Reported Sen. McCain is returning to Arizona and will not be able to vote on the tax bill. I wish him all the best.
Sen. Corker had said he would not vote for the tax bill if it raised the deficit, which of course it does. But now he has changed his mind and will vote for the conference bill. A last minute addition to the conference bill will benefit Corker (Corker personally, not his state) by millions of dollars. That’s millions of dollars right into Corker’s pocket.
Does anyone know fi the contribution to IRA remains at $5,500 for 2018 or is it increased?
McCain wouldn’t be going back if they didn’t have the votes locked up. There’s no way McConnell would let him.
I do not believe this tax bill changed anything re IRA or 401k limits.
From time.com:
Workers can stash away $500 more in their 401(k)s next year.
The IRS announced Thursday that it was increasing the 401(k) contribution limit from $18,000 to $18,500 — the first jump in that ceiling since 2015. The new limits, announced Thursday, also apply to 403(b)s, the majority of 457 plans and the federal government Thrift Savings Plan for 2018.
The feds didn’t change the limit for catch-up contributions for employees ages 50 and over, however. That amount still is $6,000.
Contribution limits for traditional and Roth IRA plans also stayed flat at $5,500, with catch-up contributions of $1,000 for those 50 and over.
For those covered by a workplace retirement plan such as a 401(k), the income ranges for IRA deduction phaseouts also changed for 2018.
Here’s a link describing last minute addition to the bill that greatly benefits wealthy real estate investors - like Trump and Corker. This was not in the House or Senate versions - new gift to the wealthy.
I wonder if the senate parliamentarian can put a stop to that last minute addition. It would seem suspicious at best, considering it wasn’t in either of the earlier bills.
I can remember when Senators mostly traded votes for things that helped their districts and voters. Now they just seem to trade to enrich themselves, as least with this tax bill. It is appalling. There is a hashtag trending on Twitter - #CorkerKickback.
I looked it up and apparently the procedure is that any senator can object against newly inserted subject matter, and it takes a vote of 60 senators to waive the rule – so if that provision is in fact a new insertion (rather than merely tweaking of language of something already there) — then it may end up being stricken from the bill.
Here are the Senate Rules:
Link: https://www.rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleXXVIII
Just to clarify - Corker will get a $1.19 million tax break from the last minute real estate LLC tax break added in that was not in the Senate or House bill ahead of time. He claims he didn’t know about it when he said he’d change his vote to a yes, but John Cornyn, the Republican Senate Majority whip, said it was added at the last minute to get the needed votes. Well… who was the no vote they needed to get at that point? Corker’s. Pants on fire.
That’s $1.19 million per year. He’d get twelve million dollars over ten years.
Senator Cornyn said the provision was added to get the needed votes. Which votes did they need? Rubio, but he got the child tax credit. Collins, but she got, well, nothing, and the Senator from Maine wasn’t agitating to stuff the pockets of real estate developers with millions of dollars. Murkowski was already gotten, with the drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The one who gains from this is Corker. #CorkerKickback
How is it that one can define that Corker will get a tax break of $1.19 million per year? I read that his disclosures show income from properties between 1-5 million dollars per year. Does someone know the exact amount of his income and taxes, or are they just grabbing the high number to make it sound as bad as possible? I do think his miraculous conversion sounds shady, however I’d like to know how people come upon their facts.
It sounds like the last minute provision doesn’t just help ultra wealthy real estate investors, but small landlords also.
Corker is questioning the provision we are accusing him of engineering. He wrote a letter to Hatch how it crept into the bill.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/365375-corker-asks-how-real-estate-provision-ended-up-in-tax-bill
I’m sure we’ll never hear a decent explanation, besides, “Blah, blah”. I’d hang on to one’s rentals, if they have one. I doubt that provision is going anywhere.
It may be scraped off now that it became controversial. Since he is questioning the provision, he won’t object to removing the provision.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/corkers-controversial-flip-tax-plan-raises-awkward-questions
Maybe, but then it might look even worse if they removed it, because that would be acknowledging the payback. I dunno.
Eh, taking it out will give Corker cover to vote for the bill, despite its effect on the deficit and debt. All theater.
There are a couple of other people, whose names are on the tip of my tongue, who will benefit bigly by this addition to the bill.
Can anyone point to the exact section of the bill that deals with this? All I see are general statements about people with large RE holdings getting a windfall.
They could have easily linked it to income so it could benefit small landlords and not the super rich. But they didn’t.
@calmom, do you know if anyone can raise a point of order at any time? If they don’t allow democrats to have the floor than perhaps no point of order can be raised.
According to the letter Corker wrote to Hatch it starts on page 25 line 3.
“Yesterday afternoon, I received a call from a reporter asking about what he alleged to be a new provision in the legislation. The suggestion was that it was airdropped into the conference without prior consideration by either the House or the Senate. Since this issue has never been discussed with us by committee or Senate leadership, I went back through the bill in detail today.
Beginning on page 25, line 3, there is a policy related to pass-through businesses and what is known as the alternative limitation on the deduction amount. My understanding from talking to leadership staff today is that a version of this provision was always in the House bill—from the Ways & Means markup, through House floor consideration—and in reconciling the divergent House and Senate approaches to pass-through businesses this House approach stayed in the final conferenced version. “