Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
only if you exceed the standard deduction . other wise you and the renter get the same deduction amount. you would not see a penny extra as a couple until you exceed 24k in deductions . otherwise all you get is the standard deduction . most of america does not have enough to exceed the standard deduction .
state , local taxes and real estate taxes are capped at 10k when going towards that 24k threshold .. mortgage interest up to a high amount is still able to be added in the pile of deductions towards going over the 24k .
i think you need to exceed 18k ... so the 10k mortgage interest is good , the real estate taxes and any state and local taxes are capped at 10k. if you go over 18k then you have some extra to deduct . but basically the only difference in what you get back is what is left over after the 18k standard deduction level .
so if all your deductions are 22k as an example you really are just writing of an extra 4k in income .
this is why tax wise the renter has it best . they may have very little in deductions and take little money out of piggy for deductible things .. in the mean time they fly the empty seats and get to take 24k in deductions as a couple , banking all that tax money they never spent in the first place , even putting it towards the rent . the homeowner actually may have pulled that 24k out of piggy and just gets back a small piece of what they spent
yeah , something there does not make sense unless they just refer to their income as being "low" but by more conventional benchmarks it is quite high . 17k in just two items paid is not reflective of a "low income "
Maybe. But that would be an even higher level of BS card. The inference was a "woe is me" type post.
"I'm low income but have $500,000 in the bank".
Ok.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
yeah , something there does not make sense unless they just refer to their income as being "low" but by more conventional benchmarks it is quite high . 17k in just two items paid is not reflective of a "low income "
I mean, i agree, but we need more facts to be able to judge it. Maybe she's in San fran and anything under $8M a year is considered low income....
she may not be talking about the national avg, but instead low relative to some other scale. i'm sure she can weigh in.
For some reason, my Child Tax credit in Turbo Tax for 2016 was $1900, in 2017 was $1500, and in 2018 it's showing as $6000. we've had the same 3 young kids in all 3 years.
i guess i shouldn't complain cause this effectively reduces our tax liability, but why are these amounts so different? especially the one in 2018?
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but you also lost the dependent exemptions for each of them in 2018. So still better for most people, but not as good as it might look, just looking at the credit.
For example, 3 kids in 2017 would have reduced taxable income by $12,000. If your marginal rate for that 12K in 2017 was 25%, that is a tax reduction of 3K in 2017 in addition to the credit.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but you also lost the dependent exemptions for each of them in 2018. So still better for most people, but not as good as it might look, just looking at the credit.
For example, 3 kids in 2017 would have reduced taxable income by $12,000. If your marginal rate for that 12K in 2017 was 25%, that is a tax reduction of 3K in 2017 in addition to the credit.
so 3k + 1500 = 4500.....still less than the 6k i seem to be getting now...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.