Posted on 11/02/2017 4:41:47 PM PDT by Mariner
House Republicans released a sweeping tax overhaul Thursday that would limit or end many of the most popular tools used to minimize how much Americans owe— particularly in high-cost areas like California -- including lowering the cap on mortgage interest deductions and eliminating write-offs of state income taxes.
The much-anticipated rollout launches a grueling legislative process that will test GOP unity in the coming weeks as the party struggles to deliver one of President’s Trump’s top priorities.
The plan would immediately slash the corporate tax rate to 20% from 35% and streamline individual rates from seven brackets into four.
In addition to ending write-offs of state and local income taxes, mortgage interest deductions would be limited to new loans of no more than $500,000, down from the current $1 million. Deductions for second homes would no longer be allowed. Property tax deductions would be capped at $10,000.
Popular 401(k) retirement savings plans used by many Americans were untouched by the bill, despite some efforts to restrict those tax-deferred accounts in a effort to pay for cuts elsewhere.
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said the plan — the most ambitious attempt to overhaul the U.S. tax code in generations — would save the average American family $1,182 a year.
President Trump praised it as a “massive tax cut for American families” that will lead to the creation of more jobs. He wants Congress to pass the legislation by year end.
“We’re working to give the American people a giant tax cut for Christmas,” Trump said at the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Taxes are NEVER “Fair”. Try being single. I get shafted by supporting couples, people with kids,schools etc, IT IS NEVER fair!! I want a flat tax with no deductions. Not going to happen.
Most States do not require paying of alimony to ex-wives. I think it is a California/NY kind of thing.
Thank you for showing us the man behind the curtain.
“I don’t want to subsidize CA homeowners.”
Texas receives $1.50 for every dollar the Texas taxpayer sends to DC.
CA receives $.78 for every dollar the CA taxpayer sends to DC.
The CA taxpayer subsidizes YOU.
What doea that mean Texas gets $1.50? The feds spend that much on what? Texas has about 20 military bases in it. That could account for a lot of the spending right there.
FixedandDilated: “How about cutting spending?” <-—THIS!
“This is Rat party envy politics, nothing more.”
I agree and share your sentiments and situation.
Here’s the good news: Political Contributions are STILL deductible.
We can donate to the DNC an amount equal to our lost deductions and come out nearly whole.
“If there is a district in Cali that goes Repuke then they aren’t going to make this their last straw.”
Tell that to Devin Nunes and Tom McClintock who are both certain to be unelected over this tax bill.
So, you are going to disregard facts so that you can continue to spout inanities?
That’s a good Freeper right there.
The California Taxpayer Subsidizes the Texas Taxpayer. That is an inarguable fact.
Both.
The analysis for the study in the report in the Atlantic says in part:
“federal spending per capita compared with every dollar paid in federal income taxes”
That dollar “paid in federal taxes” is what was paid after any tax deductions for state and local taxes. Given that so many states have much lower state and local taxes than many blue states, and thus get no where near the same reduction in federal taxes due to such deductions, it was an unequal measure, because everyone’s federal taxes are higher due in part to those deductions.
Why should there be federal rewards for people who vote to tax themselves more at the state and local level? There shouldn’t be.
And given the progressive mentality of from each according to his ability to each according to its need, why should federal spending give a proportionate share back to every state? Does not “national priorities” mean “where needed” and not “equal payback”.
I some states want to tax themselves more, there should be no federal reduction in federal taxes for doing so. There should be no federal “gift” for taxing yourself more in the states.
As to the property tax deduction, I’d like to see it eliminated along with all income adjustments that would go with having a universal flat tax with no deductions, exemptions, exclusions or credits. Meanwhile, yes the deduction of the property tax should be capped. My cap would be even more severe. My cap would limit it to no more than what the property tax would be on a home whose assessed value was at the national median assessed value. Yes, I do not believe people piling into “popular” places so much that property values get considerably boosted, along with their property taxes, deserve in more “property tax deduction” do to their own choices they have made about jobs and location of residence. National medians are good measures of “the middle” (50% above & 50% below) and the middle is a good kind of cap. Those who buy/own above the median do not need government subsidy to support “home ownership” compared to those who can only afford below the median; and the whole idea of mortgage interest and property tax deductions was on the myth that without them the housing industry would come to a screeching halt. No. It only means that more affordable housing and fewer McMansions would have to get built in order to have enough buyers. Of course that would mean smaller prices (less realtors income) and smaller mortgages (less mortgage revenue for banks and such). The whole thing is sold as “for the homeowner” just as government subsidized student tuition is sold as for the student, when in reality it is all meant to benefit WHERE THE MONEY GOES - the education industrial complex, or realtors and bankers.
We’re subsidizing California businesses even more.
And not just sales and local tax.
“A better non-left source? You mean like Gateway Pundit? :P”
That rag is a sensationalist, click-bait joke.
Anyone who reads it is stupid.
You won't lose the ability to deduct it from your gross income.
“Most States do not require paying of alimony to ex-wives. “
All states require some degree of “Spousal Support”. According to the IRS that’s the very same thing as Alimony.
Maybe California is taxing to much and having the fed foot the bill. Sorry no sympathy here. My tax goes down.
Remember this is tax reform. it will smack liberal tax states right in the ass. Take it up with your local moonbats.
“What doea that mean Texas gets $1.50?”
Total Federal Expenditures in the State of Texas.
As for military bases, CA has more and bigger.
By far. Not even close.
I am fed up with you CalRinos. Get your house in order, then come lecture us.
Then they get unelected, I really don’t care. If they are only there so they can ensure that the people continue to support Dem policies then who really cares. I have no loyalty to Repukes so long as they continue to be a thorn in the side of Trump. If the Liberal state Repukes feel like supporting tax reform is a bridge too far for them he they’ve become useless
“Given that so many states have much lower state and local taxes than many blue states, and thus get no where near the same reduction in federal taxes due to such deductions, it was an unequal measure, because everyone’s federal taxes are higher due in part to those deductions.”
That actually reinforces the argument.
CA, NY etc. both pay more state tax, AND Federal tax than the parasite states. Per capita and total.
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.