billvon 2,436 #1 October 12, 2017 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,932 #2 October 13, 2017 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 291 #3 October 13, 2017 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,932 #4 October 13, 2017 headoverheelsTo 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 918 #5 October 13, 2017 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... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 633 #6 October 13, 2017 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 918 #7 October 13, 2017 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. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 633 #8 October 13, 2017 LOL - good point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,652 #9 November 2, 2017 "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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,652 #10 November 2, 2017 "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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skwrl 56 #11 November 2, 2017 Phil1111line 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,652 #12 November 2, 2017 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 918 #13 November 2, 2017 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skwrl 56 #14 November 2, 2017 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 291 #15 November 2, 2017 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 . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #16 November 2, 2017 headoverheelsWith 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,436 #17 November 2, 2017 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #18 November 2, 2017 Yeah. By all means increase the tax rate on the poorest segment of society by 5% but keep the rate the same for the richest. Makes perfect sense... Those poor people don't show up to Washington lunches anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,436 #19 November 2, 2017 This just in - the first GOP representative (Lee Zeldin) has come out against Trump's tax plan. That was fast. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 918 #20 November 2, 2017 Ron has won a big victory. The House Republican tax bill released Thursday would allow churches to endorse political candidates, rolling back a 1950s-era law that bars such activities. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/358447-gop-tax-bill-would-allow-churches-to-endorse-political-candidates Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,068 #21 November 2, 2017 Hi yoink, Quoteincrease the tax rate on the poorest segment of society by 5% Which actually means a tax increase of 50% for them. Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,932 #22 November 2, 2017 JerryBaumchenHi yoink, Quoteincrease 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,436 #23 November 2, 2017 JerryBaumchenWhich 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 291 #24 November 2, 2017 billvonSo 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,932 #25 November 2, 2017 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites