New tax plan

[Anonymous]

[quote=plm]I calculated the numbers and it seems to be a wash for married 400K income. Loss of state tax deduction offset by increased standard deduction and lower tax brackets. If you add in the removal of AMT, the new plan should be lower.

But if you live in a low tax state, then you will do much better.

I think it hurts home owners though, since the mortgage interest deduction might not apply any more if standard deduction is better.[/quote]

I believe at $400K married your bracket will actually be higher than it is now. But I’m not sure about the effective rate. If the 35% bracket starts at $260K, much of a $400K income will be taxed at a pretty high rate.

[Anonymous]

[quote=kev374][quote=andymajumder]it will hit the coastal housing markets hard, effectively this increases the cost of buying a home in these regions significantly and will crash the market which in turn will affect economy and job losses for folks down the chain.[/quote]

This is an excellent outcome. Regular people will be able to afford homes again just like it has been the case for many many decades before the speculative run-up starting in 2003.[/quote]

That makes no sense.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=kev374][quote=plm]
Married 35 percent rate starts at 260K. Discrimination of married people, not singles.[/quote]

Married people don’t need more breaks, they have had enough over the years especially those with kids. Singles have been the biggest contributors income percentage wise.[/quote]

marriage tax penalty is the phrase, not singles tax penalty. many marrieds would do better divorced, taxwise

[The-Shoveler]

[quote=spdrun]

The biggest risk the plan in its current form is that it will hit the coastal housing markets hard, effectively this increases the cost of buying a home in these regions significantly and will crash the market which in turn will affect economy and job losses for folks down the chain.

Risk or feature. Depending on whether you’re interested in investing in distressed property or not :)[/quote]

Mostly I think it would affect high end (maybe > 600/800K), not many homes pencil out as rentals in that range.

IMO not many (on the blue state coasts) will win with this in its present form.

[kev374]

[quote=scaredyclassic]
marriage tax penalty is the phrase, not singles tax penalty. many marrieds would do better divorced, taxwise[/quote]

what I meant was that married people share a lot of expenses and on top of it earn double the income so they don’t need that much relief.

Both Singles and Married people have fixed costs, adding an additional person to a household does not result in doubling of the cost but it’s a fractional increment. Deductions and exemptions are meant to offset some of the costs of living, by this argument yes, there is no penalty, it’s fair. $260k or 30% higher than a single sounds about right.

[Anonymous]

According to Fox and the conservative Tax Foundation, everyone gets lower taxes:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/11/02/look-inside-gops-new-tax-brackets.html

And it’s gets better. Look closely at the example on the far right if the chart: The gays see the least benefit!

[Coronita]

So I guess given ones’ allocation of available money, one would divert as much money to the primary to pay it off early, or at least to the point where your mortgage interest deduction starts to phase out and soak your rentals with as much debt as possible, were you can still write off things as an expense?

I don’t think this tax hit to salaried upper income people would have made the much more of a difference under a blue president and congress. When people talk about taxes reform, that always mean taxing high salaried folks more, not really the wealthy.

Fortunately, no mortgage for me and with my current gig I get paid a heck of a lot of doing a lot less work than before, since now I “manage” lol.

It’s a little funny the direction we are headed feels like America’s version of China’s Cultural Revolution where the well educated, financially sound people in this country take a huge back seat to the dipshits in this country. If I wasnt so relaxed as I head into my older years of not really giving a shit, I wouldn’t be laughing at the irony. I would be crying. Feel sorry for all the young generation that will be a lost generation. Meanwhile, China and Taiwan now recognize dual citizenship, so I have more options now.lol…. just kidding…sort of.

It’s also funny somestill think magically home prices will crash 50%+ and and be able to take advantage when at the same time be subject to the 35% tax rate that would be needed to be able to afford said still expensive coastal property… Check the financial pecking order….I have a feeling on that ladder, folks aren’t at the top steps as one thinks…..

[The-Shoveler]

Actually, I think this might spur a new type of property management Biz,
Where two families get together to buy high end homes that they rent to each other LOL.
Come to think of it I don’t know why they are not doing this now, A lot more write off’s that way,
Or maybe they make an agreement where each just say they are renting their neighbors house (exchange mailbox keys, not door keys etc..) LOL.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Actually, I think this might spur a new type of property management Biz,
Where two families get together to buy high end homes that they rent to each other LOL.
Come to think of it I don’t know why they are not doing this now, A lot more write off’s that way,
Or maybe they make an agreement where each just say they are renting their neighbors house (exchange mailbox keys, not door keys etc..) LOL.[/quote]

not bad. can also provide divorce services w domestic partner agreements to avoid higher marriage tax, and get kids married to have them emancipated for financial aid for college.

it really is wrong that id pay a lot less if i could just get my wife to divorce me. just because we are married doesnt nean we should pay more since we could cohabit and contract all marital isdues

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Actually, I think this might spur a new type of property management Biz,
Where two families get together to buy high end homes that they rent to each other LOL.
Come to think of it I don’t know why they are not doing this now, A lot more write off’s that way,
Or maybe they make an agreement where each just say they are renting their neighbors house (exchange mailbox keys, not door keys etc..) LOL.[/quote]

not bad. can also provide divorce services w domestic partner agreements to avoid higher marriage tax, and get kids married to have them emancipated for financial aid for college.

it really is wrong that id pay a lot less if i could just get my wife to divorce me. just because we are married doesnt nean we should pay more since we could cohabit and contract all marital isdues

[Coronita]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Actually, I think this might spur a new type of property management Biz,
Where two families get together to buy high end homes that they rent to each other LOL.
Come to think of it I don’t know why they are not doing this now, A lot more write off’s that way,
Or maybe they make an agreement where each just say they are renting their neighbors house (exchange mailbox keys, not door keys etc..) LOL.[/quote]

That would only work if you can expense your rent as a business expense somehow. You normally can’t deduct rent unless you are really poor I think.

[SK in CV]

[quote=harvey]
Pass-through income capped at 25% is a big win for top income earners. It will be interesting to see how many executives become consultants instead of employees.

[/quote]

It is not a tax cut for top income earners. Almost just the opposite. It is a tax cut for those with large amounts of capital invested.

This is a pretty complicated section of the law, as written. At least, if not more complicated than the §469 passive loss limitation rules that came in during the mid-80’s. It appears that it won’t lower tax for executives becoming consultants. It will lower tax for investors in big businesses structured as pass-through entities. It will only lower tax on investment income from operating businesses, not income from labor.

It won’t lower tax for real small businesses. The plumber next door that wants to buy a 2nd truck and hire a 2nd crew, or a 10th crew, isn’t going to get much benefit. Doctors, lawyers, consultants, real estate professionals, in private practice won’t get any advantage. It is truly a capital over labor tax preference. Any politician who describes it as a tax break for small business owners is out and out lying. It is anything but that.

If passed, it will exacerbate income inequality. The rich will get richer. The workers will suffer. With all due respect to someone here who correctly hailed swamps as centers of life, this is the exact opposite of the draining of the swamp that Trump campaigned on.

[Coronita]

State tax deduction would be a big loss.

Mortgage interest deduction. I believe folks will be grandfathered if I am not mistaken.

I don’t know if this would really make homes more affordable. Granted home prices might go down a bit, but most folks trying to get into a home for the first time would have much less disposable income to work with to…

Works great for people with a lot of money. I predict an exasperated gap between those who own multiple homes and those who will be close to lifelong tenants…especially considering the tax plan also calls the elimination of estate taxes. Now generations and generations of property owners can pass on their properties with very little tax consequences

[scaredyclassic]

you know, maybe its a message to cut back. at almost 50 state and fed tax over 260k, screw it, is it really worth working ones ass off.

maybe budgets need to set limits for when theceffort isnt worth it anymore. just say no to more

[Anonymous]

[quote=SK in CV]
It is not a tax cut for top income earners. Almost just the opposite. It is a tax cut for those with large amounts of capital invested.

This is a pretty complicated section of the law, as written. At least, if not more complicated than the §469 passive loss limitation rules that came in during the mid-80’s. It appears that it won’t lower tax for executives becoming consultants. It will lower tax for investors in big businesses structured as pass-through entities. It will only lower tax on investment income from operating businesses, not income from labor.

It won’t lower tax for real small businesses. The plumber next door that wants to buy a 2nd truck and hire a 2nd crew, or a 10th crew, isn’t going to get much benefit. Doctors, lawyers, consultants, real estate professionals, in private practice won’t get any advantage. It is truly a capital over labor tax preference. Any politician who describes it as a tax break for small business owners is out and out lying. It is anything but that.

If passed, it will exacerbate income inequality. The rich will get richer. The workers will suffer. With all due respect to someone here who correctly hailed swamps as centers of life, this is the exact opposite of the draining of the swamp that Trump campaigned on.[/quote]

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the rule, but here’s and example of what I thought this was about:

General contractor owns an LLC, brings in $300K net, pays himself $150K salary and takes the rest as pass-thru business income. Currently he gets taxed as if his total income were $300K, which would mean a 33% marginal rate for everything over $191K.

Under proposed rules his W2 income would be $150K and the other $150K would only be taxed at 25%.

I’m not sure where capital invested fits in, but maybe I’m oversimplifying something.

[Author]

Posts