PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on April 19, 2017, 06:21:49 PM
-
The Trump camp is talking about removing the Federal tax deduction for those that pay State Tax. This would hurt rich people in states that have large state income taxes, and most of those states are Blue (primarily California and New York).
I say go for it! Florida doesn't have a State income tax, so why should I pay more and make it easier for Blue States to fund their socialist programs.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-reform-state-local-deduction-gary-cohn-2017-4
-
Hear hear!
A conservative in favor of raising taxes. Never thought I'd live to see the day.
-
I would be on board with removing deductions if an overall simplification of the tax code occurred with subsequent RATE REDUCTIONS for everyone.
-
I would be on board with removing deductions if an overall simplification of the tax code occurred with subsequent RATE REDUCTIONS for everyone.
I am for removing this tax deduction, while at the same time pushing for the simplification and reductions that you are.
But allowing people from high tax states to deduct that from their Federal tax is letting them off the hook for those high state taxes, at the expense of those states that don't tax their people so aggressively. If they live in a state that wants to tax the fool out of them, well good for them. But don't try to get it back from me. If they don't like that high tax, then move to a state that doesn't tax so much.
-
I live in taxachusetts, but get most of my deductions taken away anyway. I say do it.
-
While were at it can we stop taxing Social Security Benefits.
-
Deductions? What deductions? I PAY ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX. Maybe that should be indexed, huh? ::)
-
While were at it can we stop taxing Social Security Benefits.
I was doing Mom's taxes. She is 90. I got to thinking what the HELL is she doing paying taxes on her Social Security benefits?
Your FICA "contributions" are already a forced tax. So paying tax on it when you get it back is double taxation. I don't know why I always assumed they weren't taxed.
-
A conservative in favor of raising taxes. Never thought I'd live to see the day.
Really young or really under informed.
1990 - Bush
1982 - Reagan
I presume you would call these guys "conservatives"
-
I was doing Mom's taxes. She is 90. I got to thinking what the HELL is she doing paying taxes on her Social Security benefits?
Your FICA "contributions" are already a forced tax. So paying tax on it when you get it back is double taxation. I don't know why I always assumed they weren't taxed.
She probably should not be. Is is that the first 25k is not taxed or that you don't get taxed if you make less than 25k? Of course if she makes more than 25k/year, that's a good thing, right? Try TurboTax...
My mother is withdrawing out of a recently rolled over investment portfolio, so the tax basis on almost everything is practically zero - taxes were paid when my father was still alive. When combined with her tithing and medical expenses, her AGI was very negative.
-
Hear hear!
A conservative in favor of raising taxes. Never thought I'd live to see the day.
Conservatives are all for taxing as necessary. But what is "necessary" is debatable.
Liberals are all for taxing as much as possible.
-
She probably should not be. Is is that the first 25k is not taxed or that you don't get taxed if you make less than 25k? Of course if she makes more than 25k/year, that's a good thing, right? Try TurboTax...
An accountant did them and I'll need to go look at it but all I remember is her "taxable" social security income was $4000 more this year than it was last year even though her total SS received was virtually the same from year to year, and the accountant told me it was because her portfolio earned more this year than last year. If it's her portfolio income that triggered the tax, why was it listed as "social security" taxable income?
The whole thing totally bewilders me.
-
An accountant did them and I'll need to go look at it but all I remember is her "taxable" social security income was $4000 more this year than it was last year even though her total SS received was virtually the same from year to year, and the accountant told me it was because her portfolio earned more this year than last year. If it's her portfolio income that triggered the tax, why was it listed as "social security" taxable income?
The whole thing totally bewilders me.
Can't comment on your specifics, but here is the background on when SS benefits became taxable:
In 1981 the National Commission on Social Security Reform (sometimes referred to as the Greenspan Commission after its Chairman) was appointed by Congress and President Reagan to work on the financing crisis in Social Security. The result of their study included several amendments that were passed by Congress, signed by President Reagan and made into law in 1983. The specific rule applying to the taxation of Social Security benefits for the first time is copied below:
If the taxpayer's combined income (total of adjusted gross income, interest on tax-exempt bonds, and 50% of Social Security benefits and Tier I Railroad Retirement Benefits) exceeds a threshold amount ($25,000 for an individual, $32,000 for a married couple filing a joint return, and zero for a married person filing separately), the amount of benefits subject to income tax is the lesser of 50% of benefits or 50% of the excess of the taxpayer's combined income over the threshold amount. The additional income tax revenues resulting from this provision are transferred to the trust funds from which the corresponding benefits were paid. Effective for taxable years beginning after 1983.
-
Can't comment on your specifics, but here is the background on when SS benefits became taxable:
In 1981 the National Commission on Social Security Reform (sometimes referred to as the Greenspan Commission after its Chairman) was appointed by Congress and President Reagan to work on the financing crisis in Social Security. The result of their study included several amendments that were passed by Congress, signed by President Reagan and made into law in 1983. The specific rule applying to the taxation of Social Security benefits for the first time is copied below:
If the taxpayer's combined income (total of adjusted gross income, interest on tax-exempt bonds, and 50% of Social Security benefits and Tier I Railroad Retirement Benefits) exceeds a threshold amount ($25,000 for an individual, $32,000 for a married couple filing a joint return, and zero for a married person filing separately), the amount of benefits subject to income tax is the lesser of 50% of benefits or 50% of the excess of the taxpayer's combined income over the threshold amount. The additional income tax revenues resulting from this provision are transferred to the trust funds from which the corresponding benefits were paid. Effective for taxable years beginning after 1983.
Wow, thanks. I cannot imagine what sort of twisted mind came up with that.
-
Wow, thanks. I cannot imagine what sort of twisted mind came up with that.
An accountant. :o
-
Wow, thanks. I cannot imagine what sort of twisted mind came up with that.
A significant portion of our tax code is twisted!! ;)
-
The Trump camp is talking about removing the Federal tax deduction for those that pay State Tax. This would hurt rich people in states that have large state income taxes, and most of those states are Blue (primarily California and New York).
I say go for it! Florida doesn't have a State income tax, so why should I pay more and make it easier for Blue States to fund their socialist programs.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-reform-state-local-deduction-gary-cohn-2017-4
Won't happen, the beneficiaries of that deduction are the one's that make political contributions.
-
Wow, thanks. I cannot imagine what sort of twisted mind came up with that.
is that indexed to inflation? 25k in 1981 is almost 67k in today's dollars.
-
An accountant did them and I'll need to go look at it but all I remember is her "taxable" social security income was $4000 more this year than it was last year even though her total SS received was virtually the same from year to year, and the accountant told me it was because her portfolio earned more this year than last year. If it's her portfolio income that triggered the tax, why was it listed as "social security" taxable income?
The whole thing totally bewilders me.
The simple formula is when 50% of the SS benefits and any other income hits a certain amount you begin paying taxes on the SS benefits and the amount can range up to 85% of it being taxed.
-
The simple formula is when 50% of the SS benefits and any other income hits a certain amount you begin paying taxes on the SS benefits and the amount can range up to 85% of it being taxed.
So basically when the government said, "We'll take your money and keep it safe for you then give it back to you when you're old," they lied.
-
So basically when the government said, "We'll take your money and keep it safe for you then give it back to you when you're old," they lied.
It depends on how you define the word "lied".
Or maybe it depends on how you define the word "it" (as in "then give IT back to you").
-
So basically when the government said, "We'll take your money and keep it safe for you then give it back to you when you're old," they lied.
Correct. It's a tax for a welfare program, poorly disguised as something else.
-
An accountant. :o
A democrat lawyer.
-
Correct. It's a tax for a welfare program, poorly disguised as something else.
It is a welfare program for those that do not pay into it their entire lives. I imagine most if not all on this board paid into it their entire lives, and continue to pay, only to have the government misuse the funds for other dubious things, give us little to no return on our investment, and then put an additional tax on distributions.