Financial News

[RockRaines]

So I will be making about half of the deductions I usually make once this is in effect. What is particularly disheartening is taking away tax deductions for charitable contributions.

[Dick Allen]

The provision that the democrats introduced that made employers raise the wages with the corporate tax reduction that the republicans killed pretty much summed up their motives.

One start would be the right finally coming around on raising the minimum wage. If they are touting this as everyone will be given a raise and this isn't for the wealthy, the tax cut should more than pay for it being higher.

 

They are so full of s*** their eyes are brown.

[StrangeSox]

So I will be making about half of the deductions I usually make once this is in effect. What is particularly disheartening is taking away tax deductions for charitable contributions.

 

Estimates range from $10B to $15B or so in declines for charitable giving.

 

Tax advice from my accountant: go ahead and front-load your planned 2018 contributions before the end of this year if you can so you can deduct it all from 2017 taxes if you won't be able to deduct them for 2018 taxes because you'll be switching to the standard deduction.

[pettie4sox]

Where is the thread to talk about 401ks and advice and such? Is this the proper venue?

[RockRaines]

Estimates range from $10B to $15B or so in declines for charitable giving.

Tax advice from my accountant: go ahead and front-load your planned 2018 contributions before the end of this year if you can so you can deduct it all from 2017 taxes if you won't be able to deduct them for 2018 taxes because you'll be switching to the standard deduction.

Alot of that has to be rich people trying to get deductions, but locally it sucks that you cannot deduct what we donate. I spend a lot of my time with local charities and its going to be a harder sell now, especially for the larger donors. I just dont get it.

 

Also the standard deduction sucks and the 10k cap on property taxes. Thats about half of my taxes.

[StrangeSox]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think you can still deduct the full value of charitable deductions if you're still planning on itemizing. The expected decline is because a lot of people who currently itemize will instead be using the increased standard deduction, removing some incentives for charitable giving.

 

The big change is that $10k state/local/property tax cap, which is going to push a lot of middle or upper middle class people out of itemizing and into the standard deduction. For more wealthy individuals with complex finances and taxes, they'll probably still be itemizing and could still take advantage of charitable deductions.

[RockRaines]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think you can still deduct the full value of charitable deductions if you're still planning on itemizing. The expected decline is because a lot of people who currently itemize will instead be using the increased standard deduction, removing some incentives for charitable giving.

 

The big change is that $10k state/local/property tax cap, which is going to push a lot of middle or upper middle class people out of itemizing and into the standard deduction. For more wealthy individuals with complex finances and taxes, they'll probably still be itemizing and could still take advantage of charitable deductions.

I thought I saw they removed all 501c3 deductions.

 

This is why I have an accountant.

 

I also dont understand the 10k property tax cap. It just doesnt make sense to me. I know they want to punish blue states, but local governments have a lot to do with the property tax, and nicer areas tend to have higher taxes.

Edited December 21, 2017 by RockRaines

[StrangeSox]

I thought I saw they removed all 501c3 deductions.

 

This is why I have an accountant.

 

Yeah definitely check with an actual accountant instead of my second-hand understanding from accountants.

 

I also dont understand the 10k property tax cap. It just doesnt make sense to me. I know they want to punish blue states, but local governments have a lot to do with the property tax, and nicer areas tend to have higher taxes.

 

It's a way to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy, and that it punishes blue states is even better in their eyes. A couple of Republican Senators were even pretty explicit about their glee in punishing San Francisco and New York.

 

[RockRaines]

Yeah definitely check with an actual accountant instead of my second-hand understanding from accountants.

 

 

 

It's a way to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy, and that it punishes blue states is even better in their eyes. A couple of Republican Senators were even pretty explicit about their glee in punishing San Francisco and New York.

Yeah, I guess the money they get back from investments and estates more than makes up for the smaller deduction on the taxes on their castles. That actually does make sense. And at the same time it hurts the middle class type folks in blue states or large democratic cities.

[StrangeSox]

Well that's also why they ended up tamping down the top tax rate a little more than either the House or Senate bills originally called for. Their wealthy donors in blue states called and complained, so they cut the top bracket a little more to ease the burden.

 

The rest of us can go pound sand, though.

 

This is from Pew, last April. People's #1 concerns with taxes in this country are that the wealthy and corporations don't pay enough. So Republicans slashed both group's taxes massively after they were ushered into power on a populist wave led by a man who told them all he wasn't going to sign a tax plan that benefited himself or the wealthy at all.

 

 

They've already literally called this "cashing out." Looting the country and stealing everything that isn't nailed down.

Edited December 21, 2017 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Where is the thread to talk about 401ks and advice and such? Is this the proper venue?

You can always ask here even if it's not perfeclty on subject but here's an old thread that's bumpable on that.

[Balta1701]

So I will be making about half of the deductions I usually make once this is in effect. What is particularly disheartening is taking away tax deductions for charitable contributions.

Does this also hammer tax deductions for giving to churches?

[StrangeSox]

The Republicans’ first legislative triumph of 2017 will ensure a financial windfall for the president and his family in a way that is virtually unprecedented in American political history.

 

Living in a kleptocracy sucks.

[RockRaines]

I'm thinking I have to make myself a passthrough corporation.

[Dick Allen]

The Republicans’ first legislative triumph of 2017 will ensure a financial windfall for the president and his family in a way that is virtually unprecedented in American political history.

 

Living in a kleptocracy sucks.

 

Trump the patriot, doesn't pay taxes anyways.

[RockRaines]

Trump the patriot, doesn't pay taxes anyways.

Being able to hide everything in a corporation has its perks.

[pettie4sox]

I'm thinking I have to make myself a passthrough corporation.

 

Being able to milk the system requires knowledge and ton of resources. It pays to have money, literally.

[ptatc]

One start would be the right finally coming around on raising the minimum wage. If they are touting this as everyone will be given a raise and this isn't for the wealthy, the tax cut should more than pay for it being higher.

 

They are so full of s*** their eyes are brown.

Would another way to accomplish this be to create more jobs instead of raising the minimum wage?

[RockRaines]

I love touting that ATT took 200k and gave it to employees as "giving it back." Thats literally less than 1 percent of what their windfall will be.

[pettie4sox]

Would another way to accomplish this be to create more jobs instead of raising the minimum wage?

 

So minimum wage workers can have more minimum wage jobs to work? I suppose if you work 16 hours a day at two minimum wage that would give people a chance?

[StrangeSox]

Full employment should have an upward effect on wages, but we're near full employment now and have been multiple times over the last few decades while wages have largely remained flat.

[ptatc]

So minimum wage workers can have more minimum wage jobs to work? I suppose if you work 16 hours a day at two minimum wage that would give people a chance?

I don't know the answer. I'm thinking about the overall socioeconomic structure.

 

Is it better to have more people employed at a lower salary or more people employed at a higher salary and subsequently have more unemployed people.

[GoSox05]

If our only two options are lot's of people employed, but still poor or mass unemployment. Maybe we live in a broken system.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

If our only two options are lot's of people employed, but still poor or mass unemployment. Maybe we live in a broken system.

 

The wealth is obviously there, it's a matter of how our economic systems end up distributing it. We've already got worse income and wealth inequality than the peak of the Gilded Age.

[ptatc]

Full employment should have an upward effect on wages, but we're near full employment now and have been multiple times over the last few decades while wages have largely remained flat.

 

Here is some information from the Bureau of labor and statistics.

 

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for teenagers increased to 15.9

percent in November. The jobless rates for adult men (3.7 percent), adult women (3.7

percent), Whites (3.6 percent), Blacks (7.3 percent), Asians (3.0 percent), and Hispanics

(4.7 percent) showed little change.

 

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as

involuntary part-time workers), at 4.8 million, was essentially unchanged in November but

was down by 858,000 over the year. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time

employment, were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they

were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)

 

still seems to me that there are far too many full time unemployed workers. The "involuntary part-time" workers especially. Many companies are now considering 30 per week "full time" to cut back on wages and benefits for workers, especially in retail. I don't think you can force companies to change the policies but if there were a shortage of workers the companies would become the "buyers" not "sellers" and may get them to change.