Octopus Overlords

LordMortis wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:23 pm Isgrimnur Isgrimnur isgrimnur

I read via bumpersticker social media that private school tuition is deductible under the proposed new tax law but "Student Loans" are not. Is that true? (Were student loans deductible before? Mine never were. I also never go the any of the learning credit tax breaks. I'm always too early or too late when it comes to tax incentives.)

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives last week and is currently under review by the Senate Finance Committee. If passed by the Senate and signed by the president, the bill would allow tax breaks to families that send their children to private schools.
...
The bill would alter 529 plans — tax-deferred plans intended to encourage savings for higher education — to allow individuals to take out $10,000 each year for private school tuition without any tax on the withdrawal.
...
The 529 plan is one of two existing programs outlined in the Internal Revenue Code that allow people to save for education. The other is the Coverdell Education Savings Account, which allows people to deposit $2,000 per year and can be used for kindergarten through 12th grade expenses, for both public and private education.

Under this provision, however, new contributions to Coverdell Education Savings Accounts would be prohibited, and 529 plans would account for kindergarten through 12th grade education expenses, in addition to undergraduate and postgraduate expenses.
...
In addition to several new tax deductions in the bill, many existing ones would also be rescinded — including a tax benefit that allows low- and middle-income students to deduct up to $2,500 of their student loan interest annually.

The Senate Republican tax plan gives substantial tax cuts and benefits to Americans earning more than $100,000 a year, while the nation’s poorest would be worse off, according to a report released Sunday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

...

The main reason the poor get hit so hard in the Senate GOP bill is because the poor would receive less government aid for health care.

The Senate Republican tax bill eliminates the requirement that almost all Americans purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty. The CBO has calculated that health insurance premiums would rise if this bill becomes law, leading 4 million Americans to lose health insurance by 2019 and 13 million to lose insurance by 2027.

Smoove_B wrote:At least they're consistent with their new policy proposals:

The Senate Republican tax plan gives substantial tax cuts and benefits to Americans earning more than $100,000 a year, while the nation’s poorest would be worse off, according to a report released Sunday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

...

The main reason the poor get hit so hard in the Senate GOP bill is because the poor would receive less government aid for health care.

The Senate Republican tax bill eliminates the requirement that almost all Americans purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty. The CBO has calculated that health insurance premiums would rise if this bill becomes law, leading 4 million Americans to lose health insurance by 2019 and 13 million to lose insurance by 2027.

malchior wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:47 pm This is so amazingly dumb that you know that these guys are complete morons and know nothings. They have no clue at all and are just winging this.

malchior wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:39 pm I get what they are saying - the problem is that the markets will have to decide whether the country will be sane or not at any moment that a recession begins. When the world might be on fire and no one can agree on what actually happens. We have chaos in good times - why should we trust they'll get their act together when the chips are down? That is why this is so dumb. This is like setting up a possible fiscal bomb that might explode in the future.

Captain Caveman wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:27 pm Maybe she's not planning on reelection. Or maybe if she does want to be reelected, she's realizing that failure to vote for this bill would piss off her donors so much that her chances for reelection would be dramatically damaged. Basically, she must be making the calculation that voting for it serves her better than voting against it.

Alternatively, she just loves giving the wealthy tax cuts. She is a Republican after all.

Zarathud wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:27 pm A constantly changing tax law is terrible policy, especially when it is certain the triggers will be pulled. The Republican Party has no principles other than a tax cut "at any cost." Not winning.

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:19 pm

Zaxxon wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:05 pm Yes, there are plenty of examples where it's not that hard--and your choice of Amazon, a two-decade old public company, is one. But for a large category--newish start-ups, for example, which is what I've been picturing so far--it's just a guess. No one knows in the early stages whether a particular company is going to zero or Amazon levels, and my point is that trying to put a number on something like that, and then immediately tax folks on that number when it may be several years before they receive any tangible proceeds, is nuts.

Well, that's part of the deal. If done correctly, it closes opportunities for established companies to enrich their executives with tax free income while still allowing options in startups. When valuing startups, at grant or vesting, the value is likely going to be close to zero. If they wind up with value, they would then be taxed at the capital gains rate. In established companies, the value is likely higher and should be considered income and any gains post vesting would be then taxed at capital gains.

Victoria Raverna wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:12 amI probably misunderstand how the income tax in US works, when an executive get stock options and use them to get stocks, he doesn't get taxed? I would think that when the executive exercise his options, he'll be taxed the difference between what he pay and the actual market value of the stocks. So if an executive buy 2 millions dollars worth of stocks by spending 1 million dollars, he will add 1 million dollars of taxable income? Isn't that how it work?

malchior wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:53 am I still can't figure it out personally - replace something straightforward and easy to account for with some Byzantine solution that essentially kills it off. I guess that is the feature of it.

malchior wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:13 pm We were just talking about this - there seems to be a lot of effort to push technology out of the country. Kill options / kill net neutrality / punish education / kill clean energy / etc. They seem intent on pushing our biggest innovation engines out of the country...for reasons?

Remus West wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:09 pm An ignorant population is much easier to control. If you control all information then people believe what you'd like them to believe.

GreenGoo wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:26 pm

Remus West wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:09 pm An ignorant population is much easier to control. If you control all information then people believe what you'd like them to believe.

Turns out you don't need to control the information. Just give them the information they want to believe, and it's a done deal.

Remus West wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:34 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:26 pm

Remus West wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:09 pm An ignorant population is much easier to control. If you control all information then people believe what you'd like them to believe.

Turns out you don't need to control the information. Just give them the information they want to believe, and it's a done deal.

They are not controlling ALL of it but since most of his base refuses to listen to other sources its close enough.

GreenGoo wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:44 pm Alex, what are: problems an extremely liberal education system can solve?

But if that's not to your liking, how about a neutral education system that clearly and meaningfully addresses critical thought, vetting sources and just generally creates wary, savvy and critical consumers of information.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:55 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:44 pm Alex, what are: problems an extremely liberal education system can solve?

But if that's not to your liking, how about a neutral education system that clearly and meaningfully addresses critical thought, vetting sources and just generally creates wary, savvy and critical consumers of information.

Well, right. I mean, if there's one thing that the Trump era has done for me is to reinforce how important education is not just to the kids being educated, but to the public and the health of the nation at large.

However, "improve the education system" is something that people have been working on for centuries, and are still working on. It's important work, but people were also doing it during the rise of Fox News and the like. Not sure it's super targeted to the problem.