Reply to Republican Tax Bill

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Republican Tax Bill - the final Bill"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics