I’m sure it is a boon for the rich.
As a fairly middle class retiree, though, I hope it lasts long enough to allow our daughters to avoid paying a lot of money to the taxman when we shuffle off the mortal coil.
We’d like them to inherit assets we worked for as we raised them…
I have no problem with the thread; it’s interesting. But I think the real problem with Trump is not that he never does anything good or creative but that he is an authoritarian at heart, a nutjob that constantly stresses out the country unnecessarily, and a right-leaning pol that leads the country in the wrong direction overall. I think most Republican presidents have done some good things, actually.
I’ve said it before, but, on the whole, I don’t think Trump in his first term was a terrible president for foreign policy and international relations in general. I think this still holds true except that his cognitive decline and more antagonistic approach to, well, everything, is significantly undermining what he good he can do. But to list some things:
I don’t think Trump has much understanding of, or talent for, domestic policy, but I do think his particular type of instincts (e.g., reading the weaknesses of others personally and in their negotiating positions) redound to his benefit on the international stage. I also think he can truly think outside the box at times, as evidenced by his approach to North Korea in his first term. Now, however, I think it’s mostly missed opportunities, since Trump is just too far gone to function well at this point. He did choose Rubio, however, who is at least a fairly normal and respectable Secretary of State.
But the point is that if winning are fully deductable all I have to keep track of is the net win or loss. So if I went in to the casino with $500 and came out with $550, I know i have to report $50 winnings. But if winnings and losses don’t cancel out I have to keep track of every transaction, because there are multiple different combinations of winnings and losses could result in a $50 net win and depending on how I placed my bets, my tax bill could be drastically different.
If “have to” means legally, I cannot think of a scenario where this is true..
My link on this came from a casino, so you would think they are interpreting the law in a way that, when possible, is favorable to gamblers. And they say you have to report all your winnings. With the information you provided I do not know what your winnings were. But suppose that you went to the casino with $500 and you put in the whole $500 on a single bet, and then you got $550 from the casino. Then, if you are honest, you have to report the entire $550 win as income.
Most likely, your activity at the casino was more complicated than that, with your winnings a bit less.
As to whether you can deduct the $500 from your income, it depends on whether you itemize. I am no where close to being in a tax situation where it would make sense to itemize. So, since I do not cheat, I would have to pay tax on the whole $550 in the single bet scenario. This year, by contrast, Nate Silver would only have to pay tax on $50, since professional gamblers itemize.
It will probably be the same next year, because there seems to be a lot of support in congress to help out professional and high income gamblers by removing the 90 percent clause from the big beautiful bill. It will only add another billion or two to the annual deficit 
.
I am still wondering how the 90 percent provision got into the bill. There must be an interesting story there.
I have to correct my last post.
I did not realize the possibility of session reporting as described here:
If all your gambling at the casino was in the same game (say, slots) and all on the same day, and you didn’t take a meal break, that seems to clearly be one session in which you can, with perfect legality, net out wins and losses to $50 even though you do not itemize deductions.
My link does not mention a meal break as ending a session, but I read that elsewhere. .
I also read that with sports betting, there is no way to use the session rule to deduct losses when you do not itemize.
Also, if you win some days and lose some days, the 91 percent or so of Americans, who do not itemize, cannot deduct anything for the bad days.
It still is true that the 90 percent rule would make the tax code more progressive.
There is always a chance that at some point in the future Trump becomes earth’s savior due to Space Force.
It seems the other way around, to me. Taxpayers who itemize (mostly high earners) will pay taxes on their gambling profits for the year, plus a bit for that ten percent.
If you don’t itemize, you’re paying taxes on every dollar you het from gambling, not just the profits.
Lose $500 at a casino, and then win $450. The itemizer pays no tax, the non-itemizer pays tax on $450.
In this scenario, and assuming the $500 and $450 were not part of the same session, the Big Beautiful Bill changes nothing.
For the casual lower income better, your scenario is plausible. They may have visited their local casino, to play slots, two times during the year. The first session they won, the next session they lost, and they wisely did not return.
For the high income or, especially, professional better, the numbers you suggest are unrealistic. Those players gamble a lot more than two times during the year, and to do as badly as in your example, they would be significantly underperforming the usual house advantage for almost all casino games:
To sum up, there is no change for the 90 percent of so who do not itemize. And for those who do itemize, tax liability rises unless their losses exceed their winnings by at least one ninth (11.1111 percent). I cannot find a clear statement of what the overall house advantage is, averaging all casino games, but ChatGPT plausibly suggests it is 5 - 6 percent. Sports betting? The house edge may be higher, but not by much. So itemizers may have to do about twice as badly as the house advantage suggests before the Big Beautiful Bill would leave them harmless. That does not seem plausible to me.
If I’m understanding you correctly, the ones who don’t itemize are already screwed because they can’t deduct their losses, and they’ll be equally screwed after the change.
Those who do itemize will be slightly worse off following this change, because they can’t deduct all their losses anymore, but still won’t be as bad off as those who don’t itemize.
That’s something, I guess
Definitely a stopped clock moment, but inspired by some misunderstandings in the Kohberger thread (Idaho State Killer), the removal of the $200 federal tax stamp for firearms suppressors. To be clear, suppressors DON’T silence guns, unless you consider 120db (can be somewhat lower or much higher depending on the round) silent, but it means people who practice (which should be encouraged to prevent “accidents” and mis-aimed attacks on innocents) are less likely to damage their hearing and (more importantly) that of those around them.
To also be clear, thankfully the bill doesn’t remove the other requirements for purchase, you still need to fill the forms, and yes, pass a background check (both of which I approve of), but it does remove a needless financial burden for something that actually somewhat reduces the secondary risks of firearm use.
HOWEVER, because it always seems that Trump actions are like Monkey’s Paw style wishes, it ALSO removes the burden on SBR (Short Barrel Rifles) and SBS (Short Barrel Shotguns) which (IMHO) don’t really have much in the way of legitimate use (others will possibly disagree) so the net effect is a negative (again, IMHO).
Granted, the people most likely to use the SB-class weapons illegally aren’t buying them and going through the associated checks, but seriously, while some firearm enthusiasts love these things, and I could do a Devil’s advocate for them in very limited circumstances, what it’ll actually do is make it easier for these to proliferate and end up in criminal hands as more concealable but higher power options.
ASIDE - Yes, I know many people, including on this board, consider this true for most/all firearms, and they may not be wrong, but reducing the cost of getting this class is a step in the wrong direction even from my POV as a gun owner. YMMV of course.
I think the upcoming Trump-proposed ballroom expansion building project for the White House looks pretty neat, and that hosting state dinners in a tent on the front lawn was always rather weird to begin with.
I didn’t think it was a bad idea at the time. The assets that are currently part of the Space Force were basically acting as a separate branch under the Air Force anyway. It makes sense for it to have an equal voice in the military instead of having some ex-fighter jock in the Joint Chiefs. I also thought it was probably decades away from being necessary.
It also inspired a great comedy show, so I have to give him credit for that.
I’d agree this doesn’t belong in the compendium of horrors. If some rich Democrat was President, and did it, I’d still probably vote to re-elect them.
But I wouldn’t like it.
We do not know who the donors, buying access here, are. Maybe this will change, but, if not, donor anonymity goes against ethical principles. even with inauguration expenses.
Also, read this:
Some may say this is opaque, but it is clear to me. Some significant part of the expenses will be paid for by the taxpayer out of Secret Service appropriations.
In addition to the near-fact the ballroom will cost more than $200 million, there’s the need to re-house existing East Wing offices, including the first lady’s office suite and the entrance area for White House tourists. Maybe Trump wants to keep the people out of the people’s house. Maybe Melania will be glad to have another excuse to stay away from her husband’s home, but eventually there will be a First Lady or Gentleman who reasonably insists on a big White House office, and eventually the tourists will be back.
Something tells me that the price per square foot of construction, on the While House grounds, dwarfs almost anything else.
Particularly when you add in the grift gift graft gratuity.
. As a fairly middle class retiree, though, I hope it lasts long enough to allow our daughters to avoid paying a lot of money to the taxman when we shuffle off the mortal coil.
If your estate is under $14 million, it’s already tax free.
Understood. However I recall that the limit used to be much lower, and some politician might have the bright idea that the government could raise money by lowering it again…
This is the biggest factor. Put aside issues of what this will do to the traditional White house layout, and the fact that it’s going to be a gaudy piece of shit that appeals to Trump’s horrible taste, there’s no way “someone” pays $200 million for something this Trump-adjacent, and Trump doesn’t wet his beak.
When did we start having state dinners in a tent on the front lawn (or am I missing a joke here)? I know there is a State Dining Room already in the White House, which I presume is big enough for the official state dinners in past years. I read the article and can’t find any reference to why we need this, except to allow Trump to place his gold-plated stamp on more of the White House
It’s frequently done, usually as overflow capacity when the State Dining Room isn’t big enough.
