Republican Tax Plan 2017

[sol]

You've misunderstood.  The estate tax is not an extra tax you pay after death, it is an exemption from the gift tax because of your death.  You are allowed to make a one time tax free gift of your estate after death, without being subject to the normal gift taxes on such a transfer.  You're welcome!

I would be totally in favor of "repealing" the estate tax if it meant we just went back to using normal gift tax rates.  If you want to give huge sums of money to someone, that person should pay the normal taxes on it.  no more special treatment just because you died first.

[jean]

I think that an estate exemption in the single-digit millions per deceased person (to avoid taxing "nuisance estates") and a step-up in basis for recipients is practical and pragmatic, even if as an engineer, I can identify certain small unfairnesses about that outcome.

I agree with that!  Let's let Congress know of our plan!  Ha.

[seattlecyclone]

You've misunderstood.  The estate tax is not an extra tax you pay after death, it is an exemption from the gift tax because of your death.  You are allowed to make a one time tax free gift of your estate after death, without being subject to the normal gift taxes on such a transfer.  You're welcome!

I would be totally in favor of "repealing" the estate tax if it meant we just went back to using normal gift tax rates.  If you want to give huge sums of money to someone, that person should pay the normal taxes on it.  no more special treatment just because you died first.

I think you might misunderstand how the gift tax works. The primary reason it even exists is to limit the opportunity for elderly folks to make an end run around the estate tax by giving away all of their wealth shortly before death. The transfer of the estate value on death is taxed essentially the same way as gifts during life would be.

You start with a large lifetime exemption (currently about $5.5 million, adjusted annually for inflation). You only have to report any gifts that exceed $14k per giver/recipient pair in a year. Any reportable gifts eat into your lifetime exemption. Only after the exemption is exhausted do you start owing any gift taxes on future gifts. Whatever amount of the exemption that remains at death then becomes exempt from estate tax. The transfer of wealth is thus taxed the same whether it happens before or after death. Death does have a nice tax benefit in that the cost basis of appreciated assets gets reset to current market values. Otherwise there's no real difference.

[simonsez]

Death does have a nice tax benefit.

Damn straight, if you die you don't have to worry about taxes.

[JLee]

You've misunderstood.  The estate tax is not an extra tax you pay after death, it is an exemption from the gift tax because of your death.  You are allowed to make a one time tax free gift of your estate after death, without being subject to the normal gift taxes on such a transfer.  You're welcome!

I would be totally in favor of "repealing" the estate tax if it meant we just went back to using normal gift tax rates.  If you want to give huge sums of money to someone, that person should pay the normal taxes on it.  no more special treatment just because you died first.

I think you might misunderstand how the gift tax works. The primary reason it even exists is to limit the opportunity for elderly folks to make an end run around the estate tax by giving away all of their wealth shortly before death. The transfer of the estate value on death is taxed essentially the same way as gifts during life would be.

You start with a large lifetime exemption (currently about $5.5 million, adjusted annually for inflation). You only have to report any gifts that exceed $14k per giver/recipient pair in a year. Any reportable gifts eat into your lifetime exemption. Only after the exemption is exhausted do you start owing any gift taxes on future gifts. Whatever amount of the exemption that remains at death then becomes exempt from estate tax. The transfer of wealth is thus taxed the same whether it happens before or after death. Death does have a nice tax benefit in that the cost basis of appreciated assets gets reset to current market values. Otherwise there's no real difference.

Or..."other than erasing capital gains entirely, there's no difference."

Small details.

[seattlecyclone]

Erasing capital gains is worth a few percent of the overall value of the estate, give or take a bit depending on how much the assets have appreciated and what tax bracket the heirs are in. Compared to the strategy of giving your assets to your heirs during life, this advantage is counteracted a bit by the ability to give $14k per year completely free of any tax tracking. I still consider the two taxes to be roughly equivalent. This was the intent all along.

[bacchi]

Corker is holding his party's feet to the fire re: the deficit. It's amazing what not being up for reelection can do to one's spine.

It's tough to find a viable solution if your corporate masters are preventing you from getting off your knees.

[ZiziPB]

Corker is holding his party's feet to the fire re: the deficit. It's amazing what not being up for reelection can do to one's spine.

It's tough to find a viable solution if your corporate masters are preventing you from getting off your knees.

I certainly hope this dog's breakfast of a bill goes up in flames!  Not that our system is good now, but neither the House bill nor the Senate one are an improvement to the system.

[MustachianAccountant]

The estate tax should stay.  Nobody receiving over $11M is hurting. 

Not only should it stay, it should be lowered!  Why are we exempting $11 million from estate taxes?  That's more cash than anyone needs, because it will fund more than an entire lifetime at median salaries.  It's just a gift to the super-rich.

Just curious - do you think the number of beneficiaries should play into it? So, instead of the estate being taxed based on the lump sum, individuals are taxed based on what they receive. The more people to whom it is distributed, the less likelihood it has of hitting the limit.

Here's an example - right now, father in law's estate hovers near the current $6.5mm limit. He has three children who will be beneficiaries. At least half of his estate is real estate and he's directing DH and I to receive the family house, which may be valued at nearly a third (and meaning we'd receive little cash) of the value of the estate. If we had to pay a significant tax upon inheriting it, we'd have to sell or mortgage it to pay taxes.

Anyway, point is, $6.5mm split between 3 people is not the same as if all of it is given to 1 person. It seems like treating the estate tax more like the gift tax would be reasonable.

I was thinking the same thing this morning, and I think it's also a workable solution. Each inheritor pays income tax on the inheritance, and gets a certain exemption amount (like, maybe $500,000 or something similarly low). But, to my mind, the step up in basis would still have to go.

[jim555]

What a difference a few hours makes.  Now they say it is in trouble.  The billionaire boys club must be upset.

[NoStacheOhio]

PhDs aren't the only kind of grad students that receive tuition waivers

Such as? And in large numbers? Genuine curiosity - can't think of a field where Masters or JD candidates are given waived tuition.

My wife got tuition as part of her TA package as a Master's student in Journalism

[StarBright]

Just curious - do you think the number of beneficiaries should play into it? So, instead of the estate being taxed based on the lump sum, individuals are taxed based on what they receive. The more people to whom it is distributed, the less likelihood it has of hitting the limit.

Here's an example - right now, father in law's estate hovers near the current $6.5mm limit. He has three children who will be beneficiaries. At least half of his estate is real estate and he's directing DH and I to receive the family house, which may be valued at nearly a third (and meaning we'd receive little cash) of the value of the estate. If we had to pay a significant tax upon inheriting it, we'd have to sell or mortgage it to pay taxes.

Anyway, point is, $6.5mm split between 3 people is not the same as if all of it is given to 1 person. It seems like treating the estate tax more like the gift tax would be reasonable.

If one of the goals of an estate tax is to reduce the concentration of wealth, making it a per person tax would encourage the distribution amongst more people (though admittedly, it would probably still be the same family).

Anyway, I have agreed with your arguments about the estate tax, etc. Though selfishly, I'd like to not pay a whole bunch of taxes, I don't think it's right to have huge amounts of wealth concentrated in the hands of so few.

I've never given it much thought but your idea makes a bit of sense to me. We are in a similar situation to you where my in-laws have a fair amount of real estate in a VHCOL area. DH's grandfather specified that he wanted the family property (several acres and a house) to go to my DH and my in-laws plan to follow his wishes, but there is frankly no way we could afford to keep the property paying 40% tax on it. We've always assumed we would sell the land to a developer and do our best to keep the house. But we'd be able to come closer to paying the taxes and keeping a historic family property if we were only paying taxes on the house and land rather than my in-laws entire estate.

[DarkandStormy]

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/30/mccain-to-vote-for-gop-tax-bill-270511

The GOP doesn't even yet know what's in its tax bill...still want to vote on it today.

Idiots.

[DrumAllDay]

PhDs aren't the only kind of grad students that receive tuition waivers

Such as? And in large numbers? Genuine curiosity - can't think of a field where Masters or JD candidates are given waived tuition.

My wife got tuition as part of her TA package as a Master's student in Journalism

The University I work at, immediate family members receive tuition benefits for undergraduate degrees. This is a huge benefit for many employees (administration, maintenance, food service, as well as faculty) and a reason why they choose to work at a University, where often times pay is less than working for a for profit company.

Being taxed on the tuition benefit would certainly be a hit for an employee who was counting on putting their children through college without being taxed on $30,000 or so per child of taxable income.

[fuzzy math]

Just curious - do you think the number of beneficiaries should play into it? So, instead of the estate being taxed based on the lump sum, individuals are taxed based on what they receive. The more people to whom it is distributed, the less likelihood it has of hitting the limit.

Here's an example - right now, father in law's estate hovers near the current $6.5mm limit. He has three children who will be beneficiaries. At least half of his estate is real estate and he's directing DH and I to receive the family house, which may be valued at nearly a third (and meaning we'd receive little cash) of the value of the estate. If we had to pay a significant tax upon inheriting it, we'd have to sell or mortgage it to pay taxes.

Anyway, point is, $6.5mm split between 3 people is not the same as if all of it is given to 1 person. It seems like treating the estate tax more like the gift tax would be reasonable.

If one of the goals of an estate tax is to reduce the concentration of wealth, making it a per person tax would encourage the distribution amongst more people (though admittedly, it would probably still be the same family).

Anyway, I have agreed with your arguments about the estate tax, etc. Though selfishly, I'd like to not pay a whole bunch of taxes, I don't think it's right to have huge amounts of wealth concentrated in the hands of so few.

So you're going to receive a $2 mil + house... your family should be thinking 1) move into the home (and sell yours) or 2) sell the home and keep the $$. If paying taxes on a large property is a hinderance, do you currently have the ability to pay the property taxes and upkeep on this and have it leave it empty as a "2nd home"?
It might be more reasonable for your dad to sell or gift it to you while he is still alive.

I know nothing about the process personally, but if this is true there's a lot of wiggle room in that $2 mil price tag https://legalbeagle.com/6148229-transfer-property-gift.html

[NoStacheOhio]

The University I work at, immediate family members receive tuition benefits for undergraduate degrees. This is a huge benefit for many employees (administration, maintenance, food service, as well as faculty) and a reason why they choose to work at a University, where often times pay is less than working for a for profit company.

Being taxed on the tuition benefit would certainly be a hit for an employee who was counting on putting their children through college without being taxed on $30,000 or so per child of taxable income.

It depends on how they structure it too. My understanding is that scholarships (whether need- or merit-based) would remain non-taxable. I think there's some wiggle room with regard to money classification for some of the people who would be affected by the new rules (set up a new "University Family Scholarship").

[ixtap]

The University I work at, immediate family members receive tuition benefits for undergraduate degrees. This is a huge benefit for many employees (administration, maintenance, food service, as well as faculty) and a reason why they choose to work at a University, where often times pay is less than working for a for profit company.

Being taxed on the tuition benefit would certainly be a hit for an employee who was counting on putting their children through college without being taxed on $30,000 or so per child of taxable income.

It depends on how they structure it too. My understanding is that scholarships (whether need- or merit-based) would remain non-taxable. I think there's some wiggle room with regard to money classification for some of the people who would be affected by the new rules (set up a new "University Family Scholarship").

That isn't just restructure. A scholarship has to be funded: there has to be an established pot to move the money around. A tuition waiver does not (usually) require this extra pot.

[NoStacheOhio]

The University I work at, immediate family members receive tuition benefits for undergraduate degrees. This is a huge benefit for many employees (administration, maintenance, food service, as well as faculty) and a reason why they choose to work at a University, where often times pay is less than working for a for profit company.

Being taxed on the tuition benefit would certainly be a hit for an employee who was counting on putting their children through college without being taxed on $30,000 or so per child of taxable income.

It depends on how they structure it too. My understanding is that scholarships (whether need- or merit-based) would remain non-taxable. I think there's some wiggle room with regard to money classification for some of the people who would be affected by the new rules (set up a new "University Family Scholarship").

That isn't just restructure. A scholarship has to be funded: there has to be an established pot to move the money around. A tuition waiver does not (usually) require this extra pot.

Yeah, but it's kind of all funny money anyway. I work at a hospital, and we basically self-insure through a third-party administrator. It amounts to sending ourselves a bill and then pretending we paid it.

I'm sure there's a creative solution here that fits within the new box. It's when the employee and the student are the same person that you get less wiggle room.

[DarkandStormy]

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/it-started-as-a-tax-cut-now-it-could-change-american-life.html

Economists and tax experts are overwhelmingly skeptical that the bills in the House and Senate can generate meaningful job growth and economic expansion. Many view the legislation not as a product of genuine deliberation, but as a transfer of wealth to corporations and affluent individuals — both generous purveyors of campaign contributions. By 2027, people making $40,000 to $50,000 would pay a combined $5.3 billion more in taxes, while the group earning $1 million or more would get a $5.8 billion cut, according to the Joint Committee and the Congressional Budget Office.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2017/11/27/443316/millions-working-middle-class-americans-see-tax-increase-senate-gop-tax-plan/

According to the Tax Policy Center, even when benefits to individuals from the bill’s corporate tax cuts are included, 87 million families making less than $200,000 nationally would experience a tax increase under the Senate tax plan by 2027.

Again, this "tax bill" is a steaming pile of shit for nearly all Americans.  If you're lucky enough to be making more than $200,000 annually, you win out in 2027.  If not...tough luck I guess.

This is no longer a "tax reform" bill or a "tax cut."  It's a bunch of bull shit designed by the GOP to benefit their donors.  That's it.  It's a massive transfer of wealth to the billionaires who fund their campaigns.  And they're paying for it by adding $1.5 trillion to the national debt (party of fiscal responsibility, my ass) and kicking the can down the road for the NEXT (next, next, next) generation to pay for it.  It's that simple.

The economic environment is not screaming for tax cuts in any way.  Record stock numbers, record low unemployment, corporations recording record profit, sitting on record piles of cash.  Does anything about the current economic picture scream "TAX CUTS?"  Hell no.

This is just another bullshit GOP gimmick like the Bush tax cuts.  We had, hard to believe, a budget SURPLUS when W took over and he immediately added hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit with his tax cuts.  Did we see record job growth?  Did we see huge economic expansion?  No.  It's a bunch of bullshit.  We got stagnant growth while adding a record number to the deficit.  Thanks, W.

Trickle down is a bullshit lie used a talking point by the GOP to make it sound like they care about the "working class people" as a cover to pay off their billionaire donors.  That's all this is.

[fuzzy math]

The University I work at, immediate family members receive tuition benefits for undergraduate degrees. This is a huge benefit for many employees (administration, maintenance, food service, as well as faculty) and a reason why they choose to work at a University, where often times pay is less than working for a for profit company.

Being taxed on the tuition benefit would certainly be a hit for an employee who was counting on putting their children through college without being taxed on $30,000 or so per child of taxable income.

I moved across the country to take a job with a university simply for this benefit for my 3 kids. Now in reality, even if I have to pay taxes on the benefit its still going to be at my marginal rate (what, 12% ?) which is better than paying the 100% of the cost I would have otherwise had to pay. Does it piss me off YES, but its not completely gone I suppose.

[Malloy]

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/it-started-as-a-tax-cut-now-it-could-change-american-life.html

Economists and tax experts are overwhelmingly skeptical that the bills in the House and Senate can generate meaningful job growth and economic expansion. Many view the legislation not as a product of genuine deliberation, but as a transfer of wealth to corporations and affluent individuals — both generous purveyors of campaign contributions. By 2027, people making $40,000 to $50,000 would pay a combined $5.3 billion more in taxes, while the group earning $1 million or more would get a $5.8 billion cut, according to the Joint Committee and the Congressional Budget Office.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2017/11/27/443316/millions-working-middle-class-americans-see-tax-increase-senate-gop-tax-plan/

According to the Tax Policy Center, even when benefits to individuals from the bill’s corporate tax cuts are included, 87 million families making less than $200,000 nationally would experience a tax increase under the Senate tax plan by 2027.

We are in that over 200k group, and it looks like this bill is a wash or involves a 1-3k tax increase for us until 2027, depending on our level of itemization.  After that point, the doubled standard deduction goes away AND we still lose SALT.  So it seems slightly worse after 2027.  I still don't know if personal exemptions are going away after 2027, but we are in an income group for which they are phased out anyway.

This isn't a panic situation for us, more like "well, I hope it doesn't blow up the economy."  But, my shrug about the tax changes of +/- a few thousand tells me that the people above us on the income scale are also not scraping by wondering how they will buy crutches for little Timmy if this tax bill doesn't pass.  I don't need a tax cut, and I'm guessing Larry Page doesn't either.  And, before some edgelord comes in to tell me that I'm free to send my tax cut to the treasury or to them if I don't need it, I'd like to add that I'm OK paying my current taxation level so long as it results in services that we need to help our country function, which doesn't happen if people just  turn in tax money when they feel like it.  If my cohort's share of the tax bill results in keeping our national parks open, funding CHIP and cancer research, etc., let's make it happen.  And if there are spending cuts that are needed, I'd start with the military-so just about the opposite of our current national priorities for taxation and spending.   

[DrumAllDay]

The University I work at, immediate family members receive tuition benefits for undergraduate degrees. This is a huge benefit for many employees (administration, maintenance, food service, as well as faculty) and a reason why they choose to work at a University, where often times pay is less than working for a for profit company.

Being taxed on the tuition benefit would certainly be a hit for an employee who was counting on putting their children through college without being taxed on $30,000 or so per child of taxable income.

I moved across the country to take a job with a university simply for this benefit for my 3 kids. Now in reality, even if I have to pay taxes on the benefit its still going to be at my marginal rate (what, 12% ?) which is better than paying the 100% of the cost I would have otherwise had to pay. Does it piss me off YES, but its not completely gone I suppose.

Yes that's true, you still make out way ahead compared to paying full tuition but it just goes along with what most have been saying on this thread. This is just one more example of this tax bill being a tax cut for corporations and the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. In this case higher ed too. This is not what this country needs right now!

[NoStacheOhio]

The University I work at, immediate family members receive tuition benefits for undergraduate degrees. This is a huge benefit for many employees (administration, maintenance, food service, as well as faculty) and a reason why they choose to work at a University, where often times pay is less than working for a for profit company.

Being taxed on the tuition benefit would certainly be a hit for an employee who was counting on putting their children through college without being taxed on $30,000 or so per child of taxable income.

I moved across the country to take a job with a university simply for this benefit for my 3 kids. Now in reality, even if I have to pay taxes on the benefit its still going to be at my marginal rate (what, 12% ?) which is better than paying the 100% of the cost I would have otherwise had to pay. Does it piss me off YES, but its not completely gone I suppose.

Yes that's true, you still make out way ahead compared to paying full tuition but it just goes along with what most have been saying on this thread. This is just one more example of this tax bill being a tax cut for corporations and the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. In this case higher ed too. This is not what this country needs right now!

something something ELITISTS something LIBRUL COLLEGE PROFESSORS something IVORY TOWERS something something

[sol]

This is no longer a "tax reform" bill or a "tax cut."  It's a bunch of bull shit designed by the GOP to benefit their donors.  That's it.  It's a massive transfer of wealth to the billionaires who fund their campaigns.  And they're paying for it by adding $1.5 trillion to the national debt (party of fiscal responsibility, my ass)

That's what we've been saying all along.  The GOP tax plan basically only does one thing: it permanently cuts the corporate tax rate by increasing the deficit.  Everything else is a sideshow.  The individual rate adjustments, the ACA mandate repeal, the tuition wavers, all of that is temporary small potatoes compared to the juicy steak of trillions of new debt to increase the profit margins of companies that currently have record profit margins.

The economy is surging, some say dangerously so, so now is the time to increase corporate tax rates to pay down the national debt, when we have so much surplus cash laying around.  You cut taxes to spur growth during a recession, as a way to juice corporate profits, not during a boom.  They're doing it exactly backwards, which means we'll have bigger booms and bigger busts instead of government stabilizing the business cycle like it's supposed to.

[sokoloff]

According to the Tax Policy Center, even when benefits to individuals from the bill’s corporate tax cuts are included, 87 million families making less than $200,000 nationally would experience a tax increase under the Senate tax plan by 2027.

Again, this "tax bill" is a steaming pile of shit for nearly all Americans.  If you're lucky enough to be making more than $200,000 annually, you win out in 2027.  If not...tough luck I guess.

We're well over $200K AGI/MAGI and we will see a 5-figure tax increase in all years based on my calculations and projections. The loss of SALT deductions (we pay high 5-figures there, low 6-figures very occasionally) more than offsets the slim marginal rate reduction.

Just because someone says that X million families making less than $200K will see tax increases doesn't imply (and in our case doesn't mean) that those making over that threshold will win.

[sol]

We're well over $200K AGI/MAGI and we will see a 5-figure tax increase in all years based on my calculations and projections.

I'm facing that same mystery.  This bill is only supposed to increase taxes on middle class people, and be good for the rich, but I'm rich and I don't see the promised benefits yet. 

How are my taxes supposed to go down under this bill?  Despite a combined income that should put us in the "saves money" category, every scenario I've run results in higher taxes.  I think that in practice, this bill is going to raise taxes on a lot more people than expected, like anyone under a half million per year in income.

I guess I'm just not quite rich enough to get the promised tax breaks for the rich?

[NoStacheOhio]

I guess I'm just not quite rich enough to get the promised tax breaks for the rich?

This.

You're also not a corporation, strike two.

[DarkandStormy]

According to the Tax Policy Center, even when benefits to individuals from the bill’s corporate tax cuts are included, 87 million families making less than $200,000 nationally would experience a tax increase under the Senate tax plan by 2027.

Again, this "tax bill" is a steaming pile of shit for nearly all Americans.  If you're lucky enough to be making more than $200,000 annually, you win out in 2027.  If not...tough luck I guess.

We're well over $200K AGI/MAGI and we will see a 5-figure tax increase in all years based on my calculations and projections. The loss of SALT deductions (we pay high 5-figures there, low 6-figures very occasionally) more than offsets the slim marginal rate reduction.

Just because someone says that X million families making less than $200K will see tax increases doesn't imply (and in our case doesn't mean) that those making over that threshold will win.

That is true.  On the CBO and JCT scores and reports, they can't possibly detail every possible scenario.  100% making less than $200K will pay more in 2027, above $200K it's more of a gray area, especially if you're losing a big SALT deduction.

[BTDretire]

I have a couple of questions.
I see for a married couple the first $24k is at 0% and the 12% upto $90k.
 So is that $90k - $24k = $66k x 12% = $7,920 or 12% x $90k = $10,800?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/business/tax-bill-q-and-a/?utm_term=.a3f9eea9ddb3

Also,

 "Tax Preparation

Taxpayers who itemize their returns would no longer be able to deduct the amount that their tax preparation specialist billed them or any similar expenses. Since the tax bill aims to reduce the number of taxpayers who itemize, in theory fewer people should require professional tax help (with the exception of wealthier people, who can afford to lose this break*)."
* Seems like the New York Times is judging!

 I have a sole proprietor business, do I lose this deduction?
I hate paying my tax preparer, but an hour in his office and it's done, plus I have someone to fall back on.

[sol]

Looks like it's going to pass.  Flake folded on his concerns about ballooning the deficit.  That means Collins and Corker can vote against it, but Pence will pass it as Senate tiebreaker.

Nevermind that 60% of Americans oppose this plan, a gerrymandered minority is going to ram it through anyway, in a complete betrayal of their own party ideology.  It will raise taxes on the middle class and spike the deficit.  If I was a Republican, I'd be furious.

[sokoloff]

I have a couple of questions.
I see for a married couple the first $24k is at 0% and the 12% upto $90k.
 So is that $90k - $24k = $66k x 12% = $7,920 or 12% x $90k = $10,800?

Marginal rate brackets work like the former.

0% on the first $24K, then 12% on the amount 24000.01 through $90K, etc.

[DarkandStormy]

Looks like it's going to pass.  Flake folded on his concerns about ballooning the deficit.  That means Collins and Corker can vote against it, but Pence will pass it as Senate tiebreaker.

Nevermind that 60% of Americans oppose this plan, a gerrymandered minority is going to ram it through anyway, in a complete betrayal of their own party ideology.  It will raise taxes on the middle class and spike the deficit.  If I was a Republican, I'd be furious.

Still has to go to Committee to reconcile with the House.

But yes, congrats to them for passing a pile of shit and quite possibly the least popular legislation of all-time.

[jean]

I hope that I'm worrying unnecessarily, but I worry this bill is a step towards a financial meltdown.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/30/im-a-depression-historian-the-gop-tax-bill-is-straight-out-of-1929/?utm_term=.76116a90ea0a

Anyway, (slightly premature?) congrats to the GOP, I'm interested to see what the final bill is.  I assume it will be closer to the senate version than the house.

[Davids]

I am in the minority but I am glad this bill will pass. It's not that bad. Corporate tax cuts will lead to increased hiring, increase wages and yes increase dividends for shareholders. This bill will help much more than hurt.

[DarkandStormy]

I am in the minority but I am glad this bill will pass. It's not that bad. Corporate tax cuts will lead to increased hiring, increase wages and yes increase dividends for shareholders. This bill will help much more than hurt.

LMAO you drinking that trickle-down kool aid?  Good lord.

MOD EDIT: Read forum rule #1.

[NoStacheOhio]

I am in the minority but I am glad this bill will pass. It's not that bad. Corporate tax cuts will lead to increased hiring, increase wages and yes increase dividends for shareholders. This bill will help much more than hurt.

You don't increase the deficit when the economy is up. It gives you nowhere to go when the next recession happens.

[sherr]

Looks like it's going to pass.  Flake folded on his concerns about ballooning the deficit.  That means Collins and Corker can vote against it, but Pence will pass it as Senate tiebreaker.

Nevermind that 60% of Americans oppose this plan, a gerrymandered minority is going to ram it through anyway, in a complete betrayal of their own party ideology.  It will raise taxes on the middle class and spike the deficit.  If I was a Republican, I'd be furious.

Still has to go to Committee to reconcile with the House.

But yes, congrats to them for passing a pile of shit and quite possibly the least popular legislation of all-time.

Not if the House just passes the Senate version. Which IMO is much more likely than reconciliation + problem solving + both houses passing an improved version.

The Republicans just want to "get something done". That's it. It doesn't have to be a good something. They're not trying to please anyone except their ultra-rich donors.

If you're not constrained by ensuring the legislation you pass is "good" or "beneficial", then what is to be gained by going through the reconciliation process? Just have the House pass it, send it to Trump to sign, and pat yourselves on the back for your "win".

[Glenstache]

I am in the minority but I am glad this bill will pass. It's not that bad. Corporate tax cuts will lead to increased hiring, increase wages and yes increase dividends for shareholders. This bill will help much more than hurt.

US unemployment is currently tracking at 4.1%. Or will they be hiring more CEOs and upper management?

[ixtap]

I am in the minority but I am glad this bill will pass. It's not that bad. Corporate tax cuts will lead to increased hiring, increase wages and yes increase dividends for shareholders. This bill will help much more than hurt.

You are aware that those corporations are already holding onto more cash than usual?

[loyalreader]

Death should not be an event that our government collects taxes on.

The amount that has been accumulated in one's lifetime is irrelevant. 

The money was hard earned & taxed all along the way. 

We can quibble over your third point, but not your first. The government does not collect taxes on death. That's a ridiculous statement and calling it a death tax is false. 

The tax is on your estate. Yes, it is taxed when you die, but it is not a tax on your death. It is a tax on your heir's inheritance.

If there's something ridiculous written above, I don't agree with you on which statements are ridiculous.

"My labor isn't taxed; it's an income tax after all."

"My purchases aren't taxed. It's a sales tax, not a purchase tax."

Those both seem equally valid as "It's not a tax on a death event; it's an estate tax."

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').

Everyone pays sales/purchase tax. Sure, some items are exempt... but everyone pays tax on taxable items regardless of the cost (unless you make the sale 'under the counter').

No one gets taxed because they die. Some people - those who stand to inherit estates worth more than $11m from a couple - get an extra tax on that inheritance.

I see a big difference, but I guess we will agree to disagree.

Shifting gears...

On NPR last night I heard a Republican senator from Iowa defending the removal of the estate tax by saying we should reward people who are savers. Huh? Wasn't removing the 401K deduction on the table in an early incarnation of this bill? I don't understand how some of these people sleep at night.

[sol]

Just have the House pass it, send it to Trump to sign, and pat yourselves on the back for your "win".

In this case, the superficial win will also do real harm to real Americans.  You thought your health insurance was expensive now?  Just wait until you see next year's premiums after they repeal the individual mandate.

Can you say death spiral?

I love that republicans are doing all of the very things they campaigned so hard against.  Their big beautiful tax cut turns out to be tax increase on individuals.  Their quest to make healthcare more affordable is making it more expensive.  Economically disadvantaged rural voters who were promised a handout are instead having their benefits and deductions crushed.  Jared Kushner used a private email server for official business.  The people who promised to drain the swamp and lock her up already have four indictments in less than a year.  It's delicious irony on every front, and I think the next election will be a bloodbath. 

This is what you get when you put amateurs in charge.  Don't pretend to be surprised when they fuck everything up.  This is exactly what you asked for, America.

[sokoloff]

I am in the minority but I am glad this bill will pass. It's not that bad. Corporate tax cuts will lead to increased hiring, increase wages and yes increase dividends for shareholders. This bill will help much more than hurt.

US unemployment is currently tracking at 4.1%. Or will they be hiring more CEOs and upper management?

U3 is there. U6 is about double that, so there's still room for further employment gains. (I don't think either of these bills will substantially change the macro employment picture, but there is more than 4% room for improvement.)

[DarkandStormy]

This is what you get when you put amateurs in charge.  Don't pretend to be surprised when they fuck everything up.  This is exactly what you asked for, America.

54% of the country did not for Dotard.

[sol]

54% of the country did not for Dotard.

While that is true, he still legitimately won the election with a minority of voter support, by the rules those voters agreed to abide by.  It doesn't matter if voters were deceived by Russian propaganda on Facebook and Twitter.  It doesn't matter that more people voted for Hillary anyway.  It doesn't matter if Trump broke the law.  America made this happen, ugliness and all, and it deserves what it gets.

[sokoloff]

This is what you get when you put amateurs in charge.

It's not having had professional politicians in charge has resulted in an Atlantisian fantasy world of prosperity and good fortune, either.

Don't pretend to be surprised when [the amateurs] fuck everything up.  This is exactly what you asked for, America.

54% of the country did not [vote] for Dotard.

~42% of eligible voters didn't even vote, so about 73% of eligible voters didn't vote for the current President.

[DarkandStormy]

This is what you get when you put amateurs in charge.

It's not having had professional politicians in charge has resulted in an Atlantisian fantasy world of prosperity and good fortune, either.

Don't pretend to be surprised when [the amateurs] fuck everything up.  This is exactly what you asked for, America.

54% of the country did not [vote] for Dotard.

~42% of eligible voters didn't even vote, so about 73% of eligible voters didn't vote for the current President.

Yes, voter turnout is always pathetic.

[PathtoFIRE]

I've seen it several times on this thread, and I just want to point out that anyone discussing the so-called "national debt" needs to realize that it is a Republican/conservative talking point, and there is no need to buy in to it or concede it. Even those who point to federal debt versus GDP are still losing an important dimension.

I wouldn't present a case study here without details of my assets, my liabilities, my income, and my expenses. Also, federal debt doesn't account for other forms of debt, exceed the federal debt, and definitely doesn't take into account the Federal assets or national assets.

As of 2017 Q2 and as reported in the September 2017 Federal Reserve Z.1,
Household/nonprofit assets total $111,415 billion, and liabilities total $15,219 billion, for a net value of $96,195 billion.
Corporate nonfinancial business assets $42,447 billion, liabilities of $19,153, net value of $23,293 billion.
Noncorporate nonfinancial business assets $19,226 billion, liabilities of $7,373, net value of $11,853 billion
Financial busines assets $95,485 billion, liabilities $87,150 billion, net value $8,335 billion
Federal government assets $5,481 billion, liabilities $18,650 billion, net value $(13,169) billion
State and Local governments assets $13,658 billion, liabilities $5,768 billion, net value $7,890 billion
Rest of the world assets $24,222 billion, liabilities $17.941 billion, net value $6,281 billion

Total assets = $311,934 billion
Total liabilities = $171,254 billion
Net worth = $140,680 billion
GDP $18.624 billion (2016)

You're going to have to show me that these number are out of line in some objective way before I'm going to care about one small aspect of them enough to wreak the havoc that Republicans and frankly some Democrats want to cause by slashing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, welfare, research grants, etc.

[sokoloff]

Why would household or corporate net worth offset the federal national debt in some way?

When I'm considering my parents' or my neighbor's solvency and net worth, they don't get to add *my* wealth into their calculation.

[sol]

I've seen it several times on this thread, and I just want to point out that anyone discussing the so-called "national debt" needs to realize that it is a Republican/conservative talking point, and there is no need to buy in to it or concede it. Even those who point to federal debt versus GDP are still losing an important dimension.

You must be the reason why every republican in the country suddenly wants to increase the deficit by trillions, after so many decades of excoriating democrats for their supposed "out of control spending" (facts to the contrary notwithstanding).

[jim555]

I've seen it several times on this thread, and I just want to point out that anyone discussing the so-called "national debt" needs to realize that it is a Republican/conservative talking point, and there is no need to buy in to it or concede it. Even those who point to federal debt versus GDP are still losing an important dimension.

You must be the reason why every republican in the country suddenly wants to increase the deficit by trillions, after so many decades of excoriating democrats for their supposed "out of control spending" (facts to the contrary notwithstanding).

The new strategy is drive the debt up and use that as an excuse to cut the government.  Sorta like break it and yell "look it doesn't work!" (ACA, Medicare, SS).