Will your federal taxes be going up or down next year?

[yelped]

Don't zero in on a single statement, please.

In any case, as I said, because it's officially sold as tax cut for the middle class. The middle class family struggling the most gets helped the least.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

In any case, as I said, because it's officially sold as tax cut for the middle class. The middle class family struggling the most gets helped the least.

The facts have been posted over and over to back this up but many refuse to accept them.

[avromie7]

Really?  The numbers don't seem to work for that position.

Anyways, the case I gave above, which is a fairly typical lower middle class family struggling in a high tax state, has gained nothing, while the tax bill is claimed to help the struggling middle class the most. Case closed. Stop ignoring the facts and calling people names. I hear the argument for cutting the corporate tax and making it permanent. But not the other giveaways in this bill. And to call this a tax bill for the middle class is baloney. They could have left some deductions alone for the middle class, increased the $10k SALT limit, and not cut the tax rates for the wealthy so much, and cut to 1% higher where it is now after the tax bill. The talk about the middle class is all false.

I think I explained it quite well over here, how the numbers in the media are misleading and the middle class is actually getting the biggest tax cuts.

To explain why this number is bogus, I'll use an example of a top rate of 90% (not marginal). If someone makes 10k and pays 10% in taxes on it and we cut his rate to 0% his income went up 11.11% and his taxes went down 100%. Whereas someone else who made 1mm and pays 90% in taxes on it, and we cut his rate down to 80%, his after tax income increases 100% but his taxes only decrease by 11.11%. So who got a bigger tax cut

One of the main goals of the tax plan was to get rid of as many deductions as possible, something which is mostly taken advantage of by the rich. You brought a case of someone with a very big amount of deductions relative to income, which is not typical for the middle class, and even so, he was roughly breakeven depending on the state.

[aygart]

Don't zero in on a single statement, please.

In any case, as I said, because it's officially sold as tax cut for the middle class. The middle class family struggling the most gets helped the least.

Since when does the way a politician sells something need to have anything to do with reality?

[avromie7]

The facts have been posted over and over to back this up but many refuse to accept them.

The facts that I see, seem to say quite the opposite. Don't bring the marginal case and say that it's the norm so therefore it's not made to help the middle class, because we saw many other scenarios where the middle class is saving thousands of dollars.

[aygart]

The facts that I see, seem to say quite the opposite. Don't bring the marginal case and say that it's the norm so therefore it's not made to help the middle class, because we saw many other scenarios where the middle class is saving thousands of dollars.

Don't confuse them with real numbers.

[henche]

Don't zero in on a single statement, please.

In any case, as I said, because it's officially sold as tax cut for the middle class. The middle class family struggling the most gets helped the least.

No, they are helped a lot

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Don't confuse them with real numbers.

Try and understand when someone says gets helped the least doesn't mean they didn't get helped at all.

[thaber]

Anyone know why they didn't get rid of the investment interest (aka hedge fund manager deduction loophole?)., that was a campaign promise and would have raised a lot of money with very little collateral damage

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Anyone know why they didn't get rid of the investment interest (aka hedge fund manager deduction loophole?)., that was a campaign promise and would have raised a lot of money with very little collateral damage

I think a lot of us want to know why. I brought this up before but no one had an answer.

[yelped]

Try and understand when someone says gets helped the least doesn't mean they didn't get helped at all.

Exactly. The marginal case that you talk about (that is not marginal at all for a frum family, or for that matter, a lot of people in high tax states), is not helped at all, but the rest of the middle class could have been helped a lot more. It is very clear that the main focus of the plan was the wealthy.

Stop trying to deny that and giving all sorts of weird statements about campaign promises. Who cares?

Point is very simple. This tax cut was made for the wealthy. The middle class cuts were put in so they could try to sell the plan. Look at the 1.5 trillion in additional debt and how much percent of that is for the rich people (I hear the example of the total tax rate etc., but the picture is still clear. It was designed for the rich people. Period.)

[avromie7]

Anyone know why they didn't get rid of the investment interest (aka hedge fund manager deduction loophole?)., that was a campaign promise and would have raised a lot of money with very little collateral damage

CM will probably try to spin this as my defense of Trump but that's not what it is, all I'm saying is my understanding of why it didn't happen.

It seems Trump and Gary cohn pushed very hard to get that in, but the hedge fund lobby was very powerful and menuchin worked to keep the loophole open.

Gary D. Cohn, the director of the White House’s National Economic Council, said on Wednesday that the administration tried more than two dozen times to eliminate the carried interest loophole and that, as recently as this week, Mr. Trump asked why it was not gone.

Mr. Cohn, a former top Goldman Sachs executive, said opposition from lobbyists and lawmakers on Capitol Hill was intense and that the best that could be done was to extend the “holding period” for investments that qualify for the tax break to three years from one.

[avromie7]

Exactly. The marginal case that you talk about (that is not marginal at all for a frum family, or for that matter, a lot of people in high tax states), is not helped at all, but the rest of the middle class could have been helped a lot more. It is very clear that the main focus of the plan was the wealthy.

Stop trying to deny that and giving all sorts of weird statements about campaign promises. Who cares?

Point is very simple. This tax cut was made for the wealthy. The middle class cuts were put in so they could try to sell the plan. Look at the 1.5 trillion in additional debt and how much percent of that is for the rich people (I hear the example of the total tax rate etc., but the picture is still clear. It was designed for the rich people. Period.)

It's definitely a marginal case that someone is deducting 45% of their income that's very high. Just because it's more common in high tax states does not make it the norm. The reason why this person is paying so much in taxes, is not because of the feds. It's because of the local politicians who like to tax and spend.
The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of those making 80k with 2 kids are coming out way ahead.

[a mirrer]

I showed where 10mm+ had signed up for OB care and how popular it is.

are these by any chance the same 10m that now won't buy insurance in the new bill

[henche]

Anyone know why they didn't get rid of the investment interest (aka hedge fund manager deduction loophole?)., that was a campaign promise and would have raised a lot of money with very little collateral damage

They increased the holding period to three years for carried interest.

If a property is held for less than three years, then it's taxed at ordinary rates.

Nobody explained it, but maybe the theory is that if you hold it only a couple years, then the pe find is not really capital investors, they're really on the ground straightening out the company, so it's more like business income.  But after the years, they really also have a long term hold for capital appreciation.

Are you OK with that compromise?

[thaber]

They increased the holding period to three years for carried interest.

If a property is held for less than three years, then it's taxed at ordinary rates.

Nobody explained it, but maybe the theory is that if you hold it only a couple years, then the pe find is not really capital investors, they're really on the ground straightening out the company, so it's more like business income.  But after the years, they really also have a long term hold for capital appreciation.

Are you OK with that compromise?

Kind of. It's really a Management fee, not capital gains, and should be treated as such.

[henche]

Kind of. It's really a Management fee, not capital gains, and should be treated as such.

They get both.  The management fee is like 2 percent of the principal a year, and they get whether or not they make money.  That is ordinary compensation income.

The carried interest islike 20 percent of profit, and they only get if they make money,  and often only once the capital partners have gotten a preferred return.  That is what used to be capital gains, but now is only long term capital gains if the underlying invrstment is held for three years

[thaber]

They get both.  The management fee is like 2 percent of the principal a year, and they get whether or not they make money.  That is ordinary compensation income.

The carried interest islike 20 percent of profit, and they only get if they make money,  and often only once the capital partners have gotten a preferred return.  That is what used to be capital gains, but now is only long term capital gains if the underlying invrstment is held for three years

I understood. It's like any syndication.
This is better then before. But in my eyes the capital gain 'reward' is for having skin in the game, not for being a good investor of other peoples money. That's a fee bonus.

[henche]

I understood. It's like any syndication.
This is better then before. But in my eyes the capital gain 'reward' is for having skin in the game, not for being a good investor of other peoples money. That's a fee bonus.

I don't disagree.

But consider this.  We adopt your rule, and we say that you only get a partnership allocation if you put money in, not sevices.

Now they make an investment.  They invest 100, and after 2 years its worth 200. So they could sell today, and the fund manager would get 20. But they think there's still untapped value so they hold on. 

Shouldn't you view that 20 as the managers skin in the game?

[aygart]

I don't disagree.

But consider this.  We adopt your rule, and we say that you only get a partnership allocation if you put money in, not sevices.

Now they make an investment.  They invest 100, and after 2 years its worth 200. So they could sell today, and the fund manager would get 20. But they think there's still untapped value so they hold on. 

Shouldn't you view that 20 as the managers skin in the game?

But they are rich! We shou.ld take more taxes from them so the middle class should get a refund!!!! We are cutting their taxes by taking money straight out of what should have been in their wallets! How will they be able to pay for their higher Obamacare premiums?!?!??!?