PDA

View Full Version : A good example of how middle class will lose



ccmanuals
12-22-2017, 09:56 AM
Here is a good example of how this new tax bill is going to screw millions of middle class Americans.


One of the most controversial changes are those surrounding the deduction on state and local income taxes, a.k.a SALT. If you live in a state with high income and property taxes, you could lose out under the new tax plan.

We tried to make sense of it for you.

Under the new plan, taxpayers who itemize will be able to deduct their state individual income, sales and property taxes up to a limit of $10,000 in total starting in 2018.

Currently the deduction is unlimited. But filers have to choose to deduct either individual income taxes or sales taxes. For most people, deducting income taxes is more beneficial (unless of course you live in a no income tax state). In addition, property taxes were also entirely deductible.

While elements of the tax plan could help offset the lower threshold, like the nearly doubled standard deduction, expanded child care credits and lower individual tax rates, they won't necessarily be enough to make up for the loss of tens of thousands of dollars in SALT deductions that some filers would be losing.

Who claims the SALT?

Almost 90% of the SALT benefit goes to taxpayers with income higher than $100,000, according to the Tax Foundation.

Less than a third of taxpayers itemize deductions to begin with. Of those who do, nearly all of them take the SALT deduction.

High-income and high-tax states benefit the most from the deduction. Together, California and New York receive around one-third of the total value of the deduction, the Tax Foundation found. Filers in California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Texas, and Pennsylvania claim more than half of the value of the deduction.

The SALT deduction is usually the main reason for itemizing. More than 95% of itemizers claimed the deduction in 2014, while 28% of all taxpayers claimed it, reports the Tax Foundation.

"The SALT deduction is not only valuable to taxpayers, it also often pushes them out of standard deduction and they benefit from other deductions as well," said Lilian Faulhaber, associate professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center.

But fewer taxpayers are expected to itemized going forward since the new reform nearly doubles the standard deduction.

So who will pay more under the new rules?

Nationwide, 4.1 million Americans pay more than $10,000 in property taxes alone, according to ATTOM Data Solutions.

In some counties, more than half of residents pay at least that much. In Westchester County, a suburb of New York City, 73% of homeowners pay at least $10,000 in property tax, according to ATTOM. Almost 70% of homeowners in Luna, New Mexico, pay more than $10,000.

Once high-earning filers start adding in their income taxes, they could easily reach tens of thousands of dollars.

All but seven states have an individual income tax. California leads the pack with a top marginal income tax of 13.3%. Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, New Jersey, Washington, D.C., and New York were all also in the top 10, according to Turbo Tax.

While some residents paying high property and income taxes will be losing out by not being able to fully deduct their expenses, other parts of the bill may offset the loss. The higher standard deduction will make itemizing no longer financially beneficial for some filers -- making the cap on the SALT moot.

And the largely lower tax rates will also reduce tax bills and make deductions less valuable. Taxpayers with children will see the child tax credit double to $2,000 per kid under age 17, which could also counteract the SALT limit.

But that won't help everyone.

"All income classes will see a reduction in tax liability and increase in after-tax income in 2018, though of course this is not true of every filer within each income class," said Jared Walczak, senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation.

For example, a middle-class couple with no children who itemized last year won't see much change in their tax bill, and could potentially pay more, according to Damien Martin, a certified public accountant and national tax assistant director at BKD in Missouri. "This is the result of the loss of the personal exemptions and limitation of SALT deduction. Since they do not have children they would not benefit from the expanded child credit, said to have been designed to offset the loss of the exemptions."

A middle-class family that itemized in 2017 mostly due to their SALT deductions also won't experience much of a tax cut, if any he added.

Cash-strapped homeowners could also get pinched. "If you've been living on the edge and someone yanks away your ability to fully deduct your property taxes, that could mean that if you are used to deducting $20,000 and can only take $10,000, that is [more than $800] a month you are losing in deductions," said Bill Smith, managing director at CBIZ MHM National Tax Office.

People with multiple properties who are used to being able to fully deduct their property taxes could also feel the pinch, pointed out David Williams, chief tax officer at Intuit, maker of TurboTax.

Married couples get less of a benefit with the new SALT deduction since the limit is the same for both single and married filers.

"This is pretty clearly a marriage penalty," said Faulhaber from Georgetown. "If you have two unmarried taxpayers both paying $10,000 in SALT, they will get an aggregate $20,000 when they file, whereas if they get married they suddenly lose $10,000 in deductions."

AlanMc
12-22-2017, 10:06 AM
glad i only pay $800 in property taxes.

i like the line "People with multiple properties who are used to being able to fully deduct their property taxes could also feel the pinch"... are people owning MULTIPLE properties and paying over 10k in prop tax "middle class"?

Too Little Time
12-22-2017, 10:11 AM
Here is a good example of how this new tax bill is going to screw millions of middle class Americans.

...
Almost 90% of the SALT benefit goes to taxpayers with income higher than $100,000, according to the Tax Foundation.
...

So a lot of rich people passing as middle class no longer get a deduction.

I don't much about the relationship between income and state tax obligations, but I don't think many earning under $100K are paying enough to be affected by the $10K limit.

AlanMc
12-22-2017, 10:13 AM
those multiple property owners.... they'll FEEL THE PINCH i say... ouch.... let's start taking up donations to ease their pain.

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2017, 10:20 AM
those multiple property owners.... they'll FEEL THE PINCH i say... ouch.... let's start taking up donations to ease their pain.Send them directly to Donald J. Trump or Jared Kushner. Please pay Jerad first, he seems to have just a little problem with cash flow this Christmas.

AlanMc
12-22-2017, 10:22 AM
you would think the lefties in here would be CELEBRATING this revelation. if you're paying over 10k in property taxes then you're RICH son.... stick it to those rich besterds right?

Reynard38
12-22-2017, 10:28 AM
The 1800SF house I grew up in on Long Island now has annual property taxes of $18,300. We were not rich.
Another reason I'm glad not to live there anymore!

Chris Smith porter maine
12-22-2017, 10:30 AM
So a lot of rich people passing as middle class no longer get a deduction.

I don't much about the relationship between income and state tax obligations, but I don't think many earning under $100K are paying enough to be affected by the $10K limit.

From northern Virginia up the coast to Massachusetts 100k a year is not rich not even close, and I have a friend in Portland Maine that pays over 6k on a tiny 3 bedrooms ranch, in Ipswich Massachusetts it would be over 10k. This tax bill was a gift to Trump, and the 1%.

Garret
12-22-2017, 10:33 AM
This was obviously designed to stick it to blue states. In many, many metro areas, 10K in property tax is what you pay on a 3 bedroom house on an acre - IOW dead center middle class. Then you add the loss of local income tax deductions & it will indeed hit many middle class folks. Not lower middle for sure - but your husband, wife, 2.3 kids & a dog living in NY, MA, CT, RI, VA, MD, etc. where the family earns 80K total will get hit hard - but not those in more rural areas.

ccmanuals
12-22-2017, 10:43 AM
glad i only pay $800 in property taxes.

i like the line "People with multiple properties who are used to being able to fully deduct their property taxes could also feel the pinch"... are people owning MULTIPLE properties and paying over 10k in prop tax "middle class"?

Alabama sales taxes are high. If you take the property tax deduction you can't deduct any sales taxes.

ccmanuals
12-22-2017, 10:45 AM
States that don't have an income tax have unusually high property taxes. Texas is a great example. A lot of Texans are gonna feel this.

AlanMc
12-22-2017, 10:46 AM
The 1800SF house I grew up in on Long Island now has annual property taxes of $18,300. We were not rich.
Another reason I'm glad not to live there anymore!



move on down to AL.... you'll be RICH!

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2017, 10:52 AM
Any savings that Trump is promising will be eaten up by healthcare and by all those things I used to be able to deduct. At best, it will be a wash. I'm sure when this bill is signed by Trumpet, I'll have a clearer picture of where I'm being scr***d.

Ted Hoppe
12-22-2017, 11:00 AM
Other economic considerations;
I am expecting the new luxury car market will expand. New mid car market will decline in a more rapid pace.

can we expect more family businesses to be created for tax purposes so they have more write offs?

Norman Bernstein
12-22-2017, 11:07 AM
i like the line "People with multiple properties who are used to being able to fully deduct their property taxes could also feel the pinch"... are people owning MULTIPLE properties and paying over 10k in prop tax "middle class"?

Yes, many of them are.

This may not be the case in Alabama, but up here in New England, it was extremely common for decidedly middle class people.... blue collar workers... to buy vacation properties, which at one time, were very cheap.... principally, on Cape Cod, or in the mountains in Western Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. We are talking about modest homes... cabins, cottages, often 'unimproved'.

Over the years, those properties became more and more valuable, while the owners were not becoming richer... the properties represented an inexpensive vacation destination. However, over the same period of time, the real estate taxes rose precipitously.... and that tax deduction was what enabled those middle class folks to maintain their properties... and their way of life.

The loss of the tax deduction will hit them hard.

ccmanuals
12-22-2017, 11:08 AM
Other economic considerations;
I am expecting the new luxury car market will expand. New mid car market will decline in a more rapid pace.

can we expect more family businesses to be created for tax purposes so they have more write offs?

It may actually hurt the luxury car market as you can only choose ONE deduction, either property taxes/state income taxes or sales taxes. Can't have both.

Ted Hoppe
12-22-2017, 11:12 AM
It may actually hurt the luxury car market as you can only choose ONE deduction, either property taxes/state income taxes or sales taxes. Can't have both.

If one who has been paying AMT now gone then sales tax or property tax deductions are less important.

moreover - if one buys a new car for thier business "operations" then all the taxes and fees can/may be deducted.

ccmanuals
12-22-2017, 11:17 AM
If one who has been paying AMT now gone then sales tax or property tax deductions are less important.

moreover - if one buys a new car for thier business "operations" then all the taxes and fees can/may be deducted.

I guess it remains to be seen what this effect will be.

It is amazing though that for years republicans have complained that the estate tax was a double tax but have no problem with paying taxes on actual taxes that have already been paid.

Too Little Time
12-22-2017, 11:21 AM
From northern Virginia up the coast to Massachusetts 100k a year is not rich not even close, and I have a friend in Portland Maine that pays over 6k on a tiny 3 bedrooms ranch, in Ipswich Massachusetts it would be over 10k. This tax bill was a gift to Trump, and the 1%.
One of the issues we have in this country is that it costs more to live in some locations than in other locations. But where one lives is a personal choice. As is how one spends one's money. Most people compare their financial situation to their neighbors' and see themselves as near the middle - middle class. That is an error. Twice the median income is the highest bound on the middle class used by economists that I could find when I looked a couple years ago.

I am visiting my daughter in California a high income tax state. Her family will pay more in federal income taxes because of the law change. I think it is appropriate that they pay more. I would be happy to pay more, but I benefit from some tax breaks that will reduce my income tax obligations to zero after next year.

As I explained in another thread the ACA law which increased the debt by $1 trillion over 10 years could be viewed as a gift to the 1% as their taxes were not raised to pay for the ACA. So more of the same. A bit more obvious perhaps. In the last 8 years most of the rich doubled their net worth. Most of that was not taxed and never will be taxed. Lots of lost opportunity.

CPF
12-22-2017, 02:01 PM
you would think the lefties in here would be CELEBRATING this revelation. if you're paying over 10k in property taxes then you're RICH son.... stick it to those rich besterds right?

That's over 10k in property taxes plus state income taxes, combined. Say 5k in property tax, 5k in state income tax on - what, $75,000 income? What a Christmas present for the middle class!

Best,
Chris

PhaseLockedLoop
12-22-2017, 02:03 PM
Yes, many of them are.

This may not be the case in Alabama, but up here in New England, it was extremely common for decidedly middle class people.... blue collar workers... to buy vacation properties, which at one time, were very cheap.... principally, on Cape Cod, or in the mountains in Western Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. We are talking about modest homes... cabins, cottages, often 'unimproved'.

Over the years, those properties became more and more valuable, while the owners were not becoming richer... the properties represented an inexpensive vacation destination. However, over the same period of time, the real estate taxes rose precipitously.... and that tax deduction was what enabled those middle class folks to maintain their properties... and their way of life.

The loss of the tax deduction will hit them hard.

Maybe you can see why plenty of lower-class folks have deserted the Democratic Party. From what I've been reading, the biggest crybabies on this subject are indeed rich--or shall we say wealthy--people, but of course apologists select what they regard as pathetic cases. The ones I've been reading about, though, were in Westchester County, or Mt. Kisco, or New Jersey, and were apparently quite wealthy. A woman in Mt. Kisco was quoted by the NYT a couple week ago wondering how to tell her four children that how the change would impact their college plans. It like to tore my heart out! Then too, the value of the expensive houses they lived in were likely to go down some 10-15%, because now what prospective buyer would borrow huge amounts of money they couldn't write off on federal taxes anymore, huh? So the fact that these guys didn't have to pay federal tax served to inflate the value of their property.

But to return to the people you wrote of: those owners of very valuable vacation property can of course sell it for lots of money, and I'm sure many have done so. The fact that property values have gone up is not usually a sad circumstance.

AlanMc
12-22-2017, 02:04 PM
Yes, many of them are.

This may not be the case in Alabama, but up here in New England, it was extremely common for decidedly middle class people.... blue collar workers... to buy vacation properties, which at one time, were very cheap.... principally, on Cape Cod, or in the mountains in Western Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. We are talking about modest homes... cabins, cottages, often 'unimproved'.

Over the years, those properties became more and more valuable, while the owners were not becoming richer... the properties represented an inexpensive vacation destination. However, over the same period of time, the real estate taxes rose precipitously.... and that tax deduction was what enabled those middle class folks to maintain their properties... and their way of life.

The loss of the tax deduction will hit them hard.



let's take this slow... if they bought properties cheap.... and those properties rose dramatically in value.... then those people are WEALTHIER b/c of that fact. if they can't pay their taxes on it, they can sell it.

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2017, 02:12 PM
let's take this slow... if they bought properties cheap.... and those properties rose dramatically in value.... then those people are WEALTHIER b/c of that fact. if they can't pay their taxes on it, they can sell it.My great grandfather bought the land cheap on todays standards. I'm no wealthier as land is not money in my pocket. It's been in my family for 150 yrs and you tell me to sell it? So, won't do that! Go ahead, sell your house/land, live in a rented house trailer. I'm sure you'll get along with your neighbors. Also, capital gains would be outré sight.

CPF
12-22-2017, 02:12 PM
It's also common, in Maine at least, for fisherfolk to be unable to afford the taxes on the waterfront properties their families have owned and worked for generations. The influx of people from away buying up the waterfront with city dollars for vacation homes has driven up the value of their land out of all proportion. This will make it still harder for these people to keep their fish houses and docks.

Best,
Chris

AlanMc
12-22-2017, 02:14 PM
My great grandfather bought the land cheap on todays standards. I'm no wealthier as land is not money in my pocket. It's been in my family for 150 yrs and you tell me to sell it? So, won't do that! Go ahead, sell your house/land, live in a rented house trailer. I'm sure you'll get along with your neighbors


what? do you even hear yourself?


wealth
welTH/
noun



an abundance of valuable possessions or money

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2017, 02:16 PM
what? do you even hear yourself?


wealth
welTH/
noun



an abundance of valuable possessions or money


As much as you hear yourself Alan!

AlanMc
12-22-2017, 02:17 PM
As much as you hear yourself Alan!


at least i've never said "i'm not wealthier b/c someone gave me a lot of valuable things" :d

Too Little Time
12-22-2017, 02:20 PM
Over the years, those properties became more and more valuable, while the owners were not becoming richer.
Maybe you can see why plenty of lower-class folks have deserted the Democratic Party. From what I've been reading, the biggest crybabies on this subject are indeed rich--or shall we say wealthy--people, but of course apologists select what they regard as pathetic cases.
Saying that "the owners of these properties were not becoming richer" is simply making up "facts" to get the result one wants.

But no story justifies any claim of a right to special treatment because the family is "middle class." Too many people think that making twice the median means that one need not concern themselves with personal economic matters as they are entitled to all they want. The poor are not entitled to the same entitlements.

I agree with your rationale for the poor leaving the Democratic Party. I don't see them coming back until the party changes. I don't see the Republicans doing enough to lose in '18. But I can hope.

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2017, 02:23 PM
Sorry, I've been here eleven generations or land has been passed down from generation to generation. You probably don't care if yours has lived on the same land for years because you don't have a connection with the past. Secondly, you have never heard this:

"Land rich, money poor" have you? Do you have a clue as to what that means? By the way, if the economy begins to suck as I suspect it will, I won't even get the value amount the land was even worth. A buyers' market, and most certainly the sellers' loss.

AlanMc
12-22-2017, 02:24 PM
Sorry, I've been here eleven generations or land has been passed down from generation to generation. You probably don't care if yours has lived on the same land for years because you don't have a connection with the past. Secondly, you have never heard this:

"Land rich, money poor" have you? Do you have a clue as to what that means?


ok i'll bite SV.

so, if i had family land handed to me.... should i get to keep it if i have no job and pay no taxes on it?

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2017, 02:31 PM
ok i'll bite SV.

so, if i had family land handed to me.... should i get to keep it if i have no job and pay no taxes on it?Sorry idiot, I do pay taxes on it. Of course, I used to get a deduction on my taxes too. If you have no interest in your family history, your heritage as to who you are, by all means sell it. Put in a mall. It the economy sucks, you'll end up selling it for five cents on a dollar. And by the time Trump finishes his first reign as the American Dictator, it won't be very good here economically.

Chris Smith porter maine
12-22-2017, 02:39 PM
So why are the middle class from the areas mentioned paying to keep Alabama a float your number 4 as far as federal dependency, take a peek.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-states-the-most-and-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government-2015-7

Norman Bernstein
12-22-2017, 02:39 PM
let's take this slow... if they bought properties cheap.... and those properties rose dramatically in value.... then those people are WEALTHIER b/c of that fact. if they can't pay their taxes on it, they can sell it.

Let's take it even slower. This may be particularly hard for you to understand, but your presumption that these people are 'wealthier' completely misses the mark. Not everyone judges the value of their traditions, culture, and lifestyle, in terms of dollars. These people are not 'wealthier', if they are FORCED to sell their traditional properties, and lose their family traditions and culture. They cannot sell their properties, and then go out and buy that experience again, on the open market.

Not everything has a price in dollars.... but I guess it would be too much to expect you to understand that.

AlanMc
12-22-2017, 02:40 PM
Sorry idiot, I do pay taxes on it. Of course, I used to get a deduction on my taxes too. If you have no interest in your family history, your heritage as to who you are, by all means sell it. Put in a mall. It the economy sucks, you'll end up selling it for five cents on a dollar. And by the time Trump finishes his first reign as the American Dictator, it won't be very good here economically.



why so rude sv? just b/c you're totally wrong and i point it out, that's no reason to get uppity.

pay your taxes, keep your land. if the taxes are too much, then you can't afford your land and you should sell it. i don't give a rat's rear that it's family land or not. the point was, it being "family land" has no bearing on whether or not you get to keep it.

the way you talk, you should be all happy about this tax bill that eliminates the death taxes your family would have had to pay when you give the family land to them. they can use the savings to pay the yearly taxes that increased slightly or not at all.

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2017, 02:42 PM
Let's take it even slower. This may be particularly hard for you to understand, but your presumption that these people are 'wealthier' completely misses the mark. Not everyone judges the value of their traditions, culture, and lifestyle, in terms of dollars. These people are not 'wealthier', if they are FORCED to sell their traditional properties, and lose their family traditions and culture. They cannot sell their properties, and then go out and buy that experience again, on the open market.

Not everything has a price in dollars.... but I guess it would be too much to expect you to understand that.Well put and so True Norman! Thanks!

Norman Bernstein
12-22-2017, 02:45 PM
the way you talk, you should be all happy about this tax bill that eliminates the death taxes your family would have had to pay when you give the family land to them. they can use the savings to pay the yearly taxes that increased slightly or not at all.

What a joke.

The Republicans used to say that the estate tax (wrongly called a 'death tax') was somehow unfair, because it represented 'double taxation', which, to Republicans, was a crime akin to murder and rape.

Of course, it was a completely bullsh|t argument... because estates large enough to qualify for an estate tax are mostly composed of unrealized capital gains which have NEVER been taxed.

NOW, the Republicans want to eliminate the deduction for state and local taxes... which is indeed double taxation.

The dictionary definition of 'Republican', these days, should be 'hypocrite'.

AlanMc
12-22-2017, 02:48 PM
Let's take it even slower. This may be particularly hard for you to understand, but your presumption that these people are 'wealthier' completely misses the mark. Not everyone judges the value of their traditions, culture, and lifestyle, in terms of dollars. These people are not 'wealthier', if they are FORCED to sell their traditional properties, and lose their family traditions and culture. They cannot sell their properties, and then go out and buy that experience again, on the open market.

Not everything has a price in dollars.... but I guess it would be too much to expect you to understand that.



ugh... more point missing. i totally get the value of family land. but you still have to be able to pay the taxes on it. if you can't pay the taxes, you don't get to keep it just b/c someone in your family owned it before you did. but again, with all this "family land is special" talk in here... you guys should be HAPPY about the tax bill b/c it makes it cheaper to give your land to your family. land taxes are land taxes. they go up, they go down. pay'em or someone else will.

Norman Bernstein
12-22-2017, 02:53 PM
ugh... more point missing. i totally get the value of family land.

Clearly, you don't. A piece of land in a family for 11 generations is a great deal more than just a financial asset.


but you still have to be able to pay the taxes on it. if you can't pay the taxes, you don't get to keep it just b/c someone in your family owned it before you did. but again, with all this "family land is special" talk in here... you guys should be HAPPY about the tax bill b/c it makes it cheaper to give your land to your family. land taxes are land taxes. they go up, they go down. pay'em or someone else will.

In this changing economy, and especially as a result of this so-called 'tax reform', people get hurt. These families could afford to pay the taxes on it... as long as the taxes were deductible from Federal income tax...... eliminating or reducing the deduction is the same thing as INCREASING the taxes.....

....while, at the same time, handing out WHOPPING tax breaks to the very rich.

Hey, it's OK.... if you honestly believe that the rich deserve tax breaks, and middle class America deserves to get hosed, then at least, we know where you stand.

Excuse my while I go somewhere to vomit.

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2017, 03:02 PM
Just a thought that's rattling around; aren't the Israelis doing the same thing to the Palestinians as Hitler did to the the Jews with out the extreme number of killings?

AlanMc
12-22-2017, 03:03 PM
Clearly, you don't. A piece of land in a family for 11 generations is a great deal more than just a financial asset.



In this changing economy, and especially as a result of this so-called 'tax reform', people get hurt. These families could afford to pay the taxes on it... as long as the taxes were deductible from Federal income tax...... eliminating or reducing the deduction is the same thing as INCREASING the taxes.....

....while, at the same time, handing out WHOPPING tax breaks to the very rich.

Hey, it's OK.... if you honestly believe that the rich deserve tax breaks, and middle class America deserves to get hosed, then at least, we know where you stand.

Excuse my while I go somewhere to vomit.


so should there be special tax exemptions for land owned for a certain number of generations?

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2017, 03:08 PM
so should there be special tax exemptions for land owned for a certain number of generations?You really do miss the point with every post you write, do you ever read what you write? Same question you asked me AlanMc!

Chris Smith porter maine
12-22-2017, 03:08 PM
You never did answer why the middle class in Alabama gets $2.46 back from the federal government, were as a middle class guy from New Jersey gets back 46˘ for every dollar they pay in.

AlanMc
12-22-2017, 03:11 PM
You never did answer why the middle class in Alabama gets $2.46 back from the federal government, were as a middle class guy from New Jersey gets back 46˘ for every dollar they pay in.


sounds like NJ should renegotiate their deal. not AL's fault you're doing it wrong :d

Norman Bernstein
12-22-2017, 03:13 PM
so should there be special tax exemptions for land owned for a certain number of generations?

No, of course not.

What I AM suggesting is that limiting or eliminating the deductibility of real estate taxes, as part of the very same tax plan that piles on debt while giving huge amounts of tax relief to VERY rich people, is not what this country needs, is not appropriate policy, will not help ordinary people, and in fact will simply serve to further increase the wealth and income inequality in this country. It institutes double taxation, the very thing that Republicans used to stand against.

As I've said before, we're in a headlong rush towards plutocracy in this country....

...and you're one of the cheerleaders on the sidelines.

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2017, 03:15 PM
sounds like NJ should renegotiate their deal. not AL's fault you're doing it wrong :dAnd you are reaping the benefits. Of course, Trump wants to s*** the Dems who voted against him. Alabama being a Crimson Red state has no worries.

Chris Smith porter maine
12-22-2017, 03:21 PM
sounds like NJ should renegotiate their deal. not AL's fault you're doing it wrong :d

They seem to be planning on it by allowing property taxes, state income taxes, all to come out of your check as a payroll tax before the federal government gets it. I seen other ideas stay tuned.

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2017, 03:25 PM
They seem to be planning on it by allowing property taxes, state income taxes, all to come out of your check as a payroll tax before the federal government gets it. I seen other ideas stay tuned.NY is also up to something, not sure what but, I suspect something sim. Other blue states probably jumped on the band wagon too.

peb
12-22-2017, 03:28 PM
It may actually hurt the luxury car market as you can only choose ONE deduction, either property taxes/state income taxes or sales taxes. Can't have both.Oh no, luxury car owners vacation property owners, oh the humanity.

Sent from my BLN-L24 using Tapatalk

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2017, 03:30 PM
Oh no, luxury car owners vacation property owners, oh the humanity.

Sent from my BLN-L24 using TapatalkOh dear, Trump should sell a few golf courses and a few luxury cars don't you think?

George Jung
12-22-2017, 03:42 PM
There are folks who will find they've screwed the pooch - much like Alan, but he definitely comes across as someone who doesn't mind, as long as others - especially Liberals- also get the shaft.

That's a sad way to go through life.

AFA 'many' here - we will find 'a way' to mitigate the ill-effects of Mr. Trumps/Republicans machinations. I'm pre-paying property taxes now, as we speak - and will be doing many different approaches, based on the 'new rules'. I've read the old white Republicans recognize their days are limited, as are Trumps - and are grabbing whatever they can, on the 'way out'. By all appearances, 2018 is going to be a year of reckoning for you boys - and you should expect a backlash. I'd even wonder about criminal charges, for what you've done. Not possible? Just look at what Trump et al has 'gotten by with', with the good ol' boys in Congress guarding their rear. When those become Democrats... all the rules change.

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2017, 03:49 PM
There are folks who will find they've screwed the pooch - much like Alan, but he definitely comes across as someone who doesn't mind, as long as others - especially Liberals- also get the shaft.

That's a sad way to go through life.

AFA 'many' here - we will find 'a way' to mitigate the ill-effects of Mr. Trumps/Republicans machinations. I'm pre-paying property taxes now, as we speak - and will be doing many different approaches, based on the 'new rules'. I've read the old white Republicans recognize their days are limited, as are Trumps - and are grabbing whatever they can, on the 'way out'. By all appearances, 2018 is going to be a year of reckoning for you boys - and you should expect a backlash. I'd even wonder about criminal charges, for what you've done. Not possible? Just look at what Trump et al has 'gotten by with', with the good ol' boys in Congress guarding their rear. When those become Democrats... all the rules change.I pay 4grand for school, it fluctuates, I pay for road maintenance for another thousand a year, also fluctuates, I don't have the money to prepay as both are unknowns before printed out and having several multiples amounting to be about 5 grand, if I pay a few years in advance isn't possible. I doubt that I can actually prepay unless say I have a bank mortgage which I don't.

Garret
12-22-2017, 03:54 PM
sounds like NJ should renegotiate their deal. not AL's fault you're doing it wrong :d

So - every state should get back $2 for every $1 they put in? No wonder you believe in Trump & the rest of the Reps in DC! :p

Too Little Time
12-22-2017, 03:57 PM
These people are not 'wealthier', if they are FORCED to sell their traditional properties, and lose their family traditions and culture. They cannot sell their properties, and then go out and buy that experience again, on the open market.
Perhaps you could produce a list of people - 10,000 or so will do, who will be forced to sell their traditional properties due to this tax law change. The reality is that a lot of people will have money in their pockets because of this change. Very few will have so much less that hey will be forced to sell their traditional properties.

My estimate is that to exceed the $10K tax deduction one needs to have over $500K in tax valuation. A $1 million property should lose $10K in tax deduction or $3,500 in taxes at most. It is really hard to claim a person in that situation is forced to sell their property to pay taxes.

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2017, 03:57 PM
So - every state should get back $2 for every $1 they put in? No wonder you believe in Trump & the rest of the Reps in DC! :pAbout right but, think it's a bit more than wanting $2.00 for every one!

Garret
12-22-2017, 03:59 PM
About right but, think it's a bit more than wanting $2.00 for every one!

Yeah - but the Reps could promise that & their faithful would buy it!

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2017, 04:05 PM
Yeah - but the Reps could promise that & their faithful would buy it!They already have, lock stock and barrel.

peb
12-22-2017, 06:12 PM
Perhaps you could produce a list of people - 10,000 or so will do, who will be forced to sell their traditional properties due to this tax law change. The reality is that a lot of people will have money in their pockets because of this change. Very few will have so much less that hey will be forced to sell their traditional properties.

My estimate is that to exceed the $10K tax deduction one needs to have over $500K in tax valuation. A $1 million property should lose $10K in tax deduction or $3,500 in taxes at most. It is really hard to claim a person in that situation is forced to sell their property to pay taxes.You have this all about right. It's quite telling that libs are up in arms about this.

Sent from my BLN-L24 using Tapatalk

Chris Smith porter maine
12-22-2017, 07:01 PM
Perhaps you could produce a list of people - 10,000 or so will do, who will be forced to sell their traditional properties due to this tax law change. The reality is that a lot of people will have money in their pockets because of this change. Very few will have so much less that hey will be forced to sell their traditional properties.

My estimate is that to exceed the $10K tax deduction one needs to have over $500K in tax valuation. A $1 million property should lose $10K in tax deduction or $3,500 in taxes at most. It is really hard to claim a person in that situation is forced to sell their property to pay taxes.

You estimate lmao taxes in the Northeast central Atlantic are very high

https://smartasset.com/taxes/new-york-property-tax-calculator#kjJEB0ZZfd

Too Little Time
12-22-2017, 07:03 PM
You have this all about right. It's quite telling that libs are up in arms about this.
I don't think it is just liberals, but ...

Considering that some people were forced to purchase insurance under the ACA, it seems improbable that the argument of "forced to sell their traditional properties" would not apply to people back then by those who bring it up now.

I think the problem is that many people have no rational economic model of others in the country. That goes for liberals and conservatives.

mdh
12-22-2017, 07:17 PM
Am i mistaken? If you sell property, or stock, or anything of value, that you inherited: you pay tax.

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2017, 07:19 PM
I don't think it is just liberals, but ...

Considering that some people were forced to purchase insurance under the ACA, it seems improbable that the argument of "forced to sell their traditional properties" would not apply to people back then by those who bring it up now.

I think the problem is that many people have no rational economic model of others in the country. That goes for liberals and conservatives.Fine, stop paying car insurance then while you're at it if and you owe more than you can afford for the damage to your vehicle and the other guy's post a FundMe site so we can donate funds to get you out of the hole of your own making. Of course hospital bills will probably outstrip the cost of a fender bender and the bills may sink your but, you have no problem with that..Just do a lot of begging!

Todd D
12-22-2017, 07:33 PM
I know quite a few people locally who live in the inherited family home. In most cases it is the only thing of value that they own. Many of those old family homes are on the water and have valuations well over a million dollars. The tax bills on those properties tend to run $15k plus. Several retired people I know (in their 70s to early 80s) work at low paying jobs just to get enough extra money to pay the taxes. Of course, that raises their incomes and taxes, which will be made worse by not being able to deduct their full property taxes. Losing that deduction could easily make the difference between keeping the home and being forced to sell. Selling a high value property here generally takes YEARS, so those people could easily fall into tax arrears and actually lose the property for non-payment of taxes. When they manage to sell the property they will likely owe cap gains taxes on 2/3 or more of the sales price at the top rate due to the value of the sold property.

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2017, 07:37 PM
I know quite a few people locally who live in the inherited family home. In most cases it is the only thing of value that they own. Many of those old family homes are on the water and have valuations well over a million dollars. The tax bills on those properties tend to run $15k plus. Several retired people I know (in their 70s to early 80s) work at low paying jobs just to get enough extra money to pay the taxes. Of course, that raises their incomes and taxes, which will be made worse by not being able to deduct their full property taxes. Losing that deduction could easily make the difference between keeping the home and being forced to sell. Selling a high value property here generally takes YEARS, so those people could easily fall into tax arrears and actually lose the property for non-payment of taxes. When they manage to sell the property they will likely owe cap gains taxes on 2/3 or more of the sales price at the top rate due to the value of the sold property.I don't think the Trump supporters care, they consider bit an opportunity to make a lot of money.

Norman Bernstein
12-22-2017, 07:38 PM
Am i mistaken? If you sell property, or stock, or anything of value, that you inherited: you pay tax.

Another example of your profound ignorance. Try looking up 'estate tax exemption'. You will also need to research the 'step-up' in the basis price of an inherited asset.

George Jung
12-22-2017, 09:02 PM
mdh certainly comes across as 'low information'; I'm thinking Jr. High

Too Little Time
12-22-2017, 10:00 PM
Am i mistaken? If you sell property, or stock, or anything of value, that you inherited: you pay tax.
In general, you pay taxes on the difference in value at the time of death and when you sell it. Traditional IRAs are different. Roth IRAS have no taxes due.

Too Little Time
12-22-2017, 10:29 PM
Fine, stop paying car insurance then while you're at it if and you owe more than you can afford for the damage to your vehicle and the other guy's post a FundMe site so we can donate funds to get you out of the hole of your own making. Of course hospital bills will probably outstrip the cost of a fender bender and the bills may sink your but, you have no problem with that..Just do a lot of begging!
I guess you are content with people losing their homes because they are forced to purchase health insurance. Not that I have heard of people needing to sell their homes either because they paid for health insurance or because they failed to get a federal local property tax deduction.


I know quite a few people locally who live in the inherited family home. In most cases it is the only thing of value that they own. Many of those old family homes are on the water and have valuations well over a million dollars. The tax bills on those properties tend to run $15k plus. Several retired people I know (in their 70s to early 80s) work at low paying jobs just to get enough extra money to pay the taxes. Of course, that raises their incomes and taxes, which will be made worse by not being able to deduct their full property taxes. Losing that deduction could easily make the difference between keeping the home and being forced to sell. Selling a high value property here generally takes YEARS, so those people could easily fall into tax arrears and actually lose the property for non-payment of taxes. When they manage to sell the property they will likely owe cap gains taxes on 2/3 or more of the sales price at the top rate due to the value of the sold property.
I am sure you know better than this. There is an exclusion of $250K or $500K if one lives in the house. So the tax burden after a sale is not that great. If the owner cannot afford the taxes, it is reasonable to believe that the first $150K (or some strange number you can look up on the internet) is taxed at a lower rate than the top rate. I suspect retired person who sells a property worth over $1 million will have a good income if they invest their money. I also suspect that these retired people have family somewhere (or even strangers) who would be glad to pay the property tax in exchange for inheriting the property.

I am sure you misstate the value of the federal local property tax deduction. The people you seem concerned about don't pay federal taxes so don't get the benefit of the exemption. The problem appears to be more along the line of seniors not being able to pay the state and local property taxes. The federal tax law does not affect that.

Todd D
12-22-2017, 10:44 PM
I am sure you know better than this. There is an exclusion of $250K or $500K if one lives in the house. So the tax burden after a sale is not that great. If the owner cannot afford the taxes, it is reasonable to believe that the first $150K (or some strange number you can look up on the internet) is taxed at a lower rate than the top rate. I suspect retired person who sells a property worth over $1 million will have a good income if they invest their money. I also suspect that these retired people have family somewhere (or even strangers) who would be glad to pay the property tax in exchange for inheriting the property.

I am sure you misstate the value of the federal local property tax deduction. The people you seem concerned about don't pay federal taxes so don't get the benefit of the exemption. The problem appears to be more along the line of seniors not being able to pay the state and local property taxes. The federal tax law does not affect that.

TLT, I am quite aware of the exemption for an owner occupied home. IF you had comprehended what I wrote you would have noted that I said they would be taxed on around 2/3 of the sale price. In words you can comprehend I assumed around a 1.5+ million sales price. After the exemption and exclusion of the marked up value at the time of inheritance the amount taxable as a cap gain is 1 mil or so. Hence my 2/3 comment. Now do you understand? Homes here has greatly increased in value over the past 30 years, particularly waterfront homes. A million of taxable cap gains puts the bulk of the gain in quite a high bracket. Yes the people would come out of it with a fair lump of cash IF they were able to sell it before they lost the property for back taxes (2-3 years here). If you have the income to pay $15K+ in property taxes, you certainly pay income tax. My point is that these people are just scraping by and ANY increase in income tax could be the final straw. I know you only think about dollars, but to many people leaving an inheritance for their children is more important than cash. The multi-generation family home is often the type of thing people really would like to leave to the children.

S.V. Airlie
12-23-2017, 09:15 AM
I guess you are content with people losing their homes because they are forced to purchase health insurance. Not that I have heard of people needing to sell their homes either because they paid for health insurance or because they failed to get a federal local property tax deduction.


I am sure you know better than this. There is an exclusion of $250K or $500K if one lives in the house. So the tax burden after a sale is not that great. If the owner cannot afford the taxes, it is reasonable to believe that the first $150K (or some strange number you can look up on the internet) is taxed at a lower rate than the top rate. I suspect retired person who sells a property worth over $1 million will have a good income if they invest their money. I also suspect that these retired people have family somewhere (or even strangers) who would be glad to pay the property tax in exchange for inheriting the property.

I am sure you misstate the value of the federal local property tax deduction. The people you seem concerned about don't pay federal taxes so don't get the benefit of the exemption. The problem appears to be more along the line of seniors not being able to pay the state and local property taxes. The federal tax law does not affect that.That's gonna happen with Trump TLT! Wait, it's already happening, never mind! If they get sick without health insurance I guarantee they will lose their homes. THINK! TLT because obviously your not!

redeye1962
12-23-2017, 10:31 AM
All I can say is I barely make the lower end of the middle class and I am going to benefit from the tax breaks. I estimate it brings me and others back to pre-Obamacare days with the Bush child credit to boot. I have been struggling since my taxes rose a few years ago to support a failing attempt at a universal healthcare plan. Unfortunately not everyone will win from this but the majority of Americans will have a good response from the tax cuts.

Norman Bernstein
12-23-2017, 11:10 AM
All I can say is I barely make the lower end of the middle class and I am going to benefit from the tax breaks. I estimate it brings me and others back to pre-Obamacare days with the Bush child credit to boot. I have been struggling since my taxes rose a few years ago to support a failing attempt at a universal healthcare plan.

Are you factoring in the big bump in health insurance rates, when the elimination of the mandate occurs? It's pretty simple math: healthy people will drop their insurance, leaving just sick people in the program, and the cost per capita will rise. Are you sure you're still going to be better off?

Ted Hoppe
12-23-2017, 11:20 AM
Are you factoring in the big bump in health insurance rates, when the elimination of the mandate occurs? It's pretty simple math: healthy people will drop their insurance, leaving just sick people in the program, and the cost per capita will rise. Are you sure you're still going to be better off?

there is another way of looking at the problem for those with now deferring jacked medical costs... what does it look like if billions of unsecured medical debt go unpaid and uncollectible. I can't imagine medical or big pharma wanting that to happen nor political will to begin forclosing on family homes due to the bills. It does backdoor marginal socialized medicine at the local level and set medical costs due to the ability for states and counties to pay.

Norman Bernstein
12-23-2017, 11:26 AM
there is another way of looking at the problem for those with now deferring jacked medical costs... what does it look like if billions of unsecured medical debt go unpaid and uncollectible. I can't imagine medical or big pharma wanting that to happen nor political will to begin forclosing on family homes due to the bills.

The problem, Ted, is that too many people fail to look at the 'big picture'.... they just think about their own immediate, short term circumstances. With the elimination of the mandate, it's not 'political perspective' any more, it's simple, basic math. Shrink the actuarial pool by taking out healthy people, and the costs, to those who remain, MUST rise.

Medical practice groups, hospitals, big pharma... all of them will NOT operate at a loss, so the costs will rise.... which means the rates will rise, even more than they would through the natural inflation of the cost of medical care. This is a disaster just about to happen.

Ted Hoppe
12-23-2017, 11:41 AM
The problem, Ted, is that too many people fail to look at the 'big picture'.... they just think about their own immediate, short term circumstances. With the elimination of the mandate, it's not 'political perspective' any more, it's simple, basic math. Shrink the actuarial pool by taking out healthy people, and the costs, to those who remain, MUST rise.

Medical practice groups, hospitals, big pharma... all of them will NOT operate at a loss, so the costs will rise.... which means the rates will rise, even more than they would through the natural inflation of the cost of medical care. This is a disaster just about to happen.

no doubt that the near collapse of the system is going to happen. Like the mortgage crisis, the patches to fix the system require business and industry. Obviously the ones invested in the highly profitable healthcare system will force the levers of power to address or avert the collapse. The bridge will be Medicare for all those who can't pay with a goverment collection system to wring the pennies out of the injured, sick or dying. The real problem is this crisis is that is slow moving and will take years fully address. This will give the profitable healthcare systems a way to get a piece of the new deal plus operate a separate better medical system for those with insurance via work and wealth.

We can expect soon an addition that nearly all medical expenses will be tax deductible including ED drugs and cosmetic medical procedures.

Too Little Time
12-23-2017, 02:49 PM
TLT, I am quite aware of the exemption for an owner occupied home. IF you had comprehended what I wrote you would have noted that I said they would be taxed on around 2/3 of the sale price. In words you can comprehend I assumed around a 1.5+ million sales price. After the exemption and exclusion of the marked up value at the time of inheritance the amount taxable as a cap gain is 1 mil or so. Hence my 2/3 comment. Now do you understand? Homes here has greatly increased in value over the past 30 years, particularly waterfront homes. A million of taxable cap gains puts the bulk of the gain in quite a high bracket. Yes the people would come out of it with a fair lump of cash IF they were able to sell it before they lost the property for back taxes (2-3 years here). If you have the income to pay $15K+ in property taxes, you certainly pay income tax. My point is that these people are just scraping by and ANY increase in income tax could be the final straw. I know you only think about dollars, but to many people leaving an inheritance for their children is more important than cash. The multi-generation family home is often the type of thing people really would like to leave to the children.
I think we both agree on the tax situation if sold. At least, to the degree that it matters.

Your claim seem to be that these people cannot afford the $1-2000/year it might cost them in additional income tax. Yet, they have enough income to itemize deductions. And that their children who will have to pay the property taxes in the future cannot afford to give their parents the less than $1-2000/year for the additional income tax obligation.

Perhaps you can tell me enough about the economic situation to substantiate this claim. I cannot come up with a real situation where the owners and their heirs lack the resources to pay the additional tax, yet after death the heirs can pay..


If you have the income to pay $15K+ in property taxes, you certainly pay income tax.
That seems to be wrong. My wife and I can pay all of our expenses out of our Roth IRAs and there is no income or income tax involved. My wife and I can pay all of our expenses out of non-retirement savings and have income (capital gains) of whatever fraction of our expenses that we desire and pay minimal taxes. But we will pay our expenses out of our Social Security and pay no taxes.


I am not trying to be difficult, I simply find your claim difficult to verify by using math and the tax code.

johnwill
12-24-2017, 02:21 AM
States that don't have an income tax have unusually high property taxes. Texas is a great example. A lot of Texans are gonna feel this.

High property taxes in Texas are a myth. I own a half million dollar home and pay $3500 property tax. Tax rates in TX are very uneven, so it pays to know where to live.

ccmanuals
12-24-2017, 09:39 AM
My son owns a half million dollar home and pays 16k. It's no myth.

Chris Smith porter maine
12-24-2017, 11:26 AM
I'm still not getting how this is great, your average taxpayer 48-86k will get $18 a week
https://apnews.com/5683e9ce4ade4c8689715a0531201d77/Trump-supporters-greet-tax-law-with-shrugs-and-measured-hope

Too Little Time
12-25-2017, 11:37 AM
too many people fail to look at the 'big picture'.... they just think about their own immediate, short term circumstances. it's simple, basic math. Shrink the actuarial pool by taking out healthy people, and the costs, to those who remain, MUST rise.
What a fallacy. Total healthcare costs are pretty much a fixed national expense. To some extent we are talking about who gets medical care, but the greater discussion is about who pays for the medical care. Your comments are about the greater discussion.

You want to force a certain part of the population to pay for the healthcare of another part. In particular, you want healthy people to pay for the healthcare of the sick. I would rather have the rich - including guys like you and I, to pay for the poor. You and I can afford to pay for our own healthcare.

Too Little Time
12-25-2017, 11:44 AM
My son owns a half million dollar home and pays 16k. It's no myth.
If he can afford the house, the taxes are not high.

So rather than save and invest he has paid taxes and perhaps interest on a loan. I see a different economic issue.

Chris Smith porter maine
12-25-2017, 12:03 PM
What a fallacy. Total healthcare costs are pretty much a fixed national expense. To some extent we are talking about who gets medical care, but the greater discussion is about who pays for the medical care. Your comments are about the greater discussion.

You want to force a certain part of the population to pay for the healthcare of another part. In particular, you want healthy people to pay for the healthcare of the sick. I would rather have the rich - including guys like you and I, to pay for the poor. You and I can afford to pay for our own healthcare.

How about we just level the playing field, health insurance when provided by your employer should be taxed as income, not tax exempt like it is now.

redeye1962
12-28-2017, 10:50 AM
My insurance will not rise. It stays the same. My guess to help things along is to get rid of Obamacare and give the taxes back to the people. One thing I would like to see is insurance companies accept pre-existing conditions without an outrageous increase in premiums.

Norman Bernstein
12-28-2017, 12:13 PM
One thing I would like to see is insurance companies accept pre-existing conditions without an outrageous increase in premiums.

In other words, you want something for nothing.... isn't that what the reds accuse the blues of?

Sorry, but it isn't going to happen. Your health insurance premiums will rise... more than what they would rise, anyhow, due to health care cost inflation.

There is one, and ONLY one way, to get control of health care costs: EVERYONE in the country must share in the costs, and do so efficiently. It's called 'Universal Single Payer Healthcare'... and virtually every other developed nation on this Earth have figured this out, already... only the United States hasn't quite figured it out.

Too Little Time
12-28-2017, 12:13 PM
How about we just level the playing field, health insurance when provided by your employer should be taxed as income, not tax exempt like it is now.
There are a lot of ways to make the system more fair. I agree that the deduction for employer paid insurance should be done away with.

I think it is best to start with deciding how to allocate the cost over the various income percentiles.

Too Little Time
12-28-2017, 12:19 PM
One thing I would like to see is insurance companies accept pre-existing conditions without an outrageous increase in premiums.
In one of the midwest states one of the exchange policies insures a person with $1 million/month medical costs. One of the suggestions to control costs for the insurer is to build him a really nice home in another state.

But the good news is that very few people have large expenses even once. The government could pick up extraordinary expenses. But there are a lot of ways to address the issue.