New Tax Bill (Page 2)

gotcha, I'll be honest in that I'm still kind of confused as to how it will pan out on my personal taxes.

Mine is fairly simple in that I itemize with normal deductions for house, medical, charity, and kids' college stuff.  But the majority of our income comes from passthrough income from my business.  They talked about reducing it to 25% for all passthrough income, but it's really confusing and I honestly have no idea what it will end up being.
However, that being said, my confidence in the 15% corp tax deduction having a monumental difference in the economy is still very high.  I honestly don't care if they leave my taxes exactly the same or even raise them if my income doubles or triples through my business.

I guess we both will be in a wait and see pattern to see how this all really pans out.

I have about $1000 in student loan interest i can no longer deduct.

I have somewhere around $2500 of property tax i can no longer deduct

I have 4.75% state tax that i can no longer deduct

There were no tax cuts for me in any way.  I'll probably lose around $2000+ in my tax return if this passes.

I wonder if it will be more advantageous for you to just switch over to the standard deduction.  It goes from $6000 to $12000.
So basically if the total of your itemized deductions is under the $12k then you'd be better off just taking the standard deduction.

If you use an accountant or even tax prep software it will automatically figure out which one is better for you.

Looks like the final bill has been released and it looks pretty good to me.

"Business owners who report business income on their personal tax returns would be able to deduct 20 percent of that income."

This would add ~$7000 directly to the bottom line per $100k of profit in my business.  That's a lot more than I was expecting.

haha

Here's a better break down of the old and the new:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gop-tax-overhaul-bill

Dave, this looks promising for you because it looks like it still allows medical, interest, and other itemized deductions but just caps them.  The medical deductions even kick in lower.

I know this is just a snapshot in time, but we just hit 4% GDP on the NY Fed Nowcast:
https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/nowcast

The market and corporations are absolutely loving the tax plan and the de-regulation steps Trump is making.

Businesses are coming back (massive growth in manufacturing and construction jobs.  Every report has been adjusted up)
Companies are hiring people  (record low unemployment, record high job openings)
Stock market is soaring (Dow, S&P, and Nasdaq hitting record highs continuously all year)

Your grandchildren are not going to have anything to worry about other than knowing they'll have a job when they graduate college.

The national debt is kind of a ruse anyways.  It's really just un-banked inflation on the balance sheet.  It will never get paid for and it doesn't really matter.
I mean Obama doubled it in 8 years fro $10T to $20T and what happened?

I do get a chuckle out of LIberals who go all chicken little about $1.5T in a tax cut that will at least potentially grow the economy and pay for itself, but whistle into the air with Quantitative Easing, Bail Outs, Cash for Clunkers, and ACA which all destroyed the economy and ran the debt up $10T.
I'm not putting all of it on Obama because we know the crap show he walked into, but we would have been far better off if they would have just let the economy correct itself rather than dump $10T into the economy to try and keep it from correcting.  I'll never understand that.

The debt also has nothing at all to do with revenue.  We have absolute record revenue right now and what's the debt doing?  Going up and up and up and up and up.  We could double taxes and it would keep going up and up and up and up because our idiot politicians cannot stop spending.

You may not have to anymore........it depends.  Wait and see.

Destroyed the economy?  How?  Those things were a reaction to the crash in 2008, and most of those measures were to prevent the bottom from completely falling out.  In that respect it worked.  There hasn't been another big crash since then.  You would've seen the economy really destroyed if the big 3 auto makers were killed off.  Or big banks besides Lehman.  Or big insurance companies, etc.

I don't think most liberals are particularly triggered about the deficit spending, EXCEPT that 1) this tax revamp is a thinly veiled handout to rich people, and 2) the Republicans are supposedly the fiscal deficit hawks, so they're effing hypocrites when they use deficit spending for Grover Norquist's xmas present.  We're talking about the same republican congressmen that refused to raise the debt ceiling in 2011, and caused the USA to get its credit downgraded *supposedly because Obama would not work with them to lower the deficit*.

As for paying for itself: no one in the government even believes that, and certainly not the CBO.

So here's my thoughts on the bailout stuff.  We had the banks which were failing because they did very bad things.  They did not in any way shape or form get punished for their failures.  The government bailed them out.  That just doesn't sit well with me.  I do agree that without question the economy would have dipped much much deeper had the government not done anything, but the people who did bad things would have gone under and the people who didn't would have risen to the top.  That didn't happen.
Then you throw in other bailouts such as the automotive bailouts?  What the heck is that for?  They did dumb stuff and made bad decisions and then we bailed them out?  But the automobile companies that didn't do bad things and didn't make bad decisions didn't get bailed out and weren't allowed to rise to the top.  This is the exact opposite of economics and results in the government picking winners and losers based on who gave them the most money.
Then you look at QE continuing for years and years to falsely prop up the stock market.  Trillions of dollars was added to the debt and given to banks, but the government knew the banks couldn't lend it out so they all just dumped it into the stock market to make money on the free money.  Hence the stock market went up almost exactly in step with the QE money dumping.  It was completely unnecessary and only done so Democrats could say the "economy" was doing good by pointing at the stock market.

I'm not cold hearted enough to say that the government shouldn't have done anything, but the $10T of what they did do was completely unnecessary and wasteful.  They needed to let businesses fail that deserved to fail.

I still don't get the talking point of this tax cut being for rich people.  I am a rich person by almost every standard.  I have a lot of VERY rich friends and for the most part we're all either paying more or getting maybe very small tax cuts.  One friend makes over $1M a year and it's all W-2 income.  His taxes are going through the roof and he's really pissed.  Yet, I've yet to see a person who is middle income or below that has their taxes truly going up.  It's not a tax cut for the rich, it's just not.

I think the point here is that we're dealing with a global economy nowadays.  If the big 3 had been allowed to go under, you can take an educated guess where the auto manufacturing would be now (China).  This also would've resulted in much much higher unemployment in the USA.  Consumer spending drives 2/3 of the economy and this would have resulted in a vicious circle of less spending = more businesses going under = less employment = less spending.  Much like the great depression.

My grandmother is still alive and has some remarkable memory of how that whole thing went.

I know you are replaying to Oysterboy, but for the record, I am not against that change (see my Tax Reform post on this board).  But what ticks me off is that the middle class benefits are being paid for by the deficit spending, and expiring.  Meanwhile the business tax rate change and items that help the rich are permanent.

Make the whole effing thing permanent or make it all sunset in 10 years.  I don't care which.  But as it stands right now, it is blatantly unfair.

I didn't read through the full bill yet but just curious - did they make any changes to the carried interest provision?