Republican Tax Plan 2017

[AdrianC]

Unfortunately, every penny of that $4k advantage is due to the expanded child tax credit which is temporary and will phase out over time, taking us back to where we started.

The child tax credit is always temporary...on a per family basis ;-)

(Our nipper turns 16 in 2023. That'll do it for us).

[tralfamadorian]

Did they change the capital gains exclusion timeframe from the 2of5 years to 5of8 years?  I was mentioned earlier, but I haven't seen any mention of it since the vote.

Everything I've seen says yes, the change from 2/5 to 5/8 stayed.

[sherr]

+1...they must misunderstand their desire to conform to the one true narrative listed on the pages on the NY Times as the only true version of life. I have seen that somewhere else...under Stalin! 'Conform to what we tell you is good for you'...'yes, comrads!' Is the only acceptable answer. Yes, I saw and heard that in my formative years growing up under socialism....Sad! I am for freedom of though for everyone! Go, wise virgin!

A common alt-right troll tactic is to dismiss all criticism with "stop being thought police" "I thought this was a free country" false equivalence. No one is telling you or Wise what to think, you just have to be able to defend it or you'll continue to be ignored.

[loyalreader]

Well... everyone who makes an income gets taxed. Some people get reductions/exemptions from the tax based on certain variables, including the amount of income they make, but all labor/income is taxed (unless you are getting paid 'under the counter').

False. 45% of Americans pay $0 in income tax. If you pay $0 income tax, you made an income that was not taxed. Period.

I'm not accountant so maybe I'm missing something, but are you saying those 45% of Americans don't have to fill out a W2 form and aren't legally required to claim their income every year to be taxed? My understanding is they do. And of course a significant amount of those people pay a payroll tax (or self employment tax), which makes that 45% completely wrong.

Very few people who inherit estates have to pay estate tax. The only people that do are ones with estates valued more than $11m. So it's not a death tax, and the people who call it that are either confused or are being disingenuous.

If you want to call me disingenuous because I say everyone's income (being paid legally) is taxable although some people are exempt from having to pay tax on their income... I can live with that. We, too, can agree to disagree.








 

[RangerOne]

You all should cut the nonsense out. This site is about FIRE and how to achieve these goals. Stop the petty stuff. Talk about how we can work this new tax plan to our advantage to achieve our goals.

This is stuff you CAN control.

I can offer something along these lines that no one else has mentioned yet. I can tell you how to get rich under this Republican tax plan, and in the national circumstances current today, and with the current mood.

Invest in the central two-thirds of the United States.

The day of capitalists running around the world looking for a third-world person poor and miserable enough to work in their sweatshop is past. The day of sitting on the west coast and on the east coast and making the easy money, that day is challenged and sliding away. You can read the bill, but if you want to make money, read the signs of these times.

Now send me a dollar for me newsletter. :)

Globalization is not magically going away for better or worse. Short of NAFTA falling apart or a trade war due to some new taxes. But those will just cause striff, not end it all together.

Tech bubbles like the bay look like they have peaked. And I agree a lot of new Midwestern cities are seeing job explosions as people are looking for areas with better cost of living and good jobs like Texas or Minnesota. But the reality is the bulk of the money will remain on the coasts. Because wealthy people want to live by the ocean and in our largest cities which act as traveling hubs.

The new taxes changes are annoying for some, but for the ultra wealthy in Cali and New York there are plenty of perks in their to make up for say changes to the mortgage tax break.

The reality though remains for most working folk that if you are trained in an industry that is growing you will continue to do well.

If people are hoping this will give more power to red States they should be careful what they wish for. Every year I go back to Texas I see more and more hall marks of West coast city culture moving there as big engineering firms hire more engineers from around the globe.

But to a degree I would say big companies, like Amazon, agree with your comment that we should invest in Midwestern states. We will see how that goes and Eric the current tech bubbles pops...

[Wrecks]

Do you consider the expense of the massive defense buildup that won the Cold War? How we outspent the Soviet Union until it collapsed without a shot being fired?

As Reagan learned, and as Governor Brownback learned, and as the current Congress will learn, you can't cut tax revenues drastically and hope to grow your way into more tax revenues.

http://www.businessinsider.com/kansas-experiment-with-tax-cutting-failed-on-its-own-terms-2017-6
https://www.npr.org/2017/06/07/531886684/the-kansas-tax-cut-experiment-comes-to-an-end-as-lawmakers-vote-to-raise-taxes

Kansas lawmakers have voted to roll back a series of major tax cuts that became an example for conservative lawmakers around the country but didn't deliver the growth and prosperity promised by Gov. Sam Brownback, a Republican.

A coalition of conservative Republicans, some of whom voted for sweeping tax cuts in 2012 or defended them in the years since, sided with moderates and Democrats to override Brownback's veto of a $1.2 billion tax increase.

It didn't work in the 80s, it didn't work from 2012-2017, and it won't work in 2018-2020.

Well I can tell you my service providers are going to be paying less in taxes...because I'm cutting back on all of them. Already cut my housekeeper back to every other week--that's $3750 out of her pocket. Cut my assistant back to 10 hours per week--that's $15,600 out of her pocket. And I plan on cutting the lawn guy back to once a month next year, so roughly $1500 out of his pocket.

Doesn't seem like a great way to grow revenue, does it? I assume other people who are in the 38% who will actually see a tax increase from this bill will also be cutting back. Taking money out of the hands of spenders is generally a poor way to grow the economy.

So if anything this is even worse than previous tax cuts for the economy. Previous tax cuts may have been, at most, neutral for the economy. This one is actually going to hurt.

[And before you say anything about my service providers sounding extravagant--I am self-employed and work 70+ hours a week]

So are you actually advocating that people like you in the 1% of income should play less tax? That it is not fair that the people who create jobs for others are taxed more?

Clarify? You are not making sense.

[RangerOne]

It's a good time to be a standard deduction taxpayer! We're looking at an immediate $5,000 cut. We thank you, other taxpayers and future generations, for your sacrifice to our own welfare. We'll be sure to keep her family in our thoughts and prayers.

Now we just need Congress to repeal FICA and we may finally have enough oxygen to create jobs for the hard working men and women of this country.

Yes if you are not heavily itimizing this will be a break. But the people that helps remains the same. The extra deduction is peanuts for people making around $110k a year or less.

But if you are well into the mid $100k the extra deductions are still worth twice as much. My most recent calcs showed the Republican plan at least in year one is about equivalent to owning half a million home and itimizing in 2017 in California.

The phase outs concern me but  not sure if all those will really happen.

[Wrecks]

I am single, no kids, live in NY, very high property taxes, and I make high 6 figures/low 7 figures (my income is variable because I'm self-employed). I am a consultant so no special treatment for my pass through.

Yeah I can afford it. If it were being used to give the middle middle class a meaningful tax break, or to pay for health care or infrastructure or educational initiatives I'd be fine with that. But I don't like money siphoned out of my pocket to give to the ultra-wealthy and corporations.

There's a little cognitive dissonance here. You make about $1 million a year. You ARE the ultra-wealthy.

High income doesn't necessarily mean ultra-wealthy.

Wealth is about assets; high income that stops if you stop working isn't nearly the same thing.

Once a single year's income makes you wealthy (and you've had that income for the better part of a decade), I don't see how you can possibly be not wealthy. Many here would retire after 1-2 years of his income, complaining that an extra 1‰ of his income his going to the ultra wealthy is the height of cognitive dissonance.

I think you may have poor reading comprehension.

My income is in the 99.8th percentile according to the WSJ. Yes, I make a lot of money.

My taxes are going up. Way up, thanks to this bill. Primarily due to loss of state and local taxes as well as a number of other deductions that I use.

That money is being siphoned out of my pocket and given to the ultra wealthy--the 1% of the 0.1%.

As I said before, my taxes going up to support something of value, such as health care, a real tax, permanent tax cut for the middle class, infrastructure, etc. would be fine with me. I am NOT OKAY with paying substantially more in taxes to give it to the idle rich.

[djadziadax]

+1...they must misunderstand their desire to conform to the one true narrative listed on the pages on the NY Times as the only true version of life. I have seen that somewhere else...under Stalin! 'Conform to what we tell you is good for you'...'yes, comrads!' Is the only acceptable answer. Yes, I saw and heard that in my formative years growing up under socialism....Sad! I am for freedom of though for everyone! Go, wise virgin!

A common alt-right troll tactic is to dismiss all criticism with "stop being thought police" "I thought this was a free country" false equivalence. No one is telling you or Wise what to think, you just have to be able to defend it or you'll continue to be ignored.

You seem to agree with my point and provide ample evidence for it. By dismissing my lived-in experience under a totalitarian system with thought control in place
which seems vaguely similar to what I observe in my own circumstances now, only strengthens my point.

Don't tell others what is good for them...the communist party is usually the one that tells you what is in your best interest. But again, how you would be familiar with that??

[NoStacheOhio]

As I said before, my taxes going up to support something of value, such as health care, a real tax, permanent tax cut for the middle class, infrastructure, etc. would be fine with me. I am NOT OKAY with paying substantially more in taxes to give it to the idle rich.

Would it be fair to say you have qualms with the spending priority, rather than the level of taxation in the new tax bill?

[Wrecks]

As I said before, my taxes going up to support something of value, such as health care, a real tax, permanent tax cut for the middle class, infrastructure, etc. would be fine with me. I am NOT OKAY with paying substantially more in taxes to give it to the idle rich.

Would it be fair to say you have qualms with the spending priority, rather than the level of taxation in the new tax bill?

I don't think I can be any more clear.

And if your next argument is that tax cuts for "job creators" will grow the economy, as has been discussed ad nauseum it has been proven over and over that they don't. Further, there is absolutely no reason to further stimulate the economy.

I also find it absolutely repulsive that this bill provides generous tax breaks for passive pass throughs but specifically excludes those who work for their money.

[RangerOne]

At this point I just find this funny. Because the studies coming out very clearly show families pulling in well over $100k doing well from this and everyone below that line getting only a token sub $500 a year break... Which I imagine encompasses a whole big chunk of die hard Trumpers.

But I am sure we will all go out and hire more people with our new found wealth and not simply pump stock prices to gasp, make us all more money...

[djadziadax]

You all should cut the nonsense out. This site is about FIRE and how to achieve these goals. Stop the petty stuff. Talk about how we can work this new tax plan to our advantage to achieve our goals.

This is stuff you CAN control.

I can offer something along these lines that no one else has mentioned yet. I can tell you how to get rich under this Republican tax plan, and in the national circumstances current today, and with the current mood.

Invest in the central two-thirds of the United States.

The day of capitalists running around the world looking for a third-world person poor and miserable enough to work in their sweatshop is past. The day of sitting on the west coast and on the east coast and making the easy money, that day is challenged and sliding away. You can read the bill, but if you want to make money, read the signs of these times.

Now send me a dollar for me newsletter. :)

Globalization is not magically going away for better or worse. Short of NAFTA falling apart or a trade war due to some new taxes. But those will just cause striff, not end it all together.

Tech bubbles like the bay look like they have peaked. And I agree a lot of new Midwestern cities are seeing job explosions as people are looking for areas with better cost of living and good jobs like Texas or Minnesota. But the reality is the bulk of the money will remain on the coasts. Because wealthy people want to live by the ocean and in our largest cities which act as traveling hubs.

The new taxes changes are annoying for some, but for the ultra wealthy in Cali and New York there are plenty of perks in their to make up for say changes to the mortgage tax break.

The reality though remains for most working folk that if you are trained in an industry that is growing you will continue to do well.

If people are hoping this will give more power to red States they should be careful what they wish for. Every year I go back to Texas I see more and more hall marks of West coast city culture moving there as big engineering firms hire more engineers from around the globe.

But to a degree I would say big companies, like Amazon, agree with your comment that we should invest in Midwestern states. We will see how that goes and Eric the current tech bubbles pops...

Well said!

One example of benefit (sparked by a conversation with a colleague) - this plan would be of some benefit to a lot of singles who rent - think of our of college grads. They don't itemize usually and don't make tons. So doubling standard deduction is a boon.

But overall is a marginal benefit for most - 1-2K better off...its not all that great, but not terrible.

The hope is that big growth will come from the business side through investment and capital formation. The bill provides incentives for that - lets see those will work.

[NoStacheOhio]

As I said before, my taxes going up to support something of value, such as health care, a real tax, permanent tax cut for the middle class, infrastructure, etc. would be fine with me. I am NOT OKAY with paying substantially more in taxes to give it to the idle rich.

Would it be fair to say you have qualms with the spending priority, rather than the level of taxation in the new tax bill?

I don't think I can be any more clear.

And if your next argument is that tax cuts for "job creators" will grow the economy, as has been discussed ad nauseum it has been proven over and over that they don't. Further, there is absolutely no reason to further stimulate the economy.

I also find it absolutely repulsive that this bill provides generous tax breaks for passive pass throughs but specifically excludes those who work for their money.

Wait, what? I wasn't arguing, just trying to reword what you said in a way that made more sense to me. I think we agree, mostly.

[bacchi]

You seem to agree with my point and provide ample evidence for it. By dismissing my lived-in experience under a totalitarian system with thought control in place
which seems vaguely similar to what I observe in my own circumstances now, only strengthens my point.

You're comparing living under Stalin to criticism on an internet message forum?!?

I'm dismissing the comparison. It's nonsense.

[NoStacheOhio]

The hope is that big growth will come from the business side through investment and capital formation. The bill provides incentives for that - lets see those will work.

So the record corporate profits/cash-in-hand up to this point ... that wasn't enough incentive for new capital spending? Why would their previous plan of "hoard cash and buy back shares" change because they're giving less money to the government?

[Wrecks]

As I said before, my taxes going up to support something of value, such as health care, a real tax, permanent tax cut for the middle class, infrastructure, etc. would be fine with me. I am NOT OKAY with paying substantially more in taxes to give it to the idle rich.

Would it be fair to say you have qualms with the spending priority, rather than the level of taxation in the new tax bill?

I don't think I can be any more clear.

And if your next argument is that tax cuts for "job creators" will grow the economy, as has been discussed ad nauseum it has been proven over and over that they don't. Further, there is absolutely no reason to further stimulate the economy.

I also find it absolutely repulsive that this bill provides generous tax breaks for passive pass throughs but specifically excludes those who work for their money.

Wait, what? I wasn't arguing, just trying to reword what you said in a way that made more sense to me. I think we agree, mostly.

Sorry, I am extremely aggravated by this whole thing. My apologies.

[jean]

One example of benefit (sparked by a conversation with a colleague) - this plan would be of some benefit to a lot of singles who rent - think of our of college grads. They don't itemize usually and don't make tons. So doubling standard deduction is a boon.

I agree with this, and think it is generally a good thing.

Still,  can we stop referring to it as "doubling standard deduction" and just say increasing the standard deduction or "doubling the SD while simultaneously removing the Personal Exemption"

For a single the SD + Personal Exemption (which really functioned like a secondary SD) for 2018 would be 10,400.  The new tax plan increases this to either 12,000 or 12,200. 

I know those here know this. I still think we should frame the potential benefits of  this appropriately. An increase in the SD will have a modest impact on singles.

[sherr]

+1...they must misunderstand their desire to conform to the one true narrative listed on the pages on the NY Times as the only true version of life. I have seen that somewhere else...under Stalin! 'Conform to what we tell you is good for you'...'yes, comrads!' Is the only acceptable answer. Yes, I saw and heard that in my formative years growing up under socialism....Sad! I am for freedom of though for everyone! Go, wise virgin!

A common alt-right troll tactic is to dismiss all criticism with "stop being thought police" "I thought this was a free country" false equivalence. No one is telling you or Wise what to think, you just have to be able to defend it or you'll continue to be ignored.

You seem to agree with my point and provide ample evidence for it. By dismissing my lived-in experience under a totalitarian system with thought control in place
which seems vaguely similar to what I observe in my own circumstances now, only strengthens my point.

Don't tell others what is good for them...the communist party is usually the one that tells you what is in your best interest. But again, how you would be familiar with that??

Wow, responding to being called out for false equivalence by doing exactly the same thing again is a bold move.

Let's try this again. No one is telling you what to think. Sol and I (and others) have no authority over you in any way whatsoever. Everyone is on equal footing here, and if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say then you (like everyone else) must be able to back it up. With reasoning and evidence, not easily disprovable magical thinking and propaganda.

[Metta]

+1...they must misunderstand their desire to conform to the one true narrative listed on the pages on the NY Times as the only true version of life. I have seen that somewhere else...under Stalin! 'Conform to what we tell you is good for you'...'yes, comrads!' Is the only acceptable answer. Yes, I saw and heard that in my formative years growing up under socialism....Sad! I am for freedom of though for everyone! Go, wise virgin!

A common alt-right troll tactic is to dismiss all criticism with "stop being thought police" "I thought this was a free country" false equivalence. No one is telling you or Wise what to think, you just have to be able to defend it or you'll continue to be ignored.

You seem to agree with my point and provide ample evidence for it. By dismissing my lived-in experience under a totalitarian system with thought control in place
which seems vaguely similar to what I observe in my own circumstances now, only strengthens my point.

Don't tell others what is good for them...the communist party is usually the one that tells you what is in your best interest. But again, how you would be familiar with that??

Wow, responding to being called out for false equivalence by doing exactly the same thing again is a bold move.

Let's try this again. No one is telling you what to think. Sol and I (and others) have no authority over you in any way whatsoever. Everyone is on equal footing here, and if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say then you (like everyone else) must be able to back it up. With reasoning and evidence, not easily disprovable magical thinking and propaganda.

I don’t think that the problem with communism was that they told people what to think. Nearly everyone with a philosophy or motivation does that. The difference between followers of Epictetus or Buddha or Jesus telling you what or how to think and Stalinist Russia is that Russian communists backed up their  directives with guns. Very few followers of Plato are willing to back up their recommendations with a gun to the head. And from what I’ve observed, exactly none of the mustachians have that ability or inclination.

[SaucyAussie]

One example of benefit (sparked by a conversation with a colleague) - this plan would be of some benefit to a lot of singles who rent - think of our of college grads. They don't itemize usually and don't make tons. So doubling standard deduction is a boon.

I agree with this, and think it is generally a good thing.

Still,  can we stop referring to it as "doubling standard deduction" and just say increasing the standard deduction or "doubling the SD while simultaneously removing the Personal Exemption"

For a single the SD + Personal Exemption (which really functioned like a secondary SD) for 2018 would be 10,400.  The new tax plan increases this to either 12,000 or 12,200. 

I know those here know this. I still think we should frame the potential benefits of  this appropriately. An increase in the SD will have a modest impact on singles.

Just to add some numbers to your example, a single making 50K a year would get a tax cut of around $1270 under the Senate bill, same single making 100K a year sees a tax cut of around $2480.

[djadziadax]

One example of benefit (sparked by a conversation with a colleague) - this plan would be of some benefit to a lot of singles who rent - think of our of college grads. They don't itemize usually and don't make tons. So doubling standard deduction is a boon.

I agree with this, and think it is generally a good thing.

Still,  can we stop referring to it as "doubling standard deduction" and just say increasing the standard deduction or "doubling the SD while simultaneously removing the Personal Exemption"

For a single the SD + Personal Exemption (which really functioned like a secondary SD) for 2018 would be 10,400.  The new tax plan increases this to either 12,000 or 12,200. 

I know those here know this. I still think we should frame the potential benefits of  this appropriately. An increase in the SD will have a modest impact on singles.

Good point. But also the tax rate would be at 12% rather than 15% for example, and it also include the $300 of flexible  family credit (as I understand it). So a bit bigger benefit than just sheltering an additional $1800 of income, but not really great.

Yes, 2K is not great in a world where the iPhone X is $1000... but it is also equivalent or a little more than our small 2.75% yearly "raise."

[sherr]

I don’t think that the problem with communism was that they told people what to think. Nearly everyone with a philosophy or motivation does that. The difference between followers of Epictetus or Buddha or Jesus telling you what or how to think and Stalinist Russia is that Russian communists backed up their  directives with guns. Very few followers of Plato are willing to back up their recommendations with a gun to the head. And from what I’ve observed, exactly none of the mustachians have that ability or inclination.

Agreed, except that they are two different things with different terminology. Alt-righters intentionally confuse them so that they don't actually have to argue on the merits of facts, but there's no reason we have to concede the point and let them get away with it.

"Telling you what to think" implies force and authority and control. Perhaps a gun to the head, or maybe just a vague implied threat.

What the followers of Epictetus or Buddha or Jesus would do would be "evangelism" or "convincing" or "persuasion" (unless of course we're going back to the dark ages of Crusades and Inquisitions the like. Then yes obviously that would be "telling you what to think"). "Hey I think I know a truth, let me try to convince you that it's true." That's not "telling" someone what to think, and there's no reason we should allow the distinction to be muddled.

[djadziadax]

+1...they must misunderstand their desire to conform to the one true narrative listed on the pages on the NY Times as the only true version of life. I have seen that somewhere else...under Stalin! 'Conform to what we tell you is good for you'...'yes, comrads!' Is the only acceptable answer. Yes, I saw and heard that in my formative years growing up under socialism....Sad! I am for freedom of though for everyone! Go, wise virgin!

A common alt-right troll tactic is to dismiss all criticism with "stop being thought police" "I thought this was a free country" false equivalence. No one is telling you or Wise what to think, you just have to be able to defend it or you'll continue to be ignored.

You seem to agree with my point and provide ample evidence for it. By dismissing my lived-in experience under a totalitarian system with thought control in place
which seems vaguely similar to what I observe in my own circumstances now, only strengthens my point.

Don't tell others what is good for them...the communist party is usually the one that tells you what is in your best interest. But again, how you would be familiar with that??

Wow, responding to being called out for false equivalence by doing exactly the same thing again is a bold move.

Let's try this again. No one is telling you what to think. Sol and I (and others) have no authority over you in any way whatsoever. Everyone is on equal footing here, and if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say then you (like everyone else) must be able to back it up. With reasoning and evidence, not easily disprovable magical thinking and propaganda.

Right, not on this board. But if you are so confident that we live at the present moment in a free-to-express your opinion society, I dare you to ware a red MAGA hat on the NYC subway or in a bar. No guns, but fist fights have been known to occur...Even if you don't fear for your safety, it will be an extremely uncomfortable experience. Maybe the same for someone wearing a Hillary button in deep red Montana or Idaho...

https://nypost.com/2017/03/19/i-made-150-just-by-wearing-a-trump-hat/

[salt cured]

Does anyone know if treatment of 414h plans is addressed in either the house or senate bills? I currently max a 403b, a 457b, and defer 6% of my salary into a 414h (plus an 8% employer match), so I'm wondering what will happen to that latter shelter.

[Metta]

+1...they must misunderstand their desire to conform to the one true narrative listed on the pages on the NY Times as the only true version of life. I have seen that somewhere else...under Stalin! 'Conform to what we tell you is good for you'...'yes, comrads!' Is the only acceptable answer. Yes, I saw and heard that in my formative years growing up under socialism....Sad! I am for freedom of though for everyone! Go, wise virgin!

A common alt-right troll tactic is to dismiss all criticism with "stop being thought police" "I thought this was a free country" false equivalence. No one is telling you or Wise what to think, you just have to be able to defend it or you'll continue to be ignored.

You seem to agree with my point and provide ample evidence for it. By dismissing my lived-in experience under a totalitarian system with thought control in place
which seems vaguely similar to what I observe in my own circumstances now, only strengthens my point.

Don't tell others what is good for them...the communist party is usually the one that tells you what is in your best interest. But again, how you would be familiar with that??

Wow, responding to being called out for false equivalence by doing exactly the same thing again is a bold move.

Let's try this again. No one is telling you what to think. Sol and I (and others) have no authority over you in any way whatsoever. Everyone is on equal footing here, and if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say then you (like everyone else) must be able to back it up. With reasoning and evidence, not easily disprovable magical thinking and propaganda.

Right, not on this board. But if you are so confident that we live at the present moment in a free-to-express your opinion society, I dare you to ware a red MAGA hat on the NYC subway or in a bar. No guns, but fist fights have been known to occur...Even if you don't fear for your safety, it will be an extremely uncomfortable experience. Maybe the same for someone wearing a Hillary button in deep red Montana or Idaho...

https://nypost.com/2017/03/19/i-made-150-just-by-wearing-a-trump-hat/

It is even easier to provoke people into hateful acts by being an out and proud gay person in Idaho or a Jew in certain parts of this country or a Muslim just about anywhere in the South or Midwest. Or, if you want to get your beating quick and hard, go to Ohio State and cheer for Michigan's football team.

Individual hooliganism is not the same as Stalinist Russia and you should not diminish the horror of that era by making this comparison. It is vile.

[NoStacheOhio]

It is even easier to provoke people into hateful acts by being an out and proud gay person in Idaho or a Jew in certain parts of this country or a Muslim just about anywhere in the South or Midwest. Or, if you want to get your beating quick and hard, go to Ohio State and cheer for Michigan's football team.

Individual hooliganism is not the same as Stalinist Russia and you should not diminish the horror of that era by making this comparison. It is vile.

Another important distinction: these are all the actions of private citizens, not the state.

[Bumperpuff]

One example of benefit (sparked by a conversation with a colleague) - this plan would be of some benefit to a lot of singles who rent - think of our of college grads. They don't itemize usually and don't make tons. So doubling standard deduction is a boon.

I agree with this, and think it is generally a good thing.

Still,  can we stop referring to it as "doubling standard deduction" and just say increasing the standard deduction or "doubling the SD while simultaneously removing the Personal Exemption"

For a single the SD + Personal Exemption (which really functioned like a secondary SD) for 2018 would be 10,400.  The new tax plan increases this to either 12,000 or 12,200. 

I know those here know this. I still think we should frame the potential benefits of  this appropriately. An increase in the SD will have a modest impact on singles.

Just to add some numbers to your example, a single making 50K a year would get a tax cut of around $1270 under the Senate bill, same single making 100K a year sees a tax cut of around $2480.

I'm single earning about 60k and have been a standard deduction user.  The tax bill will save me a grand total of $270, and once the sunset clauses kick in I'll be paying substantial more.  I'd rather pay more so that people like my friend who currently makes heavy use of the medical deductions won't be penalized for genetic predispositions.

[SaucyAussie]

One example of benefit (sparked by a conversation with a colleague) - this plan would be of some benefit to a lot of singles who rent - think of our of college grads. They don't itemize usually and don't make tons. So doubling standard deduction is a boon.

I agree with this, and think it is generally a good thing.

Still,  can we stop referring to it as "doubling standard deduction" and just say increasing the standard deduction or "doubling the SD while simultaneously removing the Personal Exemption"

For a single the SD + Personal Exemption (which really functioned like a secondary SD) for 2018 would be 10,400.  The new tax plan increases this to either 12,000 or 12,200. 

I know those here know this. I still think we should frame the potential benefits of  this appropriately. An increase in the SD will have a modest impact on singles.

Just to add some numbers to your example, a single making 50K a year would get a tax cut of around $1270 under the Senate bill, same single making 100K a year sees a tax cut of around $2480.

I'm single earning about 60k and have been a standard deduction user.  The tax bill will save me a grand total of $270, and once the sunset clauses kick in I'll be paying substantial more.  I'd rather pay more so that people like my friend who currently makes heavy use of the medical deductions won't be penalized for genetic predispositions.

Can you show us how you got that?  It doesn't look right.  I don't think you allowed for the updated tax brackets.

[Malloy]

Whoops!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html

A corporate AMT.  Maybe the Senate accidentally DID close some loopholes.

[sol]

Whoops!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html

A corporate AMT.  Maybe the Senate accidentally DID close some loopholes.

Summary of that article: after permanently lowering the corporate tax rate to 20%, republicans accidentally included a corporate AMT, with a 20% floor.  This means corporations can pay no more and also no less than 20% on their US earnings.  All corporate loopholes and deductions instantly revoked.  Guaranteed 20% corporate tax rate, and no opportunity for them to itemize. 

They'll probably change it.  The ACA had some glitches at first, too.

[Glenstache]

Whoops!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html

A corporate AMT.  Maybe the Senate accidentally DID close some loopholes.

This would be amusing if it were not such an indicator of what a terrible process was used to craft and pass the bill. ugh.

[Roots&Wings]

Anyone know if the provision mandating FIFO accounting for fund managers, including index funds, remained? That will increase taxable account capital gains distributions significantly if so.

[Bumperpuff]

One example of benefit (sparked by a conversation with a colleague) - this plan would be of some benefit to a lot of singles who rent - think of our of college grads. They don't itemize usually and don't make tons. So doubling standard deduction is a boon.

I agree with this, and think it is generally a good thing.

Still,  can we stop referring to it as "doubling standard deduction" and just say increasing the standard deduction or "doubling the SD while simultaneously removing the Personal Exemption"

For a single the SD + Personal Exemption (which really functioned like a secondary SD) for 2018 would be 10,400.  The new tax plan increases this to either 12,000 or 12,200. 

I know those here know this. I still think we should frame the potential benefits of  this appropriately. An increase in the SD will have a modest impact on singles.

Just to add some numbers to your example, a single making 50K a year would get a tax cut of around $1270 under the Senate bill, same single making 100K a year sees a tax cut of around $2480.

I'm single earning about 60k and have been a standard deduction user.  The tax bill will save me a grand total of $270, and once the sunset clauses kick in I'll be paying substantial more.  I'd rather pay more so that people like my friend who currently makes heavy use of the medical deductions won't be penalized for genetic predispositions.

Can you show us how you got that?  It doesn't look right.  I don't think you allowed for the updated tax brackets.

You're right, the change in brackets pushes me up to $640 or $880 depending on if they go with the senate or house brackets.

[ketchup]

Whoops!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html

A corporate AMT.  Maybe the Senate accidentally DID close some loopholes.

This would be amusing if it were not such an indicator of what a terrible process was used to craft and pass the bill. ugh.

Looks like those clowns in Congress did it again.  What a bunch of clowns.

[NoStacheOhio]

Whoops!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html

A corporate AMT.  Maybe the Senate accidentally DID close some loopholes.

Summary of that article: after permanently lowering the corporate tax rate to 20%, republicans accidentally included a corporate AMT, with a 20% floor.  This means corporations can pay no more and also no less than 20% on their US earnings.  All corporate loopholes and deductions instantly revoked.  Guaranteed 20% corporate tax rate, and no opportunity for them to itemize. 

They'll probably change it.  The ACA had some glitches at first, too.

Am I right in assuming this would actually lead to increased revenues, given that it would be much harder to play with numbers?

[Saving4Fire]

Whoops!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html

A corporate AMT.  Maybe the Senate accidentally DID close some loopholes.

Summary of that article: after permanently lowering the corporate tax rate to 20%, republicans accidentally included a corporate AMT, with a 20% floor.  This means corporations can pay no more and also no less than 20% on their US earnings.  All corporate loopholes and deductions instantly revoked.  Guaranteed 20% corporate tax rate, and no opportunity for them to itemize. 

They'll probably change it.  The ACA had some glitches at first, too.

Am I right in assuming this would actually lead to increased revenues, given that it would be much harder to play with numbers?

No, overall corp taxes rates would go down.

This would discourage R&D, because companies couldn't write it off.

I don't think removing the AMT is an actual mistake.   It was temporary fix to get it past budget reconciliation.   If this gets removed expect individual tax payers to pick up the bill so everyone should hold off on their personal calculations.  This bill is a hot mess.

[FIREchiefsr]

Whoops!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html

A corporate AMT.  Maybe the Senate accidentally DID close some loopholes.

I think the AMT revival was just a last minute placeholder to get the thing through the Senate.  Trump's sudden willingness to entertain a 22% corporate rate is likely the route in commitee for them to again remove AMT and also pay for those other last minute sweetners.

[secondcor521]

+1...they must misunderstand their desire to conform to the one true narrative listed on the pages on the NY Times as the only true version of life. I have seen that somewhere else...under Stalin! 'Conform to what we tell you is good for you'...'yes, comrads!' Is the only acceptable answer. Yes, I saw and heard that in my formative years growing up under socialism....Sad! I am for freedom of though for everyone! Go, wise virgin!

A common alt-right troll tactic is to dismiss all criticism with "stop being thought police" "I thought this was a free country" false equivalence. No one is telling you or Wise what to think, you just have to be able to defend it or you'll continue to be ignored.

You seem to agree with my point and provide ample evidence for it. By dismissing my lived-in experience under a totalitarian system with thought control in place
which seems vaguely similar to what I observe in my own circumstances now, only strengthens my point.

Don't tell others what is good for them...the communist party is usually the one that tells you what is in your best interest. But again, how you would be familiar with that??

Wow, responding to being called out for false equivalence by doing exactly the same thing again is a bold move.

Let's try this again. No one is telling you what to think. Sol and I (and others) have no authority over you in any way whatsoever. Everyone is on equal footing here, and if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say then you (like everyone else) must be able to back it up. With reasoning and evidence, not easily disprovable magical thinking and propaganda.

Right, not on this board. But if you are so confident that we live at the present moment in a free-to-express your opinion society, I dare you to ware a red MAGA hat on the NYC subway or in a bar. No guns, but fist fights have been known to occur...Even if you don't fear for your safety, it will be an extremely uncomfortable experience. Maybe the same for someone wearing a Hillary button in deep red Montana or Idaho...

https://nypost.com/2017/03/19/i-made-150-just-by-wearing-a-trump-hat/

It is even easier to provoke people into hateful acts by being an out and proud gay person in Idaho or a Jew in certain parts of this country or a Muslim just about anywhere in the South or Midwest. Or, if you want to get your beating quick and hard, go to Ohio State and cheer for Michigan's football team.

Individual hooliganism is not the same as Stalinist Russia and you should not diminish the horror of that era by making this comparison. It is vile.

Off topic and I think the comments were made mostly as examples, but I've lived in Idaho for over 43 years, including all of the past 24 years.  Although Idaho is a very conservative state, it is also very much a live and let live state.  Those among us who supported Hillary(*), are gay, or Jewish or Muslim, or even Michigan supporters, are just people who we live and work with who have a different opinion.

The only thing that sometimes - and in actual fact rarely - rises to fistfights is between some Bronco and Vandal fans, and I would describe them as hooligans.

(*) Idaho actually went very hard for Senator Sanders in the Democratic primary last year.  Lines around the block to vote for him, including my son.  But there were also those who supported Secretary Clinton.

[sol]

Am I right in assuming this would actually lead to increased revenues, given that it would be much harder to play with numbers?

Economy wide, no.  The current effective corporate tax rate is usually reported as higher than 20 percent, though it clearly depends on how you count it.

At a fixed 20%, some firms that currently pay zero (GE) would pay a lot more.  Some firms that currently pay more than 20 (Wal-Mart) would pay less.

I think the AMT revival was just a last minute placeholder to get the thing through the Senate.  Trump's sudden willingness to entertain a 22% corporate rate is likely the route in commitee for them to again remove AMT and also pay for those other last minute sweetners.

Bingo.  It's probably just part off the political theater.  It's more tricks designed to push through such an unpopular bill as quickly as possible.

[sherr]

This would discourage R&D, because companies couldn't write it off.

To be honest I don't have a problem with this. Corporations currently make some really stupid decisions because of tax-deductible CapEx vs non-deductible OpEx considerations. Sometimes improving and maintaining the old system is better for everyone than reinventing the wheel. Level the tax playing field, corporations will still invest in R&D or they'll passed by their competitors.

I don't think removing the AMT is an actual mistake.   It was temporary fix to get it past budget reconciliation.   If this gets removed expect individual tax payers to pick up the bill so everyone should hold off on their personal calculations.  This bill is a hot mess.

Yeah agreed. This is also the first thing I've seen that really convinces me that they're actually going to go through with the reconciliation process instead of just getting the House to pass it. So everyone get ready for another House / Senate vote in a couple weeks.

[Saving4Fire]

To be honest I don't have a problem with this. Corporations currently make some really stupid decisions because of tax-deductible CapEx vs non-deductible OpEx considerations. Sometimes improving and maintaining the old system is better for everyone than reinventing the wheel. Level the tax playing field, corporations will still invest in R&D or they'll passed by their competitors.

On the other hand if this tax bill discourages R&D/investment and further encourages dividends and stock buy backs this bill is even worse for the average working person.   

[djadziadax]

+1...they must misunderstand their desire to conform to the one true narrative listed on the pages on the NY Times as the only true version of life. I have seen that somewhere else...under Stalin! 'Conform to what we tell you is good for you'...'yes, comrads!' Is the only acceptable answer. Yes, I saw and heard that in my formative years growing up under socialism....Sad! I am for freedom of though for everyone! Go, wise virgin!

A common alt-right troll tactic is to dismiss all criticism with "stop being thought police" "I thought this was a free country" false equivalence. No one is telling you or Wise what to think, you just have to be able to defend it or you'll continue to be ignored.

You seem to agree with my point and provide ample evidence for it. By dismissing my lived-in experience under a totalitarian system with thought control in place
which seems vaguely similar to what I observe in my own circumstances now, only strengthens my point.

Don't tell others what is good for them...the communist party is usually the one that tells you what is in your best interest. But again, how you would be familiar with that??

Wow, responding to being called out for false equivalence by doing exactly the same thing again is a bold move.

Let's try this again. No one is telling you what to think. Sol and I (and others) have no authority over you in any way whatsoever. Everyone is on equal footing here, and if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say then you (like everyone else) must be able to back it up. With reasoning and evidence, not easily disprovable magical thinking and propaganda.

Right, not on this board. But if you are so confident that we live at the present moment in a free-to-express your opinion society, I dare you to ware a red MAGA hat on the NYC subway or in a bar. No guns, but fist fights have been known to occur...Even if you don't fear for your safety, it will be an extremely uncomfortable experience. Maybe the same for someone wearing a Hillary button in deep red Montana or Idaho...

https://nypost.com/2017/03/19/i-made-150-just-by-wearing-a-trump-hat/

It is even easier to provoke people into hateful acts by being an out and proud gay person in Idaho or a Jew in certain parts of this country or a Muslim just about anywhere in the South or Midwest. Or, if you want to get your beating quick and hard, go to Ohio State and cheer for Michigan's football team.

Individual hooliganism is not the same as Stalinist Russia and you should not diminish the horror of that era by making this comparison. It is vile.

Off topic and I think the comments were made mostly as examples, but I've lived in Idaho for over 43 years, including all of the past 24 years.  Although Idaho is a very conservative state, it is also very much a live and let live state.  Those among us who supported Hillary(*), are gay, or Jewish or Muslim, or even Michigan supporters, are just people who we live and work with who have a different opinion.

The only thing that sometimes - and in actual fact rarely - rises to fistfights is between some Bronco and Vandal fans, and I would describe them as hooligans.

(*) Idaho actually went very hard for Senator Sanders in the Democratic primary last year.  Lines around the block to vote for him, including my son.  But there were also those who supported Secretary Clinton.

Thanks for the insight ;-)

[MustachianAccountant]

Well... everyone who makes an income gets taxed. Some people get reductions/exemptions from the tax based on certain variables, including the amount of income they make, but all labor/income is taxed (unless you are getting paid 'under the counter').

False. 45% of Americans pay $0 in income tax. If you pay $0 income tax, you made an income that was not taxed. Period.

I'm not accountant so maybe I'm missing something, but are you saying those 45% of Americans don't have to fill out a W2 form and aren't legally required to claim their income every year to be taxed? My understanding is they do. And of course a significant amount of those people pay a payroll tax (or self employment tax), which makes that 45% completely wrong.

Very few people who inherit estates have to pay estate tax. The only people that do are ones with estates valued more than $11m. So it's not a death tax, and the people who call it that are either confused or are being disingenuous.

If you want to call me disingenuous because I say everyone's income (being paid legally) is taxable although some people are exempt from having to pay tax on their income... I can live with that. We, too, can agree to disagree.

1. My apologies for misunderstanding you, I thought you were talking about INCOME tax, not tax in general, given the subject of this thread. Yes, everyone pays some sort of tax during their lifetimes.

2. Just because you file a W-2, and get a paycheck, and are SUBJECT to income tax, does not mean that you end up PAYING income tax. 45% of Americans do not pay income tax. That's the important point. Who is PAYING, not so much who is subject to it. You originally said "everyone who makes an income GETS taxed," which if we're talking about income tax, is false. Your revision using the word "taxable" isn't even technically correct if we're still talking about income tax, because non-taxable income (whether through deductions, exemptions, or otherwise) doesn't get taxed.

[Metta]

+1...they must misunderstand their desire to conform to the one true narrative listed on the pages on the NY Times as the only true version of life. I have seen that somewhere else...under Stalin! 'Conform to what we tell you is good for you'...'yes, comrads!' Is the only acceptable answer. Yes, I saw and heard that in my formative years growing up under socialism....Sad! I am for freedom of though for everyone! Go, wise virgin!

A common alt-right troll tactic is to dismiss all criticism with "stop being thought police" "I thought this was a free country" false equivalence. No one is telling you or Wise what to think, you just have to be able to defend it or you'll continue to be ignored.

You seem to agree with my point and provide ample evidence for it. By dismissing my lived-in experience under a totalitarian system with thought control in place
which seems vaguely similar to what I observe in my own circumstances now, only strengthens my point.

Don't tell others what is good for them...the communist party is usually the one that tells you what is in your best interest. But again, how you would be familiar with that??

Wow, responding to being called out for false equivalence by doing exactly the same thing again is a bold move.

Let's try this again. No one is telling you what to think. Sol and I (and others) have no authority over you in any way whatsoever. Everyone is on equal footing here, and if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say then you (like everyone else) must be able to back it up. With reasoning and evidence, not easily disprovable magical thinking and propaganda.

Right, not on this board. But if you are so confident that we live at the present moment in a free-to-express your opinion society, I dare you to ware a red MAGA hat on the NYC subway or in a bar. No guns, but fist fights have been known to occur...Even if you don't fear for your safety, it will be an extremely uncomfortable experience. Maybe the same for someone wearing a Hillary button in deep red Montana or Idaho...

https://nypost.com/2017/03/19/i-made-150-just-by-wearing-a-trump-hat/

It is even easier to provoke people into hateful acts by being an out and proud gay person in Idaho or a Jew in certain parts of this country or a Muslim just about anywhere in the South or Midwest. Or, if you want to get your beating quick and hard, go to Ohio State and cheer for Michigan's football team.

Individual hooliganism is not the same as Stalinist Russia and you should not diminish the horror of that era by making this comparison. It is vile.

Off topic and I think the comments were made mostly as examples, but I've lived in Idaho for over 43 years, including all of the past 24 years.  Although Idaho is a very conservative state, it is also very much a live and let live state.  Those among us who supported Hillary(*), are gay, or Jewish or Muslim, or even Michigan supporters, are just people who we live and work with who have a different opinion.

The only thing that sometimes - and in actual fact rarely - rises to fistfights is between some Bronco and Vandal fans, and I would describe them as hooligans.

(*) Idaho actually went very hard for Senator Sanders in the Democratic primary last year.  Lines around the block to vote for him, including my son.  But there were also those who supported Secretary Clinton.

I thought a Buckeye would be the first at me for these examples, but they held their fire. (Perhaps they have seen the damage wrought by OSU fans along High Street and wisely chose the path of non-resistance.)

I'm glad to hear your description of Idaho as a tolerant place, especially since my cousin just moved to Boise from Denver. I am a bit worried now about the Vandals vs Broncos issue (which I was unaware of) since I believe that my cousin is a Broncos fan. Hopefully he can find a peaceful solution to this potential dispute with the natives. ;)

My point is that there are people itching to put their fist in something or someone everywhere in the world. Who they choose as their victim depends on who is the outsider in that community, whether that person is an outsider due to politics, religion, gender, or football partisanship isn't particularly important. I am guessing that Idaho is not immune from this universal element in human communities.

Violent people are problems for their local communities but they are not the equivalent of despotic governments that conduct large campaigns of terror and murder against their own people and they are not equivalent to governments denying citizens freedom of speech. That was my point. Apologies for any wounded feelings on the part of Idahoans.

[secondcor521]

I'm glad to hear your description of Idaho as a tolerant place, especially since my cousin just moved to Boise from Denver. I am a bit worried now about the Vandals vs Broncos issue (which I was unaware of) since I believe that my cousin is a Broncos fan. Hopefully he can find a peaceful solution to this potential dispute with the natives. ;)

My point is that there are people itching to put their fist in something or someone everywhere in the world. Who they choose as their victim depends on who is the outsider in that community, whether that person is an outsider due to politics, religion, gender, or football partisanship isn't particularly important. I am guessing that Idaho is not immune from this universal element in human communities.

Violent people are problems for their local communities but they are not the equivalent of despotic governments that conduct large campaigns of terror and murder against their own people and they are not equivalent to governments denying citizens freedom of speech. That was my point. Apologies for any wounded feelings on the part of Idahoans.

99.9% of Bronco and Vandal fans get along just fine.  It's easier now that they don't play each other (different conferences I think).

We're not immune from violence, but around here the violent folks tend to be gang members or meth addicts.  Those kind of people tend to be violent anywhere I think.

And I understand your last point as well.  And no hurt feelings; I'm pretty tolerant. ;-)  Just wanted to clarify.

(We now return you to your regularly scheduled, ahem, discussion, of the tax bill.)

[sokoloff]

Whoops!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html

A corporate AMT.  Maybe the Senate accidentally DID close some loopholes.

Summary of that article: after permanently lowering the corporate tax rate to 20%, republicans accidentally included a corporate AMT, with a 20% floor.  This means corporations can pay no more and also no less than 20% on their US earnings.  All corporate loopholes and deductions instantly revoked.  Guaranteed 20% corporate tax rate, and no opportunity for them to itemize. 

They'll probably change it.  The ACA had some glitches at first, too.

Am I right in assuming this would actually lead to increased revenues, given that it would be much harder to play with numbers?

No, overall corp taxes rates would go down.

This would discourage R&D, because companies couldn't write it off.

What leads you to that conclusion?

AMT doesn't restrict or impact R&D spending's deductibility.

Any elimination of increased R&D credits via corporate AMT would have a modest negative effect, but I can tell you that we go about our normal business and only at the end of the year have a few long, painful meetings with the tax team to understand what was available from the R&D credit. (You could argue that our finance team has previously modeled the likely ranges and therefore set our budgets higher with the R&D credits taken into account than they would be if the R&D credit didn't exist, and I'm sure that's what actually happened, but day-to-day, I don't direct my teams to do X rather than Y because X has an R&D credit attached and Y doesn't.)

[ZiziPB]

I don't think removing the AMT is an actual mistake.   It was temporary fix to get it past budget reconciliation.   If this gets removed expect individual tax payers to pick up the bill so everyone should hold off on their personal calculations.  This bill is a hot mess.

Yeah agreed. This is also the first thing I've seen that really convinces me that they're actually going to go through with the reconciliation process instead of just getting the House to pass it. So everyone get ready for another House / Senate vote in a couple weeks.

+1.  I thought for sure the House would just vote to adopt the Senate version but it looks like this is something that they will want fixed. 

[FIREchiefsr]

+2.  I've had the same change in expectations.  I'm actually glad, because that eleventh hour AMT switch was a killer (see earlier posts).

[Saving4Fire]

Whoops!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html

A corporate AMT.  Maybe the Senate accidentally DID close some loopholes.

Summary of that article: after permanently lowering the corporate tax rate to 20%, republicans accidentally included a corporate AMT, with a 20% floor.  This means corporations can pay no more and also no less than 20% on their US earnings.  All corporate loopholes and deductions instantly revoked.  Guaranteed 20% corporate tax rate, and no opportunity for them to itemize. 

They'll probably change it.  The ACA had some glitches at first, too.

Am I right in assuming this would actually lead to increased revenues, given that it would be much harder to play with numbers?

No, overall corp taxes rates would go down.

This would discourage R&D, because companies couldn't write it off.

What leads you to that conclusion?

AMT doesn't restrict or impact R&D spending's deductibility.

Any elimination of increased R&D credits via corporate AMT would have a modest negative effect, but I can tell you that we go about our normal business and only at the end of the year have a few long, painful meetings with the tax team to understand what was available from the R&D credit. (You could argue that our finance team has previously modeled the likely ranges and therefore set our budgets higher with the R&D credits taken into account than they would be if the R&D credit didn't exist, and I'm sure that's what actually happened, but day-to-day, I don't direct my teams to do X rather than Y because X has an R&D credit attached and Y doesn't.)

I can't speak to your company's specific scenario, however if something isn't as encouraged as it was before you're going to get less of it.