https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/us/po...=undefined

In relevant and not fake news, the house and senate reached an agreement on what is to be contained in the tax bill.

Looks like they will repeal the unemployment tax aka the individual mandate. I'm very glad that stayed on the bill

Mortgage writeoff reduced from $1M to $750K. Nothing wrong with that either.

They caved a bit on the state and local tax deductions.

Instead of it being 10k limit for just property it will be 10k limit for property and state/local income tax.

(12-13-2017 07:29 PM)solohawks Wrote:  They caved a bit on the state and local tax deductions.

Instead of it being 10k limit for just property it will be 10k limit for property and state/local income tax.

I'm hoping its limited, with a sunset. But havent checked to see.

(12-13-2017 08:15 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 07:29 PM)solohawks Wrote:  They caved a bit on the state and local tax deductions.

Instead of it being 10k limit for just property it will be 10k limit for property and state/local income tax.

I'm hoping its limited, with a sunset. But havent checked to see.

From what i read it was a compromise to win support of CA republicans

Aside from helping to fund other cuts how does getting rid of SALT make the bill better for the average American? Just seems to me if this bill is really about helping the middle class you wouldn’t use that to make up money and instead wouldn’t bother with the estate tax.

I think it was a way to try and keep State tax brackets in check. If residents of states are no longer able to deduct the enormous amounts they are paying in high tax states, these states will be under pressure to begin to lesser the tax burden

(12-14-2017 08:13 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I think it was a way to try and keep State tax brackets in check. If residents of states are no longer able to deduct the enormous amounts they are paying in high tax states, these states will be under pressure to begin to lesser the tax burden

Over the long term you are right it probably would, but the short term impact would likely be pretty devistating to many in those states. I get that in a lot of ways this is a math equation to make it all the numbers work, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say many more would be hurt by the repeal of SALT than helped by the repeal of the estate tax.

(12-14-2017 08:35 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 08:13 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I think it was a way to try and keep State tax brackets in check. If residents of states are no longer able to deduct the enormous amounts they are paying in high tax states, these states will be under pressure to begin to lesser the tax burden

Over the long term you are right it probably would, but the short term impact would likely be pretty devistating to many in those states. I get that in a lot of ways this is a math equation to make it all the numbers work, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say many more would be hurt by the repeal of SALT than helped by the repeal of the estate tax.

I can agree that the short term effects for some Blue State residents like CA, NY, NJ will be frustrating. However, I think the compromise of allowing a combination 10K of property and local/state income will cover most of the lower and middle class.

(12-14-2017 08:35 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 08:13 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I think it was a way to try and keep State tax brackets in check. If residents of states are no longer able to deduct the enormous amounts they are paying in high tax states, these states will be under pressure to begin to lesser the tax burden

Over the long term you are right it probably would, but the short term impact would likely be pretty devistating to many in those states. I get that in a lot of ways this is a math equation to make it all the numbers work, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say many more would be hurt by the repeal of SALT than helped by the repeal of the estate tax.

I know of a bunch of middle class families, mine included, who wish the death tax had been repealed long ago so we wouldn't have had to sell family land.

(12-14-2017 09:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 08:35 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 08:13 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I think it was a way to try and keep State tax brackets in check. If residents of states are no longer able to deduct the enormous amounts they are paying in high tax states, these states will be under pressure to begin to lesser the tax burden

Over the long term you are right it probably would, but the short term impact would likely be pretty devistating to many in those states. I get that in a lot of ways this is a math equation to make it all the numbers work, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say many more would be hurt by the repeal of SALT than helped by the repeal of the estate tax.

I know of a bunch of middle class families, mine included, who wish the death tax had been repealed long ago so we wouldn't have had to sell family land.

Just from a quick google search the threshold for the estate tax in 1997 was 600k. I would certainly agree that’s far too low and absolutely could hammer some middle/upper middle class families. The exception for this year is just under 5.5 million. You are not in any version of the middle class if you are above that.

(12-14-2017 09:44 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 09:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 08:35 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 08:13 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I think it was a way to try and keep State tax brackets in check. If residents of states are no longer able to deduct the enormous amounts they are paying in high tax states, these states will be under pressure to begin to lesser the tax burden

Over the long term you are right it probably would, but the short term impact would likely be pretty devistating to many in those states. I get that in a lot of ways this is a math equation to make it all the numbers work, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say many more would be hurt by the repeal of SALT than helped by the repeal of the estate tax.

I know of a bunch of middle class families, mine included, who wish the death tax had been repealed long ago so we wouldn't have had to sell family land.

Just from a quick google search the threshold for the estate tax in 1997 was 600k. I would certainly agree that’s far too low and absolutely could hammer some middle/upper middle class families. The exception for this year is just under 5.5 million. You are not in any version of the middle class if you are above that.

Do you have any idea how they "calculate" that number? I'm guessing you've never operated a small business with another owner.

(12-14-2017 08:52 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 08:35 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 08:13 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I think it was a way to try and keep State tax brackets in check. If residents of states are no longer able to deduct the enormous amounts they are paying in high tax states, these states will be under pressure to begin to lesser the tax burden

Over the long term you are right it probably would, but the short term impact would likely be pretty devistating to many in those states. I get that in a lot of ways this is a math equation to make it all the numbers work, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say many more would be hurt by the repeal of SALT than helped by the repeal of the estate tax.

I can agree that the short term effects for some Blue State residents like CA, NY, NJ will be frustrating. However, I think the compromise of allowing a combination 10K of property and local/state income will cover most of the lower and middle class.

Maybe they should get the states that they live in to quit pissing their money away instead of passing it on to the rest of us.

Wish they would have added the ability to deduct 50% Of private and Charter school tuition for grades k-12. That would help a lot of middle class folks.

(12-14-2017 10:13 AM)Dasville Wrote:  Wish they would have added the ability to deduct 50% Of private and Charter school tuition for grades k-12. That would help a lot of middle class folks.

I believe they were putting that in there. I dont know the amount, but they were moving the higher education deduction down to include K-12 private tuition.

any word on the stay at home parent tax deduction/credit the Trump campaign discussed?

(12-14-2017 10:26 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 10:13 AM)Dasville Wrote:  Wish they would have added the ability to deduct 50% Of private and Charter school tuition for grades k-12. That would help a lot of middle class folks.

I believe they were putting that in there. I dont know the amount, but they were moving the higher education deduction down to include K-12 private tuition.

Game changer for me.
Who knew?

(12-14-2017 10:32 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 10:26 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 10:13 AM)Dasville Wrote:  Wish they would have added the ability to deduct 50% Of private and Charter school tuition for grades k-12. That would help a lot of middle class folks.

I believe they were putting that in there. I dont know the amount, but they were moving the higher education deduction down to include K-12 private tuition.

Game changer for me.
Who knew?

I believe that was Cruz's addition to the bill when it went to conference.

(12-14-2017 08:13 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I think it was a way to try and keep State tax brackets in check. If residents of states are no longer able to deduct the enormous amounts they are paying in high tax states, these states will be under pressure to begin to lesser the tax burden

You think California and New York want to take in LESS tax money, just so the feds get more?