Current GOP Tax Plan

[*Nately120*]

(12-04-2017, 02:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: The problem with that decision is that a lot of stuff will affect us down the road...not just in a couple months.

At least the way it is written write now.

Yes, but right now I'll get more money to blow on wine, women, and song...right?  

[JustWinBaby]

(12-04-2017, 01:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: ... the DEMOCRATS will get blamed for raising taxes to fix the problem.

LMFAO...the problem is they usually raise spending even more, thus fixing nothing.

SMH over people who railed on the debt and deficits for the past 8 years looking the other way now, while people who ignored debt and deficits for 8 years (and blamed Repubs for "obstructing" MOAR spending) are suddenly deficit hawks.


For people trying to quantify their anger and direct fair and objective rage at the parties, the $1T cost of this plan will probably produce about 2-3X the growth as Obama's $1T porkulus.

[*bfine32*]

(12-04-2017, 02:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Even if they end up making new tax law, it won't affect your tax return this coming year. Depending on the timing, it may take another year.

Well then that's when I'll tell you if I like it or not. As I said some folks that are paid to make such decisions and are smarter than me on the matter are telling me it's good for me and some are telling me it's bad for me. And I have an idea that political bias is swaying their assessment.

I'm an American and will pay what the government tells me to

[GMDino]

(12-04-2017, 02:33 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LMFAO...the problem is they usually raise spending even more, thus fixing nothing.

SMH over people who railed on the debt and deficits for the past 8 years looking the other way now, while people who ignored debt and deficits for 8 years (and blamed Repubs for "obstructing" MOAR spending) are suddenly deficit hawks.


For people trying to quantify their anger and direct fair and objective rage at the parties, the $1T cost of this plan will probably produce about 2-3X the growth as Obama's $1T porkulus.

Democrats calling out the GOP over suddenly not caring about the deficit is nowhere near as bad as the GOP suddenly not caring (again) about deficits.

Projections for growth aside (as most say it won't be anywhere near where the GOP predicts) I'm not OK with cutting just to cut and then screwing the majority of us to make up for if when it fails.

Kansas dude.  Just look at Kansas.

Heck, look at the 2004.  

The GOP cobbled together the worst possible plan (for the vast majority of us) in about a month after eight years of bitching (again) and doing nothing to be prepared in case they actually had control.

It's sad that people support that at all.

[Belsnickel]

(12-04-2017, 02:33 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LMFAO...the problem is they usually raise spending even more, thus fixing nothing.

SMH over people who railed on the debt and deficits for the past 8 years looking the other way now, while people who ignored debt and deficits for 8 years (and blamed Repubs for "obstructing" MOAR spending) are suddenly deficit hawks.

I'm not disputing that the fiscal policy from both parties has been a mess, but when we go from reducing the deficits to increasing them again while we are in a stable economic period is not the best idea. Especially when the party reversing the decreases is the one that purports to be one of fiscal conservatism. I think we're all aware that these people are all full of it.

(12-04-2017, 02:33 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: For people trying to quantify their anger and direct fair and objective rage at the parties, the $1T cost of this plan will probably produce about 2-3X the growth as Obama's $1T porkulus.

Are you referring to the ARRA/Obama's stimulus? That was a $831 billion bill that, had it not had any impact on the economy at all, would have had less of a deficit impact that the two different tax bills put forth. Keep in mind that the $800 billion to $1.5 trillion deficit increases are after any economic growth is calculated in.

[Benton]

(12-04-2017, 02:33 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LMFAO...the problem is they usually raise spending even more, thus fixing nothing.

SMH over people who railed on the debt and deficits for the past 8 years looking the other way now, while people who ignored debt and deficits for 8 years (and blamed Repubs for "obstructing" MOAR spending) are suddenly deficit hawks.


For people trying to quantify their anger and direct fair and objective rage at the parties, the $1T cost of this plan will probably produce about 2-3X the growth as Obama's $1T porkulus.

Possibly. From what I've heard and read, though, most of the projected growth was projected to happen anyway. I think it was NPR I was listening to Friday night that said estimates are something like an average of .008% per year higher than if they did nothing.

[NATI BENGALS]

I dont get why we cant put some type of wording in there to help the working class.

Ok they want to cut the corporate tax rate. Even though they are sitting on a record surplus.

What is it like 35% they are cutting to 20%? Why not cut it to 30% so you still make your big money donors happy. Then say the additional 10% reduction can be earned on a sliding scale equivalent to year to year pay role increases for non-executives. Pay your workers 10% more and you can reduce your tax burden another 10%. Be greedy lay off your tenured employees and slash your pay role to pay shareholders and executives you dont get the full tax savings.

[Benton]

(12-04-2017, 04:12 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I dont get why we cant put some type of wording in there to help the working class.

Ok they want to cut the corporate tax rate. Even though they are sitting on a record surplus.

What is it like 35% they are cutting to 20%? Why not cut it to 30% so you still make your big money donors happy. Then say the additional 10% reduction can be earned on a sliding scale equivalent to year to year pay role increases for non-executives. Pay your workers 10% more and you can reduce your tax burden another 10%. Be greedy lay off your tenured employees and slash your pay role to pay shareholders and executives you dont get the full tax savings.

Rubio and Lee tried something along those lines with the child tax credit. If I understand it right, the new bill increases the amount people receive for child credit, but raises the floor so that if you don't have much income, you don't get much credit. Their amendment would've raised the proposed corporate tax from 20% to 22%, and increased the floor on the child credit to include some people with little or no income. 

And Corker suggested tax increases that would kick in if the economy doesn't do the magic upswing Republicans are hoping for.

I don't think most people would have a problem with cutting taxes to the upper class if there's any improvement on everyone else. But it's like the Carrier deal. Giving companies tax money or taxing them less than small business only to have them reap the profit is not growing the economy and leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

[*Nately120*]

(12-04-2017, 01:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: On that note....

Chuck Grassley: "“I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies."https://t.co/gqWnqsvQ5Q

— David Atkins (@DavidOAtkins) December 3, 2017

I can't help but notice that he left out the part about poor people blowing their meager earnings on over-priced Donald Trump hats. Buy your crappy hats at Goodwill for 25 cents and then invest the $39.75 you saved and get rich, you moron.

[GMDino]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html

Quote:The Senate GOP Accidentally Killed Some of Its Donors’ Favorite Tax Breaks

On Friday, Senate Republicans rewrote the American tax code over lunch — and passed their (partially handwritten) legislation around 2 a.m. the following morning.

Quote:1 Dec
Dylan Scott

@dylanlscott
Replying to @dylanlscott
when the order is real regular pic.twitter.com/Eh7PIHDQmk

Quote:[/url][url=https://twitter.com/dylanlscott]Dylan Scott

@dylanlscott

not at all weird, very regular, very normal pic.twitter.com/3D77KMFICm
6:47 PM - Dec 1, 2017

Mitch McConnell never subjected his blueprint for restructuring the world’s largest economy to a single hearing. His caucus never invited experts to offer insight into the bill’s implications for housing, health care, higher education, outsourcing, or tax evasion. This haste had an upside for the Senate GOP: It allowed the party to pass deeply unpopular changes to the tax code before the public had time to learn about them.

But approaching major legislation like an Adderall-addled sophomore approaches an overdue term paper came with a minor drawback: It forced the party to pass a tax bill before they had time to read it.


In hindsight, McConnell should have asked for an extension. While Republicans were manically outlining their plans to take from the poor to give to the Trumps, they also, accidentally, nullified all of their corporate donors’ favorite deductions.


This screwup — like most of the tax plan’s oddest features — was born of a math problem. Due to arcane Senate rules, the Trump tax cuts can only add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. Last Thursday, the Senate tax bill already cost about that sum, and then McConnell started making expensive promises to his few holdouts. Susan Collins wanted a $10,000 property tax deduction for Americans in high-tax states; Ron Johnson wanted a 23 percent business-income deduction for the company that his family owns. This left the Senate Majority Leader searching under the tax code’s couch cushions for new sources of revenue.


Eventually, he came upon the corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT). At present, most corporations face a 35 percent (statutory) rate on their income. But by availing themselves of various tax credits and deductions, most companies can get their actual rates down far below that figure. To put a limit on just how far, the corporate AMT prevents companies from paying any less than 20 percent on their profits (or, more precisely, on the profits that they fail to hide overseas).


The GOP had originally intended to abolish the AMT. But on Friday, with the clock running out — and money running short — Senate Republicans put the AMT back into their bill. Unfortunately for McConnell, they forgot to lower the AMT after doing so.


This is a big problem. The Senate bill brings the normal corporate rate down to 20 percent — while leaving the alternative minimum rate at … 20 percent. The legislation would still allow corporations to claim a wide variety of tax credits and deductions — it just renders all them completely worthless. Companies can either take no deductions, and pay a 20 percent rate — or take lots of deductions … and pay a 20 percent rate.


With this blunder, Senate Republicans have achieved the unthinkable: They’ve written a giant corporate tax cut that many of their corporate donors do not like. As The Wall Street Journal reports:

Quote:The biggest consequence could be the research credit, often used by manufacturers, technology firms and pharmaceutical companies, and the National Association of Manufacturers said it was working with policy makers to address the issue.

Under the credit, companies get money back from the government for what they spend on innovation, often for wages of scientists and engineers. Corporations will claim $10.3 billion in research credits in 2018, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

… Murray Energy Corp., an Ohio-based firm and the largest privately held U.S. coal-mining company, complained that the AMT decision and the Senate’s tougher limits on interest deductions made a “mockery out of so-called tax reform.” Robert Murray, the company’s chief executive officer, said the Senate tax plan would raise his company’s tax bill by $60 million.

“What the Senate did, in their befuddled mess, is drove me out of business and then bragged about the fact that they got some tax reform passed,” Mr. Murray said in an interview Sunday. “This is not job creation. This is not stimulating income. This is driving a whole sector of our community into nonexistence.”

McConnell’s mistake has two big implications. First and foremost, it means the Senate will almost certainly have to vote on a tax bill again before one goes into law. Previously, it looked as though Paul Ryan had enough votes in the House to pass the Senate bill as is. This took pressure off the party’s conference committee (the House and Senate leaders tasked with reconciling each chamber’s bills). Worst-case scenario, the House could just rubber-stamp the Senate’s work. Now, that option is deeply undesirable. It remains overwhelmingly likely that Republicans will pass a giant tax cut. But their task is now a bit more difficult.



The second implication is that McConnell is going to need new revenue. In all probability, Republicans are going to drop the alternative-minimum tax rate well below 20 percent. That will put the bill’s price tag over $1.5 trillion. Right now, some of the House’s most heinous revenue raisers — including the infamous tax on graduate student tuition — are not in the Senate bill. Chances are now somewhat higher that these odious provisions will make it into the final legislation, as Republicans will once again be desperate for pay-fors. That said, it’s also possible that the GOP will simply revise their bill’s corporate rate up to 22 percent, now that President Trump has given the party permission to do so.


Regardless, the AMT fiasco is bound to be the tip of an iceberg of unintended consequences. Senate Republicans wanted to pass their (indefensible) tax bill before anyone had time to figure out what was in it. They succeeded a bit more literally than they’d planned.

[Belsnickel]

An interesting graphic blog post talking about the cost of the tax bill compared to other items: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/12/05/the-tax-bill-compared-to-other-very-expensive-things/



The blog post itself doesn't get into too many details, but it is definitely interesting when we look at these sorts of things. How would you feel about shaving down that yearly amount to solve the homelessness issues in this country?

[GMDino]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/01/gop-eyes-post-tax-cut-changes-to-welfare-medicare-and-social-security/?utm_term=.31877b7625d7

Quote:Ryan says Republicans to target welfare, Medicare, Medicaid spending in 2018


Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told reporters March 16 that he is working closely with President Trump on health-care legislation.(Reuters)

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said Wednesday that congressional Republicans will aim next year to reduce spending on both federal health care and anti-poverty programs, citing the need to reduce America's deficit.


“We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit,” Ryan said during an appearance on Ross Kaminsky's talk radio show. "... Frankly, it's the health care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt, so we spend more time on the health care entitlements — because that's really where the problem lies, fiscally speaking.”


Ryan said that he believes he has begun convincing President Trump in their private conversations about the need to rein in Medicare, the federal health program that primarily insures the elderly. As a candidate, Trump vowed not to cut spending on Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. (Ryan also suggested congressional Republicans were unlikely to try changing Social Security, because the rules of the Senate forbid changes to the program through reconciliation — the procedure the Senate can use to pass legislation with only 50 votes.)


“I think the president is understanding that choice and competition works everywhere in health care, especially in Medicare,” Ryan said. "...This has been my big thing for many, many years. I think it's the biggest entitlement we've got to reform.”


Ryan's remarks add to the growing signs that top Republicans aim to cut government spending next year. Republicans are close to passing a tax bill nonpartisan analysts say would increase the deficit by at least $1 trillion over a decade. Trump recently called on Congress to move to cut welfare spending after the tax bill, and Senate Republicans have cited the need to reduce the national deficit while growing the economy.


“You also have to bring spending under control. And not discretionary spending. That isn't the driver of our debt. The driver of our debt is the structure of Social Security and Medicare for future beneficiaries,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said last week.


While whipping votes for the tax bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) attacked “liberal programs” for the poor and said Congress needed to stop wasting Americans' money.

“We're spending ourselves into bankruptcy,” Hatch said. “Now, let's just be honest about it: We're in trouble. This country is in deep debt. You don't help the poor by not solving the problems of debt, and you don't help the poor by continually pushing more and more liberal programs through.”


Trump has not clarified which specific programs would be affected by the proposed “welfare reform,” though congressional Republicans are signaling that they aim to impose work requirements on food stamps and direct cash assistance for the poor.


“We have a welfare system that's trapping people in poverty and effectively paying people not to work,” Ryan told Kaminsky on Wednesday. “We've got to work on that.”


Liberals have alleged that the GOP will use higher deficits — in part caused by their tax bill — as a pretext to accomplish the long-held conservative policy objective of cutting government health-care and social-service spending, which the left believes would hit the poor the hardest.


“What’s coming next is all too predictable: The deficit hawks will come flying back after this bill becomes law,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the ranking Democrat on the finance committee, during a speech on the tax debate. “Republicans are already saying 'entitlement reform' and 'welfare reform' are next up on the docket. But nobody should be fooled — that’s just code for attacks on Medicaid, on Medicare, on Social Security, on anti-hunger programs.”

On the Senate floor during the tax debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asked Rubio and Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) to promise that Republicans would not advance cuts to Medicare and Social Security after their tax bill. Toomey said that there was “no secret plan” to do so, while Rubio said he opposed cuts to either program for current beneficiaries. However, neither closed the door to changing the programs for future beneficiaries.


“I am not going to support any cuts to people who are on the program and need those benefits. But I want this program to survive,” Toomey said. To which Sanders responded: “He just told you he's going to cut Social Security.”


Many conservatives have long argued for cutting and changing social safety net programs, arguing that anti-poverty programs have failed and that Social Security spending is growing at an unsustainable rate.


Still, members of both parties have long been reluctant to cut benefits, especially for seniors, due in part to the potential political cost of doing so. In discussing changes, Republicans, including Rubio, have largely confined their ideas to plans that would affect new beneficiaries, rather than current ones.

But it may be particularly difficult for Republicans to push those measures ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, in which many in swing states and districts face well-funded Democratic challengers hoping to ride an anti-Trump wave into office.


Ryan said he's optimistic, adding that Republicans could target the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid next year in addition to Medicare, despite their failure to repeal the health care law in 2017.


“What it is we really need to convert our health care system to a patient-centered system, so we have more choices and more competition. Choice and competition brings down prices and improves quality; government-run health care is the opposite of that,” Ryan said. “So I think these reforms that we've been talking about, that we're still going to keep pushing, that will help not just make Medicaid less expensive ... but it will help Medicare as well.”

[GMDino]

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/363681-va-slashes-program-that-helps-homeless-veterans-obtain-housing-report

Quote:VA slashes program that helps homeless veterans obtain housing: report

The Department of Veterans Affairs is slashing funding for a key program that helps provide housing to homeless veterans, according to a new report.

Politico reports the VA told advocates and state officials in a call last week that the $460 million program would essentially end.
VA Secretary David Shulkin reportedly told those on the call that the money for the program would now go to VA hospitals for use as they see fit. The hospitals must show that they are working to deal with homelessness as part of their work, according to Politico.

Activists and officials were reportedly furious about the decision, five people who listened in on the call told the news organization.

Elisha Harig-Blaine of the National League of Cities told Politico after the call that the VA was “putting at risk the lives of men and women who’ve served this country.”

The decision comes after a joint press conference between Shulkin and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson at a Washington, D.C. homeless shelter in which the two announced a new commitment to ending homelessness among the nation’s veterans.

The program provides housing vouchers to veterans via the Department of Housing and Urban Development while the VA continues helping veterans find more permanent housing.

More than half of the veterans housed via the program have problems like chronic illness or substance abuse, according to Politico.
Shulkin issued a statement to Politico Wednesday saying he would get input from local VA leaders “on how best to target our funding to the geographical areas that need it the most.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who serves on the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, told Politico that the decision was a “new low” for President Trump’s administration.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-07-2017, 12:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: http://thehill.com/homenews/news/363681-va-slashes-program-that-helps-homeless-veterans-obtain-housing-report

I don't understand that move at all. Hospitals are in the business of treating the sick and the injured. They typically don't help you with your apartment search.

[Benton]

(12-07-2017, 12:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: http://thehill.com/homenews/news/363681-va-slashes-program-that-helps-homeless-veterans-obtain-housing-report

(12-07-2017, 02:37 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I don't understand that move at all. Hospitals are in the business of treating the sick and the injured. They typically don't help you with your apartment search.

True. On the other hand, maybe it's a more local way of handling the issue. I don't know much about the program, but if it's at a state or federal level it may not be as well suited to handle homelessness at a regional type level. Ancillary issues, like groups already working with the VA to provide transportation and assistance for vets in need might be a lot easy to handle at local levels, as opposed to trying to coordinate transportation on a huge scale.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-07-2017, 02:49 PM)Benton Wrote: True. On the other hand, maybe it's a more local way of handling the issue. I don't know much about the program, but if it's at a state or federal level it may not be as well suited to handle homelessness at a regional type level. Ancillary issues, like groups already working with the VA to provide transportation and assistance for vets in need might be a lot easy to handle at local levels, as opposed to trying to coordinate transportation on a huge scale.

If the long wait times are to be believed, shoe horning nonmedical ancillary services in with VA hospitals medical services will only further burden the system.

Asking the VA to provide housing is like asking HUD to provide cancer screening. That's not what they do and they aren't set up to do it. My first impression is this is Ben Carson's uninformed and misguided idea of cutting funding for the sake of cutting funding

[Benton]

(12-07-2017, 04:02 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If the long wait times are to be believed, shoe horning nonmedical ancillary services in with VA hospitals medical services will only further burden the system.

Could be. Or it could be combining administration frees up resources that can go towards services.

No idea, but if I was trying to make the best use of a small pot of money, that would be the first thing I looked at.

Quote:Asking the VA to provide housing is like asking HUD to provide cancer screening. That's not what they do and they aren't set up to do it. My first impression is this is Ben Carson's uninformed and misguided idea of cutting funding for the sake of cutting funding

I dunno that much about the program. Just reading their web page and about the program, it's a voucher system. HUD directs vets to housing authorities near VAs (I'm assuming, as I mentioned earlier, due to many civic and state groups that already handle transport in areas around VAs), and the vet can use the vouchers at the authority for housing. It's not like the VA is out inspecting apartments or coordinating vets getting back and forth. It sounds like they were trying to let VAs use that funding to figure out how to make it work locally, as opposed to the one-size-fits all approach of HUD referring to VAs, who then refer back to HUD.

Either way, looks like they're changing the plan.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/veterans-affairs-homeless-vets-program_us_5a28fb8fe4b03ece03001ee9

[Yojimbo]

(12-07-2017, 04:02 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If the long wait times are to be believed, shoe horning nonmedical ancillary services in with VA hospitals medical services will only further burden the system.

Asking the VA to provide housing is like asking HUD to provide cancer screening. That's not what they do and they aren't set up to do it. My first impression is this is Ben Carson's uninformed and misguided idea of cutting funding for the sake of cutting funding

Then the magic of privatization will come along and fix all the problems.

The sinister underlying decision is similar to the tax plan. Strip all the funding for a public run program, act aghast when it collapses, blame it on government waste, hand control over to some company to make profits from tax dollars.

[GMDino]

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/08/569235077/tax-bill-could-offer-new-way-to-funnel-political-cash-and-make-it-tax-deductible

Quote:Tax Bill Could Offer New Way To Funnel Political Cash — And Make It Tax-Deductible


Wealthy Americans may get a new conduit for political money in the tax overhaul bill now being reconciled on Capitol Hill.

A small provision in the House version of the bill would let big donors secretly give unlimited amounts to independent political groups — and write off the contributions as charitable gifts.

"You not only get to help that candidate with a big contribution, it's not going to be publicized and you're going to be able to take a tax deduction on top of it," said Michael Franz, a political scientist, who analyzes political advertising with the Wesleyan Media Project.

The change would echo — or possibly dwarf — the influx of unregulated, undisclosed campaign money brought about by two Supreme Court decisions over the past decade.
Those rulings permitted unlimited contributions to tax-exempt "social welfare" groups engaging in politics. The groups operate under Section 501©(4) of the tax code and don't disclose their donors.

The conservative Koch brothers network and other ideological warriors, on both sides, deploy social welfare groups. Their TV ads tend to be negative, even caustic, helping to make campaigns more divisive.

Trump's Charity Had 3 Big Donors Last Year. None Of Them Was Donald Trump

The tax overhaul bill offers a potentially much bigger loophole — one that political operatives will try to drive right through. It would politicize a different set of tax-exempt groups: 501©(3) charity organizations, through which donors can take tax deductions for their contributions.

"This is going to create, possibly, tax-deductible electioneering," Franz said.
The provision would repeal the Johnson Amendment — a bit of tax law from 63 years ago.

POLITICS
Congress Passes Bill To Avert Shutdown For 2 Weeks

Lyndon Johnson, who later became president, was running for re-election to the Senate then. And two Texas millionaires were using charitable organizations to attack him.

So Johnson amended a tax bill with language to shut them down. It says 501©(3) groups cannot endorse or attack candidates.

Although the Johnson Amendment is almost never enforced, religious conservatives have been driving to repeal it, and President Trump is with them.

"I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution," Trump said last winter at the National Prayer Breakfast. "I will do that. Remember."

Repeal would allow clergy to promote or attack candidates from the pulpit. But it could have a downside for them, too.

"If religious figures can do outright endorsements of candidates, they will be pressured to endorse candidates," said professor Leslie Lenkowsky, who studies philanthropy at Indiana University.

As originally drafted, the repeal provision applied only to religious organizations. But House Republicans broadened it to apply to all 501©(3) entities.

"You know, we are on a slippery slope here," Lenkowsky added.

The IRS says there are more than 1.3 million charitable organizations – roughly 15 times more than all 501©(4) groups.

If the repeal provision becomes law, the IRS is in no condition to set strict rules. It's still crippled by a three-year controversy over its bid to regulate political social welfare groups.

It appears consultants could do what they did with social welfare groups: create new ones, with anodyne names, to funnel money from America's richest donors into the political system.

And all of it would be tax-deductible.

[GMDino]

And now, more from the Gang that couldn't shoot straight....

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/12/republican-lawmakers-criticize-graduate-student-tax-in-their-own-bill/#

Quote:Republican Lawmakers Criticize Graduate Student Tax in Their Own Bill


It’s not just graduate students who are crying foul over a House Republican plan to impose a massive new tax burden on them—some House Republicans are joining their cause.

In a letter to their party’s leaders in the House and Senate, 31 Republican House members criticized a provision in their chamber’s tax plan that imposes an income tax on graduate students’ tuition waivers, which give free or discounted enrollment to students who teach or perform research as part of their degree programs.

“A tax on graduate tuition waivers would be unfair, would undermine our competitive position, and would inhibit the economic growth that tax reform promises,” the letter states. It further notes that the policy undermines the goals of tax reform—“to fuel economic growth, create jobs, and raise wages”—contending that a well-educated workforce is necessary to do so.


Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) led the effort, following office visits with graduate students and schools in his district who came to Washington to voice their concerns. House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said at the American Enterprise Institute last Tuesday that the tax on tuition waivers was part of an attempt to “go down to the bones of the tax code” and simplify it. All of the co-signers on Sessions’ letter voted in favor of the House tax bill last month.

According to the most recent data from the National Center for Education Statistics, 145,000 graduate students received tuition waivers in the 2011-2012 school year. By counting tuition waivers as income, the House plan would hike students’ tax bills by thousands of dollars. According to data provided by the National Association of Graduate-Professional Students, a typical student receiving a waiver for in-state tuition at the University of California, Berkeley, valued at around $24,000 per year as well as a teaching stipend would pay an additional $2,400 in taxes, while a student at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where annual tuition runs more than $37,000, would owe an additional $10,000. The shift would present a hardship to these students, who, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, earn an average annual wage of only about $36,000.

The tuition waiver tax is just one of several proposals across the House and Senate tax plans that raise taxes on universities and their students. Both plans propose a tax on private universities’ investment earnings if they maintain funds above a certain per-student threshold. (The House plan affects schools with funds of more than $250,000 per student, while the Senate plan targets schools above $500,000.) The House bill also scraps a provision that allows individuals to deduct up to $2,500 of interest paid on student loans and eliminates two existing tuition tax credits. The American Council on Education, an advocacy organization that represents more than 1,800 colleges and universities, estimated that House bill would increase students’ total cost by more than $65 billion between 2018 and 2027.

The letter echoes arguments by university students, administrators, and advocates, who say the provision discourages scholarship and innovation that spur economic growth. Almost 50 higher education advocacy organizations joined the American Council of Education in a letter that described the tuition waivers as “critical to the research endeavor at major universities,” especially STEM fields, and called the tax plan “not in America’s national interest.” Graduate students across the country have expressed their outrage at rallies, walk-outs, and “grade-ins”—takeovers of university administrative buildings to grade papers and exams, a chief graduate student responsibility. On Tuesday, eight graduate students were arrested while demonstrating outside of House Speaker Paul Ryan’s office in the Capitol.

Both the House and Senate have passed their versions of tax reform, and as they come together to reconcile their differences in a joint committee, there’s reason to believe the tax on tuition waivers won’t make it into the final bill. In response to a question from a graduate student at last week’s American Enterprise Institute visit, Rep. Brady said he would reexamine the House language in light of colleagues’ concerns, a commitment he echoed during his regular press gaggle on Capitol Hill on Thursday. Senate Finance Committee press secretary Katie Niederee, in a statementto Inside Higher Ed, said that committee chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) remains committed to preserving the Senate’s language, which does not include the provision.



Read the full letter below:

Letter is at the link.