[Mariner]

In CA, NY, NJ and IL there are 34 Republican House members.

None will vote for this bill as it would be suicide for them.

Their core constituency gets hammered.

[TangledUpInBlue]

That’s likely very true. Although I have to say, it would be easier to understand this summary if there weren’t so many typos in it. Cripes.

I’m sure my inbox will fill up with blasts from CPA firms by this afternoon, but I have to say, the only negative way this would impact me is by limiting the deduction for real estate taxes. (and even then, not by much)

Repealing the AMT is BIG win. Reducing rates is a big win. Lowering the Corporate rate would spur economic investment and development the likes I’ve never seen in my 30 year tax career. Not even under Reagan.

If they could factor in a low rate/one time repatriation of offshore earnings, we’d be up to our necks in job growth. We wouldn’t have to worry about making up for lost revenue. It’s so friggin’ obvious. My colleagues and I discuss this all the time but for some reason, the lobbyists don’t include such a measure.

[SkyPilot]

In CA, NY, NJ and IL there are 34 Republican House members. None will vote for this bill as it would be suicide for them. Their core constituency gets hammered.

They last framework bill passed 216-212. In that one, all of the California Republicans voted for the Senate version of the budge. I am not sure they will have them this time. While the latest tax bill does allow for some property tax deduction relief, that primarily helps states like NY and NJ. However, taxpayer in CA pay more in local and state taxes in other areas, because of Proposition 13. Therefore, I am not certain Paul Ryan will have the CA House GOP votes.

As we have been discussing for weeks, this bill is a disaster for millions of taxpayers. Because they wanted it to be "revenue neutral" - they chose to pick winners and losers. The clear winners are the corporations. The losers will be millions of middle class families, many who will have their Federal taxes raised under this bill.

Yes, I know that cutting taxes on corporations will lead to growth, and generate more revenue. That isn't the point. The GOP chose to raise taxes on millions of other Americans in order to "pay for" the cuts to corporations. Anyone who disputes that basic fact is dishonest or completely ignorant of the facts.

[umgud]

I would lose big in this considering my California status. Biggest hit for me would be to lose state/local taxes deductions.

[1Old Pro]

None will vote for this bill as it would be suicide for them. Their core constituency gets hammered.

Unless they get their states to cap local taxes to 10,000. Frankly my school taxes are higher than that - it's robbery. We need school reform in NYS.

[SJackson]

In CA, NY, NJ and IL there are 34 Republican House members. sweeping tax bill, Mariner wrote: In CA, NY, NJ and IL there are 34 Republican House members. None will vote for this bill as it would be suicide for them.

I think you're right. And then there's WI, MI, OH, MO. All high tax states, just not the big 3. I predict a compromise on that issue, or defeat. Likely an issue in the Senate as well.

[xzins]

We need to see the brackets and whether they are rigid 4 rates or if they graduate between rates.

The brackets are the key.

The top 5% were subject to the AMT anyway, so they are probably ok.

It’s the 25% to 6% that worries me. They could be getting screwed depending on brackets and graduation between brackets.

How I long for a simple national sales tax only.

[usconservative]

In CA, NY, NJ and IL there are 34 Republican House members. None will vote for this bill as it would be suicide for them. Their core constituency gets hammered.

As a resident of the People's Socialist RepuliK of Illinois I think I'm pretty qualified to comment here.

First, you're right: None of the 34 Republican House Members will vote for it (and neither will any Democrat in the above states either, btw) which would effectively kill President Trump's proposed Tax Reform.

Second, you're right: people like me in Illinois would get hammered even more, tax wise. Allow me to expand on that point while I'm at it:

This may be the impetus needed for voters in high tax states to make changes in their state legislatures and gubernatorial offices. Maybe that's the goal here too. What President Trump is trying to do from a tax perspective to improve the OVERALL business climate in the United States is to reduce the FEDERAL Tax Burden.

If high tax states such as the one that I currently live in can't get their fiscal houses in order two things are going to happen: (1) their populations will continue to decrease (as Illinois is doing...) and (2) Their tax burdens will become so overbearing the state will implode from its overburdensome debt.

Illinois is already imploding and under these conditions no business in its right mind would move here. This tax reform will simply accelerate the implosion and I say GOOD! Like an alcoholic that needs to hit bottom before finally stopping drinking, Illinois liberal politicians need to run out of other people's money and not be able to borrow any more before this state frankly gets its financial shit together.

The impetus being the Trump Tax Reform making living here even more costly which may be the final straw that breaks the voters backs in this state to throw all the worthless bums out of office.

I don't see this as a bad thing even though yes, I'll get hammered tax-wise if I continue to live in this state. I'm close enough to the Indiana border that I can pick up and vote with my feet and my dollars and leave Illinois which is what I'll do.

I say bring on the tax reform!

[newgeezer]

In CA, NY, NJ and IL there are 34 Republican House members. None will vote for this bill as it would be suicide for them. Their core constituency gets hammered.

Supposedly, they're proposing doubling the standard deduction. With that, along with lowering tax rates, it could be a wash or even a net positive for most people.

But, good luck getting the facts to the folks amidst all the noise.

[xzins]

I’m not in a high tax state and the bracket numbers they released say that I’m getting screwed.

12%
single.....12,000 to 45,000
married....24,000 to 90,000

25%
Single.....45,000 to 200,000
Married....90,000 to 260,000

35%
Single.....200,000 to 500,000
married....260,000 to 1,000,000

39.6%
Single.....500,000 and higher
married....1,000,000 and higher

From -
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-brackets-gop-plan-150300075.html

[CottonBall]

Only some areas of California have ridiculously priced homes. Inland, house prices are no different than most of the rest of the country. That’s where we lived, and when we moved to Texas we actually paid more for a comparable house.

And I would bet in the expensive areas, those are the blue areas. San Diego, Los Angeles, the bay area. This may not affect very many house Republicans after all.

[socal_parrot]

Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said he’s for the deal for the good of the entire country. All 14 CA GOP members of the house voted for the budget bill that proceeded this.

[gleeaikin]

My late father was living in Jersey City in 1998. His house was valued at less than 1/2 of mine in another city but his property taxes were higher. I was shocked.