Current GOP Tax Plan

[Benton]

Well, this settles it.

If this bill passes, I'm giving up my rights as a person (which are mostly just to pay taxes and buy guns) and becoming a corporation. I want to be able to pay virtually no taxes, write off all my expenses, have my spending habits protected by the First Amendment, have the right to confirm or deny how I spend my money based on my beliefs.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-15-2017, 12:37 PM)GMDino Wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/14/us/politics/tax-plan-senate-obamacare-individual-mandate-trump.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Did you see who will benefit by including a repeal of the healthcare mandate in this tax plan?

[Yojimbo]

New twist. The child credit (which should be eliminated entirely) is being updated so that the more money you make, the bigger the credit. Seems like that will help out the middle class and poor...


https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/11/15/16652644/congress-child-tax-credit-senators-rubio-gardner

[*michaelsean*]

(11-16-2017, 05:19 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: New twist. The child credit (which should be eliminated entirely) is being updated so that the more money you make, the bigger the credit. Seems like that will help out the middle class and poor...


https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/11/15/16652644/congress-child-tax-credit-senators-rubio-gardner

We could always make those who have zero tax liability pay tax so they could then take advantage of the credit.  

[*PhilHos*]

(11-16-2017, 05:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: We could always make those who have zero tax liability pay tax so they could then take advantage of the credit.  

Racist.

[GMDino]

(11-16-2017, 05:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: We could always make those who have zero tax liability pay tax so they could then take advantage of the credit.  

If we made everyone with zero tax liability pay taxes we could afford universal healthcare probably.

Oh...you meant poor people not corporations.  Sorry.  Carry on.

[GMDino]

Quote:Republican Tax Bill Gives Private Jet Owners a Tax Break








Republican Tax Bill Gives Private Jet Owners a Tax Break

More

If you're one of the lucky Americans who owns a private jet, don't fret.  Republicans have your back—in the form of tax breaks. 

The new Senate tax bill will give those who own or lease private planes breaks on the amount they pay to companies for maintenance, storage, fueling and even when they want to hire pilots and a crew onboard. 


The proposal is tucked in the middle of the controversial bill's latest version, dubbed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The House approved the bill Thursday and it's now headed to the Senate. 


Trending: Trump's Afghanistan Troop Surge is Complete, Raising Total Number of U.S. Servicemen to 14,000

The bill's main goal is to help businesses, with hopes of spurring more competition and preventing them from moving overseas, according to The Washington Post. 


But it also will help the very rich, including President Donald Trump. In fact, not as many of the wealthy will be required to pay the estate tax, which is paid when property and other assets over $5.5 million are passed on to someone's heir because lawmakers are doubling the amount to $11 million, the newspaper reported. 


Don't miss: Berlusconi's Ex-Wife Ordered To Pay Back $70 Million In Alimony Because She Has Enough Money


A part of the bill on tax breaks for those who own or lease a private plane reads in part: 

Quote:
The proposal exempts certain payments related to the management of private aircraft from the excise taxes imposed on taxable transportation by air. Exempt payments are those amounts paid by an aircraft owner for management services related to maintenance and support of the owner’s aircraft or flights on the owner’s aircraft. Applicable services include support activities related to the aircraft itself, such as its storage, maintenance, and fueling, and those related to its operation, such as the hiring and training of pilots and crew, as well as administrative services such as scheduling, flight planning, weather forecasting, obtaining insurance, and establishing and complying with safety standards. Aircraft management services also include such other services as are necessary to support flights operated by an aircraft owner.

There were about 11,261 private planes registered in the United States as of 2012, according to Forbes.



Most popular: Kim Jong Un May Have Caused a Parasitic Worm Epidemic in North Korea By Making Farmers Spread Human Faeces on Their Crops


Massive tax cuts have been a priority for Trump since he took office. After news broke the bill passed—by a 227-205 vote—he applauded the House's efforts on Twitter. Thirteen Republicans voted against the measure. 

This article was first written by Newsweek

[/url]
https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-tax-bill-gives-private-021122188.html


Meanwhile....

http://time.com/5017111/gop-tax-plan-teacher-tax-credit/

Quote:Educators who spend hundreds of dollars out of their own pocket to buy school supplies would no longer be eligible for a tax deduction under the [url=http://time.com/5012233/gop-tax-reform-congress/]GOP tax reform bill, and the proposal is drawing fierce criticism from teachers’ advocates.


Under current law, teachers are eligible for a tax deduction of up to $250 for money spent on classroom supplies.

“Will a teacher in my district who buys pens, pencils, paper for his students be able to deduct these costs from his tax returns under this plan?” Washington Rep. Suzan DelBene asked on Monday, at a markup hearing for the proposed GOP tax bill, which she described as “morally bankrupt.”

Thomas Barthold, chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, confirmed that the tax plan would repeal the deduction for teacher expenses. The bill has drawn criticism from Democrats and teachers’ associations, who argue it will further burden teachers who already spend a significant amount of their own money on their classrooms.


“Under the Republican plan, corporations are still allowed to deduct state and local taxes,” California Rep. Mark Takano, a Democrat, said in a Facebook post on Monday. “Workers are not. Corporations are still allowed to deduct business expenses. Teachers are not.”

Republicans have argued that the bill will simplify the tax code and reduce taxes overall, but an analysis by the Tax Policy Center found that high-income households would see the largest cuts.

An Oklahoma teacher drew national attention earlier this year when she panhandled for school supplies at a highway intersection. At the time, she said she typically spends $2,000 to $3,000 of her $35,000 salary on classroom supplies each year. A 2013 study by the National
School Supply and Equipment Association found that 99.5% of teachers use their own money on school supplies, spending $485 on average in one school year.

“As educators spend more and more of their own funds each year to buy basic essentials, Republican leaders chose to ignore the sacrifice made by those who work in our nation’s public schools to make sure students have adequate books, pencils, paper and art supplies,”
National Education Association President Lily Eskelsen García said in a statement about the tax proposal last week.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, also spoke out against the tax plan.

“They are giving huge estate tax breaks to the Trump kids while taking away working families’ ability to deduct the costs of higher education, union dues and even the money educators spend on their classrooms,” she said in a statement last week. “We will do everything we can to fight this bill.”

Clearly Trump has not forgotten the little guy!  He remembered to go there to get his cuts to give to himself!

[GMDino]

https://ctmirror.org/2017/11/15/house-gop-tax-plan-ends-historic-preservation-break/

Quote:House GOP tax plan ends historic preservation break


Washington – A tax break that was key to the rehabilitation of the Colt complex in Hartford, a Victorian opera house in Norfolk and dozens of other historic properties throughout the state is on the chopping block in Congress.

The House Republican tax overhaul, which the chamber hopes to vote on Thursday, would eliminate the 20 percent federal investment tax credit for historic preservation projects, a tax break Congress approved about 40 years ago to spur investment in historic properties that has helped revitalize many of the nation’s downtowns.

“With that one initiative, we hope to send your tax dollars back to your communities,” said former President Ronald Reagan, who championed the tax break. “Our tax credits have made the renovation of our older buildings not only a matter of respect for beauty and history, but of economic good sense.”

The preservation tax credit is available to all properties on the National Register of Historic Places, a roster that includes 90,000 sites, more than 1,200 of them in Connecticut.

The nation’s historians, and developers, have been lobbying frantically for the GOP to restore the credit. But as of now, it is gone in the House bill and cut in half – to 10 percent – in the Senate bill.

“Without it there’s no incentive not to demolish and build new structures,” said Leah Glaser, president of Connecticut Preservation Action.

To Glasser, the preservation credit “gets rid of blight, puts properties back on the tax rolls,” and helps communities maintain a connection to their past.

“It’s the only carrot we have, and it’s a very successful one,” she said.

To receive the tax credit, a property owner must complete an application for historic preservation certification, which is managed by the National Park Service and Internal Revenue Service.

To qualify for a 20 percent break on eligible rehab expenses, a building must be income-producing or used in a trade or business.
The preservation credit has been used to renovate 51 structures in Hartford, including an old equipment maintenance building for a fire station that’s located on John Street that had been shuttered since the 1980s.

The tax break was also used to rehab the old Norfolk Opera House, which is now the Infinity Music Hall and Bistro in that city, and turn a YMCA building in New Haven into an apartment complex.

Coupled with a similar state tax break for preservation of historic properties, Larry Dooley, the developer of Colt Gateway in Hartford, said he used the federal credit to renovate factory buildings that produced the famed Colt firearms and housed workers.

Dooley has turned those buildings into apartments and office spaces.

“It would have been impossible to do Colt without the credit,” Dooley said.

The developer has a big, $13.6 million project left, the North Building, built right before World War I and used for the production of gun barrels. He’s worried how the tax bill might affect the effort to turn an old factory into 46 new apartments.

Dooley also said he’s been looking at other historic properties in Hartford to develop, and the end of the credit could put a damper on those plans.

“There’s no chance” for widespread urban renewal of Connecticut cities like Hartford, Bridgeport or New Haven without the tax break, he said.

Republicans eliminated many tax breaks as part of their effort to deliver across-the-board tax relief by lowering rates on individuals and businesses.

The House tax overhaul also would eliminate the personal exemption and deductions Connecticut taxpayers can take now for state taxes they pay, medical expenses and tuition loan interest. It also would cap the deductibility of property taxes at $10,000.

Despite universal opposition to the tax overhaul by Democrats, Republicans in the House may have the votes to pass it. But the GOP can afford to lose no more than 23 of their 240 House members.

President Donald Trump, whose company sought the preservation tax credit when it turned a historic post office in Washington into the glitzy Trump International Hotel,  plans to head to Capitol Hill on Thursday and make a final pitch to House Republicans  before they vote on the plan.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-20-2017, 11:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://ctmirror.org/2017/11/15/house-gop-tax-plan-ends-historic-preservation-break/

Seems like it was a tax cut for the rich.  1. Because all of Reagan's tax cuts were for the rich, and 2. I don't see a lot of poor people donating to or preserving historic buildings.

[Belsnickel]

So, every analysis of the House bill puts an increase to the deficit/debt of over $1 trillion in ten years. Even the more conservative analysis by a think tank that has been in favor of it puts it at that. Not cool.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-21-2017, 06:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, every analysis of the House bill puts an increase to the deficit/debt of over $1 trillion in ten years. Even the more conservative analysis by a think tank that has been in favor of it puts it at that. Not cool.

So one trillion in addition to what it would already be?

[Belsnickel]

(11-21-2017, 09:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So one trillion in addition to what it would already be?

Yes.

[GMDino]

Matt I need a ruling on this one.



https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155877275533518&set=a.10150506371068518.390075.648243517&type=3&theater

[Belsnickel]

(11-21-2017, 10:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: Matt I need a ruling on this one.



https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155877275533518&set=a.10150506371068518.390075.648243517&type=3&theater

I didn't click on the link, but that looks to be someone that is a graduate assistant calculating their change in taxes based on the current tax bills. From my understanding of the bills, this is accurate. I have been following the higher education changes because they affect me in a number of ways. This is the result of them making all tuition reductions (grad assistant waivers, employer payments, all of it) taxable income. This will make graduate school unaffordable for tons of students, especially in STEM fields where GA researchers are so common.

[GMDino]

(11-22-2017, 09:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I didn't click on the link, but that looks to be someone that is a graduate assistant calculating their change in taxes based on the current tax bills. From my understanding of the bills, this is accurate. I have been following the higher education changes because they affect me in a number of ways. This is the result of them making all tuition reductions (grad assistant waivers, employer payments, all of it) taxable income. This will make graduate school unaffordable for tons of students, especially in STEM fields where GA researchers are so common.

Yep that's what it was.

Thank you.

[Benton]

(11-21-2017, 06:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, every analysis of the House bill puts an increase to the deficit/debt of over $1 trillion in ten years. Even the more conservative analysis by a think tank that has been in favor of it puts it at that. Not cool.

(11-21-2017, 09:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So one trillion in addition to what it would already be?

If I'm not mistaken (and Matt usually lets me know because I'm mistaken a lot), a big chunk of this that is being brushed off by the Trump administration is because the administration is expecting some unrealistic growth out of the budget. Basically, everyone at the bottom will get taxed more, but that will somehow spur them to spend more on new shoes and cars.

[Belsnickel]

(11-22-2017, 02:03 PM)Benton Wrote: If I'm not mistaken (and Matt usually lets me know because I'm mistaken a lot), a big chunk of this that is being brushed off by the Trump administration is because the administration is expecting some unrealistic growth out of the budget. Basically, everyone at the bottom will get taxed more, but that will somehow spur them to spend more on new shoes and cars.

You are correct, I will just expand a little. The administration is ignoring these analyses because they expect that growth. However, the analyses all take that growth into account. The analysts are saying that growth won't be as large as the administration thinks because giving more of the cuts to the top doesn't result in the same spending that can stimulate economic growth as cuts at the middle would.

[GMDino]

(11-22-2017, 02:03 PM)Benton Wrote: If I'm not mistaken (and Matt usually lets me know because I'm mistaken a lot), a big chunk of this that is being brushed off by the Trump administration is because the administration is expecting some unrealistic growth out of the budget. Basically, everyone at the bottom will get taxed more, but that will somehow spur them to spend more on new shoes and cars.

(11-22-2017, 05:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You are correct, I will just expand a little. The administration is ignoring these analyses because they expect that growth. However, the analyses all take that growth into account. The analysts are saying that growth won't be as large as the administration thinks because giving more of the cuts to the top doesn't result in the same spending that can stimulate economic growth as cuts at the middle would.

So same old, same old while we're told the Democrats have forgotten about the working man and that's why the GOP won.  Great.

[GMDino]

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...so it probably gets passed with full GOP support and the Democrats will have another mess to clean up.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-tax-reform-bill-analysis-reviews-text-2017-11

Quote:The GOP tax plan got a triple whammy of brutal reviews

• Three new analyses of the Senate's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act all delivered bad news for Republican leaders.
• The Tax Policy Center found that more than 50% of Americans would see a tax increase in 2027 under the bill.
• Only one out of 42 economists surveyed by the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business said the bill would increase economic growth substantially.
• The Penn-Wharton Budget Model found that the bill would blow a hole in the federal deficit.
  

---

While Congress is on a weeklong Thanksgiving break, the breakneck speed of the Republican push to overhaul the US tax code has taken a bill close to passing in the Senate.

The latest version of the chamber's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed the Senate Finance Committee last Thursday, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he wants to bring the bill for a full Senate vote when lawmakers return from the recess.

But on Tuesday, Republicans were hit with something of a triple whammy: Three different groups offered critical analyses of the bill's potentially negative effects on the federal budget, Americans' taxes, and the broader US economy. While the Senate is still expected to make changes to the legislation, each of the new studies shows that the Senate's bill has some significant underlying problems.

Tax Policy Center says it would raise taxes on half of Americans

Perhaps the most damning of the new reports came from the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center.
The nonpartisan group's analysis of the legislation found that while all income groups would get a tax cut from the bill in the short term and long term, many Americans would see their taxes increase. From the report:

• In 2019: Americans, on average, would see their taxes cut by $1,300, an increase in take-home pay of 1.7%. Americans in the middle quintile of income earners — $50,000 to $87,000 a year — would get a tax cut of $850, on average, and receive 18.4% of the tax cuts' benefits. People in the top 1% of incomes, more than $750,000 a year, would see a cut of $34,130, on average, and receive 17.6% of the bill's total benefit.
• In 2027: The bill's proposed sunset of the individual tax cuts, combined with other changes to the code, means benefits would be substantially less for the middle class. The average cut for all Americans would be just $300, and 50.3% of American households would actually see their taxes increase by this point. Those in the middle quintile of earners would see a tax cut of just $50, on average, and 65.6% of these people would see their taxes go up. People in the top 1% of income earners, however, would still get a tax cut of $32,510, on average, and would receive 61.8% of the total tax benefits from the plan. Just 16.8% of people in the top 1% would see a tax increase.
  

Economists do not think the bill will grow the economy
Trump and Republicans have argued that the cuts in the plan would stimulate economic growth and even help "pay for" its new spending. Most economists aren't buying the rosy projections.

But according to the IGM Forum survey of 42 academic economists by the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, only one economist agreed that "US GDP will be substantially higher a decade from now" than under the current baseline. In fact, 52% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the bill would lead to significant economic growth, and 36% were uncertain.

And when asked whether the "US debt-to-GDP ratio will be substantially higher" in 10 years under the bill compared with current law, 88% of the economists agreed or strongly agreed, 2% were uncertain, and the rest abstained.

Penn-Wharton budget model says the bill would blow a hole in the deficit
The final rough analysis for the legislation came from a new report from the University of Pennsylvania, using its Penn-Wharton Budget Model to assess the budgetary effects of the bill.

While Trump administration officials say the legislation would pay for itself, some Senate Republicans have been hesitant to support the bill over concerns that it would cause a massive increase in the federal debt.

The Penn model found that the bill would increase the federal deficit by $1.327 trillion over the first 10 years after it becomes law (not including debt-service costs). Even when factoring in the economic boost from the tax cuts, according to the report, the bill would still add $1.271 trillion in debt.

Either way, the model concludes that much like the House version of the bill, the Senate bill would not come close to paying for itself.

[Belsnickel]

Still a few GOP holdouts on this. It's going to come down to the wire, but there are more GOP lawmakers that have said they won't vote for something adding to the deficit than it would take to sink this. The question is whether they put party over ideology. There are a lot of red flags with the House bill, and the Senate bill isn't all that much better. It's bad policy all around, and they really need to improve this.