Author Topic: Republican Tax Plan 2017  (Read 135328 times)

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7797
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1250 on: December 13, 2017, 08:09:04 PM »
How is adding 1 Trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years a good thing?
It's better than the 11 Trillion added over the past 10 years?

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3902
  • Age: 10
  • Board Member
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1251 on: December 13, 2017, 08:10:42 PM »
How is adding 1 Trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years a good thing?
It's better than the 11 Trillion added over the past 10 years?
C'mon MDM, that's not a fair comparison. The last decade was exceptionally bad times that required massive spending bills. This isn't the case anymore.


pegleglolita

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 58
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1252 on: December 13, 2017, 08:18:07 PM »
2017 Military spending in billions:

1   United States 597.5
2   China 145.8
3   Saudi Arabia 81.9
4   Russia 65.6
5   United Kingdom 56.2

Seems like a nice place to trim some fat in the budget. 

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7797
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1253 on: December 13, 2017, 08:25:45 PM »
How is adding 1 Trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years a good thing?
It's better than the 11 Trillion added over the past 10 years?
C'mon MDM, that's not a fair comparison. The last decade was exceptionally bad times that required massive spending bills. This isn't the case anymore.
Just observing that $0.1T/yr, in and of itself, is a better rate than $1.1T/yr.

It's also clear that, to both congressional Democrats and Republicans, the horror of the national debt is inversely proportional to the number of seats each party holds. 

There is much about many proposed/rumored parts of the bill I dislike.  But I'm not losing any sleep over this magnitude of debt growth rate.  And "increase the corporate rate tax a little (from 20%) in order to restore some egregious changes (e.g., losing the medical deduction)" seems a good idea.  Wouldn't surprise me if that was the plan all along: propose something beyond the Pale, then "reluctantly" agree to something "more reasonable."

Indexer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1254 on: December 13, 2017, 08:39:29 PM »
How is adding 1 Trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years a good thing?
It's better than the 11 Trillion added over the past 10 years?

Just observing that $0.1T/yr, in and of itself, is a better rate than $1.1T/yr.

MDM, I think there is some confusion. They aren't adding a total of 1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. They are adding 1.4 Trillion MORE on top of the roughly 10 trillion that was already projected for the next 10 years. This is also during a growing economy. If we see another recession, or start another war, then add a few more trillion on top of that. They are making a bad situation even worse.

I'm all for simplifying the tax code. However, this doesn't simplify, it just makes the deficit worse.

ixtap

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 906
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1255 on: December 13, 2017, 08:45:39 PM »
How is adding 1 Trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years a good thing?
It's better than the 11 Trillion added over the past 10 years?
C'mon MDM, that's not a fair comparison. The last decade was exceptionally bad times that required massive spending bills. This isn't the case anymore.
Just observing that $0.1T/yr, in and of itself, is a better rate than $1.1T/yr.



You seem to be missing that one is added to the other, not substituting.

FIREchiefsr

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1256 on: December 13, 2017, 08:57:19 PM »
2017 Military spending in billions:

1   United States 597.5
2   China 145.8
3   Saudi Arabia 81.9
4   Russia 65.6
5   United Kingdom 56.2

Seems like a nice place to trim some fat in the budget.

Ironically, the one place where both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on spending more is for defense.
I am not a lawyer, accountant or financial advisor. Any advice or suggestions that I may provide shall be considered for entertainment purposes only.

obstinate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 756
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1257 on: December 13, 2017, 09:13:03 PM »
2017 Military spending in billions:

1   United States 597.5
2   China 145.8
3   Saudi Arabia 81.9
4   Russia 65.6
5   United Kingdom 56.2

Seems like a nice place to trim some fat in the budget.

Ironically, the one place where both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on spending more is for defense.
Heh? Obama wanted to cut the military substantially. That was the democrats' side of sequestration.

FIREchiefsr

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1258 on: December 13, 2017, 09:21:45 PM »
2017 Military spending in billions:

1   United States 597.5
2   China 145.8
3   Saudi Arabia 81.9
4   Russia 65.6
5   United Kingdom 56.2

Seems like a nice place to trim some fat in the budget.

Ironically, the one place where both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on spending more is for defense.
Heh? Obama wanted to cut the military substantially. That was the democrats' side of sequestration.

Not really.  The sequestration only forces us to overspend on domestic programs at the same rate we overspend on defense.  Dems would gladly kill sequestration if there was an agreement that future spending growth would be equally split between domestic and defense.  "We'll spend ten billion more on bombs if you agree to let us spend ten billion more on healthcare."  GOP response:  "no way you evil crooks; we'll arm to kill people, but you're not going to help sick people if we can help it"
I am not a lawyer, accountant or financial advisor. Any advice or suggestions that I may provide shall be considered for entertainment purposes only.

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1048
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1259 on: December 13, 2017, 09:25:01 PM »
2017 Military spending in billions:

1   United States 597.5
2   China 145.8
3   Saudi Arabia 81.9
4   Russia 65.6
5   United Kingdom 56.2

Seems like a nice place to trim some fat in the budget.

Ironically, the one place where both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on spending more is for defense.

I think many Democrats accept they can’t get elected if they’re soft on terrorism, or globalists, or whatever label successfully scares the electorate.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7797
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1260 on: December 13, 2017, 09:47:29 PM »
MDM, I think there is some confusion. They aren't adding a total of 1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. They are adding 1.4 Trillion MORE on top of the roughly 10 trillion that was already projected for the next 10 years.
You seem to be missing that one is added to the other, not substituting.
Yes, this is extra but it's "only" 10% extra. 

Why get upset about the extra 10% if not upset about the base increase?  Of course, if you are saying "a pox on both their houses" then I agree 100%.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7693
  • Registered member
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1261 on: December 13, 2017, 11:35:22 PM »
MDM, I think there is some confusion. They aren't adding a total of 1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. They are adding 1.4 Trillion MORE on top of the roughly 10 trillion that was already projected for the next 10 years.
You seem to be missing that one is added to the other, not substituting.
Yes, this is extra but it's "only" 10% extra. 

Why get upset about the extra 10% if not upset about the base increase?  Of course, if you are saying "a pox on both their houses" then I agree 100%.

Because, as others have mentioned, it's not going to valuable programs but rather the ultra wealthy.

It's like you go to a restaurant and get a $10 meal.  Taxes are 10%.  Sure, fine.  But this restaurant is also adding a 1% fee that they donate to Warren Buffet.  No thanks.

I've also seen this number variously reported as adding $1 trillion to the deficit and to the debt.  Big difference there, and I suspect lazy reporting, but I wonder what the CBC report actually says.  Anyone read it?
« Last Edit: December 13, 2017, 11:37:14 PM by dragoncar »

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7797
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1262 on: December 14, 2017, 12:38:34 AM »
MDM, I think there is some confusion. They aren't adding a total of 1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. They are adding 1.4 Trillion MORE on top of the roughly 10 trillion that was already projected for the next 10 years.
You seem to be missing that one is added to the other, not substituting.
Yes, this is extra but it's "only" 10% extra. 

Why get upset about the extra 10% if not upset about the base increase?  Of course, if you are saying "a pox on both their houses" then I agree 100%.
Because, as others have mentioned, it's not going to valuable programs but rather the ultra wealthy.

It's like you go to a restaurant and get a $10 meal.  Taxes are 10%.  Sure, fine.  But this restaurant is also adding a 1% fee that they donate to Warren Buffet.  No thanks.
No problem with picking on specific trade-offs that have or haven't been made.  E.g., I'll believe either party is at least partway serious when said party eliminates the carried interest loophole.  May or may not be a relatively big issue dollar-wise (a billion here, a billion there, etc.) but until it's gone I'll continue to believe both parties kowtow to the ultra-wealthy.  I suppose we could argue whether Democrats stop at the top .02% while Republicans favor the .001% but why bother?

Wealth inequality aside, my point on the debt is that Republicans scream about how terrible it is - until they are in power - and Democrats behave likewise.  And in that context, it's not worth angst about a 10% change in something unless one is also willing to deal with the base 90% problem.

sherr

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 450
  • Age: 32
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1263 on: December 14, 2017, 07:00:40 AM »
I've also seen this number variously reported as adding $1 trillion to the deficit and to the debt.  Big difference there, and I suspect lazy reporting, but I wonder what the CBC report actually says.  Anyone read it?

It's debt over the course of 10 years. So average increase to the annual deficit over that time period would be a tenth of that, but average is also incredibly misleading because of the timed phase-ins and phase-outs. I haven't seen any estimates on what it would do to the deficit after that 10-year period.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2103
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1264 on: December 14, 2017, 07:35:08 AM »
...

See this post.

I meant to return to this and forgot, thanks for bring it back up.

You lay the blame squarely on Obama, but I'm not clear on whether the fix was attainable through agency rule-making or if it required legislative action. Do you have a source that clarifies this?

Yes.  The President has full situational authority over the IRS when nessecary, and the glitch was created (and intentionally not closed) by an IRS ruling:  https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-01/pdf/2013-02136.pdf (second page, middle column § 1.36B–2 Eligibility for premium tax credit)

As such, it was possible for intervention to occur, and as the chief executive of the IRS is a presidential nomination, there is precedence for at least some collaboration.  Regarding whether he knew or not initially, it became a VERY big deal after implementation and could have been corrected.

Quote
Health Affairs explains that this was not an accident or oversight – it was carefully considered and the final regulation was delayed while the Government Accountability Office and the IRS analyzed the impact of the decision. There were concerns that employers would increase the contributions required to enroll family members, which would push more people off employer plans and into the exchanges, driving up the total cost of subsidies. Ultimately, those concerns prevailed and the “family glitch” was born.

Source: https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/no-family-left-behind-by-obamacare/
I read that post, nothing in it at ALL says that the president may change laws to do what he wants instead of enforcing the laws written by Congress.  Even your own link disagrees with you.  Senator Frankin did propose a fix according to that link, the GOP controlled congress refused to pass it.

My interpretation was that it was an IRS ruling that created the problem in the first place, thus within the purview of the executive branch to fix. Obviously, a legislative fix was always an option as well, but not necessarily the only option.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2103
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1265 on: December 14, 2017, 07:41:20 AM »
Finally, the primary issue I have with ACA is that it did nothing to actually reduce inflated healthcare costs, and didn't just stick my generation with the bill for the boomers, but stuck us with a bill that was drastically inflated!

Also, If you are going to mandate that everyone have health insurance...  Wouldn't that make health insurance a utility?  Shouldn't we be setting profit caps and transparent financing requirements on an industry that will become a 'forced product'? 

It had several problems and, in my opinion, was a method of putting our (then) current system on steroids instead of actually creating a system that works- IE pulling employers out of the equation, setting requirements for open billing, requiring insurance companies to actually pay a significant portion of what they are billed (or all of it), etc.  Not taking a shitty patchwork system and applying it 'universally'.

Thoughts?

I know this is a bit of a tangent, start a new thread or find a mothballed one and we can jump over there to discuss if anyone likes.

I think those are all valid criticisms that I more or less agree with, but I don't necessarily come to the same conclusion that the law is worse than what we had before. Yes, failing to address the supply side was a big problem with ACA.

I also think there are a handful of employers that are bad actors, and cause avoidable problems within an already deeply flawed system. Insurance companies are also the devil, and will do anything they can to get out of paying claims, regardless of whether or not they're legit, and regardless of whether or not it makes sense from a long-term perspective.

These are all things that make me want to strangle somebody.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1909
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1266 on: December 14, 2017, 07:53:12 AM »
How is adding 1 Trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years a good thing?
It's better than the 11 Trillion added over the past 10 years?
C'mon MDM, that's not a fair comparison. The last decade was exceptionally bad times that required massive spending bills. This isn't the case anymore.

  It was Bush's fault!

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4544
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1267 on: December 14, 2017, 08:33:09 AM »
...

See this post.

I meant to return to this and forgot, thanks for bring it back up.

You lay the blame squarely on Obama, but I'm not clear on whether the fix was attainable through agency rule-making or if it required legislative action. Do you have a source that clarifies this?

Yes.  The President has full situational authority over the IRS when nessecary, and the glitch was created (and intentionally not closed) by an IRS ruling:  https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-01/pdf/2013-02136.pdf (second page, middle column § 1.36B–2 Eligibility for premium tax credit)

As such, it was possible for intervention to occur, and as the chief executive of the IRS is a presidential nomination, there is precedence for at least some collaboration.  Regarding whether he knew or not initially, it became a VERY big deal after implementation and could have been corrected.

Quote
Health Affairs explains that this was not an accident or oversight – it was carefully considered and the final regulation was delayed while the Government Accountability Office and the IRS analyzed the impact of the decision. There were concerns that employers would increase the contributions required to enroll family members, which would push more people off employer plans and into the exchanges, driving up the total cost of subsidies. Ultimately, those concerns prevailed and the “family glitch” was born.

Source: https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/no-family-left-behind-by-obamacare/
I read that post, nothing in it at ALL says that the president may change laws to do what he wants instead of enforcing the laws written by Congress.  Even your own link disagrees with you.  Senator Frankin did propose a fix according to that link, the GOP controlled congress refused to pass it.

My interpretation was that it was an IRS ruling that created the problem in the first place, thus within the purview of the executive branch to fix. Obviously, a legislative fix was always an option as well, but not necessarily the only option.
No, the ruling was that this was clearly the intention of the law and therefore it was to be followed as it was the law.  There was no confusion in how it was written.  There was no other option other than a legislative fix.  If there was, don't you think the GOP would have used that against Obama?   

sherr

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 450
  • Age: 32
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1268 on: December 14, 2017, 08:57:59 AM »
My interpretation was that it was an IRS ruling that created the problem in the first place, thus within the purview of the executive branch to fix. Obviously, a legislative fix was always an option as well, but not necessarily the only option.
No, the ruling was that this was clearly the intention of the law and therefore it was to be followed as it was the law.  There was no confusion in how it was written.  There was no other option other than a legislative fix.  If there was, don't you think the GOP would have used that against Obama?   

50/50 split the difference. The IRS ruling was that fixing the gap through IRS regulatory decision making, while possible, would have huge unintended financial implications to the federal budget and the stability of the program. They decided to not act unilaterally and let congress fix it, which of course the Republican-controlled congress refused to do.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 09:05:17 AM by sherr »

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 946
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1269 on: December 14, 2017, 09:02:12 AM »
The GOP is the living definition of hypocrisy.

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/940978958824329222

^Video of Republicans prematurely freaking out over possible Obamacare being passed before Scott Brown got seated.  Height of hypocrisy?

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/941084731864645634

^Republicans refusing to answer questions on the bill.

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/941051377417060352

^Another video from Capitol Hill.

John McCain in 2010 after Scott Brown won the special election for Ted Kennedy's MA Senate seat:


Susan Collins is locking her doors to avoid meeting with constituents on the tax bill.

https://shareblue.com/sen-collins-locks-office-doors-refuses-to-answer-to-constituents-on-secret-gop-tax-scam/

Quote
Collins said, "The results of this election also reflect the fact that so many people are appalled at the process by which the [ACA] was negotiated behind closed doors, rammed through the Senate with limited debate and amendments, and riddled with special deals to garner votes"

Susan Collins might be the biggest hypocrite of them all.

The GOP complained about transparency with Obamacare, said the Senate should wait until Scott Brown was seated following a special election in order to "listen to the Massachusetts voters," and delayed seating a Supreme Court nominee for a year in order to get the results of an election some 8 months away.

They know want to ram a tax bill through before Doug Jones can be seated (the exact opposite of what they wanted when Scott Brown won his special election), ignoring the voters of Alabama.

The GOP does not care about Americans or voters.  They want to pad the already cushy pockets of their billionaire donors.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 50k miles for $2k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 664
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1270 on: December 14, 2017, 10:19:09 AM »
On a lighter note, its seems the GOP has followed through on their suggestion to congressional leaders in states like California that they would take away some of the SALT sting.

Quote
House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, who’s overseeing the House-Senate conference committee of tax negotiators, said Thursday that taxpayers will be able to deduct state income taxes or state sales taxes in addition to property levies -- up to a $10,000 cap.

Most news source report that the $10k cap will now include State Income tax in addition property tax. That to me at least balances out the loss of the deduction to be even handed against states which have high income tax versus states that have high property tax. Though I assume $10k is still fairly paltry in many expensive areas. This change alone will definitely give me a slight net advantage by itemizing. Which is always nice because it opens the door to deduct ancillary things like my wifes business expenses when she goes back to work.

Also the new mortgage deduction cap seems to be settling on $750k. Which should again even out the high cost of living states where jumbo loans are more common.

Overall in California it seems impossible to say how this will impact home prices. On my end purchasing a $500k starter home this month this tax bill will save me almost an extra $250 a month versus the previous tax code with the same scenario. So I am hard pressed to believe this will hurt lower and mid tier home markets for people with kids. Since we will have more cash.

At the high end, people buying million dollar homes, cuts to the brackets and possibly AMT will be of more benefit than the mortgage deduction cuts.

Personally I would suspect most sane people don't buy a home just for a fat tax break. As long as they can afford the same home for their primary residence while netting more cash, prices should stay high. Also with this new scenario peoples ability to pay rent should go up, possibly driving up rental prices since the gap between a renting family and homeowners will narrow.

Ignoring the some of the other debatably good or bad tax changes I am for tax code change that discourages house flipping and focuses the tax breaks back on families trying to buy or rent a permanent residence. Oh also I had heard that the estate tax will no longer vanish and will instead have its cap doubled... Which frankly is far less outrageous.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6451
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1271 on: December 14, 2017, 10:31:50 AM »
On a lighter note, its seems the GOP has followed through on their suggestion to congressional leaders in states like California that they would take away some of the SALT sting.

This whole process is disturbingly reminiscent of what we went through with the GOP healthcare plans.  Every iteration gets slightly less bad,  but they are each still demonstrably worse than just doing nothing.

And just like with their healthcare bills, they've had decades of angry opposition to the status quo to formulate their alternative plan, and yet are left making stuff up at the last minute because they don't actually have a plan.  They hate the way it is, but they don't actually have any idea on how to make it better, so are instead proposing solutions they then have to discard when it becomes clear they are making it worse.

They said they wanted everyone to have great healthcare, yet every single bill they proposed caused millions of people to lose healthcare instead.  They said they wanted to give the middle class a tax cut, yet their plan raises taxes on the middle class.  They said they wanted to balance the budget, but their plan adds trillions in new debt.

Here's a tip for you, congressional republicans:  If you really want to do all of those things, the best thing for you to do right now is to sit on your hands.  If you can't deliver on the changes you promised, can you at least please stop voting to do the exact opposite?

PathtoFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 405
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Dallas
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1272 on: December 14, 2017, 10:59:34 AM »
I finally sat down with my spreadsheet and reviewed what we'll owe this year versus what we may owe under the rumored committee plan. We are a high income family with lots of mortgage interest and greater than 10k in state/property taxes. With the assumptions*** listed below, we will owe about $18k less in federal income tax, and pay very slightly more in FICA taxes. This bill is gross, as they've clearly stripped away nearly all of the tax increases that people in my tax bracket were slated to receive under the original House plan and some that still existed under the Senate plan. Please tell me that some of the assumptions below are mistaken and I'll feel a little better.

***
-MFJ tax brackets of 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32% with 32% starting at $320k
-AMT for MFJ starting at $1million
-Grandfathered mortgage interest or non-grandfathered up to $750k (we would get full deduction under both situations)
-$10k state/municipal/property/sales tax deduction limit (this is the sole negative adjustment, taking about $10k additional deductions away from us)
-Charitable deductions untouched
-No adjustments to 409(a) unqualified deferred comp plans that were originally targets
-Long term capital gains and qualified dividend rates untouched
-Net investment income and additional Medicare taxes untouched
-Child credit for $2k/child that doesn't phase out until an AGI of over $1million (this one's got to be a mistake, really?!?! I've got 3 children, so I'm getting $6k lopped off my taxes, WTF?!)

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1048
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1273 on: December 14, 2017, 12:03:12 PM »
-Child credit for $2k/child that doesn't phase out until an AGI of over $1million (this one's got to be a mistake, really?!?! I've got 3 children, so I'm getting $6k lopped off my taxes, WTF?!)

Admittedly it's been hard to keep up with this, but I hadn't seen that. Do you have a source?

FIREchiefsr

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1274 on: December 14, 2017, 12:27:02 PM »
Please tell me that some of the assumptions below are mistaken and I'll feel a little better.

-AMT for MFJ starting at $1million


We haven't seen any detail on AMT other than MFJ exemption be increased to $1M.  I believe the media has mistakenly equated this to AMT hits people over $1M AGI.  If that is the real exemption number, and all other numbers remain constant, a MFJ taxpayer claiming only the standard deduction will NEVER pay AMT.

Running an extreme example, I find that a person with $1M AGI would have to have about $750,000 in deductions disallowed by the AMT in order to incur AMT.  Their "regular" taxable income would be $250, 000 but their AMT income would be $1M.  After applying remaining (after partial phase out) exemption, they would pay $49076 in regular tax and $1131 in AMT.

At $2M AGI with $1.5M deductions, they are paying $126K regular taxes and $274K AMT.  So, the AMT really does return to its original purpose (ensuring that high income taxpayers with extreme deductions still pay a meaningful tax).
I am not a lawyer, accountant or financial advisor. Any advice or suggestions that I may provide shall be considered for entertainment purposes only.

dude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1966
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1275 on: December 14, 2017, 12:35:33 PM »
I finally sat down with my spreadsheet and reviewed what we'll owe this year versus what we may owe under the rumored committee plan. We are a high income family with lots of mortgage interest and greater than 10k in state/property taxes. With the assumptions*** listed below, we will owe about $18k less in federal income tax, and pay very slightly more in FICA taxes. This bill is gross, as they've clearly stripped away nearly all of the tax increases that people in my tax bracket were slated to receive under the original House plan and some that still existed under the Senate plan. Please tell me that some of the assumptions below are mistaken and I'll feel a little better.

***
-MFJ tax brackets of 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32% with 32% starting at $320k
-AMT for MFJ starting at $1million
-Grandfathered mortgage interest or non-grandfathered up to $750k (we would get full deduction under both situations)
-$10k state/municipal/property/sales tax deduction limit (this is the sole negative adjustment, taking about $10k additional deductions away from us)
-Charitable deductions untouched
-No adjustments to 409(a) unqualified deferred comp plans that were originally targets
-Long term capital gains and qualified dividend rates untouched
-Net investment income and additional Medicare taxes untouched
-Child credit for $2k/child that doesn't phase out until an AGI of over $1million (this one's got to be a mistake, really?!?! I've got 3 children, so I'm getting $6k lopped off my taxes, WTF?!)

F**k me, I just looked at last year's tax return.  We itemized $35,809 worth of deductions last year, $20,866 of which was SALT. Our mortgage interest will still qualify. And while it looks like we'll drop from the 28% bracket to the 24% bracket, I don't think that's going to make up for the loss of a nearly $11,000 difference in deductions. And this year, our income looks to be $15-$20k more. I got a feeling I'll be cutting a much bigger check to the IRS come April.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4544
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1276 on: December 14, 2017, 12:36:49 PM »
My interpretation was that it was an IRS ruling that created the problem in the first place, thus within the purview of the executive branch to fix. Obviously, a legislative fix was always an option as well, but not necessarily the only option.
No, the ruling was that this was clearly the intention of the law and therefore it was to be followed as it was the law.  There was no confusion in how it was written.  There was no other option other than a legislative fix.  If there was, don't you think the GOP would have used that against Obama?   

50/50 split the difference. The IRS ruling was that fixing the gap through IRS regulatory decision making, while possible, would have huge unintended financial implications to the federal budget and the stability of the program. They decided to not act unilaterally and let congress fix it, which of course the Republican-controlled congress refused to do.
No, that is not true.  The IRS enforces the tax law, it does not write it.  They legally could not "fix" anything that was decided by Congress.  How do people not get this? 

Jrr85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 817
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1277 on: December 14, 2017, 12:37:22 PM »
You're seeing different stuff than I am:
-MFJ tax brackets of 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32% with 32% starting at $320k
-AMT for MFJ starting at $1million
  I think the highest tax bracket is going to be at 37% and change now (not counting the medicare surtax, which I don't think is touched)
-Grandfathered mortgage interest or non-grandfathered up to $750k (we would get full deduction under both situations)
-$10k state/municipal/property/sales tax deduction limit (this is the sole negative adjustment, taking about $10k additional deductions away from us)
-Charitable deductions untouched
-No adjustments to 409(a) unqualified deferred comp plans that were originally targets
-Long term capital gains and qualified dividend rates untouched
-Net investment income and additional Medicare taxes untouched
-Child credit for $2k/child that doesn't phase out until an AGI of over $1million (this one's got to be a mistake, really?!?! I've got 3 children, so I'm getting $6k lopped off my taxes, WTF?!)

The child tax credit I believe is set at the house bill level of $1600.  Then there is the $300 tax credit for the taxfiler and spouse.  So you'll get a $5400 credit, not $6,000.  Seeing as how parents are getting hammered by SS compared to non-parents, that seems pretty reasonable.     Probably be better if there was a smaller tax credit for the first two and much bigger tax credits for each child beyond replacement rate. 

PathtoFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 405
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Dallas
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1278 on: December 14, 2017, 01:00:37 PM »
-Child credit for $2k/child that doesn't phase out until an AGI of over $1million (this one's got to be a mistake, really?!?! I've got 3 children, so I'm getting $6k lopped off my taxes, WTF?!)

Admittedly it's been hard to keep up with this, but I hadn't seen that. Do you have a source?

Apparently the phaseout limit is $500k, not $1million, which we are still under.


I searched for "child tax" in the amendments section, and only found one amendment by Rubio that was ruled out of order, so I'm assuming the language above is as current as we have. News reports today are saying they may increase the amount that can be refundable, which will be good for low income earners who would otherwise get almost nothing from these CTC changes, but I'm not hearing the final amount or the income ceiling that will be in the final bill.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1/text?format=xml&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr1%22%5D%7D&r=1

SEC. 11022. Increase in and modification of child tax credit.

(a) In general.—Section 24 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

“(h) Special rules for taxable years 2018 through 2025.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026, this section shall be applied as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), (5), (6), (7), and (8). In the case of taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2025, this section shall be applied as provided in paragraph (4).

“(2) CREDIT AMOUNT.—Subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting ‘$2,000’ for ‘$1,000’.

“(3) LIMITATION.—In lieu of the amount determined under subsection (b)(2), the threshold amount shall be $500,000.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 01:03:08 PM by PathtoFIRE »

PathtoFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 405
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Dallas
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1279 on: December 14, 2017, 01:12:43 PM »
Please tell me that some of the assumptions below are mistaken and I'll feel a little better.

-AMT for MFJ starting at $1million


We haven't seen any detail on AMT other than MFJ exemption be increased to $1M.  I believe the media has mistakenly equated this to AMT hits people over $1M AGI.  If that is the real exemption number, and all other numbers remain constant, a MFJ taxpayer claiming only the standard deduction will NEVER pay AMT.

Running an extreme example, I find that a person with $1M AGI would have to have about $750,000 in deductions disallowed by the AMT in order to incur AMT.  Their "regular" taxable income would be $250, 000 but their AMT income would be $1M.  After applying remaining (after partial phase out) exemption, they would pay $49076 in regular tax and $1131 in AMT.

At $2M AGI with $1.5M deductions, they are paying $126K regular taxes and $274K AMT.  So, the AMT really does return to its original purpose (ensuring that high income taxpayers with extreme deductions still pay a meaningful tax).

Yeah, reading the actual document, it appears that the deduction and phaseout levels are just being increased mildly. Then couple that with the other tax breaks, and it severely lessens the AMT tax. I still need to rerun my numbers so see if we would even pay any, but it will be surely less than the $2.5k AMT we will pay this year, and even that would mean a tax break of over $15k for us.

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 946
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1280 on: December 14, 2017, 02:13:56 PM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-consider-plan-to-make-individual-tax-cuts-expire-sooner-shrinking-plans-benefits-for-working-class/2017/12/14/9d83b1ac-e0f2-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html?utm_term=.3d962ee3b56a

Quote
Congressional Republicans are looking at shortening the duration of tax cuts that their plan would give to families and individuals, a leading lawmaker said Thursday.

That change would free up more revenue for additional changes to their tax overhaul, but it could also heighten complaints that the bill prioritizes cuts for corporations over households.

Oh, cool.  Good job, GOP.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/politics/marco-rubio-tax-vote/index.html

Marco Rubio is a "no" right now.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 50k miles for $2k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

FIREchiefsr

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1281 on: December 14, 2017, 02:54:05 PM »
Little Marco is just throwing another one of his tantrums.  No sane Republican Senator who is ever planning to run for re-election will vote against the final bill.
I am not a lawyer, accountant or financial advisor. Any advice or suggestions that I may provide shall be considered for entertainment purposes only.

sherr

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 450
  • Age: 32
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1282 on: December 14, 2017, 03:19:20 PM »
50/50 split the difference. The IRS ruling was that fixing the gap through IRS regulatory decision making, while possible, would have huge unintended financial implications to the federal budget and the stability of the program. They decided to not act unilaterally and let congress fix it, which of course the Republican-controlled congress refused to do.
No, that is not true.  The IRS enforces the tax law, it does not write it.  They legally could not "fix" anything that was decided by Congress.  How do people not get this?

I mean you might be right, but not according to this article:
https://www.healthaffairs.org/action/showDoPubSecure?doi=10.1377%2Fhpb20141110.62257&format=full

Quote
While the law sets a clear standard for affordable employee coverage and requires employers to allow dependent children to enroll in a family plan, Congress deferred to business interests in limiting an employer's responsibility for providing "affordable" coverage to individual workers. As a result, there is no explicit standard of affordability for family members of an employee offered job-based family coverage. Moreover, the law neglects to clearly spell out how family members should be treated for purposes of eligibility for premium tax credits or the individual mandate.

The IRS initially proposed regulations using the cost of self-only coverage to define "affordability" for the other family members with respect to premium tax credits, primarily referencing the JCT's interpretation in its original analysis of the ACA. After receiving dissenting comments on the proposed rule, the IRS delayed the final regulation as it relates to family members.

During that time the GAO urged the Department of Treasury and the IRS to examine the impact of its proposed rule on eligible family members and determine whether it would be consistent with the ACA to adopt an approach that would consider the cost of family-based coverage. Given that the law set no standard requiring employers to offer affordable coverage to a worker's family or pay a penalty, the potential cost to the federal government emerged as the key determinant in limiting access to premium tax credits for family members.

The primary concern was that employers would raise the employee's share of family coverage, driving even more families to opt for premium tax credits. Ultimately, these concerns overrode other legal interpretations and fairness arguments when the IRS finalized the rule as proposed and actualized the family glitch.

I don't buy into TexasRunner's Obama-hate over it. In fact I think the agencies acted reasonably and it should have been fixed by Congress. But short of another source I stand by my assessment.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 03:24:23 PM by sherr »

sherr

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 450
  • Age: 32
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1283 on: December 14, 2017, 03:37:38 PM »
Given that the law set no standard requiring employers to offer affordable coverage to a worker's family or pay a penalty

This I think is the key phrase. They were worried that companies would use it as a loophole to not have to provide coverage.

Company: "Sure we'll provide an affordable heath plan for you, as required by law. It also covers your family, which is not regulated, and happens to cost A BAZILLION DOLLARS."
Employee: "Oh, okay, I guess I'll just go get on the exchange instead and let the federal government subsidize it."

Given the amount of tears and churn from Republican business owners over Obamacare, I have no doubt that some would have done that. The IRS could have adjusted the subsides to cover spouses if there wasn't a reasonable alternative for them at the employer, but they couldn't require the employers to "either provide a low-cost option for families or pay a fine" like the ACA did for individual insurance, and to do one without the other didn't make sense and would have just opened a loophole that let employers opt-out of the whole thing.

@TexasRunner, I don't know if you've ever considered the alternatives they had, but like I said I think the IRS acted reasonably and it should have been fixed by Congress.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 03:41:09 PM by sherr »

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 664
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1284 on: December 14, 2017, 03:53:53 PM »
Little Marco is just throwing another one of his tantrums.  No sane Republican Senator who is ever planning to run for re-election will vote against the final bill.

Considering both plans had a much higher child tax deduction to offset the removal of the personal exemption I would say he is making a show of something he know wont get cut.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6451
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1285 on: December 14, 2017, 06:09:46 PM »
Considering both plans had a much higher child tax deduction to offset the removal of the personal exemption I would say he is making a show of something he know wont get cut.

Rubio has been advocating for making the proposed child tax credit refundable against your payroll tax, in order to let it actually benefit poor people.  Right now, the child tax credit isn't refundable if you don't owe any taxes, and since approximately half of the US population doesn't owe any net taxes they won't get any benefit from the increased child tax credit.  So as written now it's a useless tax break for poor Americans, even though the Republicans have been touting it as central part of their plan.

This is a case of Rubio of trying make the GOP tax plan less shitty for poor people.  McConnell. was so opposed to the idea that not only did he tell his conference not to support the idea, he forced the amendment to get 60 votes to pass in order to ensure it would fail.

It's kind of funny, really.  Rubio was told that increasing the corporate tax rate from 20% to 20.6% in order to help the working poor was blasphemy against Republicanism, and then the next day they increased it from 20% to 21% in order to pay for tax cuts for people making more than $418,400 per year.  They literally told him it cost too much if it helped poor people, and then less than 12 hours later they spent even more in order to help the richest people.  I have never seen a more clear articulation of Republican principles.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1562
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1286 on: December 14, 2017, 06:13:36 PM »
Considering both plans had a much higher child tax deduction to offset the removal of the personal exemption I would say he is making a show of something he know wont get cut.

Rubio has been advocating for making the proposed child tax credit refundable against your payroll tax, in order to let it actually benefit poor people.  Right now, the child tax credit isn't refundable if you don't owe any taxes, and since approximately half of the US population doesn't owe any net taxes they won't get any benefit from the increased child tax credit.  So as written now it's a useless tax break for poor Americans, even though the Republicans have been touting it as central part of their plan.

This is a case of Rubio of trying make the GOP tax plan less shitty for poor people.  McConnell. was so opposed to the idea that not only did he tell his conference not to support the idea, he forced the amendment to get 60 votes to pass in order to ensure it would fail.

It's kind of funny, really.  Rubio was told that increasing the corporate tax rate from 20% to 20.6% in order to help the working poor was blasphemy against Republicanism, and then the next day they increased it from 20% to 21% in order to pay for tax cuts for people making more than $418,400 per year.  They literally told him it cost too much if it helped poor people, and then less than 12 hours later they spent even more in order to help the richest people.  I have never seen a more clear articulation of Republican principles.

:Sigh:  Too bad Rubio has exactly zero fortitude to actually pick any hill, let alone this one, to die on. He's a total squish in every way.

Indexer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1287 on: December 14, 2017, 06:55:39 PM »


:Sigh:  Too bad Rubio has exactly zero fortitude to actually pick any hill, let alone this one, to die on. He's a total squish in every way.


Not defending Rubio, not a fan, BUT if they need 1 vote and this is his price he might get it.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6451
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1288 on: December 14, 2017, 07:02:01 PM »
Not defending Rubio, not a fan, BUT if they need 1 vote and this is his price he might get it.

They don't need his vote.  They can afford to lose two GOP senators and still pass it, with Pence's tie-breaker.

Bob Corker is an assumed no, since he voted against the Senate tax plan last time.

Rubio can vote no and suffer no consequences.  It might even help his career.

Mike Lee was siding with Rubio on the child tax credit, but he'll fold hard.  He'll never vote against it.

Murkowski was fully bought and paid for by the offer to drill ANWR.  She'd vote for it now even if it meant sacrificing her first born.

Collins is still a maybe, looks like, because it includes repealing the individual mandate.  She's been wishy washy on it, but I think she'll fall in line with vague promises of future legislation to fund the ACA exchanges.

And even if she doesn't, McConnell only has to decide if he'd rather give Rubio his child tax credit or give Collins her individual mandate.  He has options.  I see multiple pathways to this shitshow becoming a law.

At this point, McCain is the wild card.  He could potentially still turn on it, or hell he could die tomorrow before they can have the vote and force them to stall it until January, when Doug Jones is seated.

Peter Parker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 204
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1289 on: December 14, 2017, 07:10:04 PM »
This is how a tax plan can be a life or death situation.  If you haven't seen it, watch it.  The man speaking is a Yale educated lawyer who has ALS.

https://youtu.be/jUgKVoIv8Ss

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1290 on: December 14, 2017, 07:18:18 PM »
...

This is the part of the process I personally find interesting...how do the Republicans decide to get to 50.  Who gets abandoned to vote "No", who is courted, who is strong-armed.

I have little doubts they will get there.  I agree with @sol that Senator Corker's vote is probably being ignored.  Personally I think both Senator Collins' and Senator Murkowski's votes are considered a done deal.  I don't understand Senator Rubio's strategy; I don't think he could defend voting "No" and dying on the child tax credit hill unless he thinks he might run against Trump in 2020 and thinks it helps him that way.

One of the news stories today said that the White House was working with Rubio, so maybe they improve the child tax credit somehow to bring him on board.  But I also think that increasing the child tax credit is expensive from a budget/deficit point of view, so anything meaningfully different may strain concerns about the debt/deficit from some of the deficit hawks in the Republican party.

I have heard other Senators' names thrown out as possible "No"'s:  Senator Flake and Senator Johnson are the two that come to mind.  As sol correctly points out, they can currently lose two, and they may end up doing so.  Vice President Pence canceled his trip to the Middle East in case his vote is needed (interesting, I guess you can't just phone in a vote?).

Senator McCain is in the hospital, one of Alabama's seats is switching to a Democrat shortly.  Perhaps that is the real reason for the Moore recount effort:  delay.  Senator Franken is being replaced with a(nother) Democrat.  The debt showdown will come up again next week.  Lots of moving pieces which makes it interesting for me to watch.
Like Overwatch?  Check out this YouTube channel:  http://bit.ly/AgeOfEon

GreenEggs

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1291 on: December 14, 2017, 08:41:55 PM »
The GOP could get a surprise attack from the Sexual Predator Revenge Army.  Angry women have learned to attack hard & fast.  It wouldn't be too far-fetched considering what we've been seeing recently. 


boridi

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1292 on: December 14, 2017, 08:42:32 PM »
Considering both plans had a much higher child tax deduction to offset the removal of the personal exemption I would say he is making a show of something he know wont get cut.

Rubio has been advocating for making the proposed child tax credit refundable against your payroll tax, in order to let it actually benefit poor people.  Right now, the child tax credit isn't refundable if you don't owe any taxes, and since approximately half of the US population doesn't owe any net taxes they won't get any benefit from the increased child tax credit.  So as written now it's a useless tax break for poor Americans, even though the Republicans have been touting it as central part of their plan.


The child tax credit is not refundable, but the additional child tax credit is. You must have at least 3000 in earned income to get the additional child tax credit, and the additional child tax credit increases as earned income increases above 3000 (much like the EITC.) It's only useless if you have no earned income, in which case you'd have no payroll tax too.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 679
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1293 on: December 14, 2017, 09:14:12 PM »
50/50 split the difference. The IRS ruling was that fixing the gap through IRS regulatory decision making, while possible, would have huge unintended financial implications to the federal budget and the stability of the program. They decided to not act unilaterally and let congress fix it, which of course the Republican-controlled congress refused to do.
No, that is not true.  The IRS enforces the tax law, it does not write it.  They legally could not "fix" anything that was decided by Congress.  How do people not get this?

I mean you might be right, but not according to this article:
https://www.healthaffairs.org/action/showDoPubSecure?doi=10.1377%2Fhpb20141110.62257&format=full

Quote
While the law sets a clear standard for affordable employee coverage and requires employers to allow dependent children to enroll in a family plan, Congress deferred to business interests in limiting an employer's responsibility for providing "affordable" coverage to individual workers. As a result, there is no explicit standard of affordability for family members of an employee offered job-based family coverage. Moreover, the law neglects to clearly spell out how family members should be treated for purposes of eligibility for premium tax credits or the individual mandate.

The IRS initially proposed regulations using the cost of self-only coverage to define "affordability" for the other family members with respect to premium tax credits, primarily referencing the JCT's interpretation in its original analysis of the ACA. After receiving dissenting comments on the proposed rule, the IRS delayed the final regulation as it relates to family members.

During that time the GAO urged the Department of Treasury and the IRS to examine the impact of its proposed rule on eligible family members and determine whether it would be consistent with the ACA to adopt an approach that would consider the cost of family-based coverage. Given that the law set no standard requiring employers to offer affordable coverage to a worker's family or pay a penalty, the potential cost to the federal government emerged as the key determinant in limiting access to premium tax credits for family members.

The primary concern was that employers would raise the employee's share of family coverage, driving even more families to opt for premium tax credits. Ultimately, these concerns overrode other legal interpretations and fairness arguments when the IRS finalized the rule as proposed and actualized the family glitch.

I don't buy into TexasRunner's Obama-hate over it. In fact I think the agencies acted reasonably and it should have been fixed by Congress. But short of another source I stand by my assessment.

FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE:

Quote
While a statutory change would send a clear message to the administration to take action through rulemaking or guidance, legal and policy experts believe the problem can be addressed by the administration without amending the law.

Seriously people...
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

BFGirl

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 699
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1294 on: December 15, 2017, 06:44:23 AM »
My interpretation was that it was an IRS ruling that created the problem in the first place, thus within the purview of the executive branch to fix. Obviously, a legislative fix was always an option as well, but not necessarily the only option.
No, the ruling was that this was clearly the intention of the law and therefore it was to be followed as it was the law.  There was no confusion in how it was written.  There was no other option other than a legislative fix.  If there was, don't you think the GOP would have used that against Obama?   

50/50 split the difference. The IRS ruling was that fixing the gap through IRS regulatory decision making, while possible, would have huge unintended financial implications to the federal budget and the stability of the program. They decided to not act unilaterally and let congress fix it, which of course the Republican-controlled congress refused to do.
No, that is not true.  The IRS enforces the tax law, it does not write it.  They legally could not "fix" anything that was decided by Congress.  How do people not get this?

The legislature makes the general law, but the IRS has the ability to make regulations fleshing out the law.  They also make "rulings" interpreting the law.

https://www.irs.gov/irm/part32/irm_32-001-001

dude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1966
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1295 on: December 15, 2017, 08:04:37 AM »
My interpretation was that it was an IRS ruling that created the problem in the first place, thus within the purview of the executive branch to fix. Obviously, a legislative fix was always an option as well, but not necessarily the only option.
No, the ruling was that this was clearly the intention of the law and therefore it was to be followed as it was the law.  There was no confusion in how it was written.  There was no other option other than a legislative fix.  If there was, don't you think the GOP would have used that against Obama?   

50/50 split the difference. The IRS ruling was that fixing the gap through IRS regulatory decision making, while possible, would have huge unintended financial implications to the federal budget and the stability of the program. They decided to not act unilaterally and let congress fix it, which of course the Republican-controlled congress refused to do.
No, that is not true.  The IRS enforces the tax law, it does not write it.  They legally could not "fix" anything that was decided by Congress.  How do people not get this?

The legislature makes the general law, but the IRS has the ability to make regulations fleshing out the law.  They also make "rulings" interpreting the law.

https://www.irs.gov/irm/part32/irm_32-001-001

Correct. Agency rulemaking (under the Administrative Procedures Act) fills the gaps in statutory language.  All agencies promulgate rules pursuant to guiding statutes. These rules more or less have the force or effect of law, provided they are not arbitrary or capricious. They are entitled to what is known as Chevron deference (after the name of the case which stands for the proposition that a court will not substitute its own interpretation for a reasonable interpretation made by an administrative agency). From those regulations (posted in the Code of Federal Regulations), agencies may promulgate policy or program statements, which further clarify how agency employees are to effectuate the governing statute(s) and regulation(s); i.e., they provide further guidance to agency employees. These are afforded far less deference but are afforded some.

sherr

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 450
  • Age: 32
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1296 on: December 15, 2017, 08:11:18 AM »
FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE:

Quote
While a statutory change would send a clear message to the administration to take action through rulemaking or guidance, legal and policy experts believe the problem can be addressed by the administration without amending the law.

Seriously people...

Try harder. I'm agreeing with you that the IRS could have subsidized family plans for people caught in the situation and "solved the problem". I'm also saying that doing so without adding an "employers must provide reasonably priced family coverage or pay a fine" provision, which the IRS could not have done and does require a legislative change, would have opened a giant loophole in the bill and that every employer that wanted to opt-out of the ACA could have done so simply by providing a family plan with sky-high premiums, which no one would use.

I'm saying it doesn't make sense to have the subsidies without the employer mandate, and adding one without the other would have just basically nullified the whole bill. Given that, the IRS's decision was reasonable and correct, and it should have been fixed by congress who could have added the employer mandate too.

"Seriously people..."

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 679
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1297 on: December 15, 2017, 09:45:13 AM »
FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE:

Quote
While a statutory change would send a clear message to the administration to take action through rulemaking or guidance, legal and policy experts believe the problem can be addressed by the administration without amending the law.

Seriously people...

Try harder. I'm agreeing with you that the IRS could have subsidized family plans for people caught in the situation and "solved the problem". I'm also saying that doing so without adding an "employers must provide reasonably priced family coverage or pay a fine" provision, which the IRS could not have done and does require a legislative change, would have opened a giant loophole in the bill and that every employer that wanted to opt-out of the ACA could have done so simply by providing a family plan with sky-high premiums, which no one would use.

I'm saying it doesn't make sense to have the subsidies without the employer mandate, and adding one without the other would have just basically nullified the whole bill. Given that, the IRS's decision was reasonable and correct, and it should have been fixed by congress who could have added the employer mandate too.

"Seriously people..."

You are changing your argument.

First you said that you "didn't understand the Obama hate" over not fixing the glitch, then I show you from your own source that he could have fixed the glitch and you tangent to the fact that more subsidies would have been given...

Are you still denying that he could have fixed it or not?
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6451
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1298 on: December 15, 2017, 10:01:22 AM »
Are you still denying that he could have fixed it or not?

I believe the argument was that trying to fix it in the way you proposed would have created much larger problems, like invalidating whole sections of the law.  The right way to modify a law is with legislation.

For example, the president also could have "fixed" the health exchanges by refusing to allocate funding for reinsurance programs or subsidies, but doing so would have been (and is) a clear violation of the intent of the law as passed by congress and it would have made the exchanges function worse, not better. Yes, he can legally do that.  No, it does not fix anything.

You're saying the doctor could have fixed a laceration by amputating the limb.  Sure, that's one solution.  It is not an improvement, though, and would have catastrophic secondary consequences far beyond the scope of the original problem, so why would he ever do that?  You're really mad at Obama for not amputating?

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 946
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Republican Tax Plan 2017
« Reply #1299 on: December 15, 2017, 10:02:08 AM »
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 50k miles for $2k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX