Making them deductible just subsidizes high taxes in leftist states.
And that ****ing Obama health care tax better GONE too!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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; ).
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.
"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%.
We should all be happy to see that phony crap disappear....leftists included.
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"...?
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.....
This is like the stupid car commercials telling you to invest in a new Lexus.
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.
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...... ;^)
Apparently I'm not the only one with a raised brow and calling "bullchit" on that claim.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.......
The short of it is, each state recieves what their budget offices say they need based on their economic output which translates into income.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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."
I agree, at some point we need to address the debt directly.