0
billvon

Trump tax plan

Recommended Posts

This says it all on the level of planning going into this:

==========================
Trump Is Angry About a Proposal in His Own Tax Plan, Sources Say

Kevin Cirilli and Sahil Kapur
October 12, 2017

Months after the White House proposed ending a tax break for people in high-tax states, President Donald Trump grew angry when he learned that the change would hurt some middle-income taxpayers, according to two people familiar with his thinking.

Trump’s concerns led him to say this week that “we’ll be adjusting” the tax-overhaul framework, the people said -- but it’s not clear how he and congressional leaders would make up for the revenue that would be lost without ballooning the deficit or torpedoing support for the plan. And Trump’s top economic adviser said Thursday morning that the president is not rethinking his position on repealing the state and local tax deduction.

The White House press office on Wednesday night declined to comment on internal deliberations, but released a general statement that said in part: “The president has made it unequivocally clear that a key priority for tax reform is to cut taxes for America’s hardworking middle class families.”

But Gary Cohn, the director of Trump’s National Economic Council, said Thursday that the president is not rethinking his position on the state and local tax deduction, which allows households to deduct state and local taxes on their federal returns. Cohn declined to take other questions. Cohn had previously suggested that the White House was open to negotiation on the issue.
===========================

Republicans must be so proud of their president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My guess from where I see it is that Trump does not have the political power or the skill to get the R caucus behind killing the state and local tax deduction. Mid-terms are coming up fast now. Tax reform needed to be taken care of months ago to have a real chance. It will be just one more failure to add to his record.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me, it makes sense to get rid of the state and local tax deduction on Schedule A. Why should my Federal taxes vary with my state taxes, unless those state taxes replace some Federal expenditures in my state? Of course, it has been many years since I was actually able to deduct state/local taxes (income, property) on Schedule A anyway, since I have always owed alternative minimum Federal tax. I also favor getting rid of the deduction for charity and mortgage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
headoverheels

To me, it makes sense to get rid of the state and local tax deduction on Schedule A. Why should my Federal taxes vary with my state taxes, unless those state taxes replace some Federal expenditures in my state? Of course, it has been many years since I was actually able to deduct state/local taxes (income, property) on Schedule A anyway, since I have always owed alternative minimum Federal tax. I also favor getting rid of the deduction for charity and mortgage.




You are probably correct on all of that. Where I come from most of that is not deductible, and for good reason. But once something like that is in place it;'s hard to take it away.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

***To me, it makes sense to get rid of the state and local tax deduction on Schedule A. Why should my Federal taxes vary with my state taxes, unless those state taxes replace some Federal expenditures in my state? Of course, it has been many years since I was actually able to deduct state/local taxes (income, property) on Schedule A anyway, since I have always owed alternative minimum Federal tax. I also favor getting rid of the deduction for charity and mortgage.




You are probably correct on all of that. Where I come from most of that is not deductible, and for good reason. But once something like that is in place it;'s hard to take it away.

Yes across the board. Thats why many suggest the republican reforms will go nowhere.

Imagine the elimination of charity deductions for churches! For the elimination of the subsidy that atheists pay the state because they are "non-believers". Christian gun owners of America would rise up and...and...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

The homeowner interest credits and tax incentives for home ownership are a very big deal.
IMO, if we take those away, home buying takes a big hit.

It would be great for the economy. I can tell you this.
:P



Do you honestly think the trump clan of condo sellers would cut their own throats? That would be a line item veto from trump right off the bat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Republicans were asked to vote for a budget that nobody believes in so that we have a chance to vote for a tax bill that nobody’s read”; Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz (R).

Looks like the R's have gone wobbly (TM M. Thatcher) on the tax bill.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"During half a century of Republican rhetoric of frugality, 1960 to 2010, entitlement spending grew 8 percent faster under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones.". Conservative commentator George F. Will.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil1111

line item veto



You're speaking metaphorically, right? Because the President doesn't have an actual line item veto authority after Clinton v. City of New York.
Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skwrl

***line item veto



You're speaking metaphorically, right? Because the President doesn't have an actual line item veto authority after Clinton v. City of New York.

Typical nit-picking lawyer!
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skwrl

***line item veto



You're speaking metaphorically, right? Because the President doesn't have an actual line item veto authority after Clinton v. City of New York.

I misspoke...er...misstyped.

I meant "lying item venting" whereby trump lies about what he objects to and vents to everyone about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil1111

******line item veto



You're speaking metaphorically, right? Because the President doesn't have an actual line item veto authority after Clinton v. City of New York.

I misspoke...er...misstyped.

I meant "lying item venting" whereby trump lies about what he objects to and vents to everyone about it.

Well, that one made me laugh out loud literally. Thank you for that.
Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
headoverheels

With some details on the latest version of the proposed bill out, it will be interesting to see what the GAO says about the deficit. It appears that the deficit will increase substantially .



Well that'll be FAKE NEWS, for a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So far looks like increase in tax on the poor (lowest rate goes from 10% to 15%) and massive cuts for the rich (estate tax removed.) Middle class largely unaffected, depending on family size (due to change in personal and dependent deductions.)

About what I expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen

Hi yoink,

Quote

increase the tax rate on the poorest segment of society by 5%



Which actually means a tax increase of 50% for them.

Jerry Baumchen




Except that their basic deduction would increase. So maybe not. Tax policy is complicated. The R plan out of the house is not all that outrageous considering it is an R plan. The bigger point is the attempt to lower revenues at a time of increasing deficit. This is an integral part of a larger plan to gut federal programs.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen

Which actually means a tax increase of 50% for them.


Update - last rev of the tax plan replaces existing 10 and 15% brackets with a 12% bracket (covering a similar bracket) so it will probably be close to a wash for low income people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

So far looks like increase in tax on the poor (lowest rate goes from 10% to 15%) ...



I'm seeing 12% reported, rather than 15%.

I wonder whether dividends will still get preferred treatment? If so, we can show $90k of income, and pay no federal income taxes.

States have to get revenue from somewhere -- usually a combination of sales tax, property tax, and income tax. Getting rid of the deduction for SIT will favor those living in states with higher property/lower income tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The plan I see drops the deduction for state and local taxes, but as a "compromise", keeps it for property taxes. In other words renters will be required to subsidize owners.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0