I suppose I misunderstood the examples then. I had thought that 401’s were on the chopping block, and the examples in the article all assume that they are putting money in roth ira’s. It’s been a busy bit, so I missed that they ended up leaving them in.
Does this change other IRA plans? Roth IRA’s are probably the same, but I didn’t see anything about SIMPLE IRA’s, or how those would be affected.
All the usual caveats apply here, but I don’t think there are any changes to retirement plans, 401(k), IRAs, or whatever else. For example, here’s a headline from USA Today: Tax Plan: 401(k) plans, vital retirement savings tool, stay the same
I don’t know the details. A lot of posters in this thread seem to be assuming it will increase the deficit, but I haven’t seen any analysis one way or the other on that. As far as reconciliation, here are some details. The relevant one is, I think, part 5 of the Byrd rule:
Yeah, that’s key to me. But my guess is that enough folk will look at a lower tax bill, without considering program implications. Including folk who benefit from those programs.
Gotta admit, tho, If I were only earning - say - $50k, a couple hundred/thou less in taxes would be more significant than it is for me.
Another aspect of this bill I don’t like is the two-tier system being set up for mortgage deductions. The new limit only applies to folks who buy a house after the bill is passed. Nothing like splitting the American people into waring factions, especially based largely on age. Fuck the youngsters and protect the geesers is not a way I wan this country to be run. And I say that as a geeser, too!
The SALT limits and the mortgage limit for new homes, as well as the personal exemptions don’t seem to be phased in. Those are the ones that will impact middle class folks the most, IMO. Estate tax, AMT elim, those aren’t things that are primary concerns for middle income folks IMO.
I’m not sure if I’m against the plan actually. I’m certain to pay more under it, and I’m not a fan of disruption in general, but that’s just transition. There are things I like such as increasing the standard deduction, fewer brackets that encompass larger amounts. Some things make no sense like eliminating adoption tax credits - if there’s something that’s hard to argue against its encouragement it’s adoption. I think mortgage interest deduction is probably fine in principle, if not in execution. I absolutely disagree with SALT limits since that’s essentially double taxation.
On phone now, so hard to quote properly, but isn’t the reason it is only applied to new home purchases exactly the thing you were complaining about a few posts ago: people bought houses planning on that deduction. It’s disruptive and messy to yank it away from them now. For example, last year some people bought million-dollar homes, and almost certainly planned on the mortgage interest deduction in deciding whether they could afford it (well, some at least). It would screw them over to say, sorry, you don’t get that deduction you were planning on anymore. Right? Isn’t that pretty much exactly your concern upthread?
I see it a little differently, in that I bet the real estate market slows down in major cities, as buyers question what their real budget is if the deduction becomes limited, and sellers question whether they want to sell their house for less if buyers can generally afford less.
It really shines a spotlight on how stratified this country has become, since a $650,000 house in, say, DC, is more like a $150,000 house in most parts of the country… except for the location.
Yeah, that’s a fair, and significant, point.
I don’t. When was that?
Seriously, when was the last time Republicans were in power and did not run up huge deficits?
Yes, if passed I expect an immediate impact to the real estate market and other tangentially related industries. When I’ve built budget models I’ve always incorporated the expected tax effects of the mortgage and the associated withholding adjustments to realize those effects up front.
Right. Yes, a few Deficit Hawks are nuts about the Deficit. They called the Dems “Tax and spend” but the GOP has been “Borrow and Spend” since Reagan.
Who? I don’t just mean those that talk about it; who has actually done anything?
You remember the Clinton Administration and its surpluses, don’t you?
There are a small number of very fiscally conservative Republicans who consistently vote for large spending cuts to Social Security and defense. They haven’t “done anything” other than talk and vote for these cuts, because they are a minority of even Republicans. For example: Link.
Oh, sure, Democrats bring down deficits. I’m asking about Republicans/conservatives.
Good lord, how did that even get to a vote with only five supporters?
I still wonder if that counts as deficit reduction. If someone votes to cut spending by one-trillion dollars, and revenue by two-trillion, that doesn’t scream “fiscally responsible” to me.
And what’s the deal with keeping the Carried Interest loophole in there for hedge fund managers? That should have been the first thing on the chopping block!
As I understand it, the recently passed budget resolution allows the deficit to be increased by $1.5 trillion, so as long as the tax plan stays under that, they can still use reconciliation.
Apologies for no cite; this is my recollection.
They should have called this the “Fuck the Democrats Tax Act of 2017.”
The majority of the deductions being eliminated or limited disproportionately benefit blue states, and in particular the city-dwellers in those states. Plus they want to go after students and colleges.
I estimate that my taxes will go up by about $1,000. I’d be OK with that if we were raising money. But we’re not. We’re blowing a huge unnecessary hole in the deficit. Dumb.
NPR keeps saying that, as is, they can use reconciliation. If they change it, though, they might not be able to.