Shylock is this tax bill a problem for you personally?
Most significantly, the bill would eliminate the deduction for state and local income taxes, and would cap the deduction for property taxes at $10,000.
That wouldn’t matter to the more than two-thirds of households nationwide that take the standard deduction, which would be nearly doubled under the bill. But in the New York area, high state and local taxes change the equation. In Manhattan and wealthy suburban counties, close to half of households itemize their deductions, and many could see an immediate tax increase.
December 5th, 2017 7:42pm
Three decades ago, New Yorkers defeated a similar effort to repeal the state and local tax deduction by rallying opposition from local officials across the country, said Jay Kriegel, who helped lead that lobbying effort on behalf of local business leaders. The breakneck pace of the latest tax bill left little time for a similar approach.
“Perhaps the biggest difference between ’85 and 2017 is the speed at which these people have worked,” Mr. Kriegel said. “There has not been time to have a serious discussion.”
December 5th, 2017 7:44pm
Yup. Didn't even get kissed before I got fucked.
But here's hoping against hope that the Republicans fumble this thing on the goal line. There's a lot of crap in there that they don't want. And the government shutdown will come soon.
December 5th, 2017 8:07pm
Detailed analysis by rich hedge fund guy
“It appears to us that the expected new tax law that eliminates the state and local deductions against one’s federal income taxes will significantly contribute to this dynamic. Consider the fact that this change in SALT deductibility is one of the largest increased sources of revenue in the tax bill, accounting for nearly $1 trillion in new taxes over the next 10 years. In other words, it is expected that those people who stay in high tax states will pay nearly $1 trillion more to stay there. Of course, these changed rates will prompt more people in high SALT locations to consider moving.”
December 5th, 2017 10:30pm
It also lowers the value of our houses.
December 6th, 2017 5:34am
One thing though. The governors of the civilized states are going to go jihadi on this. Legal challenges will start the second the pussy grabbers signs it.
December 6th, 2017 5:35am
I conceptually and morally object to the concept of paying tax on other taxes. That is obvious bullshit. Tax payments on income should be deductible.
Lets say you own 50% tax on $100 to 3 different entities. Should you owe $150 tax payments on that $100, or should the tax payments be deductible and tax to the next entity go on top of what's left after paying the first one. If not deductible you can owe more than you make.
December 6th, 2017 9:28am
Also I do itemized because I have business and charitable deductions in addition to the deductions to avoid double and triple income taxation, plus mortgage interest deduction (is that being eliminated too?).
I'd pay more tax under this new scheme.
Probably I'll have to just drop all the charitable donations. If I lose the mortgage deduction then I'd probably be much more likely to rent in the future.
December 6th, 2017 9:31am
Imagine if sales tax was calculated as income tax is going to be under this system.
Assume for simplicity you are in a 50% tax bracket. You buy a $100 product and sales tax is 10%. So they should charge you $20 sales tax because to get the $100 you had to earn $200 in income.
December 6th, 2017 9:32am
>mortgage interest deduction (is that being eliminated too?
I believe so.
December 6th, 2017 9:57am
December 6th, 2017 10:02am
OK. Current mortgages are grandfathered in and won't change.
You can deduct on the interest as if your house purchase is a maximum of $500k. Previously that was $1M.
A bigger change is it will only apply to ONE mortgage and has to be your primary residence.
So if you live in a $1M house and have a $1M rental property you'll only be able to deduct half your interest on your primary and NONE on the rental. That will really change the calculus for rentals and would probably kill the practice of people acquiring property for rentals. Over time rentals will dry up and just not be available, so the cost of available rentals will skyrocket. This will mostly affect lower income people who can't get a mortgage.
I do think though that the purpose of the interest deduction was supposed to be to encourage home ownership. So using it for multiple properties is kind of bullshit.
And as we know all that happened is the deduction caused home prices to rise to absorb the savings since the amount people can pay for a mortgage doesn't change market availability, so prices rose when more capital became available through the deduction.
I say kill the deduction entirely and see if home prices go down to compensate. People would pay the same as now per month, and the government would have more tax revenue.
December 6th, 2017 11:40am
Yes, I agree, the mortgage subsidy is bad policy. I wouldn't be averse to removing it via a sane, measured process. But the way they are doing it, and the reasons why they are doing it, piss me the fuck off.
December 6th, 2017 12:17pm
These raises against individuals fund what? A cut in the top rare and a big cut for corporations? Basically a transfer from blue state homeowners to corporations?
December 6th, 2017 1:16pm
Yup. It's a giant fuck you to the productive states.
December 6th, 2017 3:06pm