Trump's Full Court Press on Tax Reform

[Holman]

I'm sure every effort was made.

[Trent Steel]

Everyone brace yourselves - the carried interest loophole wasn't closed (as promised) with the new tax reform. I wonder how that could have happened with all the careful planning and forethought that went into crafting this?

This week, as senior White House officials acclaimed passage of the tax overhaul in Congress, they also expressed one regret: failing to close the so-called carried interest “loophole” that benefits wealthy hedge fund managers and private equity executives. Despite Mr. Trump’s vows to eliminate a tax rule that allows some rich business leaders to pay lower tax rates than their secretaries, the president in this case was no match for the powerful lobbyists protecting the status quo.

“I don’t know what happened,” said Larry Kudlow, the conservative economist who crafted Mr. Trump’s campaign tax plan. “I don’t know how that thing survived,” he said, adding “I’m sure the lobbying was intense.”

Spoiler:

[GreenGoo]

Scottish government removing tax breaks for Drumpf's golf course.

[malchior]

IRS explains pre-payment of property tax eligibility.

Glad I didn't run out and do this. I considered it because it'd cushion about half of the hit I'm going to take from this garbage but I had--now accurate--fears that there would still be a screw job attached. I don't know if that'll mean that towns here in NJ will give you an assessment at the window but the language about "notification" scares me off tbh. The whole issue is especially messy since Christie ordered towns to accept pre-payments. I'll avoid the chaos since it seems like a risky bet at best.

[Skinypupy]

Rubio is now very concerned that this bill "went too far" in helping corporations.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in an interview published Friday that Republicans “probably went too far” cutting corporate taxes in their just-enacted overhaul of the tax code.

Rubio said he expects corporations to pay out higher dividends to shareholders and buy back shares to increase their stock price with proceeds from the bill.

“You’re going to see a lot of these multinationals buy back shares to drive up the price,” Rubio told the southwest Florida-based News-Press.

“Some of them will be forced, because they’re sitting on historic levels of cash, to pay out dividends to shareholders,” Rubio said. “That isn’t going to create dramatic economic growth.”

Gosh, I wish we had some people who actually understand how the economy works warn us that this is exactly what would happen! Oh wait...they all did.

If only there were something Rubio could have done about it, other than feigning concern then voting for the bill anyways.

[Smoove_B]

So is Rubio the first of the (R) to indicate he voted for it, but maybe it wasn't a good idea? Is that the strategy now?

[El Guapo]

Rubio is now very concerned that this bill "went too far" in helping corporations.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in an interview published Friday that Republicans “probably went too far” cutting corporate taxes in their just-enacted overhaul of the tax code.

Rubio said he expects corporations to pay out higher dividends to shareholders and buy back shares to increase their stock price with proceeds from the bill.

“You’re going to see a lot of these multinationals buy back shares to drive up the price,” Rubio told the southwest Florida-based News-Press.

“Some of them will be forced, because they’re sitting on historic levels of cash, to pay out dividends to shareholders,” Rubio said. “That isn’t going to create dramatic economic growth.”

Gosh, I wish we had some people who actually understand how the economy works warn us that this is exactly what would happen! Oh wait...they all did.

If only there were something Rubio could have done about it, other than feigning concern then voting for the bill anyways.

I have such contempt for Rubio. To think he was supposed to be basically the GOP Obama.

[malchior]

Hey that isn't fair he totally tried to help address the balance by proposing an amendment to increase the child tax credit. This statement is definitely *not* part of a cynical strategy to survive in an increasingly blue state.

[Skinypupy]

Hey that isn't fair he totally tried to help address the balance by proposing an amendment to increase the child tax credit. This statement is definitely *not* part of a cynical strategy to survive in an increasingly blue state.

Read an article yesterday about the hundreds of thousands of displaced Puerto Rican’s settling in Florida. They’re (obviously) pissed at the administration’s handling of the hurricane disaster. This is likely a sorry attempt at CYA for this new voting block that will almost assuredly vote D.

[El Guapo]

Hey that isn't fair he totally tried to help address the balance by proposing an amendment to increase the child tax credit. This statement is definitely *not* part of a cynical strategy to survive in an increasingly blue state.

I mean, the tax bill *is* progress for Rubio, insofar as he did a small thing, as opposed to his usual routine of doing literally nothing.

[Holman]

I have such contempt for Rubio. To think he was supposed to be basically the GOP Obama.

Yup. I remember when he was hailed as young, brilliant, and unbeatably appealing.

Rubio came to prominence during the brief window of the GOP's self-interrogation after Romney's loss, when the party thought a play for the "naturally conservative" (i.e. Catholic) Latino voting bloc might be possible. Instead, of course, 2016 arrived and the base went all-in for white nationalism and race hatred.

If Trump had somehow stuck to marketing scams and laundering Russian oligarch money, Rubio might have had a shot in 2016. Politics is a funny thing.

[Pyperkub]

I have such contempt for Rubio. To think he was supposed to be basically the GOP Obama.

Yup. I remember when he was hailed as young, brilliant, and unbeatably appealing.

Rubio came to prominence during the brief window of the GOP's self-interrogation after Romney's loss, when the party thought a play for the "naturally conservative" (i.e. Catholic) Latino voting bloc might be possible. Instead, of course, 2016 arrived and the base went all-in for white nationalism and race hatred.

If Trump had somehow stuck to marketing scams and laundering Russian oligarch money, Rubio might have had a shot in 2016. Politics is a funny thing.

Well, he completely abandoned his signature issue of immigration reform.

[Jaymann]

How can they call it tax "reform" when it's robbing the poor to pay the rich?

[Zaxxon]

How can they call it tax "reform" when it's robbing the poor to pay the rich?

Also, when there is literally no reform.

[malchior]

Exactly - this isn't the post card return we were promised. It is basically the same tax code after a machine gun calibrated to only create loopholes for the fabulously wealthy was fired into the pages.

[Isgrimnur]

It's almost as if they lied to us.

[RunningMn9]

They didn’t lie! They just creatively redefined the word “reform” to mean “any change whatsoever”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Chaz]

They didn’t lie! They just creatively redefined the word “reform” to mean “any change whatsoever”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Since it worked so well this time, they're about to use the same trick to reform medicare, medicaid, and as many other social safety nets as they can get away with, but it'll really just be slashing funding.

[noxiousdog]

Hey that isn't fair he totally tried to help address the balance by proposing an amendment to increase the child tax credit. This statement is definitely *not* part of a cynical strategy to survive in an increasingly blue state.

Read an article yesterday about the hundreds of thousands of displaced Puerto Rican’s settling in Florida. They’re (obviously) pissed at the administration’s handling of the hurricane disaster. This is likely a sorry attempt at CYA for this new voting block that will almost assuredly vote D.

FWIW, I was in San Juan a couple weeks ago and the attitude was pretty resigned rather than angry. They also blamed local and federal government equally.

[ImLawBoy]

AT&T was one of those proponents doing the trumpeting all along. We actually had a company town hall with our CEO "interviewing" Paul Ryan and Steve Mnuchin about the tax bill during this process. I think you're misreading this.

Not helping your cause. At all.

I'm not in the mood for arguments based on vague statements, so if you want to raise a point (including whatever you think my cause is), please do so.

I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that it’s not just because they pay him.

Same goes to you.

I should probably let this drop at this point, but this still really sticks in my craw, especially Isg's statement. Zarathud's initial post was likely just a simple misunderstanding of my point (i.e., that AT&T's response was not designed to stroke Trump's ego specifically, and that the response would have been the same regardless of who was president when this bill passed). We could have worked that out through discussion. Isg's post just strikes me as spiteful.

[Isgrimnur]

My apologies. It certainly wasn't meant as such.

If you wish to discuss it further, we can do so in PM, as I don't think hashing it out in the thread would be productive.

[ImLawBoy]

My apologies. It certainly wasn't meant as such.

If you wish to discuss it further, we can do so in PM, as I don't think hashing it out in the thread would be productive.

When your response to my argument is to publicly question my motivation instead of the substance of my argument, I think it is more appropriate to publicly hash that out than to do so in private.

That said, I'm willing to accept the apology and move on. This probably wasn't the best time to raise the issue, but I was mostly off the forums for a bit during the holidays.

[Pyperkub]

Looking at upping my withholding this year - looks like the new limit is $18,500/year, but I'm checking with benefits to see if there are any weird caveats with that.

[Isgrimnur]

I'm willing to accept the apology and move on.

Let's go with that. I crossed a line, and I know how angry it would make me to be on the other side of it.

[pr0ner]

Looking at upping my withholding this year - looks like the new limit is $18,500/year, but I'm checking with benefits to see if there are any weird caveats with that.

Why would there be any caveats to upping your retirement account withholding?

[Pyperkub]

Looking at upping my withholding this year - looks like the new limit is $18,500/year, but I'm checking with benefits to see if there are any weird caveats with that.

Why would there be any caveats to upping your retirement account withholding?

Thinking in terms of other "deductions" and how they may be impacted if we have to itemize for 2018 - there was a lot of noise about caps on various deductions which may work together, and I'm not entirely sure of what ended up in the bill.

[pr0ner]

Looking at upping my withholding this year - looks like the new limit is $18,500/year, but I'm checking with benefits to see if there are any weird caveats with that.

Why would there be any caveats to upping your retirement account withholding?

Thinking in terms of other "deductions" and how they may be impacted if we have to itemize for 2018 - there was a lot of noise about caps on various deductions which may work together, and I'm not entirely sure of what ended up in the bill.

AFAIK, pre-tax retirement account deductions avoided Republican wrath.

[LordMortis]

Caveats are no weirder than normal. There is a maximum you are allowed to make and maximum combined amount you and your company can put it. I've already upped my semimonthly contribution $770 because 18500 doesn't have a good gazinta for 24 pay periods.


Edit

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-announ ... 0-for-2018

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/10 ... s-for.aspx

So it's $18,500 plus up to $6000 more if you are 50 or older (in 2018?) combined with whatever your employer contributes to a total of no more than $55,000 not inclusive of whether you qualify for IRAs.

[Zaxxon]

$770.83, you mean!

[LordMortis]

$770.83, you mean!

That was the number I didn't want to burden accounting with nor wanted to track. I also could have played games, as we can change our contributions every quarter not to exceed 18500 this year.

[Zarathud]

It's good to take a break, ImLaw.

I was mostly snarking out year end frustration over the most "special interest" time of the year of another Republican (tax break) Christmas season. I'm so tired of professionally dealing with these last minute changes.

[stessier]

I've been reading that the IRS is adjusting the withholding tables based on the new law and that we could see the change in our paychecks in February.

While they are changing the tables, they aren't making everyone fill out a new W4. Is there some calculator I can use to tell how many exemptions to claim? Do I have to wait for the IRS tables to be finalized? I really don't want to have to owe taxes next year when I'm expecting a modest return.

[TheMix]

Local news was just talking about that.

I think they said that the IRS was also going to put out a calculator that you could use.

[pr0ner]

I've been reading that the IRS is adjusting the withholding tables based on the new law and that we could see the change in our paychecks in February.

While they are changing the tables, they aren't making everyone fill out a new W4. Is there some calculator I can use to tell how many exemptions to claim? Do I have to wait for the IRS tables to be finalized? I really don't want to have to owe taxes next year when I'm expecting a modest return.

I'd like to know how they are going to handle claiming exemptions when personal exemptions no longer exist under the new tax bill. Are they going to call them something else? How does someone "adjust" their taxes so they can force the smallest refund possible if they want to without exemptions?

[stessier]

Local news was just talking about that.

I think they said that the IRS was also going to put out a calculator that you could use.

Okay, great. Thanks.

[TheMix]

It looks like maybe the calculator will be available some time in Feb.

Q: Should people check their withholding after the new 2018 Form W-4 and the withholding calculator are available?

A: Yes. It’s always a good idea for people to check their withholding status. The IRS encourages all taxpayers to check their withholding when the new information is available in February. The IRS will help educate taxpayers about the new withholding guidelines and the calculator. The effort will be designed to help workers ensure that they are not having too much or too little tax taken out of their pay.

From: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-withho ... -questions

[Carpet_pissr]

So this new tax bill will be in effect for the 2017 tax year, or starting with 2018?

I gave a LOT of stuff to Goodwill this year...hopefully the charitable deduction/itemization change does not affect 2017, or I'm hosed.

[stessier]

It went into effect 1/1/18 and you'll feel it when you file taxes in 2019. So good thing you donated everything in 2017.

[Jeff V]

So this new tax bill will be in effect for the 2017 tax year, or starting with 2018?

I gave a LOT of stuff to Goodwill this year...hopefully the charitable deduction/itemization change does not affect 2017, or I'm hosed.

Same here...about $5K worth of shit.

[LordMortis]

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to put this here, healthcare reform, Trump, economic turmoil, employment, or investor enclave thread

http://www.newsweek.com/alzheimers-park ... rch-780163

I chose here because tax reform and the speculation is what has my 401k up nearly 30% over the last 12 months and I afraid both to put more money in and to not put more money in.

Still, Pfizer isn’t hurting for money. The company is set to win big from the tax overhaul, but they’re passing the money on to investors instead of funding research and development. The company plans to spend about $10 billion buying back shares of its own stock, adding to the $6.4 billion it previously greenlit. It will also increase its dividend rate by six percent to 34 cents per share. That money could fund multiple clinical trials.