It’s gonna be interesting if the House passes the Senate bill as is, and future Supreme Court rulings about the meaning of this law hinge on handwriting interpretation.
Alternatively, the House could pass the Senate bill without any changes. That would bypass the need for a conference.
But this is true either way.
ETA: The reason I mention this possibility is that the Republicans may not want to risk a second Senate vote, given that only a couple of votes would have to change in the Senate to sink the bill. If the House passes the exact bill that the Senate passed, then there are no differences to resolve between the two, hence no need for a conference and a second Senate vote.
If you don’t itemize deductions, then that’s the effect, yes.
If you DO itemize deductions, it’s like your taxable income AND your itemized deductions BOTH being reduced by $5,650. [ETA: If you have less than $12K in itemized deductions, then obviously you’d use the standard deduction in the future.] It’s a wash if you’ve had more than $12K in itemized deductions.
Actually, I may be wrong on that. If I understand correctly, the personal exemption ($4,050 for 2016) got wrapped into the standard deduction in this bill. So assuming the personal exemption would stay constant, you’d see your taxable income drop by $1600. But the difference of (itemized deductions - standard deduction) drops by the $5650 amount.
And of course I can’t remember whether the SALT itemizability stayed in.
IOW, it’s gonna be complicated.
And the best part is, I doubt more than 1 in 20 Congressmen has any idea what they were voting for and Trump certainly won’t know what he’s signing.
Yeah, like treating the tuition waiver for grad students as income?
May be ‘fair’ by some abstract standard, but what it means is that only rich kids will be able to afford grad school. Not only is that a weird idea of ‘fair,’ but if this provision stays, it won’t exactly go well for the future of scientific research in the U.S.
Eating the seed corn.
Taxing non-cash benefits has always struck me as rather awful, whether it be gold medals, non-cash prizes, debt reduction, or tuition waivers. I was referring more to the reduction in deductability of student loan interest and mortgage interest. Those are big ticket deductions for mainly upper middle class taxpayers, as well as the SALT deductions. Any tax reform would curtail those.
Corker wanted an amendment that would roll back cuts when revenue doesn’t meet the projections. It didn’t get in.
You may be thinking of PAYGO, which applies, but they’ll just waive it when the time comes regardless of which party is in control.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/30/tax-bill-spending-cuts-gop-congress-274337
However, the risk is real that the revenue projections end up being so far off that it that allows them to come after Soc Sec and everything else, not under PAYGO but just under “we don’t have the money anymore.” You could say it’s booby trapped for that scenario.
This bill certainly doesn’t “simplify” anything. With all the special carve outs, AMT left in but changed, state and local tax deductions left in but capped, mortgage tax deduction left in by the Senate by limited by the House, it makes everything more complicated. There are still 7 tax brackets; they’re just different from before. So much for a simpler, easier system.
We’re gonna need a bigger postcard.
Maybe we’ll at least get some comic relief and a reporter will ask Trump to list five main provisions in the bill. Or three. Or, like, one. Name one thing this bill does, specifically.
Makes America Great Again, you big silly!
What was all that nonsense in the ACA debates where GOP reps were complaining about not reading what they were voting on?
Their *lobbyists *got the amendment list. Not elected representatives of the people, though, not if they happen to be the enemy, er, Democrats.
That’s a talking point I’m hearing a lot of lately, but it’s not true. Social Security has it’s own funding stream and any cuts in SS will be because that particular funding stream isn’t adequate.
You can raid the Soc Sec fund and then not pay it back.
That’s not impossible, but very hard, since Treasuries are what’s in the fund. You’d have to destroy our credit rating in the process.
Trump has no problem with that.
You’re totally incorrect. The “raiding” takes the form of using surpluses in the Trust Fund and investing them in special government bonds. Under the 14th Amendment, those bonds are constitutionally required to be repaid.
Trump treats bankruptcy as a strategy. Of all the things Trump can do, that’s the most nighmarish scenario.