[bimmer456]

The loan amount limits should vary by location and factor in cost of living. Maybe it should be income based instead and factor in cost of living by city.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by bimmer456

The loan amount limits should vary by location and factor in cost of living. Maybe it should be income based instead and factor in cost of living by city.

They already do vary.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by bimmer456

The loan amount limits should vary by location and factor in cost of living. Maybe it should be income based instead and factor in cost of living by city.

I thought there was already a cap on mortgage interest that excluded interest on mortgage balances over $1M. The change just lowers it to $750K for new mortgages. Unless the current cap is tied to location and income, doubtful the new one would be.

Personally, I'd prefer there be even lower rates and zero mortgage interest deduction. That puts people with mortgages, paid off mortgages and renters on even footing for federal taxes. It also puts residents in different parts of the country on even footing from a federal tax perspective. If you want to live somewhere that has exceptionally high real estate prices and / or state and local taxes, that's your choice, but that choice shouldn't mean you should be able to pay a discounted share of your federal tax burden than someone who lives elsewhere. However, all that said, if the mortgage interest deduction is going to continue to be part of the tax code, I wouldn't disagree with periodic increases to account for inflation. I don't know if it does that now or if it will do so going forward.

Edit: I also think anyone with high mortgages and high state and local taxes should also review the AMT changes. If you are typically caught up by AMT, changes to AMT provisions should be considered in combination with other changes vs. trying to look at one headline provision in isolation.

[335e92tx]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

Edit: I also think anyone with high mortgages and high state and local taxes should also review the AMT changes. If you are typically caught up by AMT, changes to AMT provisions should be considered in combination with other changes vs. trying to look at one headline provision in isolation.

Hence, the 'simplified' sales point of this tax cut was just smoke and mirrors.

[bailyhill]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

I thought there was already a cap on mortgage interest that excluded interest on mortgage balances over $1M. The change just lowers it to $750K for new mortgages. Unless the current cap is tied to location and income, doubtful the new one would be.

Personally, I'd prefer there be even lower rates and zero mortgage interest deduction. That puts people with mortgages, paid off mortgages and renters on even footing for federal taxes. It also puts residents in different parts of the country on even footing from a federal tax perspective. If you want to live somewhere that has exceptionally high real estate prices and / or state and local taxes, that's your choice, but that choice shouldn't mean you should be able to pay a discounted share of your federal tax burden than someone who lives elsewhere. However, all that said, if the mortgage interest deduction is going to continue to be part of the tax code, I wouldn't disagree with periodic increases to account for inflation. I don't know if it does that now or if it will do so going forward.

Edit: I also think anyone with high mortgages and high state and local taxes should also review the AMT changes. If you are typically caught up by AMT, changes to AMT provisions should be considered in combination with other changes vs. trying to look at one headline provision in isolation.

This would throw the housing market into a dive like we have never seen. Not saying the present system is correct, but I have always thought that it was an incentive to own your own home. If the interest was not deductible, we would all become tenants, and the winners would be the big money that owns all the rentals. So pick your poison.

Bailyhill

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by 335e92tx

Hence, the 'simplified' sales point of this tax cut was just smoke and mirrors.

Unclear what you mean. Fewer people should be caught up in the AMT.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by bailyhill

This would throw the housing market into a dive like we have never seen. Not saying the present system is correct, but I have always thought that it was an incentive to own your own home. If the interest was not deductible, we would all become tenants, and the winners would be the big money that owns all the rentals. So pick your poison.

Bailyhill

That sounds like rhetoric from the home builders lobby. Why would we all be renters if mortgage interest deduction was eliminated in favor of a lower overall tax rate? Are you saying that people who paid cash or paid off their mortgages (and hence have no deduction for mortgage interest) are renters?

[335e92tx]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

Unclear what you mean. Fewer people should be caught up in the AMT.

To be more clear, it was supposed to make it easier (maybe not specific to AMT) for more filers to not need any external (software or human) assistance bc they would not need to itemize. Not likely to play out that way if they expect to see an increase (in $), and especially after about year 4.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by 335e92tx

To be more clear, it was supposed to make it easier (maybe not specific to AMT) for more filers to not need any external (software or human) assistance bc they would not need to itemize. Not likely to play out that way if they expect to see an increase (in $), and especially after about year 4.

Doubling of the standard deduction will clearly result in fewer people itemizing deductions. For those that continue itemize (for example because they have large mortgages, charitable donations and state taxes), fewer will get caught up in AMT. That seems easier to me, since I am likely one that will no longer need to itemize. That's not to say it couldn't be even simpler with no deductions, tax credits, AMT, etc. and just a simple flat tax. Nevertheless, it will be simpler for many people.

[mledfo2]

Originally Posted by Lups

I have an extra kid i can donate to you. He wants to talk about quantum physics while eating his breakfast, his biggest wish is to start deep sea diving as a hobby, he loves fishing and rocks and he according to his teacher is a future gangster or a professional blackmailer.

Just pm me where to send him. His teacher will probably pay for the tickets since my little devil refuses to participate to math classes if after doing the work, he is not allowed to go to the library for the rest of the lesson.

Lol

[335e92tx]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

Doubling of the standard deduction will clearly result in fewer people itemizing deductions. For those that continue itemize (for example because they have large mortgages, charitable donations and state taxes), fewer will get caught up in AMT. That seems easier to me, since I am likely one that will no longer need to itemize. That's not to say it couldn't be even simpler with no deductions, tax credits, AMT, etc. and just a simple flat tax. Nevertheless, it will be simpler for many people.

This was 'sold' as being the trifecta; MORE SIMPLIFIED for ALL (post card filing), Going to eliminate the debt (via 4+percent gdp for 10 yrs) and less loopholes for those with $$ to avoid. They got maybe 1 of the three.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

It is but the bigger standard deduction is even better. There may be no need for many people to itemize deductions like interest, state taxes and property taxes any longer.

I read that most Americans do not itemize anyway so they never got the tax breaks anyway. One example is only 40% of people in NY itemize the rest only took the standard deductions so they will end getting more back since the standard deductions will increase but those who itemize may end paying more since they can not deduct what they use too. I know my itemize deductions were way higher than $24k they note give you.

[Lowflight]

Can't wait to be relived from the obama regime's taxes. MAGA!!!!!

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by 335e92tx

This was 'sold' as being the trifecta; MORE SIMPLIFIED for ALL (post card filing), Going to eliminate the debt (via 4+percent gdp for 10 yrs) and less loopholes for those with $$ to avoid. They got maybe 1 of the three.

Unless you go to straight flat tax and eliminate credits, there is no way they could be simplified for ALL. Many of those complaining the simplification fell short are also the first that would complain if credits were eliminated. So I'll take some level of simplification for many rather than nothing for anyone because those were probably the 2 most realistic outcomes.

As far as GDP growth goes, only time will tell. Hard to rely on projections, whether positive or negative.

There were definitely some loopholes closed on the corporate side, particularly for large multinationals and companies that have complex intercompany financing arrangements to move taxable income around. Not much press about that, but they did do that and the irony is that it wasn't done by a democratic congress and president. There are still plenty of others, including "carried interest" that survived. So on this point I would still prefer something to nothing, but agree they fell short of expectations. Still more opportunity to eliminate loopholes and unnecessary deductions, both corporate and personal.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by Maestro

I read that most Americans do not itemize anyway so they never got the tax breaks anyway. One example is only 40% of people in NY itemize the rest only took the standard deductions so they will end getting more back since the standard deductions will increase but those who itemize may end paying more since they can not deduct what they use too. I know my itemize deductions were way higher than $24k they note give you.

Right, few itemized, so the reductions in mortgage interest and SALT deductions affect few. Further, of those who did itemize, many will no longer need to do so because of the higher standard deduction. Of the remainder that continue to itemize, fewer still will get caught up by AMT, often driven by high deductions for mortgage interest and SALT. It is difficult to predict your impact based on news headlines. Need to break out a spreadsheet and do the math under the new rules as best you can to figure it out.

[wdb]

Or wait for turbotax to do it...

[bimmer456]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

Right, few itemized, so the reductions in mortgage interest and SALT deductions affect few. Further, of those who did itemize, many will no longer need to do so because of the higher standard deduction. Of the remainder that continue to itemize, fewer still will get caught up by AMT, often driven by high deductions for mortgage interest and SALT. It is difficult to predict your impact based on news headlines. Need to break out a spreadsheet and do the math under the new rules as best you can to figure it out.

If you're a renter or recent grad the higher standard deduction will benefit you as you won't be deducting things like mortgage interest and property taxes so it benefits you in that way.

[335e92tx]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

Unless you go to straight flat tax and eliminate credits, there is no way they could be simplified for ALL. .

Then it should not have been sold that way by the marketer in chief.

FACTS do matter. and the only thing worse than someone making the unfounded STATEMENT is them not being held to their words when they dont pan out.

Like most certainly took place when under the 'keep your doctor' historic reference.
It's called accountability, and its largely lost in this short term attention span world.


GB.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by 335e92tx

Then it should not have been sold that way by the marketer in chief.

FACTS do matter. and the only thing worse than someone making the unfounded STATEMENT is them not being held to their words when they dont pan out.

Like most certainly took place when under the 'keep your doctor' historic reference.
It's called accountability, and its largely lost in this short term attention span world.


GB.

Right, just like ACA, social security and everything else ever done by the government worked out exactly as sold.

[335e92tx]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

Right, just like ACA, social security and everything else ever done by the government worked out exactly as sold.

The difference was there had been efforts FROM BOTH SIDES for about all other gov projects in the past. And not just flat fiction, nor was the majority of the time spent deriding the side that you need the solutions from...

Welcome to #45.

[kscarrol]

Originally Posted by 335e92tx

The difference was there had been efforts FROM BOTH SIDES for about all other gov projects in the past. And not just flat fiction, nor was the majority of the time spent deriding the side that you need the solutions from...

Welcome to #45.

Not true for ACA... That was similarly railroaded through congress with votes split along party lines. There were some brief periods for comments but Republicans were not involved in writing the bill and of course there was the famous Pelosi quote, "you have to pass the bill to read the bill". As the Dems controlled both houses, it passed. Republicans aren't the only ones guilty of using theses tactics.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by 335e92tx

The difference was there had been efforts FROM BOTH SIDES for about all other gov projects in the past. And not just flat fiction, nor was the majority of the time spent deriding the side that you need the solutions from...

Welcome to #45.

ACA was a joint effort? Republicans had ideas they brought to the table that were dismissed when they were told "There are consequences to elections and I won." Sorry, but that is not collaboration. Welcome to the consequences of the precedents set by the last guy.