Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, June 12, 2019

The Treasury Department dealt the final blow to programs in states like New York and New Jersey designed to help residents circumvent the $10,000 limit on deductions for state and local taxes.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Flat tax.

No deductions.

Fixes all this.

#1 | Posted by boaz at 2019-06-12 08:36 AM | Reply

Finally the 1% in blue states will pay their fair share. Thanks Trump.

#2 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-06-12 08:48 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Moving from the Midwest to Okiehomie allows me to see some of the effects of low taxes:
-interstate highways not maintained
-poor schools which doom the populace to serfdom because locals cannot compete for jobs in the information age
-entry fees for most state and county parks
-Police confining themselves to only the most serious criminal activity, with community policing, clocking speeders and providing visibility unheard of
-Voters cowed into accepting a political class which doesn't serve their interests, but those of the local corporations and monied class

Nobody likes paying taxes, but doing so helps promote commerce, a civil society and a higher standard of living...

#3 | Posted by catdog at 2019-06-12 09:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Finally the 1% in blue states will pay their fair share. Thanks Trump.

#2 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Yeah... shifting EVEN MORE of the tax burden onto blue states while the -------- (Republican) states continue to survive by being parasites on "other people's money".

Those blue states are what drive the productive economy. Without the wealth transfer through taxes from them to the Republican states, "conservatives" would have to give up some of their "free stuff".

Good job Republicans. You built that.

#4 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-06-12 09:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Flat tax. No deductions."

Way to go, Einstein, you just forced half the businesses in the US to close.

"Fixes all this."

You don't have a clue.

#5 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 09:12 AM | Reply

#5

Businesses are different than individuals..

Einstein.

#6 | Posted by boaz at 2019-06-12 09:25 AM | Reply

"Businesses are different than individuals.."

Not sole proprietorships. Nor one-person LLCs. And if you're just talking about disallowing deductions for corporations, you're even dumber than I thought.

You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?

#7 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 09:43 AM | Reply

This is a good thing. High tax states shouldn't have less of a tax burden to the federal government than low tax states - I am specifically talking about federal income taxes as it pertains to per capita income.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-12 09:52 AM | Reply

"This is a good thing. "

Then why, between 1913 and today, did we follow the precept you don't pay taxes on taxes paid?

#9 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 10:03 AM | Reply

Then why, between 1913 and today, did we follow the precept you don't pay taxes on taxes paid?

#9 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

That sounds like an argument against the estate tax.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-12 10:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

"This is a good thing. High tax states shouldn't have less of a tax burden to the federal government than low tax states - I am specifically talking about federal income taxes as it pertains to per capita income."

Except that the high tax states still contribute far more to the federal government than do the low tax states. The hih tax states subsidize the low tax states.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2019-06-12 10:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"That sounds like an argument against the estate tax"

You don't know what you're talking about. If you find a diamond ring and sell it, that's taxable income. If I pay my barber, it's with money that's already been taxed. Meanwhile, if you don't understand the impact of inheriting on a stepped-up basis, you shouldn't be opining.

However, subtracting taxes paid from taxable income (NOT from taxes due) has been an American concept since the income tax code took effect in 1913. It took Trump to decide taxes should be paid on taxes paid.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 10:24 AM | Reply

Except that the high tax states still contribute far more to the federal government than do the low tax states. The hih tax states subsidize the low tax states.

#11 | POSTED BY DANNI

Replace "high tax states" and "low tax states" with "the rich" and "the poor" and read what you just said a second time.

#13 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-06-12 10:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Replace "high tax states" and "low tax states" with "the rich" and "the poor" and read what you just said a second time."

That still doesn't change the equation where blue states subsidize red states. Nor does it change the fact with the new tax code, blue states will be subsidizing even more.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 10:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#14 I thought liberals were all for income redistribution, n'est-ce pas?

#15 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-06-12 10:40 AM | Reply

#15

Progressives against Progressive Taxation!

#16 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-06-12 10:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#14 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Where does his statement indicate "colors"?

However, subtracting taxes paid from taxable income (NOT from taxes due) has been an American concept since the income tax code took effect in 1913. It took Trump to decide taxes should be paid on taxes paid.
#12 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Even before the change, I couldn't deduct sales tax if I deduct state and local, yet I pay a 9.25% sales tax.

#17 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-06-12 10:45 AM | Reply

If you find a diamond ring and sell it, that's taxable income.

This isn't a good metaphor for an estate tax ... the beneficiary doesn't pay the taxes ...

What you are talking about is an inheritance tax .

#18 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-06-12 10:51 AM | Reply

"I thought liberals were all for income redistribution, n'est-ce pas?"

you seem to think and invest in a lot of ignorant ---- you see on the internet

#19 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-06-12 10:53 AM | Reply

you seem to think and invest in a lot of ignorant ---- you see on the internet

#19 | POSTED BY CHIEFTUTMOSES

So why a progressive income tax?

#20 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-06-12 11:04 AM | Reply

"This isn't a good metaphor for an estate tax "

Sure it is; it's new money to the recipient. In one case, it's taxed. In another, it's not.

"why a progressive income tax?"

Two reasons, mainly:

One: it's the only progressive tax we have. All other tases are either regressive (sales taxes) or super-regressive (SS taxes). It also ameliorates some of the built-in advantages of wealth, like inheriting on a stepped-up basis.

Two: folks who earn more, benefit more from societal purchases like roads and police; the billionaire needs the SEC more than the beggar.

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 11:14 AM | Reply

"I couldn't deduct sales tax if I deduct state and local, yet I pay a 9.25% sales tax."

But you were given a choice of what to deduct, and get the larger benefit.

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 11:16 AM | Reply

"I thought liberals were all for income redistribution, n'est-ce pas?"

Not upward, the way the last three tax codes have funneled money.

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 11:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The tax code is so complex that an argument could be made that the cost of compliance exceeds the revenue generated.

Limiting SALT makes the Federal income tax more progressive.

#24 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-06-12 11:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Limiting SALT makes the Federal income tax more progressive.

#24 | POSTED BY VISITOR

Yep.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-12 11:31 AM | Reply

"Limiting SALT makes the Federal income tax more progressive."

Well, yeah, that tiny corner of the equation.

Meanwhile, the rest of the new code makes the FIT less progressive, including less progressive overall.

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 11:37 AM | Reply

"The tax code is so complex that an argument could be made that the cost of compliance exceeds the revenue generated."

Only by idiots using Vernon's Calculator™ and/or Republican Math™.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 11:38 AM | Reply

High tax states shouldn't have less of a tax burden to the federal government than low tax states

Interesting that your penchant for fairness among the states when it comes to federal taxes only applies to this particular deduction. What are your thoughts on the fact that high tax blue states pay more in federal taxes than low tax red states?

#28 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-12 11:40 AM | Reply

"High tax states shouldn't have less of a tax burden to the federal government than low tax states"

They don't; they actually have more.

Any other ridiculous talking points?

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 11:43 AM | Reply

"Limiting SALT makes the Federal income tax more progressive."

States with very low property taxes depend on the wealthier states to subsidize their poverty.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2019-06-12 11:48 AM | Reply

You don't know what you're talking about.

Danforth, you are the stupidest person on this site that has convinced himself that he is smart.

Calling everyone stupid just because they don't share your point of view doesn't make you smart.

#31 | Posted by boaz at 2019-06-12 12:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The tax code is so complex that an argument could be made that the cost of compliance exceeds the revenue generated."
Only by idiots using Vernon's Calculator™ and/or Republican Math™.

Says the guy that earns his bread from that complexity.

#32 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-06-12 12:12 PM | Reply

Danforth's innumeracy is evident. I'm unsure if it's due to ignorance or disingenuousness.

#33 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-06-12 12:16 PM | Reply

That sounds like an argument against the estate tax.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ

Only if the person paid the taxes before they died.

Paying estate taxes is paying on money received.

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2019-06-12 12:44 PM | Reply

"Danforth, you are the stupidest person on this site that has convinced himself that he is smart."

I'm sure the teachers who had me skip a grade, offered me to skip another, and had me in a program to skip another would all agree.

#35 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 01:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"Says the guy that earns his bread from that complexity."

Who better to point out compliance costs DO NOT exceed revenue costs? One is billions, the other is trillions.

Only in Republican Math is a billion larger than a trillion. And only among Republicans does the pretense continue.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 01:03 PM | Reply

"Calling everyone stupid just because they don't share your point of view doesn't make you smart."

True. But on this topic you're clueless. Anyone suggesting " no deductions" doesn't understand how business works.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 01:04 PM | Reply

--I'm sure the teachers who had me skip a grade, offered me to skip another, and had me in a program to skip another would all agree.

lol. I knew that chest-pounding was coming as soon as I read boaz's post.

#38 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-06-12 01:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Well you clearly weren't voted "most likely to succeed" because you would have told everyone 50 times by now, so what happened in high school?

#39 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2019-06-12 01:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Danforth you have no idea how much it costs to comply with the with our tax code. How many lawyers, accountants, computer systems are directly related to it as well as the opportunity costs?

#40 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-06-12 01:26 PM | Reply

That must have been the grade in which basic math was covered.

#41 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-06-12 01:28 PM | Reply

Look at the BIG brain on that Danforth!

#42 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-12 01:31 PM | Reply

"I knew that chest-pounding was coming as soon as I read boaz's post."

Thank God I don't have to pay rent on that space I occupy 24/7 in your brain.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 02:11 PM | Reply

"Danforth you have no idea how much it costs to comply with the with our tax code."

STFU, before you embarrass yourself further. Compliance costs are in the billions. Revenue is in the trillions.

Do you know which number is bigger, or not?

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 02:20 PM | Reply

"Look at the BIG brain on that Danforth!"

You're clearly looking comparatively.

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 02:23 PM | Reply

Just admit you don't know. It's OK. You skipped a grade in elementary school, we can never take that from you.

#46 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-06-12 02:27 PM | Reply

I don't want to interrupt this flame fest but since Danforth is here I have a tax question

My daughter in college......should she start filing her own tax return?

When do you recommend they start doing that?

She turns 19 next month.

#47 | Posted by eberly at 2019-06-12 02:29 PM | Reply

since Danforth is here I have a tax question

I will say this: Danforth is VERY generous with how freely he gives information on this kind of stuff.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-12 02:30 PM | Reply

That's actually a great question for me too, Ebs.

My oldest just finished his freshman year of college and he turns 19 in November.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-12 02:31 PM | Reply

"Just admit you don't know. "

My irony meter just pegged.
taxfoundation.org

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 02:31 PM | Reply

I lost the tax credit on her anyway, right?

When she gets to law school, I would think she should just be on her own, tax wise......unless I'm giving up too large of a benefit

#51 | Posted by eberly at 2019-06-12 02:32 PM | Reply

"My daughter in college......should she start filing her own tax return?"

Absolutely not. These are the 4-5 years you'll qualify for the American Opportunity Credit, up to $2500 per year on your tax return.

"When do you recommend they start doing that?"

Either when they graduate, when it's more advantageous for them than you (dollar-wise), or when they're earning more than half of their annual support.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 02:38 PM | Reply

"I lost the tax credit on her anyway, right?"

No...the new code just (roughly) doubled the income cutoff for the credit. You should qualify for the full amount.

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 02:40 PM | Reply

"I will say this: Danforth is VERY generous with how freely he gives information on this kind of stuff."

And it's worth every penny.

#54 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-06-12 02:47 PM | Reply

Thanks....I forgot about the tax credit for college.

2018 was a weird year for taxes...my mom passed away in 2018 and I liquidated a couple annuities that generated a fairly large taxable gain we had to declare so my taxable income was unusually high....and because of that I lost some of that American Opportunity credit. I should be okay in 2019 though.

#55 | Posted by eberly at 2019-06-12 02:54 PM | Reply

When she gets to law school

Oof...i hope she thinks that one through.

It's one thing for a kid who has been passionate about this as a career from day one. But for people who want to do it because they think it will be a glamorous or exciting career, many find themselves disillusioned.

Posting this from my law firm desk btw. I had zero connections in the industry but lucked out and found good work so far, but many lawyers struggle and work crazy hours just to make their student loan payments.

#56 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-12 03:10 PM | Reply

This muat be the thread where Republicans forget their rallying cry "double taxation!"

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-12 03:11 PM | Reply

#56 | POSTED BY JOE

I remember you posting that the first firm you were hired by was a horrible work environment. A lot of backstabbing and whatnot.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-12 03:12 PM | Reply

"High tax states shouldn't have less of a tax burden to the federal government than low tax states"

See? It's like the old rallying cry of "double taxation" never existed.

In 2019, Republicans have always supported double taxation!

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-12 03:14 PM | Reply

Wow. Now we pay taxes on top of money that has already been taxed. Messed up stuff.

Then we pay taxes when we buy.

GOP tells you they're against increased taxes, but only for the very rich. Everyone else gets tax increases.

#60 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-06-12 03:16 PM | Reply

"Republicans have always supported double taxation!"

And we've always been at war with Eastasia.

#61 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 03:17 PM | Reply

Wow. Now we pay taxes on top of money that has already been taxed. Messed up stuff.

*See also: Inheritance Tax, VAT

#62 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-06-12 03:17 PM | Reply

"Now we pay taxes on top of money that has already been taxed. Messed up stuff."

The authors were well aware it would have a net negative effect on four blue states: Delaware, California, New Jersey and New York are all losing billions. The authors even admitted they were trying to hurt blue states, public Unions, and especially, public Unions in blue states.
www.politicususa.com

#63 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 03:21 PM | Reply

Joe, is this close to reality right now?

smartasset.com

#64 | Posted by eberly at 2019-06-12 03:30 PM | Reply

"See also: Inheritance Tax"

First, the first $11 million is tax-free. $22 million if you do it right.

Second, most inheritors get investments on a stepped-up basis. If you don't know what that means, get out of the discussion now.

Third, this is new money to the recipient. Just like when I pay my barber, it's with money already taxed. But it's new to him, so it's taxable income to him. Same situation with inherited money over the taxable threshold of ten or twenty million.

#65 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 03:34 PM | Reply

I've always felt that inheritance should be treated as income.

#66 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-12 03:39 PM | Reply

See also: VAT

Why? What VAT taxes are you paying in the US?

#67 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 03:41 PM | Reply

Danforth, here's a question you may be able to answer, I googled it and I still don't have a definitive answer, do states pay taxes?

#68 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-06-12 03:41 PM | Reply

Jeff: I've always felt that inheritance should be treated as income.

Republicans: We want to eliminate the Estate Tax entirely, and the new code doubles the tax-free amount

Jeff: That gets my vote!

#69 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 03:43 PM | Reply

"do states pay taxes?"

Yes, but they're not called taxes. There are varying transfers of money from states to feds, and from feds to states. Look at JPW's link about regarding blue states and red states for more information.

#70 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 03:45 PM | Reply

Danforth, you are the stupidest person on this site that has convinced himself that he is smart.

Calling everyone stupid just because they don't share your point of view doesn't make you smart.

Posted by boaz at 2019-06-12 12:07 PM | Reply

imgflip.com

#71 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-06-12 04:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#64 I really don't think that's accurate for younger lawyers. It might be accurate on the whole when you factor in biglaw partners who really run up the score. While i personally make above average money in my field, not everyone does, and i feel like i got lucky.

Plenty of people starting out have a hard time even finding employment in the legal field period, and people who don't make it to big law firms are probably making closer to $45-60k in your average midsize city, which isn't much when you have $1000+/month of student loan debt hanging over your head. And those who did make it to big firms to rake in the big bucks can prepare for 80+ hour workweeks, sociopaths for bosses, very little genuine mentoring to be found.

I'm not trying to scare her off, but there's a lot of window dressing on what it's actually like to be a lawyer. It's not like tv and the profession has very high rates of depression and substance abuse. With all of that said, it does work out for some people and those with a passion for a particular area who actually manage to find work in that area can find themselves a fulfillibg, lucrative career. That's just a lot of "ifs."

#72 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-12 04:13 PM | Reply

Thanks Joe. I sincerely appreciate the feedback. I know we have flung poo at each other on this place on more than one occasion so believe me when I say "thanks".

I honestly don't even know if she'll end up at a law firm...so many attorneys I know are working in a general counsel capacity either for an organization who has the direct need or a CPA firm, consulting, etc.

She is majoring in finance now...I've tried talking her into accounting but it's not sexy enough, I guess. Her summer job is working for a small law firm and it's boring as hell to her.

Who knows..law school may not happen.

#73 | Posted by eberly at 2019-06-12 04:23 PM | Reply

No problem. Happy to answer questions along the way. In-house/GC is definitely a more traditional 8-5 corporate gig, but nobody gets those jobs first thing out of law school.

If she got her CPA it would definitely open more doors for her with a law degree, but CPAs can already find work without spending another $200k on a JD.

#74 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-12 04:37 PM | Reply

"And it's worth every penny."

Regular rates range from $100-$150/hr, if you're needing some education.

#75 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 05:03 PM | Reply

I feel that there never should have been SALT deduction in the first place.

#76 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-06-12 05:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"We Love Double Taxation!"
--Conservatives, 2019

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-12 05:07 PM | Reply

#72 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-06-12 04:13 PM | FLAG: Agree with your statement as my son graduated from Rutgers law with honors about a decade ago when many companies were downsizing and there was a dearth of positions [managed to obtain very few interviews] and that is why he joined the Army as a JAG. He did the Dave Ramsey beans and rice budget, including renting house with roommates, etc., and managed to pay off about 83k student debt in under four years. Currently a Major and trying to decide whether to stay in for 20 or get out and go the Reserve route to retirement. Too many people watching TV and movies think all lawyers make the big bucks and as he kew some, has told me that they work so many hours that they have no life.

ps: Two friends from his class have never worked in law even through the passed the bar.

#78 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-06-12 05:28 PM | Reply

Just because people cant write off more does not lessen the SALT paid in. So, who hurts? Those paying those taxes.

How many other things did we write off but cant anymore?

#79 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-06-12 09:15 PM | Reply

"How many other things did we write off but cant anymore?"

Well, Employee Business Expenses are a thing of the past.

It works for most professions, but try telling a concert violinist his $250,000.00 violin is no longer depreciable...simply because he gets paid on a W-2.

But continuing education, dues, specialty clothing, travel for work, business use of cell phone, and another two dozen categories...all deductions vanished for employees. Only business OWNERS can write those items off now.

#80 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 09:22 PM | Reply

So while you're trying to file your taxes some stinky orange turd in DC is actively changing the rules on you. I already experienced this once with stupid Turbotax, purchased in February at Costco, I owed $846 decades of refunds. But the disc, as sold, was out of date. In March, after an update, without changing anything I suddenly owed $7860. Freakin' --------, I doubt Trump knows what's in the bill unless something was written for his benefit. But, I'm positive McConnell and Ryan know all the dirty details which they had ready when a chump like Trump finally came along to make implementation possible.

#81 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-06-12 09:31 PM | Reply

Also not deductible any more:

Alimony
Moving expenses, unless you're a member of the military
Investment Fees
Catastrophic Losses, unless from a designated national disaster
Charitable Deductions*
Personal Exemption**

** The Personal exemption was added into the Standard deduction, to create a new, larger standard deduction.

*Because of the larger standard deduction, only 4% will itemize (down from 21%), so for the most part, for almost everyone, charity is no longer deductible. Several times this year I literally said "You guys could've donated $20,000 to charity...and it wouldn't have moved the needle."

#82 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 09:34 PM | Reply

Was there a time ss and unemployment wasnt taxed and interest paid on credit cards was deductible?

#83 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-06-12 09:39 PM | Reply

"I owed $846 (after) decades of refunds."

That's because the WH was so embarrassed by the truth, Mnuchin lowered the withholding rates MORE than the tax rates lowered. In essence, if you saw $46 extra every two weeks, that was $6 from the tax "cut"*, and the other $40 was carved out of your bottom line. IOW, $6 was from the cut, and $40 of the extra was from YOUR WALLET.

#84 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 09:39 PM | Reply

"Was there a time ss and unemployment wasnt taxed and interest paid on credit cards was deductible?"

Yes, before the Reagan Code of 1986. Business meals were also 100% deductible; Reagan changed it to 50%

Frankly, while Reagan gets undeserved credit as a tax cutter, he raised taxes 7 times, and his changes have cost the average taxpayer more money over the years than any other code I've seen.

#85 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 09:42 PM | Reply

the tax "cut"*

*whatever you got, you just borrowed $11,000 per income tax payer in your household. Got a wife and 2 kids? Your "tax cut" comes with a $44,000 tab.

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 09:45 PM | Reply

Frankly, while Reagan gets undeserved credit as a tax cutter, he raised taxes 7 times, and his changes have cost the average taxpayer more money over the years than any other code I've seen.

#85 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Of course the Dee-Controlled House had NOTHING to do with that. Right?

#87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-12 09:57 PM | Reply

"without changing anything I suddenly owed $7860."

I know the software this year had trouble keeping up with the changes, but I'm trying to locate the reason. If I had the two returns (pre-and-post changes), I'd find the specific line where the new, large liability appeared.

Do you get your insurance from the Marketplace Exchange? (aka Obamacare)
Are you self-employed?
Were you eligible for any subsidy from the ACA?
Were you eligible to put any money in a Traditional IRA?

The reason I ask, is numerous times this year, I saw this scenario play out. We usually ameliorated the large tax bill by putting money in a SEP-IRA. But the intersection of the questions I asked can often cause a HUGE single-dollar trigger.

Last year, I found a spot where one extra dollar in the retirement fund saved $3800 in income taxes.

This year, that record was smashed: I found a one-dollar trigger for $7508. There was a point where the taxpayer literally had the choice between paying the IRS $6K, or paying himself $6K via a SEP-IRA.

Then, three days later, the original record holder reclaimed the crown: I found a one-dollar trigger for $10,548. I walked my assistant through it, just so I'd have a witness.

Most effed up code I've ever seen, by a long shot.

#88 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 09:57 PM | Reply

"Of course the Dee-Controlled House had NOTHING to do with that. Right?"

Presidents get the nod. No one calls it The Tip O'Neill Compromise.

#89 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 10:09 PM | Reply

Just like this one won't be known as the John Feehery/Steven Moore Screw the Blue States Tax Code.

It'll be called the Trump Tax Code.

#90 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 10:17 PM | Reply

"Danforth, you are the stupidest person on this site that has convinced himself that he is smart."

That depends.

Do you believe you're smart?

#91 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-13 01:05 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort