Jump to content

chasfh

America And The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad GOP Tax Plan

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, stanpapi said:

Good story, but hopefully you copy and pasted this and didn't waste your time actually typing all that out.

The highlighted item above was specifically dealt with in both the house and senate bills.There are provisions to make sure people don't play games by recharacterizing wages to profits to avoid a higher tax.

Additionally, after the bill is signed, there will also likely be a technical corrections bill to fix anything that was missed. And likely also subsequent regulations to provide interpretations of the new bill. 

Translation: not the same issue as Kansas. 

 

Because this time we figured out how to word the tax code such that no corporation could take advantage in unanticipated and in undesired ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Because this time we figured out how to word the tax code such that no corporation could take advantage in unanticipated and in undesired ways.

No, read what I said. It's in the bills. There were also articles with congressmen and senators over the last several weeks outlining that the specific steps they wanted to take to make sure the law would prevent people from doing exactly what I described. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because this time we figured out how to word the tax code such that no corporation could take advantage in unanticipated and in undesired ways.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Because this time we figured out how to word the tax code such that no corporation could take advantage in unanticipated and in undesired ways.

If you're just here to make a stupid comment about tax bills that you didn't read, there's no point in discussing it with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

15 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Because this time we figured out how to word the tax code such that no corporation could take advantage in unanticipated and in undesired ways.

Trump read the executive bullet point summary of the bill and he promised there is no way anybody will take advantage in unanticipated and undesired ways.  Believe him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

 

 

Trump read the executive bullet point summary of the bill and he promised there is no way anybody will take advantage in unanticipated and undesired ways.  Believe him.  

If you want to cheat, go ahead. You can do that under current law or whatever this one becomes. I'm just telling you what's in the bill. The house has a different mechanism on pass through income than the senate. Both wanted to ensure there were specific provisions to make sure you didn't flip salary to profit taxed at a lower rate.  Period.

With respect to my cheating comment, there are always cheaters. But if you don't think they aren't going to audit the living crap out of how people handle this particular part of the law on their tax returns, think again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

If you want to cheat, go ahead. You can do that under current law or whatever this one becomes. I'm just telling you what's in the bill. The house has a different mechanism on pass through income than the senate. Both wanted to ensure there were specific provisions to make sure you didn't flip salary to profit taxed at a lower rate.  Period.

With respect to my cheating comment, there are always cheaters. But if you don't think they aren't going to audit the living crap out of how people handle this particular part of the law on their tax returns, think again. 

I don't want to cheat.  Extremely wealthy people with top lawyers and influence over government might.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

I don't want to cheat.  Extremely wealthy people with top lawyers and influence over government might.  

I'm just saying, someone can cheat under any law. But these bills have specific provisions that are pretty black and white. You can't do what was described (salary to profit) unless you cheat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Deleterious said:

I just read an article on all of the different pass through scenarios.  

It reminded me why I pay an accountant.  

It is pretty dumb. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

No need to bring Walt into it.

Well-played. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, stanpapi said:

If you want to cheat, go ahead. You can do that under current law or whatever this one becomes. I'm just telling you what's in the bill. The house has a different mechanism on pass through income than the senate. Both wanted to ensure there were specific provisions to make sure you didn't flip salary to profit taxed at a lower rate.  Period.

With respect to my cheating comment, there are always cheaters. But if you don't think they aren't going to audit the living crap out of how people handle this particular part of the law on their tax returns, think again. 

So, in other words, not much changed with regards to corporations taking advantage of the new code in unintended and undesired ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House bill killed the AMT, but the Senate keeps it and the threshold only went up a tiny bit. Bummer.

House bill repealed the estate tax but the Senate keeps it, but doubles the exemption to $11M for single people, $22M for married. Not bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, stanpapi said:

If you're just here to make a stupid comment about tax bills that you didn't read, there's no point in discussing it with you. 

That comment isn't stupid.  It's what always happens.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#gotonejob

Don't they live for this? Good lord that's pathetic

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Cindy paying over $800 a month for insurance on her kids?  $30k qualifies them for CHIP in my state at $50 a year.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're apparently ok now.  That was wrt the CR, if I'm understanding correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Melody said:

Why is Cindy paying over $800 a month for insurance on her kids?  $30k qualifies them for CHIP in my state at $50 a year.  

 

Are you being serious or facetious, since Sen. Hatch says there is "no money" for CHIP?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pfife said:

That comment isn't stupid.  It's what always happens.

 

This one is black and white in the text of both bills. There are plenty of grey areas in our tax law. This is not one of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too busy traveling and wasting my money on enriching the economies of Hilton Head and Williamsburg, Va.

After looking at the tax charts, I should have just invested in a trailer and wasted my extra two dollars a week on booze, women and movies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senate FIFO Proposal Punishes American Investors

Quote

Consistent with our nation’s commitment to free markets and individual rights, American investors have always had the ability to decide for themselves exactly what stocks they buy and sell, without interference from the government. Believe it or not, the Senate version of the tax reform bill seeks to change that. For individual investors who hold multiple positions in the same stock purchased over time, the Senate provision would require them always to sell — and make gifts of — the oldest shares first. That’s called FIFO, or first-in, first-out.          

Because most stocks increase in value over time, requiring stocks to be sold on a FIFO basis will cause investors to pay more capital gains taxes as they sell down their investments, which the government estimates as generating $2.4 billion of new tax revenue over the next 10 years. While that’s a lot more in taxes for investors to pay, it’s only a drop in the bucket towards offsetting the overall costs of tax reform.  

 

Quote

The burden of requiring investors to sell stock on a FIFO basis will fall especially hard on retirees. Consider a worker who has built up a nest egg in company stock acquired through payroll deductions or market purchases over a 30 or 40 year career. When it finally comes time to sell stock to pay for retirement, no longer could the specific shares be selected on an economically rational basis. Instead, the retiree will be forced always to sell the oldest – and often biggest gain—shares first. That means higher capital gains taxes and less income to pay for retirement. Whether or not the retiree’s nest egg proves big enough to carry all the way through retirement is increasingly called into question.    

Here’s more. The FIFO requirement would not apply equally to all investors. Managers of mutual funds, ETFs and other “regulated investment companies” would continue to enjoy the flexibility to pick the specific share lots they sell. Individually managed portfolios would have that right taken away. That’s not fair. All investors should have the same freedom to manage their investments as they choose.

More at the link

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×