I’m imagining that this is going to be a pretty short thread with one update every 2-3 months, but in the interest of fairness to time keeping abilities of stopped clocks the nut finding prowess of blind squirrels, I figure we should have a place for them and maybe keep track of them with a count. Lets see if he can get up to 20 before his term ends.
Not taxing Social Security is a good proposal. It should never had been taxed in the first place. Not taxing tips as well, it wasn’t meant to be income for living expenses but employers used it as such. Lets see where these proposals go.
After Trump 45, some Democrats were saying that everything Trump did should be reversed. Of course, Biden did not do that. No matter how bad a dictator, there is always something they stumbled into that was mostly good.
As for your list, most sound like something Harris would have done, but in a more responsible way. Maybe she wouldn’t have recognized the Lumbee. But if not, it would have been for good reasons. Unless Trump wants them to be a second-class tribe, Lumbee will be entitled to free medical care from the Indian Health Service. Is the GOP going to appropriate funds for a North Carolina hospital? How will stretching already stretched medical resources affect existing tribes?
I disagree with the proposals to not tax SS or tips. For those relying on SS exclusively, they pay no tax. For those who have enough other income to trigger the tax, they can afford it (including myself, I pay tax on 85% of my SS income). Further, the money so collected goes into the SS trust fund and the last thing we should do is deprive it of revenue. Not taxing tips makes no sense. Income is income, if you’re low income and rely on tips you’re paying very little tax anyway. If you’re high income and earn tips, why should it be tax free? I could go along with not taxing tips IF total income is below a threshold. But not taxing them at all is just adding to the deficit for no good reason.
Dumping the push for paper straws. It was the first and probably only time I have ever been in agreement with him. The improvement to the environment of using paper straws is dubious, and no one likes their drink to taste like paper.
Yeah - that post pretty clearly crossed over to someone’s personal political preference. (And possibly, advocating in the interest of one’s own pocketbook.) If personal preference is the standard, someone could come in and advocate for just about anything that has been done/proposed since 1/20.
I can’t see that one flying. It would reduce IRS takings by many billions.
Rather off topic: I’m still amazed that the IRS allows the cost basis step-up of inherited assets.
Wouldn’t be at all surprised to see that disappear in the future: it doesn’t impact anyone right now so political fallout would probably be minimal…?
I’m not a big fan of professional gambling, but the only way taxation of winnings makes sense is if losses are fully deductable. Otherwise it’s either arbitrary or a logistical nightmare.
If I play blackjack at 100$ a hand, and one day I play 20 hands and come out ahead $500 when I cash out , then go back after dinner and play another 20 hands and lose $500, what is my tax burden?
Is it zero because I broke even for the night.
Is it $50 because I won $500 but can deduct $450 of my $50 loss?
Is it $200 since I won 20 hands ($2000), but deduct the $1800 from the 20 hands I lost?
If I’m playing poker or slots, do I have to keep track of how much I bet on every hand or pull of the lever?
Getting back to why the new 90 percent rule is actually good, this only impacts the nine percent of taxpayers who itemize deductions. Itemizers skew to higher incomes. So the new 90 percent deduction limit is a wonderful example of progressive taxation. Thank you Donald. (Or I would say that if I had any confidence this provision will remain in the law.)
I can’t prove this, but I’m sure your average lottery ticket purchaser, or Atlantic City slot machine lever puller, is not an itemizer. So the amount of loses they get to deduct from their winnings is zero. My wife Barbara says the rich should also be completely blocked from deducting gambling losses, and the Kalshi loophole is a bad one. But the Trump plan is a good start.
Trump’s attitude to the new Syrian regime has been on the face of it pretty sensible:
Though TBH that just makes me think the new Syrian regime is actually much worse than their public face would have you believe (not that public face is that pleasant). Its a universal rule that any world leader supported or complimented by Trump is a terrible autocratic scumbag of the highest order.
That is a real scam. If you have enough securities, you can use them as security for loans, live off the loans and never pay one cent of taxes, nor will your heirs, on your capital gains.