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.
As I've said before, this tax plan is all about giving corporate a break to make it more compatible with the amount of taxes corporations pay in other countries.
In order to do that, they have to pay for it somehow. The plan has to be revenue neutral, remember?
The poor don't have any money, so can't get it there.
The rich have money but also have lots of influence on government, so can't get it there.
Guess who's left? The middle class. They have some money, but no one to speak for them.
The middle class uses those tax breaks like the ones on house profits to great advantage, and I think government has had their eyes on that money for a long time. I do not think it will change buying and selling habits because a good many of those moves are due to work transfers.
I'm not against lowering corporate taxes in principle because they are too high. The naked impact on deficit and debt are definitely bad consequences, of course, but the argument is that the goal is to increase employment which, in the long term, will benefit the entire economy and increase government revenue.
If that is really the goal, why not tie corporate tax reductions to job creation? That way, corporations are "incentivized" to grow their employment numbers and only the ones who do benefit from the tax reduction. We need to lower corporate taxes but maybe the answer is to lower them across the board a little and more to those whose activity mirrors the stated goals of the reductions. I also think there should be a one-year freebie for those companies who are harboring funds overseas to bring it back here at no cost. The money will boost the economy and, as this thread is about real estate, make more funds available to buyers and developers.
I'm not against lowering corporate taxes in principle because they are too high. The naked impact on deficit and debt are definitely bad consequences, of course, but the argument is that the goal is to increase employment which, in the long term, will benefit the entire economy and increase government revenue.
If that is really the goal, why not tie corporate tax reductions to job creation? That way, corporations are "incentivized" to grow their employment numbers and only the ones who do benefit from the tax reduction. We need to lower corporate taxes but maybe the answer is to lower them across the board a little and more to those whose activity mirrors the stated goals of the reductions. I also think there should be a one-year freebie for those companies who are harboring funds overseas to bring it back here at no cost. The money will boost the economy and, as this thread is about real estate, make more funds available to buyers and developers.
Talk about dog whistles. Sorry, but the facts actually demonstrate the opposite. Data from 2014:
-The top 1 percent of taxpayers in 2014 paid 39.5 percent of the total individual income tax collected. Think about that for a moment.
-In 2014, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.3 percent of all individual income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.7 percent. Let that sink in.
-The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (39.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.1 percent).
-The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 27.1 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.5 percent).
What you wrote is typical liberal propaganda (especially the oft-quoted line "The rich need to pay their fair share"---like fingernails on a chalkboard) but I prefer the truth to propaganda. Now, if you are one of those who have bought into the idea that "they can afford it" more than the middle class can, I suppose that is true but how is that fair? As I've said, for the rich to pay their "fair share", they would need a huge tax cut and we in the middle would need to step it up. Or, demand that the feds stop spending at the level they do.
Before you accuse me of being a Republican or whatever, I am not. I am an independent pragmatist with an overly strong bent toward fairness and economic conservatism.
When you earn most of the money you'll pay more in taxes.
A better metric is looking at actual tax rates. There is no reason what so ever that a billionaire pays a lower percentage of their earnings than someone in the middle class. Especially when you consider much of that money is sheltered from other taxes like social security and medicare either due to earning caps or the fact that it is passively earned. Same with dividends getting special treatment.
I'm not against lowering corporate taxes in principle because they are too high. The naked impact on deficit and debt are definitely bad consequences, of course, but the argument is that the goal is to increase employment which, in the long term, will benefit the entire economy and increase government revenue.
If that is really the goal, why not tie corporate tax reductions to job creation? That way, corporations are "incentivized" to grow their employment numbers and only the ones who do benefit from the tax reduction. We need to lower corporate taxes but maybe the answer is to lower them across the board a little and more to those whose activity mirrors the stated goals of the reductions. I also think there should be a one-year freebie for those companies who are harboring funds overseas to bring it back here at no cost. The money will boost the economy and, as this thread is about real estate, make more funds available to buyers and developers.
Lower the rate and remove the deductions. Keep it simple and they can close some of the loopholes in other areas like dividends and pass through income to close the gap.
If were going to **** away 1.7T I'd rather we get some infrastructure or solidify social security / medicare. Oh and maybe stop shoveling 50b to the war pig every time it farts.
Trying to give a huge corporate handout right now on the backs of the middle and lower class when employment is at full and there hasn't been any appreciable wage growth in 3 decades is just more bad policy. Especially since these corporations are already sitting on record cash.
We have a demand problem with stagnant wages. That is what needs to be addressed. Until wages rise, it isn't going to change and there will be no new jobs without new demand.
Profit and income have been based on decisions made while the current code was in place. Any sudden change will be damaging to all of those people who made long term decisions based on that code. Yes, the current model is chaotic and needs improving. But making these wild changes with one fell swoop will damage a lot of people. When a big change is needed, phase it in. Then everyone has a shot at a stable personal economy since they can plan ahead.
The presidential candidate promised the new plan would be like Christmas. Instead it will be like tons of flashy 'gifts' bought on a high interest credit card. Our kids will still be paying it off once we, and the gifts, are long gone.
One one hand, less people will be moving from their homes once the tax break is no longer there. This means it may become more of a seller's market, as there will be a lack of inventory for buyers to choose from.
On the other hand, more people will have less money, as they could no longer realize a tax free profit in the same manner as in the past. This could mean that the market may also tank a bit, as investors will have less means of making profits, and therefor fewer purchasing dollars.
My question is, What about all of the people who have been in their current homes for the past 2 years? If this passes, will they be grandfathered in to the old tax laws, or will they need to extend their current amount of time to fulfill the 5 year requirement?
IOW, will this only affect people who buy after the tax code is passed, or will it also affect current homeowners the moment it's passed?
When you earn most of the money you'll pay more in taxes.
A better metric is looking at actual tax rates. There is no reason what so ever that a billionaire pays a lower percentage of their earnings than someone in the middle class. Especially when you consider much of that money is sheltered from other taxes like social security and medicare either due to earning caps or the fact that it is passively earned. Same with dividends getting special treatment.
Total bull ****.
Yes, let’s go flat tax and everyone pays ten percent, regardless of income. And get rid of all tax breaks and deductions. Sign me and my middle class butt up.
They are changing the residency requirement from 2 out of the past 5 years, to 5 out of the last 8 years, in order to exclude the capital gain up to 250K singles, 500K married.
We normally kept our homes 3 to 5 years during our work lives; trading up that often allowed us to get into better and better homes. We weren't flippers, though we always improved our homes while we lived in them, over the years.
I think this new tax law will hurt the real estate markets in many areas, especially younger people who buy starter homes with the intention of trading up as time goes by.
Do you think this proposed tax law change will have a negative effect on the market in your area?
Yes. It's one more hit on the middle class family.
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.
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.
