• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Biggest Reform EVER passed thread

The elimination of itemization for most people is a massive, undeniable simplification.

Only 30% of households itemize now. Some of them will still need to itemize if this bill becomes law. So your "massive" simplification will impact probably less than a quarter of households.

Most itemizers without small business (s corp, LLC) income just itemize a few items, basically charity, mortgage, childcare. A lot of itemizers have pass-through income. This bill looks to make small business income more complicated, not less. So out of that population of households who itemize now, a substantial portion - small business owners, perhaps you yourself - will have more complexity.

If that's your big "simplification" selling point, I'm not buying it.
 
Only 30% of households itemize now. Some of them will still need to itemize if this bill becomes law. So your "massive" simplification will impact probably less than a quarter of households.

Most itemizers without small business (s corp, LLC) income just itemize a few items, basically charity, mortgage, childcare. A lot of itemizers have pass-through income. This bill looks to make small business income more complicated, not less. So out of that population of households who itemize now, a substantial portion - small business owners, perhaps you yourself - will have more complexity.

If that's your big "simplification" selling point, I'm not buying it.

Meh, We just had posters from here with perfect SAT scores not know how itemizing worked a few pages back. I know I've personally spent tens if not hundreds of hours looking at various taxing scenarios and affordability of purchasing a home. And I'm not a household that currently itemizes.
 
Last edited:
Only 30% of households itemize now. Some of them will still need to itemize if this bill becomes law. So your "massive" simplification will impact probably less than a quarter of households.

Most itemizers without small business (s corp, LLC) income just itemize a few items, basically charity, mortgage, childcare. A lot of itemizers have pass-through income. This bill looks to make small business income more complicated, not less. So out of that population of households who itemize now, a substantial portion - small business owners, perhaps you yourself - will have more complexity.

If that's your big "simplification" selling point, I'm not buying it.

25% percent of American households is not a massive impact? That's only what, 30 million households? But okay. And again, I see that Atlantic says it will "make life hell" for some small business owners, but I don't see how proving at-risk investment is difficult for said small business owners. Especially if it is a one-time thing.
 
Saw that adoption tax credit is eliminated? And these are the people who also want to eliminate abortion too. Neat.

It would be nice if some reporters ask them to defend this.
 
It would be nice if some reporters ask them to defend this.

Why top tax writer Rep. Kevin Brady, father of two adopted kids, didn't protect the adoption tax break

Brady defended the decision to cut the adoption tax credit by pointing out that some families can't claim the credit because they don't pay enough in taxes or they don't itemize their tax bill.

"This credit is not working," Brady said in an interview with The Washington Post.

Brady said the overall effect of the Republican’s tax plan — which combines cuts to individual and corporate tax rates with the loss of certain tax breaks — would be "giving families more in their paychecks, especially the middle-class families that are crucial for adoption.”

He also pointed out the child tax credit would grow by $600 to $1,600 per child, aiding families whether they adopt or not.

"I think this is a better approach for the vast majority of Americans who are left behind," Brady said.

...

The adoption tax credit is designed to help families pay for adoption fees or help them afford taking in two children to avoid splitting up siblings. It was created in 1996 and has an inflation-adjusted lifetime cap of $13,460. It's not available to families making more than $242,000 a year — that’s why, speaking at a Heritage Foundation event last year, Brady said he and his wife did not take the credit when they adopted their boys.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...ants-to-eliminate-a-tax-credit-for-adoptions/
 
So a guy who didn't qualify for the tax credit because he makes too much money thinks it is not working because not everyone qualifies. Also, if its a credit, it shouldn't matter if they itemize deductions. Clean up your talking points, Kevin Brady.

The credit’s cost is small compared with the tax plan's projected cost of $1.5 trillion to the debt over a decade. The government lost $355 million in revenue because of the credit in 2014, the most recent year data was available. Fewer than 74,000 taxpayers claimed the credit.

They must have been desperate for some revenue if they're willing to look heartless to save ~$3.5B over ten years when they need to get to $1.5T.

Credit to some for being more consistent.

Pro-life Groups Speak Out Against Repeal of Adoption Tax Credit in GOP Tax Plan
 
Has anyone come across a legitimate (not from a partisan advocacy group) calculator to determine the impact of the proposed changes?
 
From my math, a married couple Homeowner with a $750,000 house who makes $150k/yr and no kids is worse off by about $2,500. Renters are better off by about $3,500. In the long term everyone may be better off as home prices might drop some, but those who own their own home currently may feel some pain both in a drop in home prices and the $2,500/yr more taxes they'll pay.

The corporate tax change will be a significant change, although its hard to say what it will do. People who own their own businesses will see a huge benefit. In theory wages should rise pretty significantly, but that will take some time, the business owner will profit the most in the short-term.

Estate tax repeal is stupid.

Having a kid got slightly more expensive, as raising the tax credit $600 doesn't offset losing the exemption of $4,100. It would be fairly breakeven if they raised it $1,000, which they may do.

Young renters should be significantly better off. (5-10% more income)

Thanks Palma.
 
I guess I just don't understand how important wealthy donors are to political parties. Is there no limit on what they can do? There is literally no better demographic to tax than dead people. It seems like the Republicans would be way better off pushing this tax plan through without the estate tax repeal and not getting tagged with it being a lopsided reform package as far as actually gaining influence and voters. Or is money that important? It's not like the wealthy people are going to start funding democrats.
 
Ok, this thread is 20 pages, I've read a bit about the proposed reforms and here's what I gather:

Elimination or simplification (modification) of tons of deductions and credits, and then a giant boost in the standard deduction to essentially curb filers from doing anything but the standard deduction.

I'll probably go back and read the 20 pages of this thread, but is that pretty much the consensus here as well?
 
Ok, this thread is 20 pages, I've read a bit about the proposed reforms and here's what I gather:

Elimination or simplification (modification) of tons of deductions and credits, and then a giant boost in the standard deduction to essentially curb filers from doing anything but the standard deduction.

I'll probably go back and read the 20 pages of this thread, but is that pretty much the consensus here as well?

You might even file next year on a postcard!
 
25% percent of American households is not a massive impact? That's only what, 30 million households? But okay. And again, I see that Atlantic says it will "make life hell" for some small business owners, but I don't see how proving at-risk investment is difficult for said small business owners. Especially if it is a one-time thing.
Look, I was a real life tax lawyer for a lot of years. I guess now I'm in recovery. I completely get that the complexity of the tax code and the perverse incentives therein are a drag on business. I have seen plenty of business decisions derailed or slowed or altered by tax issues. I am in support of lowering the headline corporate rate to make the US more internationally competitive (but it should be revenue neutral by trimming corporate deductions, since we know that the actual net rate paid by US corps is not that high). I am in favor of tax code simplification to free up capital for investment and to reduce tax planning drag on business decisions.

Increasing the number of middle class households who take the standard deduction instead of itemizing is great, but it will have zero impact on the real business issues that need to be addressed. And from what I've seen, this proposal just adds another layer of complexity to privately held business decisions, compounding the existing problems.

So yay Republicans, way to find a solution in search of a problem. A whole bunch of Trump voting scorp owners are going to be real disappointed in April when to their accountants tell them they can't file their taxes soon a postcard like dear leader promised.
 
DNoZUfrXUAIDVzW.jpg
 
Back
Top