Post: #1

The story: 2017 International Tax Competitiveness Ranking: U.S. Is 6th From The Bottom:



Proposed solution, and WSJ live tracker: Details Released on GOP Tax Plan – And Political Landmines

Quote: STANDARD DEDUCTION

Current law for 2017: $12,700 (married); $9,350 (head of household); $6,350 (single)
Proposed for 2018: $24,400 (married); $18,300 (head of household); $12,200 (single)

PERSONAL EXEMPTION

Current law for 2017: $4,050
Proposed: Repealed

CHILD TAX CREDIT

Current law: $1,000
Proposed: $1,600 plus $300 each for the taxpayer, a spouse and any non-child dependents

STATE AND LOCAL TAXES

Current law: Itemized deduction
Proposed: Deduction capped at $10,000 for property tax only

CHARITABLE DONATIONS

Current law: Itemized deduction
Proposed: Unchanged

MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTION

Current law: Itemized deduction on loans up to $1 million
Proposed: Itemized deduction for loans up to $500,000 on new home purchases

ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX

Current law: Parallel tax that disallows personal exemptions and state deductions

Proposed: Repealed

RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS

Current law: 401(k) plans allow pretax deferral of up to $18,000
Proposed: Minor changes

Quote:It’s hard to understand why Republicans thought it was a good idea to cut deductions for medical expenses for the critically ill or tax credits for student-loan interest. They really must want to lose the next election. The GOP plan also repeals tax credits for adoption which seems illogical for the pro-Life party

Post: #2

This "tax cut" went full retard when it shifted around the high-end tax brackets. They raised the bracket for those making over 200k to 35% from the current 33%, but then they took the current 39% max rate and raised the threshold on that to $1m for couples. In other words, if you make between 200k and 500k you may very well see a straight out tax increase on your W2 income, while those who make over $500k will see a massive cut on their W2 income.

More important from my perspective is what happens to pass-through entities like S-corps. I've been reading conflicting analyses on this. Some claim that small businesses will be castrated by eliminating whole swathes of entity types from qualifying for the new 25% corp. tax rate and only "passive" owners getting to claim the rate. Other sources say pass throughs will qualify for the corporate tax rate.

My stance on this is that I will massively benefit under the latter scenario, so of course I'm in favor of it. Aside from personal bias, why the fuck should some rentier class parasite faggot sitting in a Manhattan penthouse snorting coke off a hooker's pussy get to pay 25% for being a "passive" business owner while the plumber who busts his ass everyday digging around in shit have to pay 35% because he actually works to generate revenue for the business he owns and so is "exploiting" the pass-through "loophole". Some bullshit.

Also, Faggot Ryan took a massive shit on a huge chunk of potential Republican voters by A) slashing the tax deductions in half on the primary store of value for most Americans their house and B) getting rid of medical expense deductions for seniors. Like MOVSM said above, this piece of shit cuck Paul Ryan must be purposefully trying to sabotage the GOP in 2018 so that the nationalist movement is killed in the bud. I'm not even kidding. They're for sure thinking that if it's inevitable that traitor scum like Jeff Flake get booted in the primaries, the main objective is to ensure the MAGA candidates who replace them cannot win the in the general.

The way this bill stands right now we should be hoping it goes down in fiery flames and if at all possible takes POS Ryan with it.

Post: #3

Yeah.... I feel comfortable saying this bill will die a swift death in probably the House. The Senate won't even think about passing this. They will need to redraft a compromise with Senate Dems, which would be very tough in a way.

They need to make some adjustments, the stuff in your quote is bad enough, but NY, NJ, Cali tax payers are going to get fucked, and I think those states are a bit too powerful Dem and Rep to let this pass in it's current state.

Post: #4

(11-02-2017 04:34 PM)Higgs Bosun Wrote:  This "tax cut" went full retard when it shifted around the high-end tax brackets. They raised the bracket for those making over 200k to 35% from the current 33%, but then they took the current 39% max rate and raised the threshold on that to $1m for couples. In other words, if you make between 200k and 500k you may very well see a straight out tax increase on your W2 income, while those who make over $500k will see a massive cut on their W2 income.

More important from my perspective is what happens to pass-through entities like S-corps. I've been reading conflicting analyses on this. Some claim that small businesses will be castrated by eliminating whole swathes of entity types from qualifying for the new 25% corp. tax rate and only "passive" owners getting to claim the rate. Other sources say pass throughs will qualify for the corporate tax rate.

My stance on this is that I will massively benefit under the latter scenario, so of course I'm in favor of it. Aside from personal bias, why the fuck should some rentier class parasite faggot sitting in a Manhattan penthouse snorting coke off a hooker's pussy get to pay 25% for being a "passive" business owner while the plumber who busts his ass everyday digging around in shit have to pay 35% because he actually works to generate revenue for the business he owns and so is "exploiting" the pass-through "loophole". Some bullshit.

Also, Faggot Ryan took a massive shit on a huge chunk of potential Republican voters by A) slashing the tax deductions in half on the primary store of value for most Americans their house and B) getting rid of medical expense deductions for seniors. Like MOVSM said above, this piece of shit cuck Paul Ryan must be purposefully trying to sabotage the GOP in 2018 so that the nationalist movement is killed in the bud. I'm not even kidding. They're for sure thinking that if it's inevitable that traitor scum like Jeff Flake get booted in the primaries, the main objective is to ensure the MAGA candidates who replace them cannot win the in the general.

The way this bill stands right now we should be hoping it goes down in fiery flames and if at all possible takes POS Ryan with it.

You could apply that same analysis to cap gains being at 15%. Cap gains and income tax should be taxed the same. ZERO.

Post: #5

Something that annoys me in the discussion is the fact people act like whatever tax break they are currently utilizing is some sort of right and it can never be removed. In reality you have been getting a preference for years, removing is the more "fair" option.

Overall the plan is better than the current system. It's not perfect, but you have so many bitching and whining about their preferred tax break it's very difficult to craft. If we could just take 3-5 brackets with 0 deductions of any type we would be so much better off. That would retain some progressiveness to counter dem talking points, but stop making the government try to dictate behavior.

Post: #6

Interesting that they are trying to remove mortgage interest deduction for refinances.

Post: #7

(11-02-2017 04:55 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  Yeah.... I feel comfortable saying this bill will die a swift death in probably the House. The Senate won't even think about passing this. They will need to redraft a compromise with Senate Dems, which would be very tough in a way.

They need to make some adjustments, the stuff in your quote is bad enough, but NY, NJ, Cali tax payers are going to get fucked, and I think those states are a bit too powerful Dem and Rep to let this pass in it's current state.

Senate will do their own bill, no doubt. From what I have been seeing, the senate plans on totally fucking those high tax dem states by taking even the property tax deduction off the table. From my understanding, no Republican senators are from those high tax states so that alone won't kill it in the Senate.

I think removing the SALT deductions are a great move for Republicans. Let the people vote out the Dems if they don't like high taxes. Companies and individuals can move to lower tax states.

Post: #8

Quote:MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTION
Current law: Itemized deduction on loans up to $1 million
Proposed: Itemized deduction for loans up to $500,000 on new home purchases

I'm on board with reducing distortions in the housing market, but it sounds like the bottom would fall out of a lot of up-market real estate. Did Trump not plan on winning Florida or Arizona in 2020?

Quote:RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS
Current law: 401(k) plans allow pretax deferral of up to $18,000
Proposed: Minor changes

That doesn't sound ominous at all. I'm gathering the Republicans caved on reducing the Traditional 401k limit, but were they not already sensing that the traditional Republican base of college-educated suburban whites would have been hardest-hit by being forced into Roth contributions? Those are the people who live off earned income in the higher brackets and need to defer taxes into retirement.

Post: #9

(11-02-2017 05:13 PM)Repo Wrote:  Interesting that they are trying to remove mortgage interest deduction for refinances.

that will be very controversial.

Also, with mortgage deduction capped at 500K and state taxes capped at 10K, this is anti-New York and anti-California.

Post: #10

(11-02-2017 04:34 PM)Higgs Bosun Wrote:  More important from my perspective is what happens to pass-through entities like S-corps. I've been reading conflicting analyses on this. Some claim that small businesses will be castrated by eliminating whole swathes of entity types from qualifying for the new 25% corp. tax rate and only "passive" owners getting to claim the rate. Other sources say pass throughs will qualify for the corporate tax rate.

The pass-through stuff is a cluster fuck. I hope the Senate cleans it up. From my understanding, there will be a 70/30 ratio if you work within the company. 70% will go towards normal income and 30 will go towards that 25% rate. Then passive partners get the entire 25% rate. It gives people incentive to be passive, in their own company, if there is enough profits to warrant it.

I'm still trying to find out how they are handling controlled foreign corporations since this plan is going towards territorial taxation. So far I am reading a minimum tax on foreign profits which isn't what most would consider territorial.

Still, it is better and with the constraints of budget reconciliation it may be the best we will see. Hopefully they continue this next year if they get this passed this year..

Post: #11

Yep don't like this at all. It's great for the ultra wealthy and corporations. Far less of a benefit for middle class. And the middle class will ultimately foot the bill down the road through increased taxation for the current legislature being insensitive to the ballooning government deficit. In the long run, the middle class will lose with this bill, the corporations and ultra wealthy win. They want to repeal the estate tax too. Surprise surprise, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Post: #12

(11-02-2017 05:18 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 04:55 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  Yeah.... I feel comfortable saying this bill will die a swift death in probably the House. The Senate won't even think about passing this. They will need to redraft a compromise with Senate Dems, which would be very tough in a way.

They need to make some adjustments, the stuff in your quote is bad enough, but NY, NJ, Cali tax payers are going to get fucked, and I think those states are a bit too powerful Dem and Rep to let this pass in it's current state.

Senate will do their own bill, no doubt. From what I have been seeing, the senate plans on totally fucking those high tax dem states by taking even the property tax deduction off the table. From my understanding, no Republican senators are from those high tax states so that alone won't kill it in the Senate.

I think removing the SALT deductions are a great move for Republicans. Let the people vote out the Dems if they don't like high taxes. Companies and individuals can move to lower tax states.

The strategy makes sense, I just don't think there is enough coalition in the House, Republican wise to pass anything like that. Even the Repubs in blue states are crying foul. You think Devin Nunes would like this? I doubt it and the log rolling won't stop either.

Also, that tax move could actually force more dems out of their state and spread them out around the country, or worse, they flood Texas more than before.

I want to see what the Senate comes up with, but the House will be key on this and it is bold. I also see Trump having issues with some of these things. Whoever said this is Trump's bill, it's not. More like Speaker Ryan and friends. He probably will hold his criticism depending upon public reaction, but I don't think he would like every piece of this bill. It's just too rough. I don't think it will even come close to a floor vote.

Post: #13

(11-02-2017 05:09 PM)Thomas Jackson Wrote:  Something that annoys me in the discussion is the fact people act like whatever tax break they are currently utilizing is some sort of right and it can never be removed. In reality you have been getting a preference for years, removing is the more "fair" option.

Overall the plan is better than the current system. It's not perfect, but you have so many bitching and whining about their preferred tax break it's very difficult to craft. If we could just take 3-5 brackets with 0 deductions of any type we would be so much better off. That would retain some progressiveness to counter dem talking points, but stop making the government try to dictate behavior.

Too bad we don't live in a perfect world and are not discussing how to arrive at a perfect tax plan. I'd give it better than even odds that this abomination of a bill was designed not to pass, but to remind rust belt whites why they didn't use to vote for the GOP until Trump came around and why maybe they should consider not turning out for the 2018 midterms.

Cutting the mortgage deduction while at the same time getting rid of the estate tax entirely? How's that for optics close to the midterms lol. Or yeah, why not tell seniors living on fixed income that their ability to deduct their diabetes and hypertension expenses will be gutted even while corporate taxes are cut to 20%. Did Paul Ryan come up with all this on his own, or did he and Chuck Schumer have a brainstorming session together to figure out the best way of throwing the election? Many of the changes in this bill seem like they're more about being incendiary and turning off the public than they are about arithmetic in the ledger book.

Post: #14

(11-02-2017 05:33 PM)Higgs Bosun Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 05:09 PM)Thomas Jackson Wrote:  Something that annoys me in the discussion is the fact people act like whatever tax break they are currently utilizing is some sort of right and it can never be removed. In reality you have been getting a preference for years, removing is the more "fair" option.

Overall the plan is better than the current system. It's not perfect, but you have so many bitching and whining about their preferred tax break it's very difficult to craft. If we could just take 3-5 brackets with 0 deductions of any type we would be so much better off. That would retain some progressiveness to counter dem talking points, but stop making the government try to dictate behavior.

Too bad we don't live in a perfect world and are not discussing how to arrive at a perfect tax plan. I'd give it better than even odds that this abomination of a bill was designed not to pass, but to remind rust belt whites why they didn't use to vote for the GOP until Trump came around and why maybe they should consider not turning out for the 2018 midterms.

Cutting the mortgage deduction while at the same time getting rid of the estate tax entirely? How's that for optics close to the midterms lol. Or yeah, why not tell seniors living on fixed income that their ability to deduct their diabetes and hypertension expenses will be gutted even while corporate taxes are cut to 20%. Did Paul Ryan come up with all this on his own, or did he and Chuck Schumer have a brainstorming session together to figure out the best way of throwing the election? Many of the changes in this bill seem like they're more about being incendiary and turning off the public than they are about arithmetic in the ledger book.

Optics on the estate tax are not great. Big picture its a small revenue number and double taxation is a bad thing.

The mortgage limitation won't hurt any blue collar types. It is a double whammy to NY/CA and places like DC though, but speaking as someone who lives in one of those places fuck them.

Post: #15

(11-02-2017 05:48 PM)Thomas Jackson Wrote:  Optics on the estate tax are not great. Big picture its a small revenue number and double taxation is a bad thing.

The mortgage limitation won't hurt any blue collar types. It is a double whammy to NY/CA and places like DC though, but speaking as someone who lives in one of those places fuck them.

So you say estate tax is not ok but I don't see them repealing taxes on lottery or gambling winnings or capital gains. No one needs tens of millions of dollars or more when its not even your money in the first place. If anything I'd be in favor of increasing the estate tax.

Post: #16

The mortgage limitation will fuck any blue collar type who needs to take out a home equity loan for say home repairs or medical bills. That said taxes are a necessary evil so I'm still on the fence on this one, but let's not pretend this won't hurt the middle class.

Post: #17

(11-02-2017 06:04 PM)Razor Beast Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 05:48 PM)Thomas Jackson Wrote:  Optics on the estate tax are not great. Big picture its a small revenue number and double taxation is a bad thing.

The mortgage limitation won't hurt any blue collar types. It is a double whammy to NY/CA and places like DC though, but speaking as someone who lives in one of those places fuck them.

So estate tax is not ok but taxes on lottery or gambling winnings are? Lol please. No one needs tens of millions of dollars or more.

The government doesn't have a right to take wealth simply because you don't need it. It was all taxed at some point already as it was earned. Lottery/gambling winnings have not been taxed yet so I don't see your point there.

Post: #18

(11-02-2017 06:10 PM)Thomas Jackson Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:04 PM)Razor Beast Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 05:48 PM)Thomas Jackson Wrote:  Optics on the estate tax are not great. Big picture its a small revenue number and double taxation is a bad thing.

The mortgage limitation won't hurt any blue collar types. It is a double whammy to NY/CA and places like DC though, but speaking as someone who lives in one of those places fuck them.

So estate tax is not ok but taxes on lottery or gambling winnings are? Lol please. No one needs tens of millions of dollars or more.

The government doesn't have a right to take wealth simply because you don't need it. It was all taxed at some point already as it was earned. Lottery/gambling winnings have not been taxed yet so I don't see your point there.

You're kidding, right? Why should my heirs pay taxes on money I already paid taxes on? Just because they don't need it?

Post: #19

(11-02-2017 06:11 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:10 PM)Thomas Jackson Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:04 PM)Razor Beast Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 05:48 PM)Thomas Jackson Wrote:  Optics on the estate tax are not great. Big picture its a small revenue number and double taxation is a bad thing.

The mortgage limitation won't hurt any blue collar types. It is a double whammy to NY/CA and places like DC though, but speaking as someone who lives in one of those places fuck them.

So estate tax is not ok but taxes on lottery or gambling winnings are? Lol please. No one needs tens of millions of dollars or more.

The government doesn't have a right to take wealth simply because you don't need it. It was all taxed at some point already as it was earned. Lottery/gambling winnings have not been taxed yet so I don't see your point there.

You're kidding, right? Why should my heirs pay taxes on money I already paid taxes on? Just because they don't need it?

Because they didn't earn it, you did. This actually promotes capitalism through a certain lense. Force people to put in their own work and not piggyback on daddy. Also, isn't the threshold for this tax already in the millions?

Post: #20

(11-02-2017 06:15 PM)Repo Wrote:  Because they didn't earn it, you did. This actually promotes capitalism through a certain lenses. Force people to put in their own work and not piggyback on daddy. Also, isn't the threshold for this tax already in the millions?

In other words, you're jealous. Since I earned it and paid taxes on it... I should be able to give it away as I see fit without the government trying to take more.

I think the threshold was 5 mill as if right now.

Post: #21

(11-02-2017 06:10 PM)Thomas Jackson Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:04 PM)Razor Beast Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 05:48 PM)Thomas Jackson Wrote:  Optics on the estate tax are not great. Big picture its a small revenue number and double taxation is a bad thing.

The mortgage limitation won't hurt any blue collar types. It is a double whammy to NY/CA and places like DC though, but speaking as someone who lives in one of those places fuck them.

So estate tax is not ok but taxes on lottery or gambling winnings are? Lol please. No one needs tens of millions of dollars or more.

The government doesn't have a right to take wealth simply because you don't need it. It was all taxed at some point already as it was earned. Lottery/gambling winnings have not been taxed yet so I don't see your point there.

What are you talking about. Lottery/gambling money comes out of someones income (from a job for instance) that was previously taxed. So say for example I make 60k in my job in 2016, pay taxes in 2017 on that 60k, then make a 1k sports bet at a casino in 2017 out of my after tax disposable income from 2016. I have to pay tax on the winnings from that sports bet. If anything that's a better example of double taxation than estate tax because its tied to the individual financial gain of the same person.

You don't own the wealth of someone who is deceased. It's not yours. You didn't earn it. Tbh in my opinion you're not entitled to any of it unless a court or government of the country of the deceased grants it to you.

Post: #22

(11-02-2017 06:15 PM)Repo Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:11 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:10 PM)Thomas Jackson Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:04 PM)Razor Beast Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 05:48 PM)Thomas Jackson Wrote:  Optics on the estate tax are not great. Big picture its a small revenue number and double taxation is a bad thing.

The mortgage limitation won't hurt any blue collar types. It is a double whammy to NY/CA and places like DC though, but speaking as someone who lives in one of those places fuck them.

So estate tax is not ok but taxes on lottery or gambling winnings are? Lol please. No one needs tens of millions of dollars or more.

The government doesn't have a right to take wealth simply because you don't need it. It was all taxed at some point already as it was earned. Lottery/gambling winnings have not been taxed yet so I don't see your point there.

You're kidding, right? Why should my heirs pay taxes on money I already paid taxes on? Just because they don't need it?

Because they didn't earn it, you did. This actually promotes capitalism through a certain lense. Force people to put in their own work and not piggyback on daddy. Also, isn't the threshold for this tax already in the millions?

It's over 5 million. I'd see raising it to 10 million and increasing the % of the tax.

Post: #23

(11-02-2017 06:17 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:15 PM)Repo Wrote:  Because they didn't earn it, you did. This actually promotes capitalism through a certain lenses. Force people to put in their own work and not piggyback on daddy. Also, isn't the threshold for this tax already in the millions?

In other words, you're jealous. Since I earned it and paid taxes on it... I should be able to give it away as I see fit without the government trying to take more.

I think the threshold was 5 mill as if right now.

Why? Workers pay income tax for money that the company already easrned and paid taxes on. But if instead of earning and contributing to society, daddy gives you millions of dollars, that should be tax free?

Post: #24

(11-02-2017 06:23 PM)Repo Wrote:  Why? Workers pay income tax for money that the company already easrned and paid taxes on. But if instead of earning and contributing to society, daddy gives you millions of dollars, that should be tax free?

You guys are starting to sound foolish now. So much so it makes one wonder if Repo and Razor are the same person.

Post: #25

(11-02-2017 06:17 PM)Razor Beast Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:10 PM)Thomas Jackson Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 06:04 PM)Razor Beast Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 05:48 PM)Thomas Jackson Wrote:  Optics on the estate tax are not great. Big picture its a small revenue number and double taxation is a bad thing.

The mortgage limitation won't hurt any blue collar types. It is a double whammy to NY/CA and places like DC though, but speaking as someone who lives in one of those places fuck them.

So estate tax is not ok but taxes on lottery or gambling winnings are? Lol please. No one needs tens of millions of dollars or more.

The government doesn't have a right to take wealth simply because you don't need it. It was all taxed at some point already as it was earned. Lottery/gambling winnings have not been taxed yet so I don't see your point there.

What are you talking about. Lottery/gambling money comes out of someones income (from a job for instance) that was previously taxed. If anything that's a better example of double taxation than estate tax.

You don't own the wealth of someone who is deceased. It's not yours. You didn't earn it. Tbh in my opinion you're not entitled to any of it unless a court or government of the country of the deceased grants it to you.

You don't understand double taxation. You only pay taxes on the gambling earnings (not the principal bet) which has not been taxed yet. That's a very socialist outlook on inheritance. If I work my ass off to better the lives of the next generation the government has absolutely no right to steal their birthright.