The five biggest changes for families in the Republican Tax Bill. From the NYT> Formatting is scrwed up, but the first number is current, the second the proposed bill.
This is the best I could do to cut and paste the table from the Times, which was taken from some IRS document.
As I noted earlier, they (NYT) call it a $1,182 cut, but fail to note that it actually is in excess of a 70% cut.
As I said, good luck defending a vote against that if your district is Buffalo, or even Detroit or Flint.
I’m assuming the proposal to treat tuition benefits as taxable income also applies to tuition benefits for military veterans and their spouses and survivors, e.g., the GI Bill and a variety of state programs providing special benefits for veterans. Does anyone know if that is correct?
Joint Committee on Taxation distribution tables released
https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5029
“NAR is not pleased. Stocks of home builders plummeted.”
Is that bad? I’d be happy it discourages building of McMansions. Build $500K or less. Building bigger houses should count on tax payers to help out. The median home is $250K.
Non wealthy colleges hire a manager for over $1M? They’d better not. The fund raising at universities are out of control. Whatever speaks to money is idolized. You don’t hire deans or provost for their academic or educational standing. You hire then for fundraising ability.
If for-profits are restricted in paying their employees over $1M, how does restricting compensations at nonprofit over a million amount to redistribution? If they don’t restrict, it gives advantage to nonprofits in hiring. They get to hire better quality for less. This evens the playing field.
Please explain how to put up a house that will cost $500K on a quarter acre that costs $750K. Thanks.
The country is big. Go to places where you can build houses for much less. We all make an adjustment for what we can pay. It will be good to redistribute populations away from coastal lines. They are already so crowded. Why encourage them to build more?
Not so sure about that. Surveys say that by overwhelming margins, most people think taxes on corporations and the wealthy should be increased, not decreased. I don’t think they’re so easily bought off by a sales pitch that amounts to “a few hundred dollars for you, and millions for the billionaires,”
Other surveys say relatively few people rank lower taxes as a priority compared to other needs like shoring up health care, keeping Medicare and Social Security solvent, and doing something about the high cost of higher education. There are aspects of this tax proposal that are directly antithetical to those goals. First, obviously, it balloons the deficit and the nation’s long-term debt, leaving less money for other pressing needs (like the aforementioned). Second, big tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy are funded in part by taking big whacks out of Medicare and Medicaid, programs that working class and middle class people count on because they need to count on them. I think people in places like Buffalo, Detroit, and Flint are smart enough to realize that the long-term viability of those programs is more important to their long-term financial interests—and even to their ability to survive—than a few hundred bucks in the short term.
This is helpful for isolating impact on students: http://time.com/money/5007540/gop-tax-plan-tax-breaks-college-students/
Our middle class income goes up $2000 under the new bill. @busdriver11 Here’s the calculator. I hope you fare better than I did! https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-new-trump-tax-calculator-what-do-you-owe-2017-10-26
“The country is big. Go to places where you can build houses for much less. We all make an adjustment for what we can pay. It will be good to redistribute populations away from coastal lines. They are already so crowded. Why encourage them to build more?”
:)) tell that to Toll Bros etc. - they are not idiots to build where there are no buyers.
@dadx what’s missing from
That example is that the increased child tax credits expire in 5 years.
Hmm… I’ll have to tell Mr R that we need to speed up this kid thing.
(kidding. ish.)
My heart is not breaking for colleges that pay their presidents over a million. 
Or the wealthy schools with billions of dollars of endowments, that still keep raising tuition.
But I feel bad for the students who could get even further into debt. They are going to have to make different choices.
The child tax credit may help the numbers look better, however, many people have no children or older ones, so they just get a tax increase.
Apparently there is language in the bill that will penalize millionaires
"While on the surface the law appears to keep the top tax bracket of 39.6% in place, it actually does manage to raise that rate to 45% if you read the dirty details. According to Politico, “a little-noticed provision effectively creates a new band in which income is taxed at over 45 percent. Thanks to a quirky proposed surcharge, Americans who earn more than $1 million in taxable income would trigger an extra 6 percent tax on the next $200,000 they earn—a complicated change that effectively creates a new, unannounced tax bracket of 45.6 percent.”
Where did I say they did? Read what I said:
For-profit corporations aren’t “restricted” in paying their executives in excess of $1 million. They just can’t treat that payment as a deductible business expense. There are all sorts of things that for-profit corporations can’t treat as deductible (or exempt from taxation entirely) that non-profits can. Like earnings on investments, for example. Is that unfair? Should we “level the playing field” by taxing non-profits the same way we tax for-profit corporations? It’s perhaps not an entirely crazy idea, but that’s not the choice we’ve made as a society, because we value the unique contributions colleges and universities make in education and research. So we give them all sorts of tax privileges that others don’t get. But when we start to take away those tax privileges, it leaves less money for education—in this case, so Congress can lavish large tax breaks on for-profit corporations and the uber-wealthy. It’s in that sense that it’s a redistribution, taking money away from education to hand it to corporations and the wealthy.
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that these particular taxes are at “break the bank” levels. But I fear it’s just an opening wedge, establishing a precedent that could lead to heavier taxation of non-profit colleges and universities in the future. And that, in my opinion, would be serious error. We need to strengthen the finances of our higher education system, not treat it as a giant piggy bank to be raided whenever we need money for other pet projects, whether it’s tax giveaways to corporations and the wealthy or something else. That way lies long-term ruin.
That’s a weird tax bracket. Just on the next 200 K they earn, but not on any more?
This is a good point that hadn’t occurred to me. 
Nothing has mentioned a large scale culling of corporate tax deductions and credits. Indeed, if there was a large scale culling of such, the changes to the corporate tax would be close to revenue neutral (instead of creating a big revenue shortfall), since the existing corporate tax (with rates up to 35% but lots of deductions and credits) has an effective tax rate of 18-19%.
That tax calculator is very basic and doesn’t account for a lower rate on qualified dividends and capital gains, or the new $300 family credits or the up to $2500 AOTC.