jason812 wrote: There is not a problem with the amount of money going to the government, there is a problem with government spending.
Spending is/has been out of control for decades and both parties are responsible.
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
jason812 wrote: There is not a problem with the amount of money going to the government, there is a problem with government spending.
In reality there is only one party. Them. The Washington elite. Dem or republican, no difference.bblhd672 wrote:jason812 wrote: There is not a problem with the amount of money going to the government, there is a problem with government spending.
Spending is/has been out of control for decades and both parties are responsible.
I don't know about you but like other posters I don't care to continue to subsidize people who choose to live in regions where comparable homes are three and four times the value of more sensible parts of the country.philip964 wrote:I will be a loser in the new tax plan. When someone buys a house it is normally a lifetime decision. You usually count on tax laws that have been in place for your lifetime when you make that decision. It messes up with your plan when the President decides to change the rules.Redneck_Buddha wrote:So I take it you wouldn't benefit from the doubling of the standard deduction? Or are you just leaving out pieces of the picture "because Trump"?philip964 wrote:http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-t ... story.html
Yesterday Trump gave a speech about his new federal tax overhaul, to make the tax code simpler, more fair, to stimulate the economy, make America great again and to give everyone a reduction in taxes. Sounds great.
With every change in the tax code, there will be winners and losers. Someone will pay more taxes. Someone will pay less taxes.
He proposed eliminating the death tax. So if you have an estate greater than 5 million dollars you would be a winner. I would assume if you earn income you would be a loser as someone has to make up the difference. That is unless the government just plans to borrow more.
He proposed eliminating the property tax deduction. So if you own a home, you will be a loser.
In the illustration in the news article above, if you pay State income tax or pay sales taxes like in Texas, you will be a loser.
Supposedly the middle class per his speech will pay less. I'm in the middle class, but it looks like, since I itemize my deductions, I will be a loser.
As it normally is, when someone talks about reforming the tax code, it means my taxes will go up.
By eliminating the local and state income, property tax and sales tax deductions, but keeping the interest deduction, while at the same time doubling the itemized deduction, the President will make owning a home less attractive. Especially for starter homes. It will make renting a home more attractive. Home prices should then decline as less people will buy a home as a tax avoidance plan. It will however be a good thing for investors to buy homes to rent. I should be a big help to landlords, which is what Trump did before he became President.
Don't we really want a country of renters rather than country of home owners.
What I think would be interesting would be if we applied the same rules to businesses and corporations. Do not allow businesses and corporations to deduct their local and state taxes.
After all wouldn't that be fair.
Or we can continue with the trend of allowing businesses and corporations to have deductions that individuals do not get, all in the name of simplification of the tax code.
Census data shows approximately a third of homeowners have been in their house more than ten years. The median time is 6-7 years. Maybe buying a house was a lifetime decision when marriage was a lifetime decision and most people lived within 50 miles of their parents and grandparents.philip964 wrote:I will be a loser in the new tax plan. When someone buys a house it is normally a lifetime decision.
That's a problem when changing any laws, isn't it?philip964 wrote:You usually count on tax laws that have been in place for your lifetime when you make that decision. It messes up with your plan when the President decides to change the rules.
bblhd672 wrote:jason812 wrote: There is not a problem with the amount of money going to the government, there is a problem with government spending.
Spending is/has been out of control for decades and both parties are responsible.
DEL DC:*.*bigtek wrote:The system is long overdue for a reboot.
I wish Texas would do this even if we can't get it at the national level.TexasJohnBoy wrote:Eliminate income and property taxes. Replace with consumption tax... done.
Isn't that the sales tax? There is no limit to how much government will tax us no matter what we call it. They will raise it forever.Aunt Eva wrote:I wish Texas would do this even if we can't get it at the national level.TexasJohnBoy wrote:Eliminate income and property taxes. Replace with consumption tax... done.
Other Puerto Rican Mayor: Trump Has Been Great, San Juan's Mayor Has Been AWOLphilip964 wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html
In other Presidential news. Trump tweets back against leftist San Jaun mayor.
After a slow start on Puerto Rico disaster aid, Trump doubles down. Funniest thing if there is humor in the disaster was that the mayor used a back drop of pallitized food for her tirade on their need for help.
There is real suffering in Puerto Rico, but with the political battle that's going on its hard to get a real picture. I'm hearing they can't get the aid to where it's needed as the truckers are striking for more money. But I don't know if that's true or fake news.
And then there is this!https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconserv ... -help/amp/
The Washington Examiner reported earlier today that the mayor of Guaynabo, Puerto Rico criticized neighboring San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz for "playing politics" after Hurricane Maria. He also praised President Trump for his hurricane recovery coordination efforts.
Guaynabo Mayor Angel Perez Otero says that Mayor Yulin Cruz has been a no show at coordination meetings between FEMA, U.S. military officials, and Puerto Rican leaders.
==SNIP==
FEMA administrator Brock Long told CNN today that "the problem that we have with [Yulin Cruz] unfortunately is that unity of command is ultimately what’s needed to be successful in this response"and “what we need is for the mayor, the good mayor, to make her way to the joint field office and get plugged into what’s going on and be successful."