Tax Reform?


#343

Mid range by Bay Area standards. $100K-500K


#344

Doubtful. There’s how many bidders per home now? Even if you’re high end estimate of eliminating 20% of buyers is right, it won’t even make a dent in demand. You know they aren’t going to start building to add more supply. So maybe you shake out the weakest 20% of buyers and go from 10 offers to 8. Home prices still increase.


#345

13-22% is still pretty low compared to the rest of the developed world. Most countries are taxing your income at least 30-40% at that level, and they aren’t offering deductions for mortgage interest, property taxes, or local taxes.


#346

have answered this today…


#347

Both referring to house prices or income or one refer to house price and the other income?


#348

My post was referring to income.

I’m guessing @Elt1 's post was about house prices.


#349

House 1-3m
Salary 100-500k

BTW taxes in California are up to 15% SS up to 39% fed
13% state 3.8% Obamacare
So some people pay a lot more than Europeans
There used to be more deductions. With less deductions the rates will be higher. I think we pay too much already .


#350

#351

Everyone needs to form his or her own opinion from the source. It’s not important to have others to approve your opinion. It could be detrimental if we blindly accept other people’s opinion without much thought, no matter who that person is


#352

Who elected this idiot?

WASHINGTON — President Trump urged senators this month to repeal the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that most Americans have health insurance and use the proceeds to slash the top tax rate paid by the richest Americans, a suggestion that pitted him against his daughter and Republican senators intent on helping the middle class.

In the end, the president accepted only a partial victory. He got the repeal of the health law’s individual mandate, but gave up on an income tax rate cut that would have directly benefited him personally. Instead, Ivanka Trump and her allies in the Senate prevailed in their push to include an expanded child tax credit. <------What the hell? :sneezing_face::mask::scream:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-wanted-a-bigger-tax-cut-for-the-rich-but-lost-to-ivanka/ar-BBFVUzV?li=AA5a8k&ocid=ientp


#353

Bob Corker is one of a handful of Senate Republicans who seems concerned about the impact the GOP tax plan will have on the deficit, which is projected to grow by at least $1.4 trillion over the next decade if the Senate plan is implemented. The retiring Tennessee senator is apparently demanding “triggers” that would scrap scheduled tax breaks if the party’s economic forecasts turn out to be wrong. The Washington Post reported:

Now he’s concerned about various gimmicks and overly rosy assumptions in the bill that would almost certainly mean the true impact on the debt is far greater than that. So the retiring senator has been pushing in recent days to include a “trigger” that would automatically increase taxes down the road if the bill fails to generate the level of economic growth that Republicans leaders keep publicly predicting.

It’s not clear what exactly GOP leaders promised Corker, who declined to share specifics with reporters. He said the amendment will be included in an updated version of the bill that is likely to be released publicly on Thursday.

As a rule, a secret plan, unveiled in the 11th hour, without scrutiny from anyone, isn’t a good way to overhaul the tax code of the world’s most dominant economic superpower.

Nevertheless, Republicans are moving forward, and according to Corker, he’s getting what he wants in the bill. So, it’s a done deal?

Not quite. Several GOP senators – including North Carolina’s Thom Tillis, Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, Georgia’s David Perdue, and Louisiana’s John Kennedy – have pushed back against the triggers, saying they’d undo the plan’s benefits. This, in turn, creates a potential problem for the party: keeping triggers out of the bill alienates self-professed deficit hawks, but putting triggers in may end up pushing away other necessary votes.

As for the substance of the idea, it’s tough to scrutinize the details of a proposal that’s still secret, but by any fair measure, adding triggers to a bad tax bill won’t make it a better tax bill.

And yet, this one provision may be the difference between the bill passing and failing. Watch this space.

Postscript: Just as an aside, to appreciate how absurd the debate has become, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has put his own twist on the triggers idea. In his model, according to a Bloomberg Politics report, if the tax cuts fail to create the economic conditions Republicans want, and the deficit is too big, Cruz’s idea would trigger more tax cuts, not fewer.
In other words, if tax cuts adversely affect the deficit, Ted Cruz’s solution is to automatically create more tax cuts, which would exacerbate the problem.
:rofl:


#354

No doubt, it will ! Trump honeymoon will be over after tax reform and after 2018 !


#355

Have tax cuts ever lowered tax revenue? I think only a recession lowers tax revenue. I miss the days when JFK knew high tax rates were holding back economic growth. It used to be everyone could agree lower tax rates led to more growth. Taxes could be increased to slow growth and mute inflation. I have no clue what happened. Sort of like Feinstein used to want to secure the border and keep illegals out because of how much they were costing California.

The tax rate connection to growth isn’t just US either. Decades of OECD data shows economies who collect under 40% of gdp taxes grow at twice the rate of economies that collect over 40%.


#356

I think the tax bill is bad for Califonia’s high income folks, but it’s good for majority of the people in the country. Now media reports various analysis showing most people get a tax increase, not sure whether there is an objection based on partisan emotions


#357

I like the idea of reducing corp taxes as this help the country, but do not like removing the state income from itemized, limiting primary home property tax to 10k…etc.

Any tax, either property tax or sales tax or IRS or state tax…etc, we pay are not our income, it goes to government no matter whether it is city or county or state or Central. This is totally bad in policy.


#358

Those ignorant people who bend over for partisanship by kissing the ground where racists and good for nothing walk are the ones who most are going to be hurt by this stupid reform. They just don’t get it. They keep a low profile on the postings but once they open their finger to comment you can see they are full of it. They support a government that is bound to make them look like foreigners ready to be discriminated against with happiness if they were seen by the KKK or white supremacist, but still bending over. Thanks God they live in a homogenous and no racist state, otherwise they would be hiding under the sheets of fear.


#359

It’s become impossible to take you seriously.


#360

ok Trumputin lackey.


#361

I’m not talking about whether the tax reform is good or bad in itself. There’s some garbage anaysis that pretends to be real analysis. It’s ok for everyone to have an opinion, you can dislike something other people may praise, but it is different to fake one’s dislike as an “analysis” and published in widely circulated media. Educated people may be able to tell that it’s a political junk disguised as academic or economic analysis, but a huge portion of the population would take it for real and use it to decide on their life choice. Some people may make a different decision on home purchase due to some garbage “analysis”, some others may make a stock investment decision based on the garbage “report”.

This will harm the trust of the general public and make the public the enemy of so-called “elitist”.

I think there is a responsibility for people to separate their political opinion from academic and professional analysis and publication.


#362

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: