Republican Tax Bill - the final Bill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP again. I know they like to rail on Kansas but it wasn’t a really not so bad there as the media a days and this goes further anyway so it is better.

Dinah Sykes, a Republican, is a member of the Kansas State Senate disagrees.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-message-to-congress-dont-make-the-same-mistake-we-did-in-kansas/2017/10/19/fb6058a2-a9de-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.7cb0c3a59364

[Anonymous]

Bub bye individual mandate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bub bye individual mandate.

You can never go backwards. At least not successfully. Our healthcare system will have to hit rock bottom before we do something to fix it. Things will be worst than pre AcA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This opinion piece in a Cleveland paper argues that raising federal income taxes on residents who live in high tax areas (through a repeal of the SALT deduction) will prove a disaster for what he describes as legacy cities such as Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo and Youngstown.

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/12/gop_tax_bills_state_and_local.html

Yep. How to turn Ohio blue in a heartbeat? Get the suburban Cleveland and Cincy voters aligned with East Cleveland and other predominately African-American voters.

Also partnership entities, such as law firms, also are greatly affected by the elimination of the SALT deduction. For example, a partner in a partnership must pay state and local income taxes in every jurisdiction that has an office. So for a law firm, a partner of that law firm must pay state and local income tax in every state and city of the US where that firm has an office (DC, NYC. Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, LA, San Fran, Charlotte, Miami, Philadelphia, Denver, Austin, etc), every single one, even if that partner doesn’t practice out of that office or even visits that office. This can result in an enormous amount of money.

Now that amount is limited to $10,000? A law firm is just an example, but the scenario applies to any partners in any partnership. These are also business owners. I am surprised this isn’t getting more attention. If you are a partner in any kind of partnership I woul wake up to the potential for this to cost tens of thousands or more, every single year, per partner.

Well these are people that Dems love to hate...big law, accounting, hedge fund. plus the Pease reductions are still in place. But we all will no longer being subsidizing public schools that are the equivalent of private, lawn/leaf debris, trash pick up, water/sewer, etc. You can't begin to imagine what some jurisdictions stick in property taxes.

1) I disagree that Democrats love to hate partnerships, you think most Biglaw is comprised of only republican partners? Or doctor groups, entertainment agents, or architects, or lobbying firms or any partnership entity? 2) it’s not the property taxes that are the big issue for partnerships, it is the requirement that each partner must pay state and local tax for each office, regardless of whether that particular partner works in that office. So we will take Biglaw for example, let’s say it’s a huge firm, with offices all over the US. Paying local and state taxes in ALL of those offices on an individual partner level can add up super quickly. So they’re already subsidizing public schools, roads, etc in jurisdictions in which many partners never even work or set foot. These amounts are way over $10,000. And previously you could take those amounts as a deduction on federal taxes, but no more. So what happens? Sure, you’re punishing the high state income tax states like California, but what about those people who have to pay that tax but don’t live there or work there, they’re just a partner in a partnership that has a California office. Well. Bye bye California office. You may start to see a push for certain offices in those high tax states to close or consolidate or have them telecommute instead. And there go all those support staff average joe jobs. It’s already being discussed at my firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This opinion piece in a Cleveland paper argues that raising federal income taxes on residents who live in high tax areas (through a repeal of the SALT deduction) will prove a disaster for what he describes as legacy cities such as Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo and Youngstown.

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/12/gop_tax_bills_state_and_local.html

Yep. How to turn Ohio blue in a heartbeat? Get the suburban Cleveland and Cincy voters aligned with East Cleveland and other predominately African-American voters.

Also partnership entities, such as law firms, also are greatly affected by the elimination of the SALT deduction. For example, a partner in a partnership must pay state and local income taxes in every jurisdiction that has an office. So for a law firm, a partner of that law firm must pay state and local income tax in every state and city of the US where that firm has an office (DC, NYC. Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, LA, San Fran, Charlotte, Miami, Philadelphia, Denver, Austin, etc), every single one, even if that partner doesn’t practice out of that office or even visits that office. This can result in an enormous amount of money.

Now that amount is limited to $10,000? A law firm is just an example, but the scenario applies to any partners in any partnership. These are also business owners. I am surprised this isn’t getting more attention. If you are a partner in any kind of partnership I woul wake up to the potential for this to cost tens of thousands or more, every single year, per partner.

Well these are people that Dems love to hate...big law, accounting, hedge fund. plus the Pease reductions are still in place. But we all will no longer being subsidizing public schools that are the equivalent of private, lawn/leaf debris, trash pick up, water/sewer, etc. You can't begin to imagine what some jurisdictions stick in property taxes.

1) I disagree that Democrats love to hate partnerships, you think most Biglaw is comprised of only republican partners? Or doctor groups, entertainment agents, or architects, or lobbying firms or any partnership entity? 2) it’s not the property taxes that are the big issue for partnerships, it is the requirement that each partner must pay state and local tax for each office, regardless of whether that particular partner works in that office. So we will take Biglaw for example, let’s say it’s a huge firm, with offices all over the US. Paying local and state taxes in ALL of those offices on an individual partner level can add up super quickly. So they’re already subsidizing public schools, roads, etc in jurisdictions in which many partners never even work or set foot. These amounts are way over $10,000. And previously you could take those amounts as a deduction on federal taxes, but no more. So what happens? Sure, you’re punishing the high state income tax states like California, but what about those people who have to pay that tax but don’t live there or work there, they’re just a partner in a partnership that has a California office. Well. Bye bye California office. You may start to see a push for certain offices in those high tax states to close or consolidate or have them telecommute instead. And there go all those support staff average joe jobs. It’s already being discussed at my firm.

Either your post is poorly worded or you don’t seem to understand how state and local taxes interact with each other. Non-residents pay taxes on the income generated in any state where they are not a resident. . They then will receive a credit on their resident state income taxes for taxes paid to the other state.

So, assume a partner resides in IL with offices in CA, GA, and NY. To keep things simple, assume each office generated exactly $1 dollar of income for that partner. The partner will report $1 of income to each of CA, NY, and GA and pay applicable taxes on that dollar to each respective state. SHe will then report $4 to IL (her state of residence) but IL will credit her (reduce her taxes owed dollar-for-dollar) for each tax dollar paid to other states. Note: that states will not grant the credit for city income taxes paid aother jurisdiction (like NYC taxes).

Either way, her effective state income tax rate ends up being some weighted blend of what otherwise would have been her state effective tax rate had she only generated income in just one state. While this does add up in nominal dollars, a partner in a law firm who loses the SALT deductions is no worse off than any other high income earner who loses SALT but happens to live and generate income in just an individual state.

[Anonymous]

Well the amount for me isn’t “nominal”. You are assuming the delta between the credit the home state provides for out of state taxes paid and the aggregate of the out of state taxes paid isn’t much over $10,000. You are wrong. For me, it’s over $100,000. I am not a law firm partner but a partner in another kind of professional entity. I used a law firm as an example because there are many in the DMV. My other partners and I take profits and re invest them in our company and employees. We will have to close offices and lay off some people or have them be “independent contractors” which I hate to do. Nominal, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is an excellent bill and best of all the individual mandate will be repealed. It will give us a chance to come up with a viable alternative to the ACA

Excuse me as I laugh myself to death.

You morons had how many years to come up with an alternative? Kept trying to repeal saying your unseen plan was better? Then finally get your wet dream of total government control and have...nothing?

Please...

We are the only developed country without nationwide healthcare. For all those who hate it, wait until you or one of your friends or relatives need care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This tax bill is insanity. Nobody knows what’s in it, but they are all sure it’s going to pass creating huge deficits. What kind of idiot policy cuts taxes during economic expansion? That’s when Government should be raising taxes. Deficit spending worked well to get us out of the financial crisis. That won’t be a possibility next time because of the existing massive debt. Plus, it will happen because Trump is cutting all the regulations that keep businesses honest.

Trump and the GOP don't care and most of their middle and working class supporters don't want to accept that they are or will be cheated.

Trump and the GOP know all they know they need to do to get the unwashed masses in line is go on a tirade that includes the words "Obama," "welfare," "socialist," and don't forget to sprinkle the rant with "God" and "Merry Christmas." And yes, US citizens are just that to Trump and the GOP-- unwashed masses. Let the suckers eat cake. They have tremendous contempt for their supporters and see them as failures who don't deserve help because they were never smart and successful to begin with. The religious politicians are old Puritans. You were not in God's favor to begin with.

Some of those useful idiots are in my wife's family. You forgot "affirmative action" and "those people".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well the amount for me isn’t “nominal”. You are assuming the delta between the credit the home state provides for out of state taxes paid and the aggregate of the out of state taxes paid isn’t much over $10,000. You are wrong. For me, it’s over $100,000. I am not a law firm partner but a partner in another kind of professional entity. I used a law firm as an example because there are many in the DMV. My other partners and I take profits and re invest them in our company and employees. We will have to close offices and lay off some people or have them be “independent contractors” which I hate to do. Nominal, no.

If you’re paying over $100,000 in state income taxes, you’re almost certainly grossing well over $1 million. Assuming a top federal marginal rate of 39.6% and an effective state income tax rate of 10% (a high estimate, but let’s roll with it), the loss of deducting your $100k delta in state income taxes will—ignoring everything else in the bill that will reduce your tax burden—increase your federal taxes by $40,000/year. A serious amount of money to be sure, but if you’re grossing over $1 million, a net tax increase of $40,000 shouldn’t require you to pay off people and change employment status. You may nonetheless choose to do so, but you aren’t forced to do it. You’ll still comfortably be in then 1% of Americans for after tax income.

Assuming everything you are presenting is factual and ignoring the other benefits you’ll receive from the tax bill, there is simply no reason to believe that in your particular case the loss of the SALT deduction is going to materially alter your after-tax situation to the point that you’re forced to do something that you hate. You’ll choose to do it to make sure that rather than being in the aproimatley top 0.51% of Americans on an after tax income basis you’ll be in the top 0.49% of Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This opinion piece in a Cleveland paper argues that raising federal income taxes on residents who live in high tax areas (through a repeal of the SALT deduction) will prove a disaster for what he describes as legacy cities such as Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo and Youngstown.

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/12/gop_tax_bills_state_and_local.html

Yep. How to turn Ohio blue in a heartbeat? Get the suburban Cleveland and Cincy voters aligned with East Cleveland and other predominately African-American voters.

Also partnership entities, such as law firms, also are greatly affected by the elimination of the SALT deduction. For example, a partner in a partnership must pay state and local income taxes in every jurisdiction that has an office. So for a law firm, a partner of that law firm must pay state and local income tax in every state and city of the US where that firm has an office (DC, NYC. Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, LA, San Fran, Charlotte, Miami, Philadelphia, Denver, Austin, etc), every single one, even if that partner doesn’t practice out of that office or even visits that office. This can result in an enormous amount of money.

Now that amount is limited to $10,000? A law firm is just an example, but the scenario applies to any partners in any partnership. These are also business owners. I am surprised this isn’t getting more attention. If you are a partner in any kind of partnership I woul wake up to the potential for this to cost tens of thousands or more, every single year, per partner.

Well these are people that Dems love to hate...big law, accounting, hedge fund. plus the Pease reductions are still in place. But we all will no longer being subsidizing public schools that are the equivalent of private, lawn/leaf debris, trash pick up, water/sewer, etc. You can't begin to imagine what some jurisdictions stick in property taxes.

1) I disagree that Democrats love to hate partnerships, you think most Biglaw is comprised of only republican partners? Or doctor groups, entertainment agents, or architects, or lobbying firms or any partnership entity? 2) it’s not the property taxes that are the big issue for partnerships, it is the requirement that each partner must pay state and local tax for each office, regardless of whether that particular partner works in that office. So we will take Biglaw for example, let’s say it’s a huge firm, with offices all over the US. Paying local and state taxes in ALL of those offices on an individual partner level can add up super quickly. So they’re already subsidizing public schools, roads, etc in jurisdictions in which many partners never even work or set foot. These amounts are way over $10,000. And previously you could take those amounts as a deduction on federal taxes, but no more. So what happens? Sure, you’re punishing the high state income tax states like California, but what about those people who have to pay that tax but don’t live there or work there, they’re just a partner in a partnership that has a California office. Well. Bye bye California office. You may start to see a push for certain offices in those high tax states to close or consolidate or have them telecommute instead. And there go all those support staff average joe jobs. It’s already being discussed at my firm.

Either your post is poorly worded or you don’t seem to understand how state and local taxes interact with each other. Non-residents pay taxes on the income generated in any state where they are not a resident. . They then will receive a credit on their resident state income taxes for taxes paid to the other state.

So, assume a partner resides in IL with offices in CA, GA, and NY. To keep things simple, assume each office generated exactly $1 dollar of income for that partner. The partner will report $1 of income to each of CA, NY, and GA and pay applicable taxes on that dollar to each respective state. SHe will then report $4 to IL (her state of residence) but IL will credit her (reduce her taxes owed dollar-for-dollar) for each tax dollar paid to other states. Note: that states will not grant the credit for city income taxes paid aother jurisdiction (like NYC taxes).

Either way, her effective state income tax rate ends up being some weighted blend of what otherwise would have been her state effective tax rate had she only generated income in just one state. While this does add up in nominal dollars, a partner in a law firm who loses the SALT deductions is no worse off than any other high income earner who loses SALT but happens to live and generate income in just an individual state.

I put my quoted post in italics. You people do not know the tax code in every state. Have you ever filed returns as a partner in a pass through with a multi-state presence?

States write their own tax codes and are exceptionally greedy about these LLC's. NYC taxes should be deductible in all states except NY. It really is unique in the USA and is a city state as far as what exists and is funded. No other city has so much ... Comparable institutions located in Wash DC are not pubic-private partnerships funded by local taxpayers as they are in NYC.

CA is a PIA. File with the group non-resident and you pay a lot more. Lot meaning thousands. File individually and they will delay or hassle you to your grave or move the papers appropriately. Horrible since CA's goal is to get $ not owed. Very irregular. Even if you never set foot in CA, never do a doc in DC for CA business. CA 's water problems created the low flush toilets which often mean double flush using more than the old water usage. It's like that with taxes.

I'm sick of the press about CA and the Republican tax plans. CA does not tax it's residents even on the same basis as MD or VA. Look no further than the massive deductions and credits allowed on returns. Then look at actual property taxes paid.

Montecito CA-near Santa Barbara. 14.7m with a 1.4m assessment. 7 acre estate. taxes 2017=$15,204. https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Santa-Barbara-CA/pmf,pf_pt/15882164_zpid/13712_rid/globalrelevanceex_sort/34.513346,-119.523011,34.283885,-119.976883_rect/10_zm/?

Million dollar townhouse and taxed at about 1000. https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Santa-Barbara-CA/pmf,pf_pt/15883327_zpid/13712_rid/globalrelevanceex_sort/34.513346,-119.523011,34.283885,-119.976883_rect/10_zm/?

1 bed 1 bath condo for 1m taxed at 9500. So CA doesn't reassess and in essence puts real estate property taxes in a form of rent control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This opinion piece in a Cleveland paper argues that raising federal income taxes on residents who live in high tax areas (through a repeal of the SALT deduction) will prove a disaster for what he describes as legacy cities such as Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo and Youngstown.

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/12/gop_tax_bills_state_and_local.html

Yep. How to turn Ohio blue in a heartbeat? Get the suburban Cleveland and Cincy voters aligned with East Cleveland and other predominately African-American voters.

Also partnership entities, such as law firms, also are greatly affected by the elimination of the SALT deduction. For example, a partner in a partnership must pay state and local income taxes in every jurisdiction that has an office. So for a law firm, a partner of that law firm must pay state and local income tax in every state and city of the US where that firm has an office (DC, NYC. Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, LA, San Fran, Charlotte, Miami, Philadelphia, Denver, Austin, etc), every single one, even if that partner doesn’t practice out of that office or even visits that office. This can result in an enormous amount of money.

Now that amount is limited to $10,000? A law firm is just an example, but the scenario applies to any partners in any partnership. These are also business owners. I am surprised this isn’t getting more attention. If you are a partner in any kind of partnership I woul wake up to the potential for this to cost tens of thousands or more, every single year, per partner.

Well these are people that Dems love to hate...big law, accounting, hedge fund. plus the Pease reductions are still in place. But we all will no longer being subsidizing public schools that are the equivalent of private, lawn/leaf debris, trash pick up, water/sewer, etc. You can't begin to imagine what some jurisdictions stick in property taxes.

1) I disagree that Democrats love to hate partnerships, you think most Biglaw is comprised of only republican partners? Or doctor groups, entertainment agents, or architects, or lobbying firms or any partnership entity? 2) it’s not the property taxes that are the big issue for partnerships, it is the requirement that each partner must pay state and local tax for each office, regardless of whether that particular partner works in that office. So we will take Biglaw for example, let’s say it’s a huge firm, with offices all over the US. Paying local and state taxes in ALL of those offices on an individual partner level can add up super quickly. So they’re already subsidizing public schools, roads, etc in jurisdictions in which many partners never even work or set foot. These amounts are way over $10,000. And previously you could take those amounts as a deduction on federal taxes, but no more. So what happens? Sure, you’re punishing the high state income tax states like California, but what about those people who have to pay that tax but don’t live there or work there, they’re just a partner in a partnership that has a California office. Well. Bye bye California office. You may start to see a push for certain offices in those high tax states to close or consolidate or have them telecommute instead. And there go all those support staff average joe jobs. It’s already being discussed at my firm.

Either your post is poorly worded or you don’t seem to understand how state and local taxes interact with each other. Non-residents pay taxes on the income generated in any state where they are not a resident. . They then will receive a credit on their resident state income taxes for taxes paid to the other state.

So, assume a partner resides in IL with offices in CA, GA, and NY. To keep things simple, assume each office generated exactly $1 dollar of income for that partner. The partner will report $1 of income to each of CA, NY, and GA and pay applicable taxes on that dollar to each respective state. SHe will then report $4 to IL (her state of residence) but IL will credit her (reduce her taxes owed dollar-for-dollar) for each tax dollar paid to other states. Note: that states will not grant the credit for city income taxes paid aother jurisdiction (like NYC taxes).

Either way, her effective state income tax rate ends up being some weighted blend of what otherwise would have been her state effective tax rate had she only generated income in just one state. While this does add up in nominal dollars, a partner in a law firm who loses the SALT deductions is no worse off than any other high income earner who loses SALT but happens to live and generate income in just an individual state.

I put my quoted post in italics. You people do not know the tax code in every state. Have you ever filed returns as a partner in a pass through with a multi-state presence?

States write their own tax codes and are exceptionally greedy about these LLC's. NYC taxes should be deductible in all states except NY. It really is unique in the USA and is a city state as far as what exists and is funded. No other city has so much ... Comparable institutions located in Wash DC are not pubic-private partnerships funded by local taxpayers as they are in NYC.

CA is a PIA. File with the group non-resident and you pay a lot more. Lot meaning thousands. File individually and they will delay or hassle you to your grave or move the papers appropriately. Horrible since CA's goal is to get $ not owed. Very irregular. Even if you never set foot in CA, never do a doc in DC for CA business. CA 's water problems created the low flush toilets which often mean double flush using more than the old water usage. It's like that with taxes.

I'm sick of the press about CA and the Republican tax plans. CA does not tax it's residents even on the same basis as MD or VA. Look no further than the massive deductions and credits allowed on returns. Then look at actual property taxes paid.

Montecito CA-near Santa Barbara. 14.7m with a 1.4m assessment. 7 acre estate. taxes 2017=$15,204. https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Santa-Barbara-CA/pmf,pf_pt/15882164_zpid/13712_rid/globalrelevanceex_sort/34.513346,-119.523011,34.283885,-119.976883_rect/10_zm/?

Million dollar townhouse and taxed at about 1000. https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Santa-Barbara-CA/pmf,pf_pt/15883327_zpid/13712_rid/globalrelevanceex_sort/34.513346,-119.523011,34.283885,-119.976883_rect/10_zm/?

1 bed 1 bath condo for 1m taxed at 9500. So CA doesn't reassess and in essence puts real estate property taxes in a form of rent control.

And yet you continue to choose to generate income in states like CA and Cities like NYC. You obviously perceive that the after tax benefit is worth the PIA that comes with complying with their tax regimes. Yes, the SALT deduction shielded you from some of the pain, but if the states are to be true laboratories to politically experiment, the federal government must stop distorting the impact of state-level decisions (this goes both ways as low tax states are shielded from the full effect of their taxing decisions through federal transfer payments).

[Anonymous]

I am old enough to remember when Senators didn't take bribes for votes

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/senator-bob-corker-said-he-hasnt-read-tax-bill-denies-changing-his-vote-exchange