That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
I completely and utterly don't understand your argument and I'm hoping you can dumb it down for me. As the father of an autistic son, the first thing that springs to my mind is that your argument implies that since high tax California offers fantastic services to help autistic children and low tax Texas does not, that ordinary people will start demanding their "pony" and want the same services for their non-autistic children? What are these state pony services that get distorted? If I make a better DMV (hypothetically speaking only) and my state's citizens get faster, better service, how is this distortion and of what? If my state builds better roads or bridges or dams how does that distort anything?PLW wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:17 pm
Second, is the "SALT deduction bad". I said it was, because it distorts consumption decisions, both along the public vs private dimension (public ponies versus private ponies) and along the intensive dimension (yes to ponies or no to ponies). I'm 100% confident in this argument. It's basic economics.
If they leave the child tax credit in place I look forward to claiming the intent to have an unlimited number of children throughout my remaining years. 1 child per sperm.Smoove_B wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:27 pm My people online are reporting that the Cut Cut Cut Plan will allow you to purchase a 529 College Savings account for your unborn child, i.e. a developing fetus.
Because if you can purchase a college education for a fetus, life must have started at conception ERGO no abortion. I really don't know any other way to interpret that, but clearly this is a well-thought out policy adjustment designed to really address taxation issues in the United States.
So what happens when an unscrupulous or incompetent OBGYN declares you have 8 unborn fetuses in your womb, you set up 8 529 plans, but only 1 baby comes out? Could one sue for a waiver on the 10% penalty on taking out the money on the premise that you created 8 plans in good faith?Remus West wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:27 amIf they leave the child tax credit in place I look forward to claiming the intent to have an unlimited number of children throughout my remaining years. 1 child per sperm.Smoove_B wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:27 pm My people online are reporting that the Cut Cut Cut Plan will allow you to purchase a 529 College Savings account for your unborn child, i.e. a developing fetus.
Because if you can purchase a college education for a fetus, life must have started at conception ERGO no abortion. I really don't know any other way to interpret that, but clearly this is a well-thought out policy adjustment designed to really address taxation issues in the United States.
As always, it gets worse. The bill also would eliminate the deduction for adoption costs. Which I understand can run in the range of $25,000 - $50,000ish. And of course, adoption is the pro-life solution for unwanted pregnancies.Remus West wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:27 amIf they leave the child tax credit in place I look forward to claiming the intent to have an unlimited number of children throughout my remaining years. 1 child per sperm.Smoove_B wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:27 pm My people online are reporting that the Cut Cut Cut Plan will allow you to purchase a 529 College Savings account for your unborn child, i.e. a developing fetus.
Because if you can purchase a college education for a fetus, life must have started at conception ERGO no abortion. I really don't know any other way to interpret that, but clearly this is a well-thought out policy adjustment designed to really address taxation issues in the United States.
I've read that the hedge-fund exception allowing hedge-fund managers to have their income taxed at capital gains rates is still there, but from looking at the pass-through rate provisions in the business section, I'm not necessarily seeing it - can someone clarify?Business Taxes
Corporate Tax Rate
Lowers the corporate income tax rate from 35 to 20 percent.
Pass-Through Rate
Creates a new 25 percent maximum tax rate on pass-through business income, subject to anti-abuse rules.
Pass-Through Anti-Abuse Rules
Begins with assumption that 70 percent of income derived from a business is compensation subject to ordinary rates and 30 percent is business income subject to the maximum 25 percent rate for active owners. Businesses can “prove out” of the 70/30 split based on demonstrated return on business capital at the short-term applicable federal rate (AFR) plus 7 percent. Certain specified service industries, like health, law, financial services, professional services, and the performing arts are excluded from the 70/30 split and can only claim the benefit of the lower pass-through rate to the extent that they can “prove out” their business income.
Capital Investment
Allows full expensing of short-lived capital investment (currently subject to “bonus” depreciation), such as equipment and machinery, for five years. Increases Section 179 expensing from $500,000 to $5 million and increases the phaseout threshold from $2 million to $20 million.
Tax Treatment of Interest
Limits the deductibility of net interest expense on future loans to 30 percent of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), with a five-year carryforward, for all businesses with gross receipts of $25 million or more.
Net Operating Loss Provisions
Allows Net Operating Losses (NOLs) to be carried forward indefinitely and increased by a factor reflecting inflation and the real return to capital, while restricting the deduction of NOLs to 90 percent of current year taxable income and eliminating NOL carrybacks, except for one-year carrybacks for certain disaster losses.
Business Credits and Deductions
Eliminates the Section 199 manufacturing deduction and the New Market Tax Credit, along with like-kind exchanges for personal property (retained for real property), and deductions for entertainment. Eliminates credits for orphan drugs, private activity bonds, energy, rehabilitation, and contributions for capital, among others.
Alternative Minimum Tax
Eliminates the corporate alternative minimum tax.
International Income
Moves to a territorial tax system, in which foreign-source dividends and profits of U.S. companies are not subject to U.S. tax upon repatriation. However, 50 percent of excess returns (those greater than a routine return, defined as AFR plus 7 percent) earned by controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) are included in U.S. shareholders’ gross income. In addition, payments made from US corporations to a related foreign corporation are subject to a 20 percent excise tax unless the US corporation claims the transaction as effectively connected income (ECI). ECI is added to the taxable income of the US corporation, but the related foreign corporation’s expenses can be deducted from this income.
Deemed Repatriation
Enacts deemed repatriation of currently deferred foreign profits, at a rate of 12 percent for cash and cash-equivalent profits and 5 percent for reinvested foreign earnings.
Suicide for their political career maybe but it will sure provide a nice golden parachute from their donors I'm sure.El Guapo wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:25 pm Great column on how the Republican tax plan is political suicide.
Call me cynical, but it just says it "retains popular options." They could still be lowering contributing caps. They wouldn't put that on their sell sheet.El Guapo wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:00 am https://twitter.com/scottwongDC/status/ ... 5518592000
Looks like it doesn't mess with the 401(k) deduction, at least.
Right, but the thing is that on its face this bill can't pass the Senate in its current form. Under reconciliation rules it has to be deficit neutral after 10 years in order to qualify - that's why the Bush tax cuts sunsetted after 10 years. This is not deficit neutral. So Ryan's going to be asking his members to pass a politically toxic bill that the Senate will have to rewrite anyway.Remus West wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:14 pmSuicide for their political career maybe but it will sure provide a nice golden parachute from their donors I'm sure.El Guapo wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:25 pm Great column on how the Republican tax plan is political suicide.
There's two issues. 1) Distortion between public and private and 2) the level of provision.gbasden wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:36 pm
I completely and utterly don't understand your argument and I'm hoping you can dumb it down for me. As the father of an autistic son, the first thing that springs to my mind is that your argument implies that since high tax California offers fantastic services to help autistic children and low tax Texas does not, that ordinary people will start demanding their "pony" and want the same services for their non-autistic children?
All those things cost resources. Making a bridge better is costly. There is some point at which it doesn't make sense to make it even better/faster/bigger. The resources are better spent elsewhere (bigger better/faster TVs! or ponies!). But when bridges are subsidized, relative to TVs, as they are when you buy bridges pre-tax and TVs post-tax, people will choose wrong. They will get more bridge and less TV than they should.gbasden wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:36 pm What are these state pony services that get distorted? If I make a better DMV (hypothetically speaking only) and my state's citizens get faster, better service, how is this distortion and of what? If my state builds better roads or bridges or dams how does that distort anything?
OK, I can kind of vaguely see that. I'm not sure there is such a thing as too much autism assistance, which is why my child is self sufficient, going to go to college and be a productive member of society and my friend's son in Texas is completely dependent on his parents and will probably be a burden on society. To me, the same is true of roads - I'd much rather accept some inefficiency in pricing than have everything be built by the private sector and have endless toll roads that increase my commute inefficiency. Or bridges that are built to a higher standard and don't collapse.PLW wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:54 pmThere's two issues. 1) Distortion between public and private and 2) the level of provision.gbasden wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:36 pm
I completely and utterly don't understand your argument and I'm hoping you can dumb it down for me. As the father of an autistic son, the first thing that springs to my mind is that your argument implies that since high tax California offers fantastic services to help autistic children and low tax Texas does not, that ordinary people will start demanding their "pony" and want the same services for their non-autistic children?
For 1), They might get publicly provided services instead of privately provided, even when private provision is actually cheaper to produce/provide, b/c the publicly provided version is actually subsidized by the federal govt (since it's paid for with pre-tax dollars).
For 2) The problem is not that non-autistic children might get autisim treatment, but rather that we might get more autism treatment than is efficient (i.e., more than you would be willing to pay for if it wasn't tax advantaged).
All those things cost resources. Making a bridge better is costly. There is some point at which it doesn't make sense to make it even better/faster/bigger. The resources are better spent elsewhere (bigger better/faster TVs! or ponies!). But when bridges are subsidized, relative to TVs, as they are when you buy bridges pre-tax and TVs post-tax, people will choose wrong. They will get more bridge and less TV than they should.gbasden wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:36 pm What are these state pony services that get distorted? If I make a better DMV (hypothetically speaking only) and my state's citizens get faster, better service, how is this distortion and of what? If my state builds better roads or bridges or dams how does that distort anything?
Is this a poop joke? It looks like a poop joke.Chaz wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:52 pm The new lower maximum rate on pass through businesses should be great for Trump, since his business is set up as a pass through.
I haven't looked too closely into the tax bill at this point, but this hasn't raised my personal alarms. Despite my family's excessive medical costs, we've rarely actually hit the spend level that would make it worth it to deduct medical expenses. I don't know if it's a sliding scale thing because of income or what, but the only time we hit it was when we bought a wheelchair accessible van. We were able to deduct the $27K cost of the wheelchair conversion as a medical expense (although not the cost of the actual van - just that conversion cost).Kraken wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:48 pmI'm surprised that nobody is talking about this...maybe because the threshold is so high? People with huge medical bills need relief more than anyone. And with the Republicans actively working to ruin the health insurance marketplace as the American population ages, that's going to be more and more of us.Pyperkub wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:14 pm the Health Care deduction elimination is going to absolutely crush us next year if it becomes law.
The nascent market for electric cars will suffer a big setback if the Republican tax plan released on Thursday enters into law. Among the changes to the current tax code would be an end to the Plug-In Electric Drive Vehicle Credit. That's the tax incentive that currently means up to $7,500 back from the IRS when you purchase a new battery or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.
...
Things aren't quite as bad on the renewable energy side. There are new incentives to invest in small-scale wind, geothermal, solar, or fuel cell energy properties, and others have been extended. The nuclear industry also gets an extension on a tax incentive that was meant to expire in 2021. But the wind industry won't be happy. Currently, wind power qualifies for a 2.3 cents/kWh credit; under the new scheme this would be just 1.5c/kWh.
We've itemized them maybe 4 of the past 10 years or so. We're also expecting some large, uncovered medical expenses next year that I don't know if I can accelerate into this calendar year, it already being November...ImLawBoy wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:38 pmI haven't looked too closely into the tax bill at this point, but this hasn't raised my personal alarms. Despite my family's excessive medical costs, we've rarely actually hit the spend level that would make it worth it to deduct medical expenses. I don't know if it's a sliding scale thing because of income or what, but the only time we hit it was when we bought a wheelchair accessible van. We were able to deduct the $27K cost of the wheelchair conversion as a medical expense (although not the cost of the actual van - just that conversion cost).Kraken wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:48 pmI'm surprised that nobody is talking about this...maybe because the threshold is so high? People with huge medical bills need relief more than anyone. And with the Republicans actively working to ruin the health insurance marketplace as the American population ages, that's going to be more and more of us.Pyperkub wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:14 pm the Health Care deduction elimination is going to absolutely crush us next year if it becomes law.
From what little I've read so far, the changes to deductions for dependents is more likely to harm me. I saw somewhere that said that families with 3+ kids (I have 3) are likely to have their taxes go up because of this.
Nazi Germany built some coal-burning cars. Why don't we have those now? Nazis and coal are two of Trump's favorite things.Zaxxon wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:36 pm Hey, look: this would kill the EV tax credit, as well. Tilting purchase decisions toward gas guzzlers will help MAGA, for sure.
I...don't think that's true. I just randomly pulled up the Vanguard site on opening a 529 and Step #1 is:Zaxxon wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:36 pmAnd I must be missing something on the 529 commentary above: you've always been able to open a 529 plan before assigning it to a live child, and you've always been able to reassign them as needed.
The changes proposed in the Cut Cut Cut Plan would mean all you need is a doctor to indicate you're pregnant and then you can assign the 529 to a fetus. How that happens without a social security number I have no idea, but maybe there's another plan in the works to allow people to obtain a SSI# when they get a pregnancy test at the supermarket? Read more here.Have the Social Security number, birth date, and address of the beneficiary of the 529 account (as well as your own).
I saw this as well. So when would this theoretically occur if it were to pass? My current savings plan (barring catastrophe) has me buying one in March, 2019. If I move that up to 2018, will I get in under the wire? Or does it have to be this year to be safe? $5k is a lot of money to miss out on.
http://nypost.com/2017/11/04/dems-could ... -congress/Democrats could end up pushing the Republican tax bill over the finish line in Congress.
“I’m not ruling out supporting it. Heck, no,” Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) told Politico. Manchin is gearing up for a re-election fight next year in his red state.
And several vulnerable Dems — including Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana, as well as moderate House members like Henry Cuellar of Texas — are signaling their potential support for the bill.
But Democratic leaders Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Charles Schumer are pushing their members to hold firm.
President Trump has wooed the wavering Dems by name in speeches on the tax plan.
That's pretty terrible considering the tax bill is uniformly awful unless you're super wealthy.
I'm not.RunningMn9 wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 3:24 pm Is anyone surprised at his ambivalence when it comes to paying taxes?
We'll accept that, but the complete answer was 'no, no one is surprised.'pr0ner wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:54 pmI'm not.RunningMn9 wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 3:24 pm Is anyone surprised at his ambivalence when it comes to paying taxes?
I was being succinct.Zaxxon wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:04 pmWe'll accept that, but the complete answer was 'no, no one is surprised.'pr0ner wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:54 pmI'm not.RunningMn9 wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 3:24 pm Is anyone surprised at his ambivalence when it comes to paying taxes?
