Republican Tax Plan

Water Cooler
#21

But then people will be rushing to buy all the $600k houses, driving their prices to $1MM.

#22

Or all the $1MM+ homes aren’t selling, thereby forcing homeowners to lower their asking prices…

#OnTheFlipSide

#23

This is some fed up bullish!t right here. You can’t buy a home for under 500k in the major cities

#24

^ thats the point. everything in this tax bill is to pubish the coastal lib elites that dont vote for them anyway and give more to the “real americans” in the heartland while also stuffing as much money as they can in their pockets

#25

I completely agree, but a lot of other stuff would have to change too…like eliminating income tax altogether. As you say, that’s another topic.

#26

There is one house for sale in my town under 500k (475k) it’s a 2br, 1 bath, and 1100 sqrft. It’s dated on a very small lot in a congested/commercial area. House has taxes of 12k.

I don’t like the mortgage interest deduction either, but it’s the law of the land and changing it will have disastrous effects on current home prices, particularly around the new price point. The housing market has made adjustments around the current tax breaks (likely painful for some whenever the changes were first made), they shouldn’t eff with it now just to raise revenue for tax break elsewhere. If they want to cut taxes they should cut spending first.

#27

why not add a renter deduction. dont most of the folks in da middle rent?

#28

Try buying a home anywhere in coastal California for $500,000! Just get rid of interest deduction altogether.

#29

seems weird that they would use a loan balance as a benchmark. why not just cap the overall benefit as a tax credit? you can write off mortgage interest up to a $5,000 tax credit or something like that.

#30

so they can advertise a larger number to make stupid people feel better until they actually file most likely

#31

Meanwhile, lost in all of this, the carried interest loophole inexcusably lives on.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-02/carried-interest-loophole-preserved-in-house-republican-tax-bill

#32

^hahahahahhaha; nice catch.

#33

Three things about carried interest:

  1. I have no idea how much tax is lost/saved by the carried interest “loophole”. But I imagine that it is enough to fund the government for about thirty seconds.

  2. In light of #1, I suppose that this “carried interest” nonsense is more for show, or in the name of social policy, rather than as a revenue-raiser.

  3. I imagine that most (if not all) of these hedge fund managers are subject to AMT, which means they are paying an effective rate of at least 31.8%. (28% AMT plus 3.8% Obamacare)

#34

I don’t care if it funds the government for one nanosecond, there’s no coherent argument for why that loophole should exist in the first place. Also, I’m not sure how point #3 is relevant given that AMT is getting the ax as part of this proposal.

#35

What kind of nonsense are you spitting out greenman? Go file my 1040ez

#36

https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/trump-tax-reform-calculator?skn=

#37

Will save me a few thousand compared to the 2017 calculator which surprises me. I must be interpreting the limited details incorrectly, as I thought it would cost me a few thousand.

#38

It’s sort of the principle of the thing. They looked everywhere for revenue even considered 401ks and retirement plans, but things like the estate tax and carried interest loophole are off the table?

Also, I don’t understand the carried interest loophole in depth but my understanding is that the income received from investment advisory services received through the GP in a partnership is taxed at capital gains rates not basic income? How is this fee considered a capital gain? I mean is this a complete giveaway to managers of long term portfolios or is there a reasonable reason this fee is taxed this way.

#39

The tax rationale is that the performance fee (promote, etc.) is a share of the profits in the portfolio, rather than a management fee.

#40

Is there really a debate on whether these tax codes are fair? I’d say they do exactly their intended purpose - help out the middle class. The issue on state/local taxes is a fair point but perhaps that will lead to pressure to lower state taxes. To me, this is the first time the DT campaign has actually put forth a plan that aligns to their platform promises.

I also like the proposed elimination of tax shelters for uni endowments - id like to see this translated into religions too.