@saillakeerie, no, not necessarily truth, but certainly a bit of transparency.
@katliamom Again, I would say more but experience tells me it would be deleted under ToS.
@dfbdfb I think they are being totally transparent. Just not in the way you or I would like them to be. To me, everything all of them does is totally transparent.
Ok…I’ve sent this to my Congress people.
This was supposed to simplify the tax code. I was supposed to make filing less complicated. It was supposed to reduce the number of tax brackets as well as the rates.
I don’t see that…and I would love to see a discussion on how this proposal does what was supposed to have happen.
Sorry…it doesn’t.
Per Orin Hatch, the item in question was in the original House bill.
Other than that, let’s continue on this political name calling and discussion. 
edited to add source:
I’ll wait for the fact-checking on Hatch’s assertion before I buy it. But let me just say, “discussed”? HAH! None of this has been discussed, debated or thought about.
My understanding of the House plan is that it had different provisions for so-called “capital intensive” businesses, but it wasn’t framed along the lines of a deduction, it had to do with calculating the percentage of business income that was eligible for the lower rate. The House bill assumed 30%, but it could go as high as 100% if you could prove that all the income was from capital investment.
The Senate plan went with a deduction model, so it is hard to compare the two. But it does seem like there was something in the House plan that would have applied to large property owners.
See the discussion on page 550 of the bill.
I have read that prepayment of 2018 state, local and property taxes in 2017 will not be allowed as per the final version of the tax reform bill. My sister in law, who lives in CA, told me she can deduct the second half of 2017-2018 (Jan-June 2018) property tax bill by December 31st and still can claim it as 2017 deduction, just NOT the 2018-2019 where there is no billing yet. Is she correct? If it is allowed, I may also pay the property tax by year end.
Also, increasing 2017 itemized deductions (prepaying taxes) may increase AMT?
If SALT has been capped at $10k, then we will likely end up using the $24k standard deduction instead.
Thanks.
^ Your sister is correct. No cities send tax bill for 2018-2019 yet.
Yes. If you will already be paying AMT, prepaying extra taxes will not lower your tax bill.
Well, technically it will lower your regular tax bill but that will be exactly offset by an increase in the difference between AMT and regular tax.
And now it’s being reported that Sen. Corker “failed to disclose” millions in income over the years. He made dozens of amendments on Friday. Originally in the WSJ, but I can’t open their article.
http://fortune.com/2015/12/14/senator-corker-financial-disclosure/
^ That article is two years old.
This thread is getting political.
He says that, but he is unable to point to where they were in the original House bill because they were nowhere in the original House bill.
I thought I also read sole proprietorships, which is pretty easy to structure.
I still can’t find anything that favors wealthy landlords over non-wealthy, if they all get the same break. The philosophy of “they benefit more because they have more of it” doesn’t wash to me, if everyone is getting the same benefit. If I have no rental property, I will not benefit from rentals being classified as pass-throughs.
“In a letter to Corker, Hatch wrote that the provision was included in the House-passed bill and said his colleague did not personally advocate for it.
“It takes a great deal of imagination — and likely no small amount of partisanship — to argue that a provision that has been public for over a month, debated on the floor of the House of Representatives, included in a House-passed bill, and identified by [Joint Committee on Taxation] as an issue requiring a compromise between conferees is somehow a covert and last-minute addition to the conference report,” Hatch wrote in the letter dated Monday.”
I have a bridge to sell you.
This right here is the thinking that led to the current government we have now. Not considering that people may have a philosophical difference of opinion, and they disagree…it must be that they’re evil or stupid. Or both.
If you don’t understand your opponents and you think they are just evil or stupid, it’s likely you are going to lose every single time. There just aren’t enough idiotic and malevolent people in this country to make your point.
You’re missing the point. The bill doesn’t favor wealthy landlords over non-wealthy landlords; all get the same loophole not available to other people. Rather, it favors wealthy and ultra-wealthy landlords over wealthy doctors and lawyers. Some kinds of people get the deduction, whereas other kinds of people do not. And there is no rhyme or reason to explain why some people get the deduction and other people don’t get it.
What is so wonderful about rentiers that they deserve low tax rates? Why would living on rents be something the tax code should favor over operating on hearts?
Apparently because people who get their money by actually working for it are less worthy.
You could use that argument for every single tax break. Why should people get to write off student loan interest when there are children who are hungry? Shouldn’t that money go to support social services for the poor? Why should people be able to write off mortgage loan and property tax while renters can’t write off their rent? You could go on forever about this.
But when people are claiming there are special tax breaks that only benefit wealthy landlords, that sounds like spin to me. From the sound of it, everyone who is a landlord (including many on this forum), can take the same benefit.
The tax code incentivizes certain things **that we want ** by favorable tax treatment. We let people deduct mortgage interest because we think buying a house is a good idea, producing stable neighborhoods. We let people deduct student loan interest, and we give subsidized loans, because we think going to college is a good idea. The new tax bill lowers taxes on income brought from offshore because we want companies to bring money back here.
What is the justification for favoring ultra-rich real estate developers over other wealthy people who are not real estate developers? Nobody has even offered any justification, other than that they want the President to sign the tax bill. There has been literally no explanation of why this loophole is a good policy.