U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-01-2017, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
21,535 posts, read 43,982,964 times
Reputation: 15135

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
Since we are unlikely to get any details until just before voted on (if then!) we are left to come up with various scenarios that seem likeliest. Perhaps it would be easier to convince Trump and his administration to actually be aboveboard and upfront? Not likely if indeed the middle class will get so little out of it.
Well, you can bet Trump hasn't a clue or doesn't care about the paltry benefit, if any, to the middle class. One look at Mnuchin and his Cheshire grin should tell anyone he has no familiarity with the words honest and aboveboard. In the end, birds of a feather.

Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
The plan will never pass.

But the basics are that the middle class and the upper middle class will pay more - sometimes much more. The really wealthy and corporations will pay less. The debt and deficit will balloon. Notice - all those people (and most are/were Trump voters) who claimed the #1 issue in the USA was paying down the debt...they have went completely silent! Not only that, they are in favor of INCREASING our debt....even if it doesn't put a single cent into their pocket.
Chris Wallace was really taking apart Rick Mulvaney on those exact issues today. Tax cuts virtually nil for people who really need it - AND - the biggee - blowing up the debt and deficit. He cited an economist/budget director (I think) from an earlier administration who said for every $1 in tax cut, ONLY .35c is returned to the economy. Mulvaney's argument is you can't just look at the tax cut - you have to use "dynamic scoring" and consider ALL the benefits to taxpayers with added growth, and that the Administration is shooting for 3% growth. Ha - I heard on CNBC last week that both growth and inflation are held back by the digital economy and that situation isn't changing anytime soon. Their arguments have no factual basis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I know we will pay more, probably not more than a few thousand dollars but it just galls me to think that we will pay more so that the Mnuchin's and Trump's of the world can rake in several million dollars more on our backs.

I feel like it's Ronnie Raygun's great tax plan all over again, that's when the AGI to deduct medical expenses went from 3% to 7.5%, they took away the deduction on interest on car loans & credit cards, they raised FICA taxes and raised taxes every year - 11 tax increases if I remember correctly. What a joy that was when I was a single mom raising two kids by myself...deciding between buying your kids shoes or paying the utility bill is not something one should have to do in order to give the oligarchs more money.
My exact same experience. After the recession I was earning less and paying MORE after Reagan got done with the tax overhaul.

 
Old 10-01-2017, 01:12 PM
 
29,774 posts, read 34,856,103 times
Reputation: 11687
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I'm 70, my husband is 73. A good part of our Social Security is subject to income tax, we each have a pension and those are taxed, we take annual mandatory withdrawals from our 401k's and those are taxed, our investment income is taxed. My guess is that we are not 'unique' among retired couples and most if not all seniors in our situation will be paying more under this tax plan.
Do you currently itemize or take the standard defuction?
 
Old 10-01-2017, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,009 posts, read 13,571,153 times
Reputation: 22098
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
Since we are unlikely to get any details until just before voted on (if then!) we are left to come up with various scenarios that seem likeliest. Perhaps it would be easier to convince Trump and his administration to actually be aboveboard and upfront? Not likely if indeed the middle class will get so little out of it.
yes, you're right and the house just voted to eliminate the requirement for a CBO report before voting- and according to what I'm hearing on the TV Sunday shows the R's plan on using reconciliation to pass this with 50 votes
 
Old 10-01-2017, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,047 posts, read 10,431,986 times
Reputation: 15678
Quote:
Originally Posted by recycled View Post
I would prefer to have more brackets with smaller steps between the brackets. All this nonsense about having a "postcard" tax form and "simplification".
The number of brackets is not the thing that makes taxes complex. More brackets doesn't make the system more complex just as fewer brackets does not make it simpler.

It is all the rest of it that makes The Code complex.

Several years ago, the VP of Tax at General Electric showed a printout of that year's Federal Income Tax Return -- it exceeded 25,000 sheets of paper. THAT is complex. GE had 1400 tax attorneys and tax accountants on the payroll just to plan activities and fill out the damn paperwork. THAT is complex.

It doesn't have anything to do with the number of brackets.

On the corporate side the Treasury raises about $300 Billion to $350 Billion per year in tax receipts from corporations. Those corporations spend about $300 Billion on tax attorneys and tax accountants -- just to fill out the damn paperwork. That's complex.

We should just eliminate the corporate income tax altogether, as it is highly inefficient, and then just raise personal taxes on the affluent like me (I'm perpetually in the top tax bracket).
 
Old 10-01-2017, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,009 posts, read 13,571,153 times
Reputation: 22098
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
On the corporate side the Treasury raises about $300 Billion to $350 Billion per year in tax receipts from corporations. Those corporations spend about $300 Billion on tax attorneys and tax accountants -- just to fill out the damn paperwork. That's complex.
We should just eliminate the corporate income tax altogether, as it is highly inefficient, and then just raise personal taxes on the affluent like me (I'm perpetually in the top tax bracket).
$350 billion to prepare taxes? I think what you are talking about is the total cost of tax compliance which also involves billions spent on tax avoidance due to the thousands of loopholes that the rest of us are not privy to. But irregardless of the numbers, do you really think that the result of this 'tax plan' will be that corporations will be filling out their tax return on a postcard
 
Old 10-01-2017, 03:56 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,009 posts, read 13,571,153 times
Reputation: 22098
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Do you currently itemize or take the standard defuction?
We itemize
 
Old 10-01-2017, 04:34 PM
 
Location: VT; previously MD & NJ
2,196 posts, read 1,341,203 times
Reputation: 6312
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikoshaprl View Post
For a retiree like me that has a small business to supplement his income this tax plan is great! I will pay very little on my pension/401k/SS income and the business income tax is reduced to the 25%. It was as high as 39%. The idea is that I will be able to continue to grow the business that helps give work to scores of people. Charitable contributions are still deductible so that is a plus too.
Not disputing that this might be good for you, but the business rate reduction also applies to hedge fund managers, lawyers, and Trump, who technically have small businesses but make millions in profit each year. If they want to help true small businesses, I think there should be a dollar amount applied regarding how much profit they make. Any company making millions in profit is not a small business in my book.
 
Old 10-01-2017, 07:06 PM
 
6,353 posts, read 5,156,240 times
Reputation: 8527
Quote:
Originally Posted by nalabama View Post
I'm slow. Please explain how doubling the personal exemption will hurt housing market.
If you can get the same deduction whether or not you buy a house, you might not buy it.
 
Old 10-01-2017, 07:40 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,678 posts, read 49,430,310 times
Reputation: 19129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Siegel View Post
If you can get the same deduction whether or not you buy a house, you might not buy it.
I admit that it would be nice to be able to use the mortgage interest deduction when you buy a house. However there will always be home-buyers.
 
Old 10-01-2017, 08:15 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,745 posts, read 4,215,210 times
Reputation: 6866
I've always kind of wondered if housing is so darn expensive in certain areas because there is a very large mortgage deduction available that can jack up prices.

And maybe the home equity loan deduction is not such a good idea either. Who really benefits from this deduction? Banks?
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.


Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top