<p>Ok…I clicked on the link for the movie. You know, when I say the economy is going to be a lot better in 5 years, I don’t mean better for everyone.</p>
<p>I don’t want to talk about that subject right now. When subjects like that are talked about, you don’t see me in those threads. There is nothing wrong with the subject. I just don’t want to chat about it. I will leave that up to others.</p>
<p>Ok doct…I will give it a shot.</p>
<p>I’m not in a place to watch that kind of movie. I’ve seen too much already.</p>
<p>Doct, I can’t see the slide shows on this ipad.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t try too hard - its just some cliffs that have appeared in movies like cliff hanger</p>
<p>Lol… Ok.</p>
<p>You all have much better crystal balls than I do. We are just happy when our expenses are lower than our assets and income. So far, we’ve been fortunate to have such a situation and hope it continues.</p>
<p>My BIL says his accountant says he will have to pay $47K in taxes, which seems like a whopping amount, partly at least due to the death of his business partner. Fortunately, he should have the funds to pay that. He’s looking into incorporating or doing some business planning to avoid such a huge tax bill in future years–I told him to PLEASE talk with a tax attorney or similar.</p>
<p>Our accountant doesn’t seem to think our taxes will be much affected by whatever happens. I’m not losing any sleep over what I can’t control.</p>
<p>I get the feeling that everyone here can handle higher tax bills. It may take a little effort and it may be unpleasant for a while and it may take some reshuffling but folks here seem fairly sophisticated about financial matters. Everyone here is managing through college expenses and that’s a pretty big tax.</p>
<p>BCEagle91–this isn’t exactly a representative sample of society. Can we “handle” the tax increase, sure, but we also had plans for those dollars that will have to be put off for a while–major purchases that would help the economy–new kitchen appliances, maybe some flooring and countertops too, that kind of stuff. Anytime you take away discretionary funds from people it’s bad for the economy. If these fixes aren’t taken care of, people in the income levels below $100,000 are the ones that are REALLY going to suffer. This is not going to just hurt the “rich” people. People making $40,000 will get hit too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was using “plan” in the most broad sense. It looks like they will raise the age in Medicare.As fiscally conservative, I can’t watch the government running the debt as they do. Isn’t this debt crisis around for more than 20 years?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yes. I believe that I stated that. Glad that you agree with me.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>So what? I wasn’t making the point that everyone else would be fine.</p>
<p>For all you tax experts out there, please explain what difference it makes if taxes are raised on incomes over (200k, 250k) or deductions are limited for the same group. It seems to me that it is still money in and money out for basically the same group of people.</p>
<p>DocT, you do know that what is quite possible is that both will happen – higher rates, doing away with deductions.</p>
<p>I would be interested in a thread whereby we could post our various retirement models and share advice on how to save, invest, how much is enough, etc.</p>
<p>It would mean disclosing some sensitive stuff - income, savings levels. But I get tired of noodling thru this stuff in isolation with just a financial planner to bounce it off of. I don’t really trust those guys. They are programmed tell you to “save more!” no matter what and I seriously doubt our retirement costs will be anywhere near 80 percent of what we currently earn.</p>
<p>I understand that - however the debate has been cast as one vs the other. From my standpoint, all I care about is the final sum.</p>
<p>At incomes around 200k to 250k, because their tax rates won’t be affected, taxpayers in this group can only pay more by having their deductions eliminated or reduced. Their tax breaks eliminated or reduced.</p>
<p>Obviously, it depends on what is really enacted. Probably for people that make 400,000 to 500,000… Well let’s look at people that make 400,000. If the top two tax rates rise, they may see their income taxes go up approximately 7500. If deductions are capped instead at say 25,000 and they have 60,000 in deductions, they lose 35,000 in deductions. Their income taxes increases approximately a third times 35,000. 11,666. So they are worse off with limited deductions.</p>
<p>A generality, but those that make millions would prefer limited deductions compared to tax rate increases because their taxes would go
up more with tax rate increases. These are the people we are trying to protect in the tax argument. The people that make millions a year. </p>
<p>If the government really wants to maximize the tax changes, imo, the government should raise cap gains tax rates because that is the tax the
wealthy pay, leave the top two tax rates alone, and reduce or eliminate deductions becsuse that is how the upper middle class reduces its taxes.</p>
<p>Also politically, just from reading this thread, people seem adament that
they don’t want their tax rates changed. Posters also don’t like deductions because some people get The deductions and some don’t. Of
course, everybody gets deductions. :)</p>
<p>So…let’s give the people what they want. Sc… Them. We limit the deductions. We raise cap gain tax rates for incomes above 250,000.</p>
<p>If I was running things, I think that is what I would do. I wouldn’t touch my tax breaks though. 
I admit that I get tax breaks and I don’t pay
taxes anything close to the posted tax rates. :)</p>
<p>I am ignoring the amt in this…the amt complicates things. ;)</p>
<p>No expert here but deductions don’t benefit everyone while lower rates would. I would prefer limiting dedcutions before raising taxes to rasise revenue. But they probably should do both.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Aren’t they already raised by about 4%, ObamaCare tax?</p>
<p>I would expect that limiting deductions such as mortgage would have a catastrophic impact on the housing industry and on the rich who would most likely see the value of their expensive homes decline.</p>
<p>Not the wealthy</p>
<p>The wealthy don’t have their wealth in housing.</p>
<p>The wealthy have already made up most of their losses from the financial crisis.</p>
<p>It is true and you bring up a good point, doct. Tax changes can affect a person’s assets.</p>
<p>So if the mortgage deduction is eliminated, you don’t just lose that tax break, but the value of your asset goes down too. You end up losing twice.</p>
<p>** I would expect that limiting deductions such as mortgage would have a catastrophic impact on the housing industry and on the rich who would most likely see the value of their expensive homes decline. **</p>
<p>Well, it would depend on what you define as “the rich.” The rich people I know see mortgages as just one of many things to do with their money. They would not be impacted seriously by no more mortgage deduction. They can afford enormous rents for enormous houses. They can pay cash for lovely houses. That is my definition of “rich”.</p>
<p>So apparently, you’re defining rich as someone with a high taxable income who needs a place to live, must keep earning that high taxable income because the funds aren’t their to retire and so borrows to buy a house because it provides shelter and provides a tax break from the high taxes on the high taxable income.</p>
<p>I really don’t think there’s much concern for that type of tax payer. </p>
<p>The deep irony in all this is about playing on the naivete of the population. Throwing around terms like “the rich” to herd voters in directions that will end up hurting just about everyone but the actual “rich.”</p>
<p>Yes, that is true Igloo.</p>