I justed started reading Trump's tax reform. After a few days of media outrage I wanted to find out what has changed for better or worse. Will post my findings in this thread + I want to be able to ask questions to some american posters.
>pic semi-related
Other urls found in this thread:
sankeymatic.com
taxplancalculator.com
twitter.com
1. Why are there 2 versions
-> House version
-> Senate version
Which one will be the new tax plan?
To me the House's version seems to best. It creates an incentive to marry.
Bracket $0 -> $90 000 has a marginal tax rate of only 12%
tell me about the ghent system
2. Both double the standard deduction for married couples to $24 000.
This looks like the biggest gift any low and middle class income family can recieve.
If you earn $90k/year
90k-24k = 66k taxable income
66k * 0.12 = $7920 => the taxes you''ll need to pay on a 90k income
> Both the House and Senate bills would eliminate the personal exemption, which is currently set at $4,150 in 2018.
So you'll lose $4150 in deductibles but at the same time you gained 12k in deductibles so I don''t see any problem here yet.
Also in the case of a married couple, can both use the personal exemption? or can they ony file one personal exemption of $4150?
> The House bill would raise the child tax credit to $1,600 from $1,000 and providing filers, spouses and non-child dependents with a temporary $300 credit.
Again this seems like a pretty sweet deal. I do have some questions concerning the budget
So how is this only a tax cut on the rich that harms the middle class? How does lowering taxes on the middle class harm the middle class?
I don't get this either. I really am dumbfounded by this blatantly lying in the media concerning this bill
> married couples can currently deduct interest on mortgages worth up to $1,000,000; that would fall to $500,000.
> The House and Senate will scrap the deduction for state and local income and sales taxes. The state and local tax (SALT) deduction disproportionately benefits high earners, who are more likely to itemize.
The house bill would raise the estate tax exemption for single filers to $10 million from $5.6 million in 2018 and repeal the tax entirely after six years
--
This is the only direct thing that looks like it would only benefit the rich. But to be honest I strongly oppose estate taxes as a whole. The state shouldn't be able to tax you on something you've purchased.
Alright Belgium man, I know you're very interested in the tax plan of a country that you don't live in, but can we let some other people post here? There's a 1500 character limit you can just dump it all in one post and bump everytime the thread reaches page 9.
...
You didn't see a problem with people making less than $100k having to pay more than 10% and people making over 1.5 million having to pay less than 70%?
You're a fucking shill. KYS
>Why are there 2 versions
the house and senate will have to reconcile the differences before sending it to the WH. I like the house one better as well
Bump.
The people making these claims include two extra classes: poverty and welfare. Poverty pays no taxes already and welfare eats taxes. Anyone outside of these two classes, to them, are “the wealthy”; but you are more familiar with them as “the taxpayers”.
Why should the government ever be allowed to treat its citizens as anything but individuals?
Because marriages and families create a more stable and happy economy. Incentives to achieve this should be applauded
Then you can extend this incentive to the individual child rather than the joint parents and increase the subsidy if the child has two cohabitating legal guardians. This is actually superior as many couples get married and receive tax breaks without producing children, especially with homosexual marriage.
Outlaw all marriage and put in place a system that actually achieves your goals.
I was still living in this memory
You using Qlik to generate that data visualization?
Any other reasons for the government not to treat its citizens as individuals?
They use trickery and half truths.
1. They say tax will raise on the middle class. The tax cuts aren't permanent and have to get voted on to continue, so it's technically true that taxes will raise again if they let it expire.
2. It saves more money for the rich than middle class. This is true too, but not because it cutting more taxes for the roch, but because the rich have a bigger pool of money getting taxed so obviously they will be saving a bigger amount.
It's just Jewish type trickery they are using to make it seem like a bad deal.
Also, liberals in NY and Cali will be paying more because they can't deduct their state taxes anymore. Instead of getting mad at the state for having such high taxes, they're getting mad at the tax bill for making them pay their fair share.
But I also hear claims that this tax plan hurts the "middle class". Since when did a family taking welfare get considered middle-class to democrats?
For a long time now, according to Dems, you're either the middle class or the top 1 percent.
keep in mind you have state taxes in the US as well, and you have to put some money aside for contributions/pension/private health insuranace
>1.
That seems like a good rallying point. "Don't worry if you hate these tax cuts, once dems get back in power we'll remove them in a heartbeat." Though that goes against their doomsday narrative.
>2. It saves more money for the rich than middle class.
Yes, and? I guess it depends on how much you buy into income inequality destroying your purchasing power, but it goes against all economic incentives to refuse more money just because someone else will get even more money. Now that's envy.
>Also, liberals in NY and Cali will be paying more because they can't deduct their state taxes anymore.
Why would the federal government allow this in the first place? Have democrats been giving secret tax breaks to lure voters this whole time?
is a couple grand really enough to sway you? you realize the cuts in programs across the board including medical care and the ACA will end up costing you those extra couple grand...fucking sheep
>implying democrats can into socialism
You're better off keeping your money. I know some European countries can run a decent system but American politicians utterly suck at implementing a European welfare state.
Only 122 million Americans pay taxes at all. If you take the bottom half, zero of them pay taxes.
A huge problem with the left is they always selectively redefine words in the public lexicon as a tool for deception. By their definition, the “middle” statistic is entirely made up of welfare and poverty class, where as the right does not even consider welfare and poverty class when talking about lower and middle classes. A lower class citizen to the right includes someone who is no longer getting a full refund on their taxes; the left views the generational welfare class as lower class.
>Why would the federal government allow this in the first place?
It's been part of the income tax system since the very beginning. Nobody's had the political will to change it before, but at this particular point in history, the Republicans can eliminate this benefit (which hurts their opposition) while helping their base.
>what are corporations
Do you approve of that arrangement?
Also, corps are treated as individuals.
POST HOW MUCH YOU WILL SAVE! MY RESULTS IN PIC RELATED!
Note: If you have zero (or negative such as EITC) tax liability, this calculator will not work accurately for you. Gibsmedats need not apply. Also, make sure to input your income minus any tax deferred contributions like 401k or HSA. Moving expenses, student loan interest, and tuition are no longer deductible under House bill. If you have those deductions: Run calculator twice, both with & without them as income, to see the impact.
THIS IS FUCKING AMAZING! MY TAXES RE NEARLY CUT IN HALF
I'm going to keep shilling my results and this awesome calculator until the shills talking shit about this massive tax cut fuck off.
>Also, corps are treated as individuals.
I'd rather they not be (they're just a collection of individuals after all), but then again after a certain point you can't be solely responsible for everything your company does.
Sorry for being poor, unmarried, and childless. But at least I'm not a NEET.
Many. It is harder to commit fraud when families have to file a joint return, or share deductibles. Filinf individually makes it easier to get things double counted.
i'd save money, this especially, as its the only year i've been gainfully employed for the majoity of the year
The only reason there is civilization in America is because of Companies, like the Virginia Company. To not treat organizations of people as ditinct from them is the most ludicrously backwards idea ive heard in years. Groups of people hokding things separately from what any individual holds on their own is the very idea of civilization. If the goverbment cannot hold anyone as anything other than an individual, then what is the government itself? Where would the line be between the military and anyone with a weapon? Gtfoh
Also, that term is so misused. Wjat it means is that from a legal standpoint, a corporation, as a legal entity, is treated as a single individual legal entity. This is a very straightforward principle. It does not apply to something like a partnership or a conglomerate, or a holding, or (insert different contractural structure). The arrangement of liability is of central importance to all business. You cant simply erase the concept of non-atomized liability because the language makes you confused.