President Trump Tweets There Will Be NO Change To Your 401(k)!

IWB ^ | Ruby Henley

[davikkm]

If you are considered a “middle class worker,” you are about to be sucker-punched by a Republican proposal to alter the treatment of 401(k) contributions, which could make it much harder for you to save.”

I am happy to report today President Trump just tweeted there will be NO change to the 401(k) Savings and Retirement Plan in his Tax Reform.  

“There will be NO change to your 401(k). This has always been a great and popular middle class tax break that works, and it stays!”

[DoodleDawg]

Just as Trump’s campaign health care proposals looked nothing like what Congress passed, his tax plan bears very little resemblance to the tax plan that Congress is crafting.

[catnipman]

“If it’s fake news then why isn’t Ryan and McConnell and friends denying it? “

Uh, because the never-trumpers generate thousands of pieces of fake news every day and because it’s better to just ignore most of it since denial gives the lies more free publicity and the fake stream media has led people to believe denials mean the fake news must be true?

[clee1]

And every last poster on this thready misses the REAL point: demographics.

America, and other westernized economies, have AGING populations. Fewer workers are supporting the unproductive and the retired.

EVERY use of tax dollars needs to be critically scrutinized, and EVERY entitlement needs to be means-tested. Welfare, of every form MUST be heavily curtailed.

Thems the facts, folks. The rest is just nibbling around the edges.

[DoodleDawg]

Uh, because the never-trumpers generate thousands of pieces of fake news every day and because it’s better to just ignore most of it since denial gives the lies more free publicity and the fake stream media has led people to believe denials mean the fake news must be true?

Oh so now they're ignoring fake news? Good to know.

[dynoman]

I note you never gave me a quote from a primary named source actually working on tax reform stating that SALT and charitable contribution tax deductions will be going away.

Did you ever find one?

[Sequoyah101]

We all have our own risk tolerance regarding how much coverage we want for our nest egg. Far as I’m concerned the 4pct rule is bunk and more like 2.5pct plus at least 100pct contingency. One can’t afford to be wrong on this.

[WVMnteer]

Based on some of the deals he made over the years....maybe.

I don’t think Trump has ever liked the nuts and bolts of negotiations in real estate, and he certainly doesn’t in politics.

As he made clear during the health care debacle, he will sign ANYTHING that he can call a repeal of Obamacare or tax reform.

[WVMnteer]

And the biggest welfare program is the country are Social Security and Medicare.

Good luck with that.

[catnipman]

“As he made clear during the health care debacle, he will sign ANYTHING that he can call a repeal of Obamacare or tax reform.”

saying and signing are two different things. DID he actually sign anything?

[SkyPilot]

I note you never gave me a quote from a primary named source actually working on tax reform stating that SALT and charitable contribution tax deductions will be going away.

A good and fair question dynoman.

Not sure what parameters you require for a "primary source." We do not yet have the final language that will go up for a vote, because it isn't even written yet. What we do have is what has already passed the Senate, what is being written, what Congressmen and their staffs have leaked to the press, and what the President has said.

As for the SALT elimination, the Senate had an actual vote to eliminate the deduction last week.

Senate votes to eliminate state and local tax deductions

If you Google state and local tax deduction and hit news, you will find all kinds of information.

[clee1]

Well, in a sense you are correct. Most people take out of those systems than they ever put in. Also, the Constitution says NOTHING about healthcare or retirement income.

People DID pay into those systems, so they deserve some return from them. But politicians need to be honest (yeah, right) and tell the people the facts: we cannot possibly pay out what was promised. Therefore, if you have $$$, you don’t need the public trough. (means testing).

Its a bad deal for the wealthy, but they have the money to stand the hit without suffering. Medicare is rife with waste, fraud, and abuse from end to end.

[freedumb2003]

>>We all have our own risk tolerance regarding how much coverage we want for our nest egg. Far as I’m concerned the 4pct rule is bunk and more like 2.5pct plus at least 100pct contingency. One can’t afford to be wrong on this.<<

Well, that is a really low risk tolerance. So you need double your magic number?

As for 4 vs 2.5 — I am in the middle and have done all my projections based on 3.

I can’t find a good estimator for young people since they all assume a static salary and base retirement costs on today’s costs. I can’t find one that can build in salary increases over time and projecting realistic costs.

I will keep looking just b/c you have me curious if your formula is really what is needed. My personal experience is no (even if I cut my magic number in 1/2 I would still be comfortable just won’t be able to travel like I want to).

[dynoman]

I saw references to that, saw one that said the amendment didn’t eliminate it. So don’t know what to believe. I tried to find the actual amendment to the budget bill but couldn’t. Did you find the actual text of the amendment that supposedly eliminated SALT?

Here are the current MSM headlines;

The State and Local Tax Deduction Might End.
House GOP Moves Toward Keeping Partial State and Local Tax .
Partial Repeal of the State and Local Tax Deduction
GOP lawmakers may be close to compromise on state, local tax

It’s all over, can’t form a conclusion from the media reports. So we have to find a copy of the amendment they voted on.

[SkyPilot]

Correct - it's not in stone yet.

What the Senate voted on was an amendment to keep the reduction. That was defeated 51-47 (or close to that).

The GOP leadership has consistently stated that the deduction must eliminated, or else there is no way to "pay for" the cuts by slashing the corporate rate (they need $1.5 Trillion over ten years from the taxpayers to make up for the lost tax revenue - and that will come from eliminating the deduction).

I have not read the latest to see if there would be an income cap, although Peter King proposed that last week, and Ryan said he would reject it.

If the House does not have the votes, then they will have to compromise.

It may be down to the wire.

[FewsOrange]

24,000 if you are 50+

[dynoman]

Here’s the budget bill, it’s got 456 amendments.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/71

This is the amendment;

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/115th-congress/senate-amendment/1393

This is who introduced amendment 1393;

https://www.congress.gov/member/shelley-capito/C001047

Here’s a link to the PDF congressional record for October 19, you can search it for Capito and see what she and others said about the amendment 1393;

https://www.congress.gov/crec/2017/10/19/CREC-2017-10-19-pt1-PgS6593-8.pdf

Here’s some commentary;

“Senator CAPITO has an alternative
amendment that is incredibly vague
and leaves the door open to eliminating
State and local. It doesn’t say it will,
but it leaves it open. That is why a coalition
of groups, including the National
Governors Association, the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, and organizations
representing firefighters, teachers,
and sheriffs have just come out
against Senator CAPITO’s amendment.”

“Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I
ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed
with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To help provide tax relief to middle-
class Americans by reducing deductibility,
for Federal tax purposes, of federal
deductions, such as the state and local tax
deduction which disproportionally favors
high-income individuals)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3 lll. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND
RELATING TO TAX RELIEF FOR
HARD-WORKING MIDDLE-CLASS
AMERICANS.
The Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations
of a committee or committees, aggregates,
and other appropriate levels in this
resolution, and make adjustments to the
pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or more bills,
joint resolutions, amendments, amendments
between the Houses, motions, or conference
reports relating to changes in Federal tax
laws, which may include reducing federal deductions,
such as the state and local tax deduction
which disproportionally favors highincome
individuals, to ensure relief for middle-
income taxpayers, by the amounts provided
in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase
the deficit over either the period of
the total of fiscal years 2018 through 2027.

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Madam
President.
I would like to speak, for my 1
minute, about this amendment, which
prioritizes tax relief for the middle
class over the State and local tax deduction,
which disproportionately benefits
the wealthy and high earners.
Only 1 percent of the State and local
deduction benefits go to taxpayers who
earn less than $50,000 annually. Tax reform
means higher wages, lower taxes
for middle-class workers. To unlock
these benefits, we must reduce expensive
deductions that do little to benefit
everyday Americans. Keeping the State
and local tax deduction without modification
would cost more than $1 trillion
over 10 years. That money would
be better spent on relief for the middle
class.
Middle-class workers will benefit
from the enhanced 0-percent bracket,
enhanced child tax credit, and lower
rates that will be part of this reform.
We cannot let an unwillingness to reduce
deductions for the wealthy stand
in the way of relief for the middle-class
working folks of this great country.
I hope my colleagues will join me in
prioritizing middle-class families by
supporting this amendment.”

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator
from Oregon.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I rise
in strong opposition to the Capito
amendment. More than half the tax-ayers
claiming the State and local deduction
make less than $100,000. These
hard-working, middle-class folks are
not going to appreciate Congress double-
taxing them.
The fact is, the Capito amendment is
Washington lingo that would produce a
Republican tax plan that hits the middle
class, yet again, with more taxes.
Under Capito, you could again have one
hand giveth and the other hand taketh
away. You might have the Republicans
say let’s double the standard deduction,
but then when those middle-class
folks lose their deduction for State and
local taxes and their personal exemptions,
they are in a big hole.
Reject this amendment, reject
sleight-of-hand tax policy and those approaches
like this that hurt hard-working,
middle-class families.
I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask
for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a
sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. MENENDEZ)
is necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there
any other Senators in the Chamber desiring
to vote?
The result was announced—yeas 52,
nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 226 Leg.]
YEAS—52
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS—47
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Menendez
The amendment (No. 1393) was agreed
to.

[dynoman]

This was the wording of the amendment that was passed;

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To help provide tax relief to middle-
class Americans by reducing deductibility, for Federal tax purposes, of federal deductions, such as the state and local tax deduction which disproportionally favors
high-income individuals)

At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3 lll. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO TAX RELIEF FOR HARD-WORKING MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICANS.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution, and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to changes in Federal tax laws, which may include reducing federal deductions, such as the state and local tax deduction which disproportionally favors high income individuals, to ensure relief for middle - income taxpayers, by the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2018 through 2027.

[SkyPilot]

such as the state and local tax deduction which disproportionally favors high income individuals, to ensure relief for middle - income taxpayers

Well, since that’s a lie about only high income tax payers getting the benefit, and the fact that raising the tax will not benefit the middle class, I wish the law didn’t have teeth. But I guess politicians can lie all they want.

[dynoman]

Buried in my big post is Capito’s comment on the amendment. She’s a republican.

“Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Madam President.

I would like to speak, for my 1 minute, about this amendment, which prioritizes tax relief for the middle class over the State and local tax deduction, which disproportionately benefits the wealthy and high earners.

Only 1 percent of the State and local deduction benefits go to taxpayers who earn less than $50,000 annually. Tax reform means higher wages, lower taxes for middle-class workers. To unlock these benefits, we must reduce expensive deductions that do little to benefit everyday Americans. Keeping the State and local tax deduction without modification would cost more than $1 trillion over 10 years. That money would be better spent on relief for the middle class.

Middle-class workers will benefit from the enhanced 0-percent bracket, enhanced child tax credit, and lower rates that will be part of this reform. We cannot let an unwillingness to reduce deductions for the wealthy stand in the way of relief for the middle-class working folks of this great country.

I hope my colleagues will join me in prioritizing middle-class families by supporting this amendment.”

[dynoman]

“Only 1 percent of the State and local deduction benefits go to taxpayers who earn less than $50,000 annually. “

Is that true or not. Would have to research it.