argument... . Finally, one can make the case that when you look at the total revenue and spending picture, the high tax states where consumers will be hurt most by the elimination of the State Income Tax deduction are disproportionately subsidizing other states, as statistics have show that they receive far less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes.

userque
11-05-2017, 03:44 PM
UserQue,

Back in the day of a $9 Trillion debt and an annual deficit of $160 Billion (FY2007) I could use a blend of spending cuts and revenue growth (GDP growth in tax base) to balance out and then start paying off the debt.

Now with a $20 Trillion debt and an annual deficit exceeding $600 Billion I can no longer use a blend of spending cuts and GDP revenue growth projections. The politicians do not want to admit this, but now there have to be dramatic spending cuts and probably tax increases or at least stability. It will be years before we can look at reducing tax rates - everything yammering otherwise is using smoke and mirrors (to include the corporate tax rate reduction they are yammering about). The spending cuts now have to be very deep and for a very long time.

No other way...

Not a good time to be a Fed...

The problem started before "the last eight years."

Excessive spending was taking place before "the last eight years."

The problem didn't just start in "the last eight years."

"The last eight years" are also a cumulative result of years prior.

userque
11-05-2017, 04:27 PM
UserQue,

Back in the day of a $9 Trillion debt and an annual deficit of $160 Billion (FY2007) I could use a blend of spending cuts and revenue growth (GDP growth in tax base) to balance out and then start paying off the debt.

Now with a $20 Trillion debt and an annual deficit exceeding $600 Billion I can no longer use a blend of spending cuts and GDP revenue growth projections. The politicians do not want to admit this, but now there have to be dramatic spending cuts and probably tax increases or at least stability. It will be years before we can look at reducing tax rates - everything yammering otherwise is using smoke and mirrors (to include the corporate tax rate reduction they are yammering about). The spending cuts now have to be very deep and for a very long time.

No other way...

Not a good time to be a Fed...

The below is in addition to my prior post stating that additional debt increasing mechanisms (governmental spending programs, military spending programs, etc.) were put in place prior to "the last eight years"
________

Your post referenced "the last eight years." An obvious political shot--that was allowed in this thread.

The only proper way to debate your political shot would be via a political post. Certainly, any political posts by me won't go unnoticed and un-"acted" upon. (And possibly any non-political posts I make.)

So if and until a fair political forum is opened, I am relegated to saying that "the last eight years" aren't as bad when you look at inflation-adjusted data. And if you do, you'll see which "eight year" period was actually the worst.

Everyone knows it is meaningless to compare the cost of a car now vs. the cost decades ago without adjusting for inflation.

userque
11-05-2017, 04:54 PM
I disagree, it depends on the state. People in states pay into the federal programs. In California, the return is less than the amount paid, about 86 cents per dollar. In your new state, congrats on the relocation, the return is higher, about a $1.30 per $1. So I present that as a moot point.


Well, Frixxxx,

I understand that point. But I would have to look at those numbers much deeper. I would exclude major DoD bases (Ft Bragg and Camp Lejeune) because they have to be somewhere and they provide a national service - not a local one. I also think major regional or federal footprints for the IRS and Social Security Administration are here. There were lots of job openings for those entities. If you are going to have those national entities they have to have a location. Also, Social Security and Medicare benefits probably should be excluded since they are 'insurance' programs supposedly paid by the individual over their working careers. Now, I know that ain't so but it is how it is supposed to be and it is probably 75% - 80% true at this point.

I would probably try to look at pork projects and wealth transfers to get the numbers you mention. The federal footprint here in Raleigh is very light. It is rather light in North Carolina as a whole as well. And, one could easily make the case that a DoD base is an economic drain on the region rather than a plus. Look at El Torro and NTC San Diego. The state and localities are much better off financially now than when those bases were in existence.

I don't know. It is touchy and very difficult to get a handle on. The freeways out here are beautiful and well maintained. Are those for the DoD or is that federal service the result of power politics. Why are the freeways in Kalefornea lousy? Who gets more Federal gubmint largess by the mile? Can you really quantify that - I mean maybe maintaining roads out here is inexpensive and Kalefornea expensive for no reason that could be dealt with. That would be an interesting study - but my head is already hurtin':eek:

These may be helpful:

MILITARY’S IMPACT ON STATE ECONOMIES
http://www.ncsl.org/research/military-and-veterans-affairs/military-s-impact-on-state-economies.aspx

MILITARY-BASE IMPACT ON A LOCAL ECONOMY: A CASE STUDY OF THREE MILITARY BASES IN TWO METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS
http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0010488/hawkins_k.pdf

Military Bases By State
By State (http://www.militarybases.us/by-state/)

Federal land ownership by state
https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state

MEASURING THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF MILITARY BASE CLOSURES
http://www.nber.org/papers/w6941.pdf

nnuut
11-05-2017, 05:15 PM
This tax plan needs a lot of work, it is NOT what the People want the Government needs to govern and make it what it should be.

nasa1974
11-05-2017, 05:26 PM
The below is in addition to my prior post stating that additional debt increasing mechanisms (governmental spending programs, military spending programs, etc.) were put in place prior to "the last eight years"
________

Your post referenced "the last eight years." An obvious political shot--that was allowed in this thread.

The only proper way to debate your political shot would be via a political post. Certainly, any political posts by me won't go unnoticed and un-"acted" upon. (And possibly any non-political posts I make.)

So if and until a fair political forum is opened, I am relegated to saying that "the last eight years" aren't as bad when you look at inflation-adjusted data. And if you do, you'll see which "eight year" period was actually the worst.

Everyone knows it is meaningless to compare the cost of a car now vs. the cost decades ago without adjusting for inflation.


Leaving out the political overtones, your explanation is very good. So why assume Bogie's 8 year reference was politically intentional? Did the deficit go from 9T to 20T over the past 8 years? The accumulating debt over years past cannot be solved quickly. It is also possible that this proposed tax plan could add more to our deficit then help reduce it. That's not a political statement, just a possibility.

userque
11-05-2017, 05:37 PM
Leaving out the political overtones, your explanation is very good. So why assume Bogie's 8 year reference was politically intentional? Did the deficit go from 9T to 20T over the past 8 years? The accumulating debt over years past cannot be solved quickly. It is also possible that this proposed tax plan could add more to our deficit then help reduce it. That's not a political statement, just a possibility.

Thank you. I added the "overtones" in response to the original poster's "overtones."

I say that the "eight year" reference was political;


Because it coincides with the length of the last two-term President,
Because no explanation was given for using that oddly specific time-frame,
Because it was unnecessary. The debt is 20T. Whether it went from 9 to 20, or from 15 to 20 in the last (8 or 10 or 40 or 2) years, is irrelevant--unless you're making a political point. What matters for a 2017 tax plan discussion is that the debt is 20T--regardless of how fast it rose in "the last eight years."


It's obvious to me. I suspect it is obvious to most who are willing to admit it.

I have no issues or debate or proof if it is not obvious to others, only the above points.

EDIT: Maybe this'll help:

Can I just refer to the time frame that a certain POTUS has been in office while referencing negative facts? Or will I be deemed as trying to make a political post while attempting to circumvent the rules?

userque
11-05-2017, 06:22 PM
..So why assume Bogie's 8 year reference was politically intentional?...

I should add: Even an unintentionally political post ... is political.

The point of the prohibition on political posts, in non-political forums, relates to the resulting debates. This is regardless as to intent.

Examples:

You can leave the grocery store with an item that you didn't pay for unintentionally; yet, still be found guilty of theft.
You can break the speed limit unintentionally; yet, still be found guilty of speeding.


Intent is not relevant towards the determination of 'political/not-political.' (However, it may be relevant towards determining the remedy.)

Obviously, as I don't make the rules; these are my opinions on how things are, and/or/vs. how they should be.

StockSurfer
11-05-2017, 07:27 PM
One thing I am concerned about is that this tax code revision might be setting the stage for the next shoe to drop. After years of hearing about the rising deficit, all of a sudden this proposal may seriously reduce revenues. I’ll let others conjecture whether it would generate enough growth to not reduce revenues, but If it doesn’t, the only other thing Congress can do is slash expenses... necessitating much more drastic cuts to federal programs... . I really think that that’s where this leads us... Hope I’m wrong...

userque
11-05-2017, 07:34 PM
One thing I am concerned about is that this tax code revision might be setting the stage for the next shoe to drop. After years of hearing about the rising deficit, all of a sudden this proposal may seriously reduce revenues. I’ll let others conjecture whether it would generate enough growth to not reduce revenues, but If it doesn’t, the only other thing Congress can do is slash expenses... necessitating much more drastic cuts to federal programs... . I really think that that’s where this leads us... Hope I’m wrong...

Interesting point.

tsptalk
11-05-2017, 07:38 PM
Well, it was good while it lasted. I hope everyone made their points and drew their own conclusions.