I will benefit. I am bulls-eye if they stay close to their proposals.
I think it’s badly needed too. We’ve been pasting and patching this antiquated system for a couple of decades or more. So it could use a good overhaul and remove the burden of messy paper work that, barring being someone like Beans your likely to screw up one way or another.
H&R Block sure as hell doesn’t like the idea, which tends to make me think it’s a good idea.
I do pity those who may lose their jobs should this pass and actually be as they say it will be, but I still want the breaks. I get taxed out the ass right now as I was Obama’s target as well, for paying more.
Which reminds me, I need to contact my reps to tell them to vote for it…
So I live in NH and work in MA. I have to pay MA income tax as a nonresident. Only reason I don’t have to pay in both states is NH doesn’t have income tax. (most states give a credit in the home state for income taxes paid to another to avoid double taxation.)
As of today, you can deduct those state taxes paid (to the extent you are under Alternative Min Tax limits) from your federal taxable income.
Even if they were tax increases, the IRC is in need of comprehensive reform.
For example, for every foreign partner in a domestic investment partnership I have to file upwards of 5 forms, based one they file with me… Two of them are withholding on certain types of income, ECI & FDAP. ECI comes first, FDAP second. ECI isn’t subject to treaty benefits, FDAP is, so I have to read those too, lol. And this is just for phantom income leaving the US.
The recent “clarification” of the fixed asset rulings was like 150 pages, and 70% of that was examples. No clarification needs that many examples, lol.
The IRC is a mess.
We could argue how much of a “give away to billionaires” this is or isn’t until we’re blue in the face, but that isn’t the point I’m trying to make. I’m just saying, any simplification possible is necessary, and this bill has q fair amount of it. It adds some complexity, but mostly in places to ensure it isn’t giving too much to the top earners.
It sounds like you are arguing in favor of tax reform, for which you would receive no pushback from me. I’m arguing against the nature of the tax cut that comprises a significant portion of the bill. (Not for nothing Trump calls it the “Cut! Cut! Cut!” bill.)
It’s not good. It’s a tax cut financed with borrowed money (since it is not revenue neutral). Republicans are trying to say it’s revenue neutral on the chronically nonsensical shibboleth that they will pay for themselves (they won’t, and they don’t). And the whole enterprise is geared toward cuts for larger businesses (hence Ron Johnson’s objection to it) and doesn’t deliver on any of Trump’s populist promises (as in, keeping carried interest loophole in place after campaigning against it). And the changes to depreciation options are giveaways to big business.
This tax bill is the darling of the elites that stand to gain the most from it. Where’s the rage at elites that the GOP is supposed to be about?
If everyone pays less taxes how are the elite winning again? You do know the top 20% of income earners pay over 80% of taxes? Might wanna slow your roll on the envy there.
Both sides have been spending in deficits for decades. So nothing new.
Sigh… It’s not a loophole. And you want to know the first key someone is talking about things out of the league re: taxation? The use of the term “loophole”.
Carried Interest is an issue, and I could argue it either way, but it is not a “loophole”. It’s a place where the law needs to be changed, however that change is neither easy, simple or clear cut in how to do it.
Hardly, the phaseout at 5/20 is now where near a “giveaway to big business”. And I don’t see where the current 500k even changes…
This is true
Those who pay the most tax, which is high earners, stand to gain the most from cuts. It’s basic math.
Carried interest is a clause written into investment contracts that basically says: “hey if I do a good job (or when X happens) I get a bigger piece of the pie, without having to put in capital equal to that share of ownership.”
It is, basically, a bonus for doing their job.
Therefore it should be taxed at Ordinary rates, which currently top just under 40%.
However, the vast majority of this income comes in as Long Term Capital Gain. Which is currently taxed at about 24%.
So the issue is, seeing as the extra income is performance based, and these payments come through as LTCG, the individual is under paying tax by 16%. (Not including FICA, which is a big hit.)
If we want to change it so these gains are taxed at OI rates, fine, but that isn’t that simple. How and when we change the character of income is a real concern, it presents matching issues, we’d have to change portfolio expenses to OI expenses as well, and the list goes on and on.
I can likely figure out a way to retain the LTCG character in about 15 mins unless the bill is properly written. And it should be written by the IRS and given to congress, not the reprobates in the house.
Like as in soul swap or some sort of Disney movie? No. I want to earn my way into financial independence by creating value for other humans.
I’m already in the top 20% of income earners as of this year (my net worth is abysmal though). I had a business that was on track to get me to top 10% but that failed in spectacular fashion. Time to regroup and charge again.
From what it seems and what we talked about on here unless your making over 400k its no big whup…
It seems its just fake win to razzle dazzle folks. Does it really help middle class folks??? Seems like no
loophole: an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules. “they exploited tax loopholes”
synonyms: means of evasion, means of avoidance
What otherwise should be (logically and commonsensically) income on a service provided is massaged into capital gains - so, yes, carried interest is, in fact, a loophole.
Well, sure it is. Who benefits from it?
True, if only the rates are uniformly reduced. But that’s not all that happened.
Thanks. Read what the bill is about, have you? If it were a uniform rate reduction, your claim would make sense. There’s other policy in there other than rate reduction.
And re: envy as the motive: try again. Not interested in libertarian bumper sticker answers, in any event.
