More dumbness.
http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/House-of-Representatives-wants-to-lose-12375211.php
Re: #1180 and http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/House-of-Representatives-wants-to-lose-12375211.php
The bonds in question are “private activity bonds” issued by a state or local government to help finance a project by a private user (e.g. a private college, a private hospital, a sports stadium).
Currently, interest on these bonds is exempt from normal federal income tax like other state and local government bonds, but is subject to Alternative Minimum Tax.
Private Activity Bonds are also used to build housing at market rents in Manhattan, as long as the developer sets aside ~20% for low income. how about these gems, emily?
Still “dumb”?
@bluebayou, there is a difference between tweaking and elimination.
In this case, tweaking to fix the problem would have been excellent. Elimination, however, is dumb.
Yes, I still think it’s a dumb idea because:
“The savings are substantial but they are not unusual for non-profit organizations that incude colleges, hospitals, airports, museums or community centers like YMCAs which rely on private activity bonds to make their building projects affordable.”
Do you believe developers are going to set aside any apartments specifically for low income people out of the goodness of their hearts?
Of course not. But they really have no choice if they want zoning approval.
Don’t forget that the tax-free interest on these bonds is paid primarily to the top 5-percenters. So, the bonds benefit wealthy developers and they benefit wealthy investors looking for a non-taxable income stream.
And yes, private colleges and private (and for-profit?) might also benefit.
Majority of small business owners dislike the tax plans.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/361916-poll-majority-of-small-businesses-oppose-gop-tax-bill
Rand Paul announced his support today , so that leaves Flake, McCain, johnson, and Collins as possible no votes. I am counting on them.
Senate tax proposal hurts the poor more than even expected. It hurts people who earn less than 30K first, but then creeps up and hurts everyone who makes less than 75K.
Senate tax bill is going to be expensive for high earners from high tax states. If that makes people feel any better. Just talked to a family member, whose kid and spouse make around 800K, and live in a high tax state. They think this will raise their taxes by about 60K. Seems a little high to me, but if you are paying hefty state income and property taxes, and lose that deduction, I can see it.
And it doesn’t make me feel better to raise anyone’s taxes. Since they’re already from a donor state and pay a boatload of taxes, it’s not like people from other states are supporting their deductions.
I think it’s a huge stretch to say that you hurt poor people by making the purchase of healthcare - with subsidies - optional. If the ACA subsidies are still available, eliminating the individual mandate will screw up the program and raise premiums, but I think it’s inaccurate to say it hurts poor people who decline low cost subsidized health insurance that is no longer mandatory.
I think the fallacy is that it will only affect high earners from high tax states. It will also raise taxes in high earners in lower taxes states as well.
Has Corker actually stated his position?
I should’ve added Corker to the list of undecided. Apparently Senator Daines is a no, I’m embarrassed that am not familiar with him at all.
And Murkowski’s playing both sides, which is her maddening (but consistent!) wont.
I think Murkowski is a yes since they sweetened the pot to allow drilling in a protected area of Alaska.
I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone claim that it would only hurt high earners from high tax states. That’s just one group that will pay more.
frantically googles
Here’s his statement: https://www.daines.senate.gov/news/press-releases/daines-negotiating-concerns-on-tax-cuts-for-main-street-businesses
Tomorrow is our massive call-in day over the House plan.
[uote]I think it’s a huge stretch to say that you hurt poor people by making the purchase of healthcare - with subsidies - optional.
[/quote]
It hurts poor people by breaking the insurance market and driving out all insurers from an area. Then the poor people would be entitled to buy subsidized insurance, but there would be no insurance for them to buy.
Moran of Kansas is also undecided. He saw firsthand in Kansas what tax cuts did to the economy.