The GOP Tax Reform/Cuts Plan
Some of it must be just because of the landscape in which we live.
An open prairie doesn't need a whole lot of public investment. No roads to maintain, no bridges to inspect, no children to educate.
Enter civilization. You need law enforcement and fire departments. A government in place to manage revenues and expenditures. All people that need to be paid.
Build a big city. Water and sewage treatment. Traffic control and transit. Public health. Parks and recreation. Dealing with poverty.
We live in the most urbanized state in the union. I hate to use the term common sense (because so often it is neither) but common sense does tell me that we're going to be more expensive than other places.
conandrob240 said:
even NY has much more reasonable property taxes
Not according to people in Westchester and Long Island...
My parents had a summer home in upstate NY and paid more in property taxes than I was paying for my house in S. Orange.
Would agree that NYC has more reasonable property taxes but easy to do when the average price of an apartment is in the millions.
tom said:
Some of it must be just because of the landscape in which we live.
An open prairie doesn't need a whole lot of public investment. No roads to maintain, no bridges to inspect, no children to educate.
Enter civilization. You need law enforcement and fire departments. A government in place to manage revenues and expenditures. All people that need to be paid.
Build a big city. Water and sewage treatment. Traffic control and transit. Public health. Parks and recreation. Dealing with poverty.
We live in the most urbanized state in the union. I hate to use the term common sense (because so often it is neither) but common sense does tell me that we're going to be more expensive than other places.
I'm not going to deny any of what runnerguy is saying about our taxes. But I don't see those issues as problematic. I'm ok that our public sector workers have strong unions. And historically, despite a very vocal minority, my sense is that most New Jerseyans are ok with that too -- or else why would good pay and benefits for cops, teachers and firefighters have been relatively painless to get voters to agree to. I'm ok with paying for taxes for lower teacher/student ratios. And I'm ok if state workers have a decent retirement.
I'm not ok with congresspeople from Alabama or Wyoming or Idaho deciding that New Jersey shouldn't be doing those things. It's none of their damn business.
cramer said:With the "portability" provision that was made permanent in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, the surviving spouse can make use of the unused estate tax exclusion of his or her decease spouse. This article can probably explain it better than I can:
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-portability-of-the-estate-tax-exemption-3505672
eta- The article uses the present estate tax exemption of $5,340,000 for an individual. Under present law, with portability, a married couple could leave up to $11 million to their heirs without any estate tax having to be paid. In the consensus bill that is coming out, these amounts would double to $11 million and $22 million.
There is still the AB Trust which can be used to take advantage of the maximum estate tax exclusion:
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-an-ab-trust-3505380
Thanks.
l1, I am admittedly confused by your comment. I don't think congress people from Alabama or Wyoming or Idaho are saying that there should not be good pay and benefits for cops, teachers and firefighters, rather, they (and the other republicans) are saying that there is no SALT deduction over $10,000 for taxpayers. The pay and benefits of those folks are collectively bargained so they are not changing; NJ tax payers are just losing an important deduction. While I don’t like losing the deduction, perhaps it will now cause local politicians to focus on future costs associated with any benefits packages public employees covered by CBAs receive and the fact that NJ taxpayers (and not the politicians) are obligated for those costs
Local politicians think about the future? 
Grambling said:
While I don’t like losing the deduction, perhaps it will now cause local politicians to focus on future costs associated with any benefits packages public employees covered by CBAs receive and the fact that NJ taxpayers (and not the politicians) are obligated for those costs
Do you think that state legislators are unaware that past contract agreements with public workers have caused present-day fiscal problems?
That's precisely the motivation. They believe that some states are spending too much and eliminating the SALT deduction is a punishment designed to put pressure on us to spend less
Grambling said:
l1, I am admittedly confused by your comment. I don't think congress people from Alabama or Wyoming or Idaho are saying that there should not be good pay and benefits for cops, teachers and firefighters, rather, they (and the other republicans) are saying that there is no SALT deduction over $10,000 for taxpayers. The pay and benefits of those folks are collectively bargained so they are not changing; NJ tax payers are just losing an important deduction. While I don’t like losing the deduction, perhaps it will now cause local politicians to focus on future costs associated with any benefits packages public employees covered by CBAs receive and the fact that NJ taxpayers (and not the politicians) are obligated for those costs
tom said:
Do you think that state legislators are unaware that past contract agreements with public workers have caused present-day fiscal problems?
They've been dragging their feet on extending the 2% arbitration cap for police and firefighters.
I think this gets to why the Republicans want to cap the SALT deduction: they see high taxes as voluntary and believe that taxpayers in the rest of the country shouldn't have to subsidize a state or locality's decision to have more expanded services.
Tax-tolerant New Jerseyans might counter "our taxes pay for essential public investments and fair salaries for public workers" but we all know that that's not what American conservativism is about. Conservatives draw the line at a different place than progressives would on what is investment and what is bloat.
ml1 said:
I'm not going to deny any of what runnerguy is saying about our taxes. But I don't see those issues as problematic. I'm ok that our public sector workers have strong unions. And historically, despite a very vocal minority, my sense is that most New Jerseyans are ok with that too -- or else why would good pay and benefits for cops, teachers and firefighters have been relatively painless to get voters to agree to. I'm ok with paying for taxes for lower teacher/student ratios. And I'm ok if state workers have a decent retirement.
I'm not ok with congresspeople from Alabama or Wyoming or Idaho deciding that New Jersey shouldn't be doing those things. It's none of their damn business.
I will gladly give up my SALT deductions the day NJ is guaranteed to get back from the Federal government at least as much as it pays in Federal taxes.
the SALT deduction has been part of federal income tax from day 1. It's not a "subsidy." It's a recognition that the most basic services for people are delivered by states and municipalities, not the federal government.
And conservatives in Arkansas or Texas don't get a say in what people in CA, NY or NJ believe are essential services for our people. The people of NJ get to say what we believe are essential services. And I'll repeat it -- essential services that the federal government does not and never will provide to us.
Runner_Guy said:
I think this gets to why the Republicans want to cap the SALT deduction: they see high taxes as voluntary and believe that taxpayers in the rest of the country shouldn't have to subsidize a state or locality's decision to have more expanded services.
Tax-tolerant New Jerseyans might counter "our taxes pay for essential public investments and fair salaries for public workers" but we all know that that's not what American conservativism is about. Conservatives draw the line at a different place than progressives would on what is investment and what is bloat.
It's my understanding that the tax bill targets blue states in other ways as well. For example, expenses due to hurricanes/flooding will be deductible (Texas), but not expenses due to wildfires (California).
Something I don't understand -- the estate tax should be eliminated because it's not fair to tax money twice, but it's okay to remove the SALT deduction even though that means the money will be taxed twice. Am I following this correctly?
ml1 said:
That's precisely the motivation. They believe that some states are spending too much and eliminating the SALT deduction is a punishment designed to put pressure on us to spend less
Is that what they say? They're concerned we are spending too much on ourselves?
We can't believe anything they say. With Obama they were so very concerned about the deficit. And now look. I don't believe they have any real care on what we spend on ourselves.
The Republicans know the wealthy productive blue states, the backbone of the U.S. economy, are lost to them. We have the money, the economy. So they loot us. A transfer of lots of money from the Blue to the Red states, to their Red base and the very rich.
Its a shell game. 90% of the tax reduction will go to the really wealthy, including some living in Blue states. But the Blue states middle class will on the average hurt, the salt limit. We won't be seeing that 10%. Most of the 10% will go to Red state goobers due to the 24,000 standard deduction and the slightly lower tax rate tables. Goobers who will be grateful for the peanuts that are dropped onto them.
That is until 2025. Which is fine with the Republicans because they hope this gets them through the 2024 election.
When 2025 rolls along the non-corporate tax reduction sunsets while being saddled with an unmanageable deficit. They will then try something new. Maybe they'll blame someone. A "gee, we'd like to continue the reduction but bad {group to be blamed} people screwed everything up."
Here's Trump at the 21 Club, the day after the election, promising his fellow diners to "get their taxes down, don't worry." He's certainly keeping that promise.
what galls me about the plan is that alimony payments will no longer be tax deductible. 2018 will be the first year I'll be paying alimony. I can't even believe how screwed I am by this.
f***kers.
oh lordy and thank god!
If the tax bill becomes law, the alimony deduction repeal would affect divorces carried out after December 31, 2018. The new rule wouldn't affect anyone already paying alimony.
Never mind.
Runner_Guy said:
I think this gets to why the Republicans want to cap the SALT deduction: they see high taxes as voluntary and believe that taxpayers in the rest of the country shouldn't have to subsidize a state or locality's decision to have more expanded services.
Tax-tolerant New Jerseyans might counter "our taxes pay for essential public investments and fair salaries for public workers" but we all know that that's not what American conservativism is about. Conservatives draw the line at a different place than progressives would on what is investment and what is bloat.
I think this gets to why most Americans are opposed to the GOP tax plan. They see the lifestyles of the very wealthy as voluntary and believe the middle and working class shouldn't have to subsidize the huge tax break about to come their way.
Tax-phobic fiscal conservatives might counter that "a rising tide lifts all boats", but we know that the plan is for the wealthy to just build larger yachts and cram the rest of us in steerage, where the only thing that trickles down begins with "s" and rhymes with "it."
My parents and sister live on LI and we've looked at many homes there, taxes are considerably lower for comparable towns with arguably better schools and services.
mikescott said:
conandrob240 said:
even NY has much more reasonable property taxes
Not according to people in Westchester and Long Island...
My parents had a summer home in upstate NY and paid more in property taxes than I was paying for my house in S. Orange.
Would agree that NYC has more reasonable property taxes but easy to do when the average price of an apartment is in the millions.
Story in he NY Times on the Republican promise of tax simplification was not kept. A supposedly new tax plan allowing postcard returns.
“We’re making things so simple that you can do your taxes on a form the size of a postcard,” Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin said in November.
Who was stupid enough to believe them? Their base? Most likely.
WASHINGTON — The Republican tax bill does not pass the postcard test.
It leaves nearly every large tax break in place. It creates as many new preferences for special interests as it gets rid of. It will keep corporate accountants busy for years to come. And no taxpayer will ever see the postcard-size tax return that President Trump laid a kiss on in November as Republican leaders launched their tax overhaul effort.
This was not the grand simplification of the code that Republicans promised when they set out to eliminate tax breaks and cut the number of tax brackets as they lowered rates.
As their bill tore through Congress, their ambitions fell to the powerful forces of lobbying and the status quo. Killed tax breaks returned to life. New ones sprung up beside them. A plan for three individual tax brackets became five, and finally eight.
Their ambitions? Yes, their ambitions. Which are to be realized. But simplification was never in their cards.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/republican-tax-plan-simple-tax-returns.html
conandrob240 said:
My parents and sister live on LI and we've looked at many homes there, taxes are considerably lower for comparable towns with arguably better schools and services.
I know many people who grew up on LI who have "escaped" to New Jersey.
Tom, I do think they are aware of the problem -- I just think they are justifiably afraid to deal with it. As I understand it from press reports, the NJ teachers' union spent $5 million and endorsed a Republican all in a bid to unseat Sen. Sweeney (a Democrat, Senate Majority Leader and union iron worker) because of disagreements over public employee pension funding. I don't know enough about the funding issue to have an opinion so I take no position on the issue. My only point is that I would image that most state legislators could not weather an attack like that and I would guess that the teachers' union was also sending a message to other legislators to get in line with the union's interests.
Yet New Jersey pays far more federal taxes than we receive back in support from D.C. while many red states receive far more than they pay.
Runner_Guy said:
I think this gets to why the Republicans want to cap the SALT deduction: they see high taxes as voluntary and believe that taxpayers in the rest of the country shouldn't have to subsidize a state or locality's decision to have more expanded services.
Tax-tolerant New Jerseyans might counter "our taxes pay for essential public investments and fair salaries for public workers" but we all know that that's not what American conservativism is about. Conservatives draw the line at a different place than progressives would on what is investment and what is bloat.
ml1 said:
I'm not going to deny any of what runnerguy is saying about our taxes. But I don't see those issues as problematic. I'm ok that our public sector workers have strong unions. And historically, despite a very vocal minority, my sense is that most New Jerseyans are ok with that too -- or else why would good pay and benefits for cops, teachers and firefighters have been relatively painless to get voters to agree to. I'm ok with paying for taxes for lower teacher/student ratios. And I'm ok if state workers have a decent retirement.
I'm not ok with congresspeople from Alabama or Wyoming or Idaho deciding that New Jersey shouldn't be doing those things. It's none of their damn business.
Mnuchin said this morning on TV that 90% of taxpayers will be able to file on a postcard.
BG9 said:
Story in he NY Times on the Republican promise of tax simplification was not kept. A supposedly new tax plan allowing postcard returns.
“We’re making things so simple that you can do your taxes on a form the size of a postcard,” Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin said in November.
Who was stupid enough to believe them? Their base? Most likely.
WASHINGTON — The Republican tax bill does not pass the postcard test.
It leaves nearly every large tax break in place. It creates as many new preferences for special interests as it gets rid of. It will keep corporate accountants busy for years to come. And no taxpayer will ever see the postcard-size tax return that President Trump laid a kiss on in November as Republican leaders launched their tax overhaul effort.
This was not the grand simplification of the code that Republicans promised when they set out to eliminate tax breaks and cut the number of tax brackets as they lowered rates.
As their bill tore through Congress, their ambitions fell to the powerful forces of lobbying and the status quo. Killed tax breaks returned to life. New ones sprung up beside them. A plan for three individual tax brackets became five, and finally eight.
Their ambitions? Yes, their ambitions. Which are to be realized. But simplification was never in their cards.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/republican-tax-plan-simple-tax-returns.html
I hope this piece of b.s. gets a lot of play this week:
President Donald Trump has made tens of millions of dollars of a specific kind of income that could be subjected to a last-minute tax break inserted into the Republicans’ tax legislation released Friday, according to federal records reviewed by International Business Times. The same is true for Tennessee GOP Sen. Bob Corker — a commercial real estate mogul who suddenly switched his vote to “yes” on the tax bill after the provision was added to the legislation. Previously, Corker was the only Republican to vote against the Senate version of the bill.
Trump told a Missouri crowd on Nov. 29 that he would personally take a hit from the GOP tax plan. “This is going to cost me a fortune, this thing, believe me…I have some very wealthy friends. Not so happy with me, but that’s OK,” Trump said. But a variety of experts have concluded that the tax bill overwhelmingly favors the wealthiest Americans — especially those with complex real-estate investments.
The reconciled tax bill includes a new 20 percent deduction for so-called “pass-through” entities, business structures such as LLCs, LPs and S-Corporations that don’t pay corporate taxes, but instead “pass through” income to partners who pay individual tax rates on that money. The Senate version of the bill included safeguards that would only allow businesses to take advantage of the new break if they paid out significant wages to employees. But the new provision, which wasn’t included in either version of the bill passed by the House and Senate, and was only added during the reconciliation process, gives owners of income-producing real estate holdings a way around that safeguard, effectively creating a new tax break for large landlords and real estate moguls.
ml1 said:
the SALT deduction has been part of federal income tax from day 1. It's not a "subsidy." It's a recognition that the most basic services for people are delivered by states and municipalities, not the federal government.
And conservatives in Arkansas or Texas don't get a say in what people in CA, NY or NJ believe are essential services for our people. The people of NJ get to say what we believe are essential services. And I'll repeat it -- essential services that the federal government does not and never will provide to us.
Runner_Guy said:
I think this gets to why the Republicans want to cap the SALT deduction: they see high taxes as voluntary and believe that taxpayers in the rest of the country shouldn't have to subsidize a state or locality's decision to have more expanded services.
Tax-tolerant New Jerseyans might counter "our taxes pay for essential public investments and fair salaries for public workers" but we all know that that's not what American conservativism is about. Conservatives draw the line at a different place than progressives would on what is investment and what is bloat.
This cogent quote by ml1 bears repeating every time statements like Runner Guy's gets made (regardless of whether he is just stating Republicans' "beliefs".*
*They don't believe crap except how to get their wealthy constituents more money and stick it to the blue states.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
With the "portability" provision that was made permanent in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, the surviving spouse can make use of the unused estate tax exclusion of his or her decease spouse. This article can probably explain it better than I can:
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-portability-of-the-estate-tax-exemption-3505672
eta- The article uses the present estate tax exemption of $5,340,000 for an individual. Under present law, with portability, a married couple could leave up to $11 million to their heirs without any estate tax having to be paid. In the consensus bill that is coming out, these amounts would double to $11 million and $22 million.
There is still the AB Trust which can be used to take advantage of the maximum estate tax exclusion:
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-an-ab-trust-3505380