Moultrie Products
Tax plan
Community
Contributors to this thread:
Yendor 04-Dec-17
HA/KS 04-Dec-17
DL 04-Dec-17
Anony Mouse 04-Dec-17
Woods Walker 04-Dec-17
K Cummings 04-Dec-17
Shuteye 04-Dec-17
Solo 04-Dec-17
bigeasygator 04-Dec-17
Atheist 04-Dec-17
70lbdraw 04-Dec-17
Trax 04-Dec-17
Atheist 04-Dec-17
Atheist 04-Dec-17
Bownarrow 04-Dec-17
bad karma 04-Dec-17
Trax 04-Dec-17
Bownarrow 04-Dec-17
elkmtngear 04-Dec-17
Mike in CT 04-Dec-17
gadan 04-Dec-17
sundowner 04-Dec-17
Solo 04-Dec-17
bigeasygator 04-Dec-17
HDE 04-Dec-17
Solo 04-Dec-17
bad karma 04-Dec-17
bigeasygator 04-Dec-17
bad karma 04-Dec-17
DL 04-Dec-17
bad karma 04-Dec-17
HDE 04-Dec-17
Solo 04-Dec-17
bigeasygator 04-Dec-17
trublucolo 04-Dec-17
bigeasygator 04-Dec-17
bigeasygator 04-Dec-17
DL 04-Dec-17
Woods Walker 04-Dec-17
Solo 04-Dec-17
HDE 04-Dec-17
Woods Walker 04-Dec-17
bigeasygator 04-Dec-17
Whitey 04-Dec-17
Solo 04-Dec-17
HDE 04-Dec-17
Solo 06-Dec-17
Solo 06-Dec-17
Yendor 10-Dec-17
From: Yendor
04-Dec-17
OK the Senate Republicans got their tax plan through. Now the House and Senate have to work out their differences. Senate through out the requirement that we have to purchase insurance. Sounds like we will possibly lose our deductions for mortgage interest, state income or sales tax deductions. Off set by increased personal deductions. What are the thoughts of these tax plans.

From: HA/KS
04-Dec-17
I do not think that state and local taxes or mortgage interest should be deductible.

Making them deductible just subsidizes high taxes in leftist states.

From: DL
04-Dec-17

DL's embedded Photo
DL's embedded Photo
I’m waiting for the “yeah but the rich are getting the biggest cut”. Well when the top 20% contribute 2/3 of the tax revenues they are going to get a bigger cut.

From: Anony Mouse
04-Dec-17
What Henry said.

From: Woods Walker
04-Dec-17
Business taxes need more than reduction, they need to be eliminated, as business doesn't pay them anyway, we the consumer do.

And that ****ing Obama health care tax better GONE too!!!

From: K Cummings
04-Dec-17
I'm no accountant but I think about 70% of tax filers take the standard deduction so the increased personal exemption would be a net gain. For those that do itemize, I suspect on average it will be about a wash. Some will save a little, some will pay a little.

I'm all for anything that will help the economy as a whole however, even if I have to pay a little more.

IMO, you simply cannot have a thriving middle class by choking businesses.

KPC

From: Shuteye
04-Dec-17
I agree with Henry and Kevin. Actually, at my age, I shouldn't even have to pay taxes but then, that's another debate. There is a possibility that the House could just vote on the Senate bill and save a lot of time.

From: Solo
04-Dec-17
Leftists figured out long ago that by making their state & local taxes deductible on our federal income tax, they get that much more revenue out of the entire nationwide tax payer base. Of course this never, ever should've been legal, but they've managed to get away with it for decades, and they know the fit people with pitch if anyone tries to fix this horribly broken system.

Then along came a President with the intestinal fortitude to challenge this immoral & unethical scheme and restore law & order to the federal tax plan. And as expected, the leftist attack ensues....

God bless you President Trump.

From: bigeasygator
04-Dec-17

bigeasygator's Link
Solo, the facts don't back that up. There are 14 States that are "givers" at the Federal level. They pay more in taxes than they get back from the Federal government. Based on the results of the last election, Trump carried 30 States and HRC carried 20 States. Of the States that Trump carried, 6 are Federal givers (20%). Of the States that HRC carried, 8 are givers (40%). So if anyone is getting more out of the taxpayer base, it's the red states -- blue states tend to subsidize red states, not the other way around.

I think the increased standard deduction will offset the loss of SALT in places, and some people will end up paying more, some people will end up paying less. The consensus from the economists seems to be that it will have a negligible effect on GDP (see attached link). Investors could be big winners -- companies seem to favor returning money to shareholders instead of deploying excess capital to growing their business lately so we might not see much in the way of jobs but the stock market could benefit greatly. The consensus is that it will add to the deficit, which I don't worry too much about.

As a rather high income wage earner, as much as I'd like a tax break, I don't need it and I hope it ends up being that the breaks go more to the low- and middle- income wage earners. This is tough to do when the top wage earners pay a disproportionate amount of tax in this country. Time will tell.

From: Atheist
04-Dec-17
Trump has admitted to gaming the tax system. He’s set to make billions on this tax deal. He’s no hero of the middle class when this plan clearly raises taxes on the middle class. No more deductions for student loans? No more deductions for teachers that purchase supplies on their own? No more deductions for fireman that supply the firehouse w food for their brothers? How is this ok? My cousin is a nurse. Under the Republican tax plan, she would pay a HIGHER tax rate than General Motors.

General Motors has $21 BILLION in savings.

My cousin has $1,500.

Corporations have more cash on hand than at any other time in US history. $1.9 TRILLION to be exact.

They ARE NOT spending it on jobs. Giving them more cash does NOTHING but make them richer by rewarding more bonuses, buying back stock to artificially pump up the values. Jobs are created by demand. Who provides that demand, consumers like the middle class.

From: 70lbdraw
04-Dec-17
"Trump has admitted to gaming the tax system. "

No, Trump has admitted to using the same loopholes provided by prebious administrations; just like you and I use. Why wouldn't you take advantage of them?

From: Trax
04-Dec-17
Yet another blind dumb sheep liberal has no understanding of economics in general or how a tax on corporations works. Corporations have never paid tax, and they never will pay tax. Any tax you put on them is passed and paid by the consumer. Tax them too highly to the point of being uncompetitive and they leave the country. My major problem with this tax plan is that we did not get the corporate tax into the teens. This is massively better overall than what we have in place now and needs to be passed. NOW we have to follow through with smart economics and cut spending and shrink government absolutely everywhere we can. Let's start with so called "entitlements".

From: Atheist
04-Dec-17
It’s a myth that corporations tie their taxes to consumer pricing. What wa the tax rate during Eisenhower’s administration? Much higher than now. What wa the Corp tax rate during Clinton years. Much higher than now. And prices of consumer goods weren’t affected. It’s a cheap excuse w no merit or truth to it. Consumer demand is what creates a booming economy. Consumers increase demand when they have extra money in their paychecks. Simple economics. Trickle down has never ever worked. Ever.

From: Atheist
04-Dec-17
Job growth isn’t determined by federal tax breaks. Jobs are created in direct relation to demand & profits. If there’s a demand it causes company growth. If there’re isn’t a demand or profit no corps will assume overhead costs in excess of profit or demand.

From: Bownarrow
04-Dec-17
I am extremely happy with the current version from what I understand of it-it would be great to end up with 20% instead of 25% for a pass-through business owner rate, but hey, 25% is a lot better than 39%. As far as corporations not paying taxes, I would strongly disagree with that statement, but I do think the adjusted tax rate is small for very large corporations and varies for others depending on their tolerance for audit risk. I do worry very much about the effect on the deficit, and the big three spenders are: Military, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid-Trax, are those the entitlements you are talking about cutting? One or all of those will have to be cut to make any significant move towards balancing our budget, even with increased tax revenue through economic growth (although I don't own a crystal ball). Responding to posts above, I believe Big Easy Gator is correct on the state +/- tax takers/givers analysis, and so it will be interesting to see how the giving states react to this next election, even though the majority are traditionally blue.

A final comment: Why do you guys start out a statement with "dumb, blind sheep, idiot etc. LIBERAL," and then continue your thought? I assume you know you are immediately alienating some of the readers and so even in the slight chance you have a point to make it becomes lost. It's weak, little, and shows a lot about who and what you are IMO. If you have a point with substance to make, make it. We get it-you hate Hillary and Liberals.

Kelly

From: bad karma
04-Dec-17
Sorry, Bownarrow, the term "you guys" is incorrect. It would be correct to say that a few guys do as you claim. And, frankly, some people are just crap throwing monkeys, "Atheist" being the latest rendition of a habitual one.

From: Trax
04-Dec-17
The term blind dumb sheep Kelly is earned. Liberals tend to fall into one of two categories, those in the know who truly want to turn this country over to the socialists (tend to be the players, the power people like politicians and big money leftist investors), and those who follow like the blind and dumb sheep they are. Health care is FREE and we get to keep our doctor and insurance company! Sounds GREAT! BLIND DUMB SHEEP> Liberalism and it's master socialism is the greatest evil on this planet. That is where my hatred is rooted,

Atheist baaaaaaa's again for us. It is not a myth it is a reality that corporations do not pay taxes. Never have, never will. They pass those taxes on to the consumer or move operations out of the country when they can't be competitive and/or will more easily improve profit margins. You will see companies able to capture those profit margins right here in the USA when they aren't buried by taxation and regulation and then you will see job growth exponentially. A tax cut is a win win for the country in a very big way. Couple that with spending cuts and it's a windfall for the citizen. Free enterprise and capitalism is what frees the citizen, socialism is what enslaves the citizen.

From: Bownarrow
04-Dec-17
Atheist: My argument is that 1) I am better suited and more efficient in allocating my dollars to the economy (based on my purchase decisions) than the government is. The government is bulky and inefficient and eats up too much money in administration before finally using my dollars for the intended end-recipients (for example, a large portion of money is eaten up in government salaries instead of going to improve schools or clean up waste sites) 2) The people who make the money should enjoy the fruits of their labor. I'm not saying I shouldn't have to pay taxes, but is it fair for me to pay $100,000, 250,000, 1M in taxes while others pay little or none? 3) Finally, I do think that job growth will be positively impacted by this plan. My company will likely hire another sales person or recruiter, or maybe two, or we will be able to give out more raises or bonuses. To your point, those hires will be in direct effort to increase demand, gain market-share, and or keep our people happy.

And a final point to you so that all people on the board hate me equally. I'm sure you are aware but the fact that your screen name being "Atheist" detracts from your points-some folks can't get past that. It's your business, but just a thought that something less provocative would help people to read your arguments without prejudice. (I can hear you telling me to f-off so no need to say it out loud; ).

From: elkmtngear
04-Dec-17
You have to create a favorable Corporate tax rate, to bring Industry and jobs into this Country. This cut will make us competitive in the World Market. I remember Obama chiding Trump for saying he would bring businesses and jobs into this Country, saying "how's he going to do that"? Trump said "hold my beer, and watch this" !

From: Mike in CT
04-Dec-17
Kelly,

While I laud any attempt at honest engagement, the "Lyin King of Norwalk, CT" (aka Atheist, Ryan from Boone and about 37 other fake names) is a Quixotic quest at best; in all iterations the intent has never been honest engagement but provocation, period.

As a rule when anyone wants to argue present day tax rates and trots out 1950's rates they display a level of ignorance so great as to defy belief; post-WWII the US was the dominant player in the global economy; higher taxes were easier to absorb given the lack of global competition. Any honest person with an IQ slightly north of a pretzel knows this (hence my reference to the fruitless attempts at honest engagement).

Ditto for references to trickle-down economics, a phrase coined by liberals to ridicule Reagonomics and one never uttered by any fiscal conservative. The truth of the matter, in a fitting example of irony, is that trickle-down economics is pretty much Keynsian economics; again, anyone with even Forrest Grump's IQ should know this.

I agree with your assessment of this tax plan; the benefits outweigh the negatives by a healthy margin.

Do not suffer fools, ignore them.

From: gadan
04-Dec-17
This is a start. My wish is that there would be one tax rate (10%) for EVERYONE. No deductions. Then get to work and slash spending!

From: sundowner
04-Dec-17
Henry:

"I do not think that state and local taxes or mortgage interest should be deductible. Making them deductible just subsidizes high taxes in leftist states."

Correct!! Absolutely agree 100%.

From: Solo
04-Dec-17

Solo's embedded Photo
Solo's embedded Photo
Solo's embedded Photo
Solo's embedded Photo
States dominated by leftwing legislators carry the most tax burden. And they've been relying on the federal deduction rates to make up for those burdens. And when that goes away, they will scream bloody murder. But they've been stealing from the federal taxpayers the whole time, and getting away with it.

We should all be happy to see that phony crap disappear....leftists included.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/20/news/economy/state-and-local-tax-deduction/index.html

http://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/State-Local_Tax_Burden_FY2012.pdf

From: bigeasygator
04-Dec-17

bigeasygator's embedded Photo
Chart of Federal dollar received for every dollar of Federal tax paid.
bigeasygator's embedded Photo
Chart of Federal dollar received for every dollar of Federal tax paid.
Curious, how have they been stealing from the Federal government when the big blue states (CA, NY, IL, NJ, MA) are all net givers to the rest of the country. They get back less from the Federal government than they pay into it. Those States are subsidizing the rest of the country at a Federal level, even with the Federal deductions that they get for high local taxes. If I were a resident of those States I would be pissed with the loss of deductibility of SALT. As it is, I live in Louisiana (red state). We get almost $3.50 back for every $1.00 we pay in Federal taxes -- so I'm good. But I at least understand the situation. The statement that "they've been stealing from the federal taxpayers the whole time, and getting away with it" is just false. Sorry, but it is. You might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers are an economic drain on the rest of the country, but you'd be wrong. The biggest welfare states vote red. Yes, that's right. Red States are a net drain on the economy, sticking the blue states with the bill.

From: HDE
04-Dec-17
And NM, a blue state, ranks up there pretty high with LA as far as receiving fed dollars. Also UT, a red state, is at the bottom with your big blue state givers.

Something that shows a states economy ("GDP") relative to federal aid received would shed more light on it.

Your assumption that blue gives and red takes seems to be incorrect, State politics would have little to do with it (unless you throw some demographics into it) but more with what they make. UT is substantially smaller than NY, yet economically are "equal"...?

From: Solo
04-Dec-17
BEG, including federal subsidies per state into the equation is a far different issue than exclusively focusing on federal income tax deductions on SALT's.

Farm subsidies often account for a large portion of those dollars, among a plethora of other sources. Even federal aid from hurricane damages play into those figures. But I agree that some of those areas could use a tune-up, too. But you're comparing apples to oranges.....

From: bad karma
04-Dec-17
Anytime I see "return on investment" regarding taxes paid, I have to work hard to not throw up. Taxes paid are not an investment.

This is like the stupid car commercials telling you to invest in a new Lexus.

From: bigeasygator
04-Dec-17
No, I’m not comparing apples to oranges, Solo. The “stealing” of federal tax dollars by liberal states that you proclaimed is an absolute falsehood. I don’t think you understand how this works.

I never said it was an investment, bk. I’m addressing the lie that blue states are the welfare states. The states with the highest SALT burden are also the ones funding the rest of the country at a federal level.

From: bad karma
04-Dec-17
You might have more credibility if you'd compare welfare spending per capita, rather than the crap you posted. Western states have higher expenditures for things like highways. Air Force bases are concentrated in southern states, because the old t-38 trainers did not fly well in icy conditions. Southeastern states have had hurricane mitigation, etc. You are indeed comparing apples and oranges.

From: DL
04-Dec-17
"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort--thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate." "A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every tax payer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."

From: bad karma
04-Dec-17
Step 2, after the tax bill passes, is a dramatic reduction in federal spending. Including, the entitlement programs that are on autopilot. Knocking the entitlement expenditures down by 25% would dramatically improve the economy.

From: HDE
04-Dec-17
An avg car payment will be $300. The savings they project will only make payments from Jan thru April, maybe May...

From: Solo
04-Dec-17
No BEG. You've invoked a completely separate issue into the federal income tax SALT deductions topic.

Clearly you've made it a pertinent issue in your mind, but it is a separate subject all to itself from the topic at hand.

Not to mention, the various ways those federal subsidies are accounted for and divvied up per state can be quite deceiving in the wrong hands. Heck, some of them basically only exist on paper.

For a guy who claims to have never voted democrat......awe, nevermind...... ;^)

From: bigeasygator
04-Dec-17

bigeasygator's Link
The per capita welfare story is more or less identical. The states with high per capita welfare tend to have lower tax collections and a higher percentage of low income citizens as part of their population. Places like NY and CA, while they have a lot of people on welfare, they have large populations and are relatively rich. The federal government spends a whopping $4.6 bln per year on the Army Corps (which only a part of goes towards hurricane mitigation) - nowhere near enough to skew the data above. Yes, military spending accounts for some of that (like South Carolina), but there is also significant military spending in CA and it is still a net giver. The point is if NY and California and all the other blue states decided to secede, there would not be a net influx of dollars at the federal level associated with the money being “stolen” by liberal states for liberal programs. The fact of the matter is the rest of the country would feel a whole lot of financial pain.

From: trublucolo
04-Dec-17
"For a guy who claims to have never voted democrat"

Apparently I'm not the only one with a raised brow and calling "bullchit" on that claim.

From: bigeasygator
04-Dec-17
Solo, you’re arguing one of two points, neither of which I agree with.

1) liberal states “steal” federal dollars to fund liberal programs. If two people pay $50 each into a pot, and one takes out $75, I wouldn’t say the other guy left with $25 was stealing.

2) liberal states aren’t paying their fair share because they get to deduct their higher SALT. That would mean you’re arguing for, all else being equal, a larger federal government. No thank you.

From: bigeasygator
04-Dec-17
Since I’ve been of legal voting age in 97, I voted for Bush (x2), McCain, Romney, and in the last election, Gary Johnson. I changed my voter registration from Republican to Libertarian in this last election as the Libertarian party reflects a better (not perfect) reflection of my political views than either of the mainstream parties.

From: DL
04-Dec-17
My quote I posted was from JFK in 1963.

From: Woods Walker
04-Dec-17
"It’s a myth that corporations tie their taxes to consumer pricing."

BULLSHIT! X1000. I HAVE a corporation, and I've been doing it for 40 years. It's an EXPENSE that you incur to produce your good/service. If you don't add it to the production cost then you're an idiot, and very soon an unemployed/bankrupt idiot.

From: Solo
04-Dec-17
BEG, actually it's behind door #3. Leftist politicians figure their tax base is getting a break from the federal deductions, so they spend that much more on pet programs to buy votes. Tax & spend baby. Tax & spend.....

And yes, when they spend money like that on non-essential, non-sense programs to garner favor from their electorate, I call that theft. You betcha. In a sense I think it's akin to paying off victims of their own uncontrollable compulsions...

From: HDE
04-Dec-17
^^^ absolutely. Anyone with any business sense knows that the price point is always a direct reflection of the operating cost. ALL of them.

From: Woods Walker
04-Dec-17
"Anyone with any business sense......." Well that excludes most all career politicians, higher level academia, and a good chunk of the Democrat base. Obama was a CLASSIC example. He'd never had a real job no less run anything even as basic as a lemonade stand......and it showed.

From: bigeasygator
04-Dec-17

bigeasygator's Link
Data doesn’t back that up either, Solo. When all government spending is accounted for, its a pretty mixed bag with regards to where the most government spending is. Yet another myth.

From: Whitey
04-Dec-17
Microsoft sold windows for less than half of what they could command for it based on the competition. They wanted to build market share and dominate the PC business . Which of course they have. Amazon is doing the same thing in many categories and Is actually losing money in online movies and data. What I am hearing for investors is they may do the same thing with groceries and have probably already started.

Lots of business cannot raise prices and are forced by competitive pressure to cut prices and try to make it up through cuts and or efficiencies.

From: Solo
04-Dec-17
Well BEG, that's how I view it. Probably a bit harsh in the eyes of some, but if I conducted my finances like they do, I'd be doing time in debtor's prison.

We have a $20 Trillion dollar national debt, and every federal, state & local legislator should act accordingly. But that never even seems to cross their minds. Very few of them bring that critical issue up when they talk about spending. I get the impression that each one of them is afraid that if they don't spend it, someone else will grab that money & spend it. Just tack on some more earmarks.....

So the downward spiral continues.......

From: HDE
04-Dec-17
The data is inconclusive to your point as the dynamics vary as pointed out in the consolidated footnotes . There is no pattern. You get some states that are degenerativly blue intermixed with some red states that also happen to have large reservation populations/needs along with other wellfare requirements (again, degenerativly blue in concept).

The short of it is, each state recieves what their budget offices say they need based on their economic output which translates into income.

From: Solo
06-Dec-17

Solo's Link
Corporate AMT likely will not be in final U.S. tax bill: Hatch

This will avert any concerns that some corporate rep's have displayed, like Coal CEO Robert Murray, who stated yesterday that the Senate version would raise their corporate taxes by roughly $60 Million/year.

The House tax bill already deletes the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax.

It's difficult to comprehend why so many leftwing voters so proudly profess how they want tax increases. That is, until you hear them scream bloody murder when those tax increases hit them personally. So they're simply parroting what their leftist politicians are saying, without actually understanding what they're asking for. The facts behind it all is these leftist politicians are trying to use our money to buy more votes...

What many of these leftists really want is a handout from those who make more money than they do. Especially those leftists who aim their efforts at working the system instead of working a job. And the idea of developing a career is utterly foreign to their psyche....

From: Solo
06-Dec-17

Solo's Link
This is the best breakdown of the House & Senate tax bill proposals in comparison with the current tax structure that I've ran across so far.

  Here's how the House and Senate tax bills compare

The Senate passed its version of tax reform early Saturday morning, following in House Republicans’ footsteps.

But the two plans differ and both chambers of Congress will have to come together to create a unified piece of legislation before it can be sent to President Trump.

Here’s a look at how the Senate and House versions of tax reform compare.

   Alternative minimum tax

The alternative minimum tax (AMT) is a supplemental income tax levied on certain taxpayers. The tax is meant to offset benefits a person with a high income could receive. It also ensures taxpayers pay a minimum tax, according to the IRS.

The AMT has often been criticized because it has not been adjusted for inflation over the years and has hit more households than originally intended, tax experts have said.

Senate: Due to a revision to the legislation that was ultimately passed, the Senate’s plan leaves the AMT in place. However, the amount of income exempt from it is raised under the revised bill.

House: The House plan would repeal both the individual and corporate alternative minimum tax.

Current: The current plan imposes the AMT on taxpayers whose tentative minimum tax is higher than the regular tax.

  Child tax credit

Raising the child tax credit was an initiative pushed for by Ivanka Trump, the president's daughter and adviser.

Senate: The Senate measure drastically increases the current per-child tax credit to $2,000.

House: The House plan, which has been largely criticized by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., would raise the child tax credit to $1,600.

Current: The current tax code allows for taxpayers to receive up to $1,000 per child under the age of 17.

  Corporate tax rate

Lowering the corporate tax rate is a major priority for Trump and his administration. He has said that lowering it to 20 percent is his “red line.”

Senate: The Senate plan would lower the corporate tax rate to 20 percent with a delayed implementation of one year.

House: Under the House measure, the corporate tax rate would be lowered to 20 percent.

Current: The corporate tax rate is currently 35 percent.

  Estate tax

The federal estate tax is a tax on the transfer of property after someone’s death. That property must exceed a certain value amount for the tax to be applicable. Only the wealthiest 0.2 percent of estates owe any estate tax, according to IRS data.

It is sometimes referred to as the “death tax” by opponents.

Senate: Under the Senate plan, the estate tax would remain, but the exemption would be doubled.

House: The House plan would double the estate tax exemption to $11 million for individuals and $22 million for couples. However, it would also repeal it after 2023.

Current: Estates valued at more than $5.4 million in 2017 could be taxed here.

  Individual mandate

The individual mandate is the ObamaCare requirement to purchase health care. The Congressional Budget Office predicted that repealing the mandate could reduce federal deficits by about $338 billion over the next 10 years. It would also increase the number of uninsured Americans by about 13 million people in that same time span.

Senate: The Senate bill would eliminate the individual mandate.

House: Changes to the individual mandate were not included in the House measure.

Current: Americans who do not purchase health care but could afford to do so could face a fine, according to the federal government’s health care website. Taxpayers could face a fine of either 2.5 percent of the household income or a per-person fee – whichever is higher.

  Pass-through provisions

Provisions for “pass-through” businesses shaped up to be one of the greater fights among lawmakers in the tax reform debate.

A pass-through business is one that is not a corporation and, therefore, isn’t taxed as such. These include sole proprietorships, joint ventures, limited liability companies and S corporations. Millions of American businesses use the pass-through taxation format, where the profits are counted in the owners’ personal tax returns.

Senate: The Senate measure sets up a new deduction of 23 percent for those who qualify for pass-through taxation. The plan also makes it simpler for taxpayers to obtain this deduction; however, it would expire after 2025.

House: The House plan reduces the tax to 25 percent. It also creates a 9 percent rate for the first $75,000 in earnings for some smaller pass-throughs.

Current: Pass-through businesses are subjected to the federal income tax, with a top rate of 43.4 percent, according to the Tax Foundation think tank.

  Standard deduction

Standard deduction refers to the deduction of the amount of income Americans are taxed. Republicans say this provision will be a net benefit for most tax filers.

Senate: The Senate would increase the standard deduction to $12,000 for individual filers and $24,000 for married couples.

House: The House measure would increase the standard deduction to $12,000 for individual filers and $24,000 for married couples.

Current: The current standard deduction rate is $6,350 for individual filers and $12,700 for married couples.

  State and local tax deductions

State and local tax (SALT) deductions refer to the amount Americans in high-tax states – particularly blue states such as New York and California – are able to write off. Several Republican lawmakers from these states have expressed concern.

Senate: The Senate plan would repeal SALT deductions when it comes to income and sales tax. However, it would leave in place a provision for property tax deductions up to $10,000.

House: Like the Senate, the House would eliminate all SALT deductions expect for a property tax deduction capped at $10,000.

Current: Taxpayers who itemize their deductions are able to deduct four kinds of non-businesses taxes, including state and local income, real estate, property and sales taxes.

  Tax brackets

One of the ways Republicans and the White House have tried to peddle their tax overhaul plan is to promise to make it simpler for tax filers – including with just how they file.

Senate: The Senate measure would keep the number of personal income tax brackets at seven, although it would change the rates to 10, 12, 22, 24, 32, 35 and 38.5 percent.

House: The House plan shrinks the number of tax brackets to four with rates of 12, 25, 35 and 39.6 percent.

Current: There are currently seven tax brackets for filers with rates of 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, 35 and 39.6 percent."

From: Yendor
10-Dec-17
Some excellent points from both sides. Question, if they pass this before Christmas, when does it go into effect. 2017 tax season or with the 2018 taxes. I have 4 months until medicare, I paid $1,250 a month for health insurance. I have several medications for asthma, Diabetes. My Co - pay for drugs was over twice as much as cash price. So, we have easily over $28,000 in medical, that I am planning on using. Two months no insurance this year, 3 months next year.

  • Sitka Gear