You're not.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
WSJ: Winners and Losers Under the Trump Tax Plan
- Thread starter Tovarisc
- Start date
You're not.
Lol. I never realized what was wrong with this until I took a closer look at the income.
This would apply for taxes on earnings in the future. They aren't going to change the number you'll use when you prepare your 2017 taxes.
You may not be.
A tax deduction essentially lowers your taxable income. Lower and middle classes shouldn't see huge changes in what they pay currently.
They all look so sad about being upper class and rich.
schwabdizzle
Banned
I am ok with this. I have a rental property and student loans so anything to increase returns is ok with me. I pay a professional to do my taxes so I try to write off everything. I honestly doubt it will be much of a change though.
Ron Mexico
Member
Pretty much this. To expand just a bit:
Doubling the standard deduction, removing the personal exemption and you're looking at a very modest increase in deductions that's nowhere near double.
Now add in going from 10 to 12% on top of that and you're squeezing the margins even more. And that's just for an individual who had been taking the standard deduction before and would continue to now.
For those with kids, those with houses (especially in the northeast and California as mentioned above) it can get way uglier.
We also have no idea where the cutoffs for those brackets will fall.
Granted, this plan will be chopped and changed in committee (not that I have a hell of a lot of faith in their ability either), but the closer this core plan comes to a reality, the uglier it's going to be.
Never forget
Operations
Member
Are you saying the wealth could trickle down?
Randolph Freelander
Member
If you're not itemizing, you have no kids, and the only thing about your taxes that changes is the standard deduction and elimination of the personal exemption, then your taxable income gets reduced by around $1500. That would be tax savings of no more than $600, and that's only if you top out in the 39.6% bracket of today. If you top out lower, your savings is lower. Someone in today's 10% bracket sees a savings of $150.
That said, those are not the only changes, as marginal rates are also changing (the lowest rate is now higher, at 12%). We don't know -- at least, I haven't read it anywhere -- where the tax brackets are projected to be. Until more info is known, we can't say who saves what and who pays more.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
So you have nothing to add but driveby posts?
I'm in a similar boat (S-Corp), but I'm a healthcare provider so maybe it wouldn't apply to me? A little confused.
I would like that as well, but right now, there are too few details for something like that. We don't even know what the income cutoffs are going to be yet.
Randolph Freelander
Member
The stockholders are hopefully all of us. (Take advantage of your 401ks and other retirement accounts, people.)
That said, a better economic stimulus would just be directly spending into the economy, cut out the nonsense about hoping the rich take their tax savings and do something useful with it.
yep the real beneficiaries will be corporations and insanely rich people.
Saint Gregory
Member
I really need to know what a "high wage earner" would be. I just moved to FL a few months ago so I was going to lose my MD state tax write-off anyway but this hig wage thing combined with losing mortgage write-offs could bury me.
The really shitty stuff will come out when they fill in the details.
They're being very vague at the moment.
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
Dumb question here but why are taxes such an issue?
You'll never make everyone happy
Is the driver here the amount people pay or is it the confusing and messy process we have? Why the need to revamp instead of modifying?
You'll never make everyone happy
Is the driver here the amount people pay or is it the confusing and messy process we have? Why the need to revamp instead of modifying?
RPGCrazied
Member
I just find it appalling he wanting to redo everyone's taxes but has the nerve not to show his. It'll show just how much of a fraud that he is.
Oh man, I remember this lol
I itemize but my itemized deductions are smaller than the proposed married standard deduction. That said, the removal of personal exemptions would make that a wash at best, but more likely a net negative.
Overall, I think my overall tax burden would be pretty much unchanged under what we know about this plan, but the wealthy would sure make out like bandits...
Also, if you have more than one kid, you would be super screwed under this plan. Losing those personal exemptions would be huge.
Overall, I think my overall tax burden would be pretty much unchanged under what we know about this plan, but the wealthy would sure make out like bandits...
Also, if you have more than one kid, you would be super screwed under this plan. Losing those personal exemptions would be huge.
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
You don't need to revamp to achieve that .. but you already knew that
Lightning_Roller
Banned
It's MAB, ignore them. Their opinion is usually terrible.
Saucycarpdog
Member
Does the bill mention anything about the corporate tax? Trump and friends kept saying they would slash it significantly.
Schattenjäger;250235084 said:
Trump's goals since around the middle of his presidential campaign have been to simplify the tax code, reduce the corporate tax burden, and to get rid of the estate tax while remaining effectively revenue neutral. Basically, a benefit to guys like him that have most of their money in stocks and investments.
And large estates to pass on.
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
Most republicans believe in latter 2 ..but why does the tax code have to be simplified to achieve that ? Most people use accountants or software to do their taxes.. who cares if it's confusing ..
It would lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% with the intent to tax the actual money-on-hand the corporations have by eliminating some of the loopholes and deductions they get. It would overall be a gigantic positive for corporations, but Trump is now saying that he's open to creating new tax brackets. He hasn't said that before. So essentially, wage earners are going to get hit with the offset.
ghostwritingduck
Member
Schattenjäger;250235084 said:
The average American doesnt like money being taken out of their paycheck. Filing taxes is pretty easy for people who are full time employees even if they have deductions and investments.
Small businesses and independent contractors have a more complicated tax situation.
Billionaires like maximizing the amount they make and taxes cut into that. Theyre smart enough to play off the rage of the millions of low wage workers who hate having money taken out of their paycheck (even though they likely pay pretty little after refunds) to push getting their taxes lowered. For good measure, they say they would employ more people if they only had a few spare millions.
Earthstrike
Member
Yes it would.
Republicans have always been about rewarding the very top. Now that they have squeezed all they possibly can out of the lower and middle class, they will start squeezing the millionaires to pay out the billionaires. This is simply a continuation of a pattern. The only thing that "shocks" me is that it is proposed so soon.
Schattenjäger;250236668 said:
The stated goal by most economists and some Republicans that want to simplify is to remove the "game" part of the tax process. They say they want to make the system clear, easy-to-understand, and difficult to abuse.
The reality for most Republicans is:
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...mplify-the-tax-code-heres-what-they-get-wrong
And I would go as far as saying cutting tax rates for the upper class specifically is the true ideal.
But, again, Trump has wanted this reform to not have an effect on revenue. Two things will have to happen in his current plan for that to work. Wages have to go up and there will either have to be more tax brackets, broader tax brackets, and/or an increased burden on all or some tax brackets.
charlequin
Banned
Although in reality, the tax code is complicated specifically because Republicans fought to keep it that way, as it was a more effective propaganda tool against "big government" than a simplified tax system would have been.
Here's my proposal:
-seize the assets of anyone with a net worth of over $1M
-nationalize every industry except for the NFL
-use these new riches to cut our taxes.
You in?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Same with Alternate Minimum Tax. Obama wanted to get rid of it too, because it is stupidly complicated, and isn't tied to inflation so it's getting less and less progressive as time goes by.
Difference is Obama's bill had a replacement in the form of the Buffett Rule, which is just if you make more than 1 million (tied to inflation) on your adjusted gross income, you pay 30% of your adjusted gross income minus charitable donations. No longer complicated, and still fulfils the spirit of AMT.
I think uncomplicating the tax code is a great idea, but republicans don't care, and just use it as codeword of completely getting rid of the taxes targeted at rich people that they don't like paying. The wall street journal shouldn't leave out the fact that repealing the AMT without replacement would make trump's 2005 tax returns even lower still.
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
Gotcha now makes a little more sense
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
I'm failing to see how this plan is simpler, reduces the need for the IRS, or puts extra money in most peoples pockets.
It seems catered to helping high-income investors and business-owners.. not small business, not the middle class, and not the poor.
It seems catered to helping high-income investors and business-owners.. not small business, not the middle class, and not the poor.
The Albatross
Member
I'm so tired of this shit post in every irrelevant WSJ article. But any article starts with WSJ: some idiot is bound to make this shit post.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
To anyone who didnt think this is just a way to fuck over blue states...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/27/thi...-plan-and-it-could-hit-democrats-hardest.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/27/thi...-plan-and-it-could-hit-democrats-hardest.html
smokeandmirrors
Banned
100%
llien
Member
Dayum, you have quite... impressive salaries in US.
Abstrusity
Member
Probably harder to shitpost when WSJ articles are actually good.
"here's some vague winners/losers stuff that glosses over the real effects of cratered government spending and an increase of 'LITERALLY OUR GDP OVER TWENTY YEARS' while also cleverly avoiding the whole 'mortgage deduction and child deductions will mean middle class and lower people will pay much more in taxes...also, let's fuck over the economic powerhouses of the US"
Basically, the WSJ article IS a shitpost. They're just piling more shit on top of it.
dynamitejim
Member
So how many House seats can we pick up in NY/NJ?