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 10-02-2017, 01:09 PM
 
Location: North Alabama
767 posts, read 1,846,859 times
Reputation: 725

Advertisements

Consumer Reports' take on the proposed tax plan:

https://www.consumerreports.org/taxe...-average-1600/

 
Old 10-02-2017, 01:13 PM
 
Location: VT; previously MD & NJ
2,202 posts, read 1,345,129 times
Reputation: 6336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bette View Post
I like that the AMT may go away. My husband is a CPA and I always hear him talk about that, not that we have ever had that issue ourselves.

Happy to see the interest deduction is staying. I felt that the elimination would hurt the housing market.

I need to go over the other items with my husband.
Gee, you hope AMT goes away because your husband talks about it. Did you know that without AMT, Trump and people like him can get away with paying no tax at all on their millions? The only problem with the AMT is it was never indexed for inflation, so now it affects people in the upper middle class who were never meant to pay it in the first place. It just needs to be adjusted for inflation.

Home interest deduction is staying, but property tax deduction is going. Without both, many who own homes will not be able to afford them anymore. Many figured on what they could afford based on having both of those deductions.
 
Old 10-02-2017, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,047 posts, read 10,437,354 times
Reputation: 15683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
Plan is eliminating deduction for state and local taxes - not mortgage interest, not charity.

With only mortgage interest and charity deductible, many won't itemize.

Home values/sales in high-tax states will drop without that writeoff.
A different way of saying it is that home values in high-tax states have been artificially inflated due to the longstanding loophole in the tax code, and proposed changes to the tax code could return house values to where they would have been absent the loop-hole.

At the margin, you're probably right - but in general it isn't clear how much.

Take this modest house in Silicon Valley:



This four-bed, two-bath house — less than 2,000 square feet in Sunnyvale (not a higher end community such as Palo Alto, Los Altos or Menlo Park) sold for $782,000 over the asking price.

Bay Area housing: Sunnyvale home sells for almost $800,000 above asking

In Sunnyvale.

Current tax law is that Taxpayers can deduct the interest paid on mortgages up to $1,000,000 in mortgage debt (the limit is $500,000 if married and filing separately). Any interest paid on first or second mortgages over this amount is not tax deductible.

I doubt the price of housing will drop in Silicon Valley or other high-income areas.
 
Old 10-02-2017, 03:05 PM
 
Location: NC
6,553 posts, read 7,974,458 times
Reputation: 13460
If the federal tax goes down then the burden will just be pushed out to the states and to property and school taxes. Public infrastructure cannot run on air. It is just a matter of who will pay the most. I am guessing property owners and the middle class will take up the slack and their total taxes will go up. Smoke and mirrors.
 
Old 10-02-2017, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Charleston, SC
1,362 posts, read 766,848 times
Reputation: 2428
Quote:
Originally Posted by nalabama View Post
Consumer Reports' take on the proposed tax plan:

https://www.consumerreports.org/taxe...-average-1600/
This Consumer Reports Article should not give anyone solace. It's forced to Guess the New Brackets, like everybody else not in on the Secret Plan......it does not help DW and Me at all. And She and I are all I'm concerned with at this point in time.

"The top 1 percent of earners, for instance, would see an 8.5 percent savings between 2018 and 2027.
While those making less than about $150,000 would get an average tax cut of 0.5 percent or less"


And I dare not post the cost in Trillions to the Treasury over the next 10 years. It would break the Internet.
 
Old 10-02-2017, 03:34 PM
 
29,779 posts, read 34,863,854 times
Reputation: 11705
Quote:
Originally Posted by ansible90 View Post
Nope. I invest in equities because CDs and other "safe" savings rates are so low as to be a joke.

Now if the big companies would take that money and pay their workers more with it, I might think it could help the economy overall. It is current workers who need (and will spend) the extra money a corp might get. The dividends you and I and other investors get will most likely get rolled over into buying more shares. Doesn't help the economy much.

Not to mention that an awful lot of people/retirees do not have investments. So how are they helped by reducing the corp tax rate? Are the corps going to lower prices on the items they sell? Don't think so.
^^^^ We invest to make money. 70/30 these days with 30% bonds/cash being a ballast. Dividends as you Day reinvested so that helps in up markets to make more money. Not investing to help pay salaries. That is hopefully a outcome of a strong economy, not a personal investing goal. This thread asked impact on retirees who by normal definition aren't workers.
 
Old 10-02-2017, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
21,538 posts, read 44,002,416 times
Reputation: 15140
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I remember and from their desperation to achieve that I figured it had something to do with their 'tax plan'. But now without an offset to the loss of revenue they ask us to suspend belief and think that putting billions of dollars in the hands of the 'job creators' will grow the economy even though this only worked twice in the history of the US, when JFK reduced the top rate from 91% to 70% and in 1981 when Reagan lowered the top rate from 70% to 50%.

Economist's View: "Do Tax Cuts Ever Raise Revenues?"
Every one needs to read this.

Posting again - because "trickle down" hasn't worked in thirty years. And even Reagan had to increase taxes. At least, then, this country had some common sense at the helm v. the blind ideological truth-deniers in charge today. Not a Reagan lover by any means - but I'd take him and the politicians of that era anytime over the irresponsible liars, thieves, ignorant ideologues and nation-destroyers at the helm today.
 
Old 10-02-2017, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Knoxville, TN
1,249 posts, read 590,159 times
Reputation: 2747
Quote:
Originally Posted by luv4horses View Post
If the federal tax goes down then the burden will just be pushed out to the states and to property and school taxes. Public infrastructure cannot run on air. It is just a matter of who will pay the most. I am guessing property owners and the middle class will take up the slack and their total taxes will go up. Smoke and mirrors.
They will kick the debt can down the road and be screaming for huge cuts to medicare and social security in the future. But, by then, the fat cats will have gotten their bank accounts well-padded.
 
Old 10-02-2017, 07:22 PM
 
Location: North Alabama
767 posts, read 1,846,859 times
Reputation: 725
How should we feel about taxing corporate profits? As far as I can tell, corporations have only limited ways to dispose of earnings: e.g.; pay their employees more (and the employees pay income tax on the extra $$), pay their stockholders dividends (and the stockholders pay income tax on the extra $$), invest those earnings in corporate infrastructure in the hope that future earnings will increase (which will probably be taxed), or buy back stock (which should result in higher stock prices for the remaining outstanding company stock and will be taxed as capital gains for the extra $$ realized when sold by remaining stockholders).

I do not see any economic basis for taxation of corporate earnings at two levels. If it was up to me, we would do away with corporate tax returns and only levy administrative fees on corporations. To replace reduced federal revenue, we would then reinstate a multi-tier tax bracket arrangement similar to the ones in effect prior to the Reagan cuts. Those brackets would top out at a level which would allow high earners to at least recognize some benefit after taxes from every dollar earned. Until the federal deficit is paid off, that highest/last bracket could be 99 per cent minus whatever percentage the highest state tax rate amounts to.

Wouldn't it be fun?

Last edited by nalabama; 10-02-2017 at 07:46 PM..
 
Old 10-02-2017, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
21,538 posts, read 44,002,416 times
Reputation: 15140
More on corporate taxes - and how Mnuchin runs around the country lying that 80% of corporate taxes are borne by the worker - when it is exactly the opposite - then when data they've linked reveals the lie, the link to that data is removed from the Treasury website:
Quote:
So Treasury took the unusual unprecedented? step of quietly deleting the inconvenient findings from its website.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.c1ad88b6d11b
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