Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I saw the statement for my first paycheck for this Friday that uses the new tax rates. I cleared an extra $70. I get paid every two weeks so over the year that amount will be $1820. My wife's should be similar since we make about the same amount. Plus throw in the extra $1,000 child tax credit and by the end of this year we'll have an extra $4,000 to $5,000 in our pockets we wouldn't have had if the new tax legislation hadn't passed. I can use a lot of this money to pay down my student loans faster. We've also talked about redoing our master bathroom.
When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?I have yet to see/hear any Democrat say the tax cut won't now help the middle class. The charge I've heard Democrats (and the CBO) make is that the tax cut is inequitable because over time, for the poorest taxpayers, what is in 2018 a tax cut will become a tax increase. See also:When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?
- Distributional Analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
- Distributional Analysis of the CBO sent to Sen. Orin Hatch -- This document provides a nice summary chart that shows the progressive diminution of the cut by income group.
They intend for them to be permanent. There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years. Republicans would not let them expire. I doubt Democrats would either if they want to be reelected. The truth is, nothing is permanent in any of it. If an opposing party gets in, they start undoing it. I think it plays well for Republicans in 2024 if anyone is afraid of the Democrats sunsetting the cuts.
Analysis | Republicans explain why their tax cuts are temporary, but not really temporary
One key policy in Senate Republicans' proposed tax overhaul is that tax cuts for individuals will expire within 10 years, while those for corporations will be permanent.
Senate Republicans say that their intention is for Congress to extend these individual tax cuts, too, so the effect of their expiration shouldn't be included in analyses of the bill. “The expectation, they hope, is always that it stays permanent,” said Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho).
But in interviews Wednesday, Senate Republicans also said that it would be wrong to include these tax cuts in the long-term assessment of the bill's effect on the deficit. The sunsetting individual tax cuts were included in the bill so it complies with Senate rules that legislation can be passed with a simple majority only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.The rules to which you refer has nothing to do with time. They combine to limit what the Senate can do under Reconciliation rather than as regular legislation, and the terms of the rules have to do with legislation's budgetary/fiscal/economic impact. Congress opted to pass a bill containing provisions whereby the budgetary constraints could only be complied with over a ten year span.There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years.
Were the GOP of a mind to pass the tax cuts as regular legislation, they would have faced no constraints pertaining to the Reconciliation process. McConnell opted to pass the tax bill under Reconciliation provisions rather than craft and pass a tax bill that had stuff in it that would appease ten Democrats enough that they'd vote for it.
Well, that's were being an owner of a business sucks, at least in the measurement context described in the OP. One's "paychecks" have no such withholdings, so seeing the impact requires more effort than looking at a pay stub. C'est la vie....
Agreed, until I discovered I'm a pass-through! While I can't crunch ACTUAL numbers just yet, that 20% off the top eases the anxiety a bit.OT:While I can't crunch ACTUAL numbers just yet, that 20% off the top eases the anxiety a bit.
What you can do is review the provisions of Trump's tax bill and then apply them to your 2017 or 2016 financial activities (business and personal), either directly or via "delta analysis." Alternatively, you can take your 2017/-16 activity and project them forward to 2018 and then apply the provisions of Trump's tax code. That's what I did, and I'll "sleep comfortably" for the remainder of the year, barring the occurrence of major changes I cannot now foresee.
Either approach will provide you with an reasonably good idea of what impact the changes will have on you and thereby confirm or cogently refute whatever basis you have for feeling anxiety or tranquility about the impact of the changes. And let's be honest, insofar nobody likes uncertainty, performing either of the analyses described above generally does one a world of good. In all financial matters, having a very, very solid basis for knowing what kinds of events will militate for one's having anxiety is a far more pleasant position in which to be than is "hoping it'll all work out well."
That's what I would have done, but this is year 1 for owning my own business. I opened January 2, 2017. I am going to go back and look at the numbers if I had opened the doors on Jan 1, 2016. It should not be bad this year, as I've got plenty of startup deductions for my work-from-home self employment. My business is in my front yard.
Congrats on making it through your first year. I know what that's like; I went through it some 30 years ago.That's what I would have done, but this is year 1 for owning my own business.
I opened January 2, 2017. I am going to go back and look at the numbers if I had opened the doors on Jan 1, 2016.
I saw the statement for my first paycheck for this Friday that uses the new tax rates. I cleared an extra $70. I get paid every two weeks so over the year that amount will be $1820. My wife's should be similar since we make about the same amount. Plus throw in the extra $1,000 child tax credit and by the end of this year we'll have an extra $4,000 to $5,000 in our pockets we wouldn't have had if the new tax legislation hadn't passed. I can use a lot of this money to pay down my student loans faster. We've also talked about redoing our master bathroom.
When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?I have yet to see/hear any Democrat say the tax cut won't now help the middle class. The charge I've heard Democrats (and the CBO) make is that the tax cut is inequitable because over time, for the poorest taxpayers, what is in 2018 a tax cut will become a tax increase. See also:When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?
- Distributional Analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
- Distributional Analysis of the CBO sent to Sen. Orin Hatch -- This document provides a nice summary chart that shows the progressive diminution of the cut by income group.
They intend for them to be permanent. There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years. Republicans would not let them expire. I doubt Democrats would either if they want to be reelected. The truth is, nothing is permanent in any of it. If an opposing party gets in, they start undoing it. I think it plays well for Republicans in 2024 if anyone is afraid of the Democrats sunsetting the cuts.
Analysis | Republicans explain why their tax cuts are temporary, but not really temporary
One key policy in Senate Republicans' proposed tax overhaul is that tax cuts for individuals will expire within 10 years, while those for corporations will be permanent.
Senate Republicans say that their intention is for Congress to extend these individual tax cuts, too, so the effect of their expiration shouldn't be included in analyses of the bill. “The expectation, they hope, is always that it stays permanent,” said Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho).
But in interviews Wednesday, Senate Republicans also said that it would be wrong to include these tax cuts in the long-term assessment of the bill's effect on the deficit. The sunsetting individual tax cuts were included in the bill so it complies with Senate rules that legislation can be passed with a simple majority only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.The rules to which you refer has nothing to do with time. They combine to limit what the Senate can do under Reconciliation rather than as regular legislation, and the terms of the rules have to do with legislation's budgetary/fiscal/economic impact. Congress opted to pass a bill containing provisions whereby the budgetary constraints could only be complied with over a ten year span.There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years.
Were the GOP of a mind to pass the tax cuts as regular legislation, they would have faced no constraints pertaining to the Reconciliation process. McConnell opted to pass the tax bill under Reconciliation provisions rather than craft and pass a tax bill that had stuff in it that would appease ten Democrats enough that they'd vote for it.
Right, to get it passed (through the Democrats), they had to go the simple-majority route. So the 10-year rule applies. If they had not done that, there would be no tax bill passed because the Democrats wouldn't vote for it.
So the 10-year rule applies.
Hard to do when state budgets have already been established
Supposedly, the Trump cutting of state tax deductions will result in a 7.5% reduction in the value of real estate in my state
The Tax Cut Debt / Inflation caused the US Dollar to lose 15% so far. So your paychecks are actually smaller because they already buy %15 less. Salt taxes will rise, inflation will continue to rise & those tax cuts will go away.
I saw the statement for my first paycheck for this Friday that uses the new tax rates. I cleared an extra $70. I get paid every two weeks so over the year that amount will be $1820. My wife's should be similar since we make about the same amount. Plus throw in the extra $1,000 child tax credit and by the end of this year we'll have an extra $4,000 to $5,000 in our pockets we wouldn't have had if the new tax legislation hadn't passed. I can use a lot of this money to pay down my student loans faster. We've also talked about redoing our master bathroom.
When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?
I think we will all see short term gains
What hurts me is long term losses
My state tax deduction will be capped at $10,000 for 2018. I deducted $24,000 last year
I also don't know what the impact of ending the mandate on overall health insurance costs
I am hoping I can break even
Your state income and property taxed were 24K last year. Well you are making a fine living or live in one of the high tax states.
Both
You need to petition your state to rework their tax laws.
Their has never been a mandate that the federal government is required to subsidize state taxes with by allowing SALT deductions.
Right now under current law my taxable income on my state return will go up 8K for the 2018 filing year. Our governor and legislative leaders are saying they will fix that this summer.
Hard to do when state budgets have already been established
Supposedly, the Trump cutting of state tax deductions will result in a 7.5% reduction in the value of real estate in my state
I saw the statement for my first paycheck for this Friday that uses the new tax rates. I cleared an extra $70. I get paid every two weeks so over the year that amount will be $1820. My wife's should be similar since we make about the same amount. Plus throw in the extra $1,000 child tax credit and by the end of this year we'll have an extra $4,000 to $5,000 in our pockets we wouldn't have had if the new tax legislation hadn't passed. I can use a lot of this money to pay down my student loans faster. We've also talked about redoing our master bathroom.
When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?I have yet to see/hear any Democrat say the tax cut won't now help the middle class. The charge I've heard Democrats (and the CBO) make is that the tax cut is inequitable because over time, for the poorest taxpayers, what is in 2018 a tax cut will become a tax increase. See also:When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?
- Distributional Analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
- Distributional Analysis of the CBO sent to Sen. Orin Hatch -- This document provides a nice summary chart that shows the progressive diminution of the cut by income group.
They intend for them to be permanent. There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years. Republicans would not let them expire. I doubt Democrats would either if they want to be reelected. The truth is, nothing is permanent in any of it. If an opposing party gets in, they start undoing it. I think it plays well for Republicans in 2024 if anyone is afraid of the Democrats sunsetting the cuts.
Analysis | Republicans explain why their tax cuts are temporary, but not really temporary
One key policy in Senate Republicans' proposed tax overhaul is that tax cuts for individuals will expire within 10 years, while those for corporations will be permanent.
Senate Republicans say that their intention is for Congress to extend these individual tax cuts, too, so the effect of their expiration shouldn't be included in analyses of the bill. “The expectation, they hope, is always that it stays permanent,” said Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho).
But in interviews Wednesday, Senate Republicans also said that it would be wrong to include these tax cuts in the long-term assessment of the bill's effect on the deficit. The sunsetting individual tax cuts were included in the bill so it complies with Senate rules that legislation can be passed with a simple majority only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.The rules to which you refer has nothing to do with time. They combine to limit what the Senate can do under Reconciliation rather than as regular legislation, and the terms of the rules have to do with legislation's budgetary/fiscal/economic impact. Congress opted to pass a bill containing provisions whereby the budgetary constraints could only be complied with over a ten year span.There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years.
Were the GOP of a mind to pass the tax cuts as regular legislation, they would have faced no constraints pertaining to the Reconciliation process. McConnell opted to pass the tax bill under Reconciliation provisions rather than craft and pass a tax bill that had stuff in it that would appease ten Democrats enough that they'd vote for it.
Well, that's were being an owner of a business sucks, at least in the measurement context described in the OP. One's "paychecks" have no such withholdings, so seeing the impact requires more effort than looking at a pay stub. C'est la vie....
Agreed, until I discovered I'm a pass-through! While I can't crunch ACTUAL numbers just yet, that 20% off the top eases the anxiety a bit.OT:While I can't crunch ACTUAL numbers just yet, that 20% off the top eases the anxiety a bit.
What you can do is review the provisions of Trump's tax bill and then apply them to your 2017 or 2016 financial activities (business and personal), either directly or via "delta analysis." Alternatively, you can take your 2017/-16 activity and project them forward to 2018 and then apply the provisions of Trump's tax code. That's what I did, and I'll "sleep comfortably" for the remainder of the year, barring the occurrence of major changes I cannot now foresee.
Either approach will provide you with an reasonably good idea of what impact the changes will have on you and thereby confirm or cogently refute whatever basis you have for feeling anxiety or tranquility about the impact of the changes. And let's be honest, insofar nobody likes uncertainty, performing either of the analyses described above generally does one a world of good. In all financial matters, having a very, very solid basis for knowing what kinds of events will militate for one's having anxiety is a far more pleasant position in which to be than is "hoping it'll all work out well."
That's what I would have done, but this is year 1 for owning my own business. I opened January 2, 2017. I am going to go back and look at the numbers if I had opened the doors on Jan 1, 2016. It should not be bad this year, as I've got plenty of startup deductions for my work-from-home self employment. My business is in my front yard.Congrats on making it through your first year. I know what that's like; I went through it some 30 years ago.That's what I would have done, but this is year 1 for owning my own business.
I opened January 2, 2017. I am going to go back and look at the numbers if I had opened the doors on Jan 1, 2016.
I wouldn't perform the "look back" to 2016 were 2017 my first year in business. The only reason I mentioned 2016 is because I figured you may not have your 2017 cash-basis financial results (specifically, assuming you are a cash-basis taxpayer, your cash-basis P&L, which is literally what a tax return is, albeit one composed using tax code guidelines rather than GAAP) finalized, thus for the quick analysis I suggested, using 2016 figures and projecting on them your 2018 growth is a proxy approach you can use to get a sense of whether and what anxiety is fitting. (I presume that insofar as you're a small business owner, your accrual-basis P&L is already finalized seeing as January is damn near over.)
Insofar as you're going to do your 2017 taxes, when you do them, just do them a second time using the 2018 tax rules. (Or ask your accountant to do so for you.)
True, but that's why they did it. So if the democrats want to make the tax cuts permanent I'm sure the republicans would be happy to bring up a bill.I saw the statement for my first paycheck for this Friday that uses the new tax rates. I cleared an extra $70. I get paid every two weeks so over the year that amount will be $1820. My wife's should be similar since we make about the same amount. Plus throw in the extra $1,000 child tax credit and by the end of this year we'll have an extra $4,000 to $5,000 in our pockets we wouldn't have had if the new tax legislation hadn't passed. I can use a lot of this money to pay down my student loans faster. We've also talked about redoing our master bathroom.
When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?I have yet to see/hear any Democrat say the tax cut won't now help the middle class. The charge I've heard Democrats (and the CBO) make is that the tax cut is inequitable because over time, for the poorest taxpayers, what is in 2018 a tax cut will become a tax increase. See also:When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?
- Distributional Analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
- Distributional Analysis of the CBO sent to Sen. Orin Hatch -- This document provides a nice summary chart that shows the progressive diminution of the cut by income group.
They intend for them to be permanent. There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years. Republicans would not let them expire. I doubt Democrats would either if they want to be reelected. The truth is, nothing is permanent in any of it. If an opposing party gets in, they start undoing it. I think it plays well for Republicans in 2024 if anyone is afraid of the Democrats sunsetting the cuts.
Analysis | Republicans explain why their tax cuts are temporary, but not really temporary
One key policy in Senate Republicans' proposed tax overhaul is that tax cuts for individuals will expire within 10 years, while those for corporations will be permanent.
Senate Republicans say that their intention is for Congress to extend these individual tax cuts, too, so the effect of their expiration shouldn't be included in analyses of the bill. “The expectation, they hope, is always that it stays permanent,” said Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho).
But in interviews Wednesday, Senate Republicans also said that it would be wrong to include these tax cuts in the long-term assessment of the bill's effect on the deficit. The sunsetting individual tax cuts were included in the bill so it complies with Senate rules that legislation can be passed with a simple majority only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.The rules to which you refer has nothing to do with time. They combine to limit what the Senate can do under Reconciliation rather than as regular legislation, and the terms of the rules have to do with legislation's budgetary/fiscal/economic impact. Congress opted to pass a bill containing provisions whereby the budgetary constraints could only be complied with over a ten year span.There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years.
Were the GOP of a mind to pass the tax cuts as regular legislation, they would have faced no constraints pertaining to the Reconciliation process. McConnell opted to pass the tax bill under Reconciliation provisions rather than craft and pass a tax bill that had stuff in it that would appease ten Democrats enough that they'd vote for it.
Right, to get it passed (through the Democrats), they had to go the simple-majority route. So the 10-year rule applies. If they had not done that, there would be no tax bill passed because the Democrats wouldn't vote for it.So the 10-year rule applies.
There is no "ten year rule." There are constraints to what financial/economic/budgetary effects can be effected via legislation passed under the aegis of Reconciliation. Had the provisions in the tax bill been such that the budgetary constraints were complied with for 20 years, they could have passed it under Reconciliation and with but a simple majority just as they did the bill they did pass.
FWIW, the only reason McConnell passed the bill under Reconciliation is because that approach effectively eliminates the minority's ability to filibuster. The thing is that there are only so many measures in a year that the Senate can undertake as Reconciliation.
I saw the statement for my first paycheck for this Friday that uses the new tax rates. I cleared an extra $70. I get paid every two weeks so over the year that amount will be $1820. My wife's should be similar since we make about the same amount. Plus throw in the extra $1,000 child tax credit and by the end of this year we'll have an extra $4,000 to $5,000 in our pockets we wouldn't have had if the new tax legislation hadn't passed. I can use a lot of this money to pay down my student loans faster. We've also talked about redoing our master bathroom.
When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?I have yet to see/hear any Democrat say the tax cut won't now help the middle class. The charge I've heard Democrats (and the CBO) make is that the tax cut is inequitable because over time, for the poorest taxpayers, what is in 2018 a tax cut will become a tax increase. See also:When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?
- Distributional Analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
- Distributional Analysis of the CBO sent to Sen. Orin Hatch -- This document provides a nice summary chart that shows the progressive diminution of the cut by income group.
They intend for them to be permanent. There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years. Republicans would not let them expire. I doubt Democrats would either if they want to be reelected. The truth is, nothing is permanent in any of it. If an opposing party gets in, they start undoing it. I think it plays well for Republicans in 2024 if anyone is afraid of the Democrats sunsetting the cuts.
Analysis | Republicans explain why their tax cuts are temporary, but not really temporary
One key policy in Senate Republicans' proposed tax overhaul is that tax cuts for individuals will expire within 10 years, while those for corporations will be permanent.
Senate Republicans say that their intention is for Congress to extend these individual tax cuts, too, so the effect of their expiration shouldn't be included in analyses of the bill. “The expectation, they hope, is always that it stays permanent,” said Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho).
But in interviews Wednesday, Senate Republicans also said that it would be wrong to include these tax cuts in the long-term assessment of the bill's effect on the deficit. The sunsetting individual tax cuts were included in the bill so it complies with Senate rules that legislation can be passed with a simple majority only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.The rules to which you refer has nothing to do with time. They combine to limit what the Senate can do under Reconciliation rather than as regular legislation, and the terms of the rules have to do with legislation's budgetary/fiscal/economic impact. Congress opted to pass a bill containing provisions whereby the budgetary constraints could only be complied with over a ten year span.There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years.
Were the GOP of a mind to pass the tax cuts as regular legislation, they would have faced no constraints pertaining to the Reconciliation process. McConnell opted to pass the tax bill under Reconciliation provisions rather than craft and pass a tax bill that had stuff in it that would appease ten Democrats enough that they'd vote for it.
The constraints from the Democrats were more onerous than the constraints from Reconciliation. Plus, "sunsetting" personal income tax breaks favor Republicans in an election cycle, and it will be.
The sunsetting individual tax cuts were included in the bill so it complies with Senate rules that legislation can be passed with a simple majority only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.
only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.
Well, that's were being an owner of a business sucks, at least in the measurement context described in the OP. One's "paychecks" have no such withholdings, so seeing the impact requires more effort than looking at a pay stub. C'est la vie....
Agreed, until I discovered I'm a pass-through! While I can't crunch ACTUAL numbers just yet, that 20% off the top eases the anxiety a bit.OT:While I can't crunch ACTUAL numbers just yet, that 20% off the top eases the anxiety a bit.
What you can do is review the provisions of Trump's tax bill and then apply them to your 2017 or 2016 financial activities (business and personal), either directly or via "delta analysis." Alternatively, you can take your 2017/-16 activity and project them forward to 2018 and then apply the provisions of Trump's tax code. That's what I did, and I'll "sleep comfortably" for the remainder of the year, barring the occurrence of major changes I cannot now foresee.
Either approach will provide you with an reasonably good idea of what impact the changes will have on you and thereby confirm or cogently refute whatever basis you have for feeling anxiety or tranquility about the impact of the changes. And let's be honest, insofar nobody likes uncertainty, performing either of the analyses described above generally does one a world of good. In all financial matters, having a very, very solid basis for knowing what kinds of events will militate for one's having anxiety is a far more pleasant position in which to be than is "hoping it'll all work out well."
That's what I would have done, but this is year 1 for owning my own business. I opened January 2, 2017. I am going to go back and look at the numbers if I had opened the doors on Jan 1, 2016. It should not be bad this year, as I've got plenty of startup deductions for my work-from-home self employment. My business is in my front yard.Congrats on making it through your first year. I know what that's like; I went through it some 30 years ago.That's what I would have done, but this is year 1 for owning my own business.
I opened January 2, 2017. I am going to go back and look at the numbers if I had opened the doors on Jan 1, 2016.
I wouldn't perform the "look back" to 2016 were 2017 my first year in business. The only reason I mentioned 2016 is because I figured you may not have your 2017 cash-basis financial results (specifically, assuming you are a cash-basis taxpayer, your cash-basis P&L, which is literally what a tax return is, albeit one composed using tax code guidelines rather than GAAP) finalized, thus for the quick analysis I suggested, using 2016 figures and projecting on them your 2018 growth is a proxy approach you can use to get a sense of whether and what anxiety is fitting. (I presume that insofar as you're a small business owner, your accrual-basis P&L is already finalized seeing as January is damn near over.)
Insofar as you're going to do your 2017 taxes, when you do them, just do them a second time using the 2018 tax rules. (Or ask your accountant to do so for you.)
You're welcome.OT: Will do. And thank you for the positive words and encouragement! It was terrifying, but I am very pleased to say it has been a booming success!
Yeah, just got mine, it was about $60, still pretty nice.I saw the statement for my first paycheck for this Friday that uses the new tax rates. I cleared an extra $70. I get paid every two weeks so over the year that amount will be $1820. My wife's should be similar since we make about the same amount. Plus throw in the extra $1,000 child tax credit and by the end of this year we'll have an extra $4,000 to $5,000 in our pockets we wouldn't have had if the new tax legislation hadn't passed. I can use a lot of this money to pay down my student loans faster. We've also talked about redoing our master bathroom.
When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?
Not my thread it's yoursHard to do when state budgets have already been established
Supposedly, the Trump cutting of state tax deductions will result in a 7.5% reduction in the value of real estate in my state
So now you'll have to pay the taxes you've been voting for all these years. I fail to see the issue.
I saw the statement for my first paycheck for this Friday that uses the new tax rates. I cleared an extra $70. I get paid every two weeks so over the year that amount will be $1820. My wife's should be similar since we make about the same amount. Plus throw in the extra $1,000 child tax credit and by the end of this year we'll have an extra $4,000 to $5,000 in our pockets we wouldn't have had if the new tax legislation hadn't passed. I can use a lot of this money to pay down my student loans faster. We've also talked about redoing our master bathroom.
When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?I have yet to see/hear any Democrat say the tax cut won't now help the middle class. The charge I've heard Democrats (and the CBO) make is that the tax cut is inequitable because over time, for the poorest taxpayers, what is in 2018 a tax cut will become a tax increase. See also:When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?
- Distributional Analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
- Distributional Analysis of the CBO sent to Sen. Orin Hatch -- This document provides a nice summary chart that shows the progressive diminution of the cut by income group.
They intend for them to be permanent. There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years. Republicans would not let them expire. I doubt Democrats would either if they want to be reelected. The truth is, nothing is permanent in any of it. If an opposing party gets in, they start undoing it. I think it plays well for Republicans in 2024 if anyone is afraid of the Democrats sunsetting the cuts.
Analysis | Republicans explain why their tax cuts are temporary, but not really temporary
One key policy in Senate Republicans' proposed tax overhaul is that tax cuts for individuals will expire within 10 years, while those for corporations will be permanent.
Senate Republicans say that their intention is for Congress to extend these individual tax cuts, too, so the effect of their expiration shouldn't be included in analyses of the bill. “The expectation, they hope, is always that it stays permanent,” said Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho).
But in interviews Wednesday, Senate Republicans also said that it would be wrong to include these tax cuts in the long-term assessment of the bill's effect on the deficit. The sunsetting individual tax cuts were included in the bill so it complies with Senate rules that legislation can be passed with a simple majority only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.The rules to which you refer has nothing to do with time. They combine to limit what the Senate can do under Reconciliation rather than as regular legislation, and the terms of the rules have to do with legislation's budgetary/fiscal/economic impact. Congress opted to pass a bill containing provisions whereby the budgetary constraints could only be complied with over a ten year span.There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years.
Were the GOP of a mind to pass the tax cuts as regular legislation, they would have faced no constraints pertaining to the Reconciliation process. McConnell opted to pass the tax bill under Reconciliation provisions rather than craft and pass a tax bill that had stuff in it that would appease ten Democrats enough that they'd vote for it.
Right, to get it passed (through the Democrats), they had to go the simple-majority route. So the 10-year rule applies. If they had not done that, there would be no tax bill passed because the Democrats wouldn't vote for it.
If they had not done that, there would be no tax bill passed because the Democrats wouldn't vote for it.
Not my thread it's yoursHard to do when state budgets have already been established
Supposedly, the Trump cutting of state tax deductions will result in a 7.5% reduction in the value of real estate in my state
So now you'll have to pay the taxes you've been voting for all these years. I fail to see the issue.
You are boasting how everyone benefitted. Wasn't a benefit for me
But then again, I am not a billionaire
Wasn't a benefit for me
But then again, I am not a billionaire
OT:Not my thread it's yoursHard to do when state budgets have already been established
Supposedly, the Trump cutting of state tax deductions will result in a 7.5% reduction in the value of real estate in my state
So now you'll have to pay the taxes you've been voting for all these years. I fail to see the issue.
You are boasting how everyone benefitted. Wasn't a benefit for me
But then again, I am not a billionaire
FWIW, only about 2000 people on the whole planet are. Millionaires (net worth, not annual income), on the other hand, are, effectively, "a dime a dozen."I am not a billionaire
I didn't say my assessment went downI think we will all see short term gains
What hurts me is long term losses
My state tax deduction will be capped at $10,000 for 2018. I deducted $24,000 last year
I also don't know what the impact of ending the mandate on overall health insurance costs
I am hoping I can break even
Your state income and property taxed were 24K last year. Well you are making a fine living or live in one of the high tax states.
Both
You need to petition your state to rework their tax laws.
Their has never been a mandate that the federal government is required to subsidize state taxes with by allowing SALT deductions.
Right now under current law my taxable income on my state return will go up 8K for the 2018 filing year. Our governor and legislative leaders are saying they will fix that this summer.
Hard to do when state budgets have already been established
Supposedly, the Trump cutting of state tax deductions will result in a 7.5% reduction in the value of real estate in my state
Trump is going to save you 7.5% on your state property taxes? Congrats!
Doesn't take much to reach a million. I did it just by working for 40 years and setting aside some moneyOT:Not my thread it's yoursHard to do when state budgets have already been established
Supposedly, the Trump cutting of state tax deductions will result in a 7.5% reduction in the value of real estate in my state
So now you'll have to pay the taxes you've been voting for all these years. I fail to see the issue.
You are boasting how everyone benefitted. Wasn't a benefit for me
But then again, I am not a billionaire
FWIW, only about 2000 people on the whole planet are. Millionaires (net worth, not annual income), on the other hand, are, effectively, "a dime a dozen."I am not a billionaire
I saw the statement for my first paycheck for this Friday that uses the new tax rates. I cleared an extra $70. I get paid every two weeks so over the year that amount will be $1820. My wife's should be similar since we make about the same amount. Plus throw in the extra $1,000 child tax credit and by the end of this year we'll have an extra $4,000 to $5,000 in our pockets we wouldn't have had if the new tax legislation hadn't passed. I can use a lot of this money to pay down my student loans faster. We've also talked about redoing our master bathroom.
When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?I have yet to see/hear any Democrat say the tax cut won't now help the middle class. The charge I've heard Democrats (and the CBO) make is that the tax cut is inequitable because over time, for the poorest taxpayers, what is in 2018 a tax cut will become a tax increase. See also:When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?
- Distributional Analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
- Distributional Analysis of the CBO sent to Sen. Orin Hatch -- This document provides a nice summary chart that shows the progressive diminution of the cut by income group.
They intend for them to be permanent. There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years. Republicans would not let them expire. I doubt Democrats would either if they want to be reelected. The truth is, nothing is permanent in any of it. If an opposing party gets in, they start undoing it. I think it plays well for Republicans in 2024 if anyone is afraid of the Democrats sunsetting the cuts.
Analysis | Republicans explain why their tax cuts are temporary, but not really temporary
One key policy in Senate Republicans' proposed tax overhaul is that tax cuts for individuals will expire within 10 years, while those for corporations will be permanent.
Senate Republicans say that their intention is for Congress to extend these individual tax cuts, too, so the effect of their expiration shouldn't be included in analyses of the bill. “The expectation, they hope, is always that it stays permanent,” said Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho).
But in interviews Wednesday, Senate Republicans also said that it would be wrong to include these tax cuts in the long-term assessment of the bill's effect on the deficit. The sunsetting individual tax cuts were included in the bill so it complies with Senate rules that legislation can be passed with a simple majority only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.The rules to which you refer has nothing to do with time. They combine to limit what the Senate can do under Reconciliation rather than as regular legislation, and the terms of the rules have to do with legislation's budgetary/fiscal/economic impact. Congress opted to pass a bill containing provisions whereby the budgetary constraints could only be complied with over a ten year span.There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years.
Were the GOP of a mind to pass the tax cuts as regular legislation, they would have faced no constraints pertaining to the Reconciliation process. McConnell opted to pass the tax bill under Reconciliation provisions rather than craft and pass a tax bill that had stuff in it that would appease ten Democrats enough that they'd vote for it.
The constraints from the Democrats were more onerous than the constraints from Reconciliation. Plus, "sunsetting" personal income tax breaks favor Republicans in an election cycle, and it will be.
The sunsetting individual tax cuts were included in the bill so it complies with Senate rules that legislation can be passed with a simple majority only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.
Exactly. Thus, if a piece of reconciliation legislation does not increase the deficit 10 years down the road, but does so 20 years down the road, the legislation can be passed under reconciliation. The basis of measurement is the legislation's impact on the deficit over time, not the mere passage of time. Seriously, do you not understand the difference between those two constraints?
Democrats day that extra money is meaningless.I saw the statement for my first paycheck for this Friday that uses the new tax rates. I cleared an extra $70. I get paid every two weeks so over the year that amount will be $1820. My wife's should be similar since we make about the same amount. Plus throw in the extra $1,000 child tax credit and by the end of this year we'll have an extra $4,000 to $5,000 in our pockets we wouldn't have had if the new tax legislation hadn't passed. I can use a lot of this money to pay down my student loans faster. We've also talked about redoing our master bathroom.
When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?
