Page 18 of 129 FirstFirst ... 813141516171819202122232868118 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 2573

Thread: Biggest Reform EVER passed thread

  1. #341
    THE quintessential dwarf palmab03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    44,416
    Quote Originally Posted by DeacHawk View Post
    is the $90K at 12% for married couples or single filers?
    Quote Originally Posted by palmab03 View Post
    Married, so you'd assume 45k for single. So in simple terms, all single people save $1,500 for the first $45k of their income + another $400 for the slightly higher standard deduction, so $1,900 overall. Double that if married for about $3,800. You lose about $400 per kid, if you have children.
    Wow, for single its 12% up to $67,500. That's huge. About $5,000 less in taxes paid per person.
    Last edited by palmab03; 11-02-2017 at 05:38 PM.
    just drivin' round in John Voight's car

  2. #342
    Punishingly Intricate
    DeacHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    WINSTON-SALEM
    Posts
    8,837

    Next Up: Tax Reform

    Iíve seen $45K and $67,500 as the thresholds depending on the article. Iím guessing itís $45K

  3. #343
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    67,500 is head of household

    Single is $45,000

    It's on page 8 of the text

  4. #344
    THE quintessential dwarf palmab03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    44,416
    also an interesting tidbit, even rich business owners in CA get screwed if they stick with a pass through structure, since only 30% of the business income gets the new 25% rate. That 14% difference doesn't offset the losing of the state tax deduction. Seems like most everyone would start their own corporations.
    just drivin' round in John Voight's car

  5. #345
    THE quintessential dwarf palmab03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    44,416
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    67,500 is head of household

    Single is $45,000

    It's on page 8 of the text
    Pretty turrrrible article from the failing Washington Post, then #fakenews

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...=.56050b2b34e3

    The plan will reduce the number of tax brackets from the current seven to four. A 12 percent rate would apply to individuals earning up to $67,500 and married couples earning up to $90,000.
    just drivin' round in John Voight's car

  6. #346
    Never Murdered My FIL
    Deacfreak07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    'Murica
    Posts
    64,086
    Donations will be down as a result of these cuts like they were under Reagan. Hope the government plans to increase social service spending to fill the gaps...

  7. #347
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacfreak07 View Post
    Donations will be down as a result of these cuts like they were under Reagan. Hope the government plans to increase social service spending to fill the gaps...
    Lol

  8. #348
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by palmab03 View Post
    Pretty turrrrible article from the failing Washington Post, then #fakenews

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...=.56050b2b34e3
    Looks like they've fixed it since but that is a pretty terrible mistake.

  9. #349
    One thing I'm surprised isn't getting more coverage is that there's basically a vat on outbound payments for intercompany inventory purchases or other inter-company transactions unless the foreign entity elects to treat the income as effectively connected in the US and pays US taxes on the net income from the transaction.

  10. #350
    Quote Originally Posted by TownieDeac View Post
    Is this a thing
    You must not watch much HGTV

  11. #351
    Quote Originally Posted by TownieDeac View Post
    Is this a thing
    Lol

  12. #352
    THE quintessential dwarf palmab03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    44,416
    Quote Originally Posted by TownieDeac View Post
    Is this a thing
    Wait till ya move to DC
    just drivin' round in John Voight's car

  13. #353
    THE quintessential dwarf palmab03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    44,416
    Quote Originally Posted by TownieDeac View Post
    A family making $150k pulls in like $8k/mo net and mortgage on a $750k house has to be $5k/mo, right? Seems like a stretch? Idk I'm a DINK in roughly this boat and feel like I have no idea. Maybe I'll be thinking about buying later next year when I'm done w student loans.
    They pull in closer to $9-10k and the mortgage is closer to $3k. The tax incentives to buy a home ain't no joke. Or weren't no joke, now they're gone. Thats why they want them on a postcard, cause even Towniedeac can't do the math.
    just drivin' round in John Voight's car

  14. #354
    a 600k 30 year loan at 3% is $3,700/month.

  15. #355
    THE quintessential dwarf palmab03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    44,416
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL68 View Post
    a 600k 30 year loan at 3% is $3,700/month.
    Is that including property tax, insurance and PMI? Because without any of that its more like $2,530.
    just drivin' round in John Voight's car

  16. #356
    THE quintessential dwarf palmab03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    44,416
    Getting rid of alimony deduction is brutal. Sneaky pub tax on sinners.
    just drivin' round in John Voight's car

  17. #357
    Quote Originally Posted by palmab03 View Post
    Does the medical deduction even get used?
    About 9 million people.

    https://khn.org/news/house-tax-bill-...ical-expenses/

  18. #358
    Quote Originally Posted by palmab03 View Post
    Getting rid of alimony deduction is brutal. Sneaky pub tax on sinners.
    Except it isn’t - the bill takes away the deduction for the person paying alimony, but makes it tax free to the recipient (i.e., the opposite of current law). As such, there’s almost no additional revenue generated by the change. Current law makes sense - person who gets the money pays tax on it; person who pays it gets to deduct it. I have no idea what the rationale is for this, other than it would add another line to the GOP’s precious postcard.

  19. #359
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    68,021
    It has been empirically proven that giving tax cuts to the Top 5% has never created jobs.

    Without an increase in demand, cutting corporate taxes will never create jobs nor has it increased pay for line workers. This is a total scam.

  20. #360
    It looks like this plan is actually a tax hike on many in the middle class by 10 years because of the expiration of credits and the failure to index the new benefits to inflation

    https://medium.com/@kamin_83016/how-...e-960c32d1ba82

    [IMG]https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*0ZaAsppLT5yYJAoD0zJWsg.png[/IMG]

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •