Posted on 11/19/2017 1:20:05 PM PST by Mariner
ATLANTA - A popular deduction targeted in the GOP's overhaul of the tax code is used by more than a quarter of all filers in a majority of states, including many led by Republicans where some residents eventually could see their federal tax bills rise.
The exact effect in every state isn't known, in part because of differences in the Senate and House versions of the bill. But the change to the deduction for state and local taxes could alter the bottom lines for millions of taxpayers who itemize.
Residents in high-tax, Democratic-led states appear to be the hardest hit. But some filers also could be left paying more in traditional Republican states, such as Georgia and Utah where about a third of taxpayers claim the deduction.
"It's a bad deal for middle class families and for most Georgians," said Georgia state Rep. Bob Trammell, leader of the House Democrats.
He said Republicans are eliminating the state and local deduction to help pay for tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy.
How many winners and losers are in each state depends in large part on another aspect of the Republican tax overhaul that would nearly double the standard deduction — to about $12,000 for individuals and about $24,000 for married couples.
Republicans say that provision would be a net benefit for most tax filers.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Looking at the brackets there is a small subset of people at risk of that:
Single on House bill income 200K to 416K stand to pay 2% more on income above 200K.
Senate Bill 200K - 416K is paying 2% more on income above 200K.
However both these groups pay less on the first 200K most likely enough to make up much of the difference.
Married 400K-416K an extra 2% on the Senate bill
Married 260K-470K an extra 2% in the house bill
Again in both these cases the $ earned up to 400K(Senate) or up to 260K(House) are taxed at a substantially lower rate, enough to mitigate for the 2%.
There are certainly other factors such as SALT but it seems a reasonable starting point with the Senate bill the brackets are distributed in a way that gives more Americans a tax break.
Wrong on both points. SALT is a subsidy since services are paid for with untaxed $ in high taxed states and with taxed $ in low taxed states. The child care credit is a subsidy as well. One is just unfair the other supports a necessary function of any society.
It’s ok Mariner - the last time I was called a breeder was by a liberal married couple ;)
Living 45 miles north of Sackatomatoes, if there's anybody whose word I trust less than demoniacRATS, it's the Sackatomatoes Bee.
I never said subsidizing, I said voters in irresponsible high tax states get huge federal deductions that voters in responsible states don't. To fund their irresponsible votes.
Gottcha. Well, thanks for you service. Got nothing else nice to say to you.
So, just what are you a veteran of? Where and when did you have boots on the ground?
Disabled how?
I ask because of your caustic persona here on FR. I like to know who I am dealing with. Makes it easier to decide to ignore or reply.
So, you are saying that you did not take the tax deduction for your kids when it was available?
You are correct, nobody has kids for the tax deductions. But when society in general says that children are worthless, you get the society we are now having; abortion, pedophilia, murder of newborns, etc.
And again, if you are going to claim Social Security, you know that it will be paid for by the children you are decrying right now.
And you are the one who started the name calling, I am not lying, you use that as an attack on me.
And the deduction is NOT something you are paying for, it is my earned money NOT going to the government.
You want my money to go to the government to help lighten your load.
>> BTW, being married and raising a family is not just a choice, it’s the traditional lifestyle for most middle class Americans.
And not only a tradition sustaining good values, but one that also produces future taxpayers that will sustain the fabric of the Country.
children come by various ways other than husband and wife and that being the deduction is abused by some breeders who are not really taking good care of their “investment” and just use the “investment” tax system for their own purposes. Just as some use adoption/fostering but do not really care about raising the child best.
also, the “investment” is not just for the mother and father but whatever God intends or allows for the “investment” to go thru in life, could be short or long, much good things, or jail etc.
“Investments” can appreciate in value or be a huge loss. Children are not investments imo.
When one thinks just personally, one misses the biggest benefits that have the best long-term consequences - imperfect as the plans have been, the big things they do make them worth while and the more they try to cater to all them "Conservatives who are upset they might be affected in a less than perfect way" the closer the plans get to the current status quo....
“But when society in general says that children are worthless”
So, the way we declare children to have worth is to allow a deduction for them?
I come from a world where children have intrinsic worth.
I did not get my disability in combat.
I am a Navy vet.
Fleet Air Reconnaissance Three (Tacamo)
USS Tarawa
USS Benjamin Stoddert
Navcams Westpac
With TAD assignments to:
Comseventhflt
Defense Communications Agency
White House Communications Agency
Comthirdflt
My service connected disability is mostly my hearing, though there are some lingering other, minor injuries from other events. Those are still classified until April 2028, minimum.
FYI: It’s good that we have guardians of honor on Free Republic and I don’t mind you asking. It should be a routine challenge.
You just have a really vile thought pattern, don’t you?
Children do have an intrinsic worth, I was talking about what Society, in general, seems to be saying in this age and time.
However, you are bringing up money in everything you say.
I am beginning to wonder if you have any intrinsic worth.
God says that you do, but I am not as forgiving as God.
This post was about taxes, and somehow you converted it to a discussion about the relative worth of children. And what society seems to be saying about that.
Drama much?
And whether you think I have intrinsic worth is not a concern of mine.
Besides use of the word “breeders”, there’s nothing offensive about that post.
And many would not think that word offensive.
I didn’t know it was common to the homo world. I had only heard it used in SciFi.
Reworded, it is as follows:
“Parents are a minority. If you can’t afford to support your own children, don’t have them”.
You were emotionally triggered by a word and saw or heard or understood nothing after that.
I know I am persona non gratis but how could parents be a minority if only 1 in 6 men and 13% of women have passed through their reproductive years without having a child?
Currently minorities by definition.
At least until/unless they have kids.
Oops, I misread that.
Folks currently taking the children’s deductions and exemptions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.