# New Trump tax plan passes- Good for LLc’s.



## tjbnwi (Feb 24, 2009)

TimNJ said:


> They didn't magically balance the budget this year.
> That $1.5 trillion cut will be on top of the yearly $750billion imbalance in the day to day running of the country.


2018 budget is proposed less than 2017. 

2017-4.17T
2018-4.09T

80B in costs cuts. 

Tom


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

TimNJ said:


> They didn't magically balance the budget this year.
> That $1.5 trillion cut will be on top of the yearly $750billion imbalance in the day to day running of the country.


Well since we're extrapolating the numbers, $1.5 trillion over 10 years is only 3.75% of the $42 TRILLION dollars they will take in during that time... now this assumes the budget stays at it's current level of $4.2 trillion (it doesn't) and and never increases and does not take into account of baseline budgeting NOR increased revenues from growth...

Considering the spending power of the federal government, if they can't figure out how to trim 3.75% to "pay" for giving us our own money back, which would be even smaller if they eliminated baseline budgeting and didn't SPEND the coming increased revenues, exactly why are we paying them six-figure salaries, outstanding bene's, out of line expense accounts, and HUGE retirement packages for so little work again?... :blink:

Exactly how incompetent do they have actually have to be before they are held to account?...


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Windowcentric said:


> So far this new plan looks good for guys that have LLc’s which most contractors are..
> gonna look into this more. So far, it looks good.


 Depends on the LLC and how is setup. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Metro M & L said:


> It'll be great until the debt piles up, working middle class can't deduct housing expenses on the east and west coast, and interest rates rise causing a recession and building stops from 2019-2022.


Debt isn't created by reducing the money the govt steals from its people. It's created by spending. Now it's time to reduce the budget. 


Also, every time taxes have been cut tax revenue had increased. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

calmod said:


> I've only lived in Illinois and in California so I only know what property taxes and state income taxes are in those states. It's actually a tax increase for these two states as they have income tax and relatively high property taxes. I did the numbers today and it's a tax increase for me. You can't buy a house in my modest area for much less than 750K period. If they cap property tax and income tax deductions at 10K ( the number I read) total I'm going to be federally taxed on more money. I looked at the new income tax rates and I am basically a couple points lower on that but taxed on more money. It's going to be better for people in states with low or no income tax and low property values. Correct me if I'm wrong but once it's passed through it's personal income. I don't know many contractors who pay corporate tax as most of us don't make enough money so that means nothing to me


But why should states who don't have high property tax or state income subsidize those that do? 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

calmod said:


> I've only lived in Illinois and in California so I only know what property taxes and state income taxes are in those states. It's actually a tax increase for these two states as they have income tax and relatively high property taxes. I did the numbers today and it's a tax increase for me. You can't buy a house in my modest area for much less than 750K period. If they cap property tax and income tax deductions at 10K ( the number I read) total I'm going to be federally taxed on more money. I looked at the new income tax rates and I am basically a couple points lower on that but taxed on more money. It's going to be better for people in states with low or no income tax and low property values. Correct me if I'm wrong but once it's passed through it's personal income. I don't know many contractors who pay corporate tax as most of us don't make enough money so that means nothing to me


Creating a corporation has nothing to do with revenue. I started my company as an S-Corp.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

calmod said:


> the poster above is correct that you can deduct the interest on up to 750K. but you can only deduct 10K total for state and local income tax and property tax combined. that's gonna hurt. I'll see how it works out but it doesn't pencil out as a cut for many. I hope i'm proved wrong


 It's not the feds fault a state had high taxes. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

rrk said:


> Where did you get that information???? Snapple bottle cap?


 What do you mean? States with an income tax can deduct their state income tax from their earnings. That means they don't have to pay that tax to the feds. State's that done have a state income tax have to make up for that loss. Pretty simple concept. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## rrk (Apr 22, 2012)

TNTSERVICES said:


> What do you mean? States with an income tax can deduct their state income tax from their earnings. That means they don't have to pay that tax to the feds. State's that done have a state income tax have to make up for that loss. Pretty simple concept.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


He was talking about his state Missouri supporting eastern states like NJ, when actually it is the other way around. NJ federal tax payers get back 61 cents on the dollar of every tax dollar going to DC, the lowest return in the nation


----------



## lawndart (Dec 3, 2006)

pinwheel said:


> At least the rest of us won't b subsidizing those high tax states any longer. Maybe it's time those of you in those states, start voting in different politicians.


That is an incredibly dumb statement. Perhaps you can explain how the good ole state of Missouri subsidizes the people who live in NY and CA?

I voted for Trump BTW.


----------



## lawndart (Dec 3, 2006)

jhark123 said:


> A 750k mortgage is "working middle class"? It's amazing how much spin the media can put on something.


Around here and in many parts of the country a $750K mortgage is middle class.


----------



## lawndart (Dec 3, 2006)

rrk said:


> He was talking about his state Missouri supporting eastern states like NJ, when actually it is the other way around. NJ federal tax payers get back 61 cents on the dollar of every tax dollar going to DC, the lowest return in the nation


I was going to rip him but I see many others have already.


----------



## AllanE (Apr 25, 2010)

The change in the top tax rate saves me about $30,000 in taxes. The new Sec 199A deduction for S-Corps, LLC's, sole proprietors is a bit hard to figure out, but it might be another $20,000 or even more in savings, even after the Sec 199 is now done away with. The Sec 199 for contractors was an $83,000 deduction for me last year and a $114,000 the year before.


----------



## pinwheel (Dec 7, 2009)

lawndart said:


> I was going to rip him but I see many others have already.


Rip away boys, we're not the ones that keep voting in Liberal politicians that tax & regulate us to death. Yeah, I'm the dumbass in this conversation.:laughing:


----------



## rrk (Apr 22, 2012)

pinwheel said:


> Rip away boys, we're not the ones that keep voting in Liberal politicians that tax & regulate us to death. Yeah, I'm the dumbass in this conversation.:laughing:


No one said that, just that your assumption that your state subsidized people on the east coast was wrong.


----------



## tjbnwi (Feb 24, 2009)

lawndart said:


> Around here and in many parts of the country a $750K mortgage is middle class.


it's 750,000.00 in interest not mortgage, down 250K from 1 million cap.

Tom


----------



## Fouthgeneration (Jan 7, 2014)

Are all types of federal spending included in the NJ and Cal pay more then they get manure???

A very large fraction of US spending is OVERSEAS, thus many states will never get back more then they pay....

As federal taxes are very progressive income wise, wealthier pay more, as they SHOULD.

Note also the border and seacoast states have the MAJORITY of large navy and military bases......

All other thing beings equal (OTBE) removal of state deductability is no brainer as the high tax states are STEALing from their poorer fellow citizens.

Democrats want to control everything in stagnant economy state, while Repubs and conservative old school non socialist demos want a small g federal government with the economy DOUBLING every 24 years or LESS. thus Our grandkids will have more 4x wealth and the USG will have MORE money/less % of GDP 48 years from now....:thumbsup:

Federal deductilbility is a legacy of the 95 and 90 % FDR income tax top rates that lasted till JFK lowered them to 70% in 1963.

It is funny strange how federal welfare prostitutes of any type think their rice bowl was ordered by the Old Testament God, and the end of their ill gotten incomes streams a national disaster....


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

lawndart said:


> Around here and in many parts of the country a $750K mortgage is middle class.


That's not middle class anywhere. What you mean is average, not middle class. Middle class is defined the same for the entire country. It runs from 42k-125k income.


----------



## artinall (Aug 14, 2007)

_Can't seem to find an answer on_: Will the new tax plan eliminate itemizing deductions 'across the board' (the so-called postcard filing) or only take away certain things that can be itemized?


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

lawndart said:


> I was going to rip him but I see many others have already.


Wow, I feel so ripped. And this coming from the guy who thinks middle class is 750k. Talk about dumb.


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

pinwheel said:


> At least the rest of us won't b subsidizing those high tax states any longer. Maybe it's time those of you in those states, start voting in different politicians.


Uh, those high tax states pay a tremendous amount of money to red states to fund their chip, medicare, social security and education.


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

artinall said:


> _Can't seem to find an answer on_: Will the new tax plan eliminate itemizing deductions 'across the board' (the so-called postcard tax filing) or only take away certain things that can be itemized?


No, itemization is still in. The threshold is higher because standard deduction is raised.


----------



## Metro M & L (Jun 3, 2009)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Debt isn't created by reducing the money the govt steals from its people. It's created by spending. Now it's time to reduce the budget.
> 
> 
> Also, every time taxes have been cut tax revenue had increased.
> ...


There's no reason to step on the gas when the economy is already going 70 mph.

It would be a better strategy to reduce debt and save the tax cut for the next downturn. 

Best time to cinch up your belt is before you go hungry.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Metro M & L said:


> There's no reason to step on the gas when the economy is already going 70 mph.
> 
> It would be a better strategy to reduce debt and save the tax cut for the next downturn.
> 
> Best time to cinch up your belt is before you go hungry.


The why is key. Why have we exploded in growth and opportunity? Confidence and expectation. The only reason the economy is booming is due to MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Just the discussion of a border wall from someone who we know will make it happen reduced illegal immigration by 70% in the first few months of him taking office. The reversal on DACA also has help slow down the flow.

One of those expectations was tax reform and cuts. We won't need a safety net if we keep playing our cards right.

I don't know of a single creditable economist that would agree with it being better to wait on tax cuts. It forces the issue of spending. We now have to address our bloated socialist gov't spending habits.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Metro M & L said:


> Uh, those high tax states pay a tremendous amount of money to red states to fund their chip, medicare, social security and education.


Actually the high taxes he's referring to don't. He's talking about high state taxes, not federal. When you get to deduct your state taxes from the federal tax burden, it becomes someone else's burden.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

artinall said:


> _Can't seem to find an answer on_: Will the new tax plan eliminate itemizing deductions 'across the board' (the so-called postcard filing) or only take away certain things that can be itemized?


No. It allows for more people to take a standard deduction instead of itemized deductions. It means more people will be able to get more back and not have to jump through as many hoops to do so.


----------



## rrk (Apr 22, 2012)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Actually the high taxes he's referring to don't. He's talking about high state taxes, not federal. When you get to deduct your state taxes from the federal tax burden, it becomes someone else's burden.


No he was talking about federal taxes. People here usually make much more money than the middle of the country therefore pay much more in taxes than the people in the middle of the country even with the interest rate deduction that some take. Many people with high incomes here have multiple houses and can only take a deduction for 1 I believe, if they have a mortgage at all. 
Most of my customers have 2 homes, some 3 homes they can only deduct for 1 home correct?


----------



## Fouthgeneration (Jan 7, 2014)

RRK @ post 47 above: vacation home(s) are still deductible, under certain exclusions/reductions, such as renting more than 14 days,

even RVs and night cruiser boats are able to be classed as "homes" if you live in them part of the Tax year.....

Delay paying your self till next year....lower taxes more spending dollars$$ 
the same with employee bonuses, delay and increase the $ they get to keep....


----------



## artinall (Aug 14, 2007)

TNTSERVICES said:


> No. It allows for more people to take a standard deduction instead of itemized deductions. It means more people will be able to get more back and not have to jump through as many hoops to do so.


 _Unless what you are saying is at our option:_ Hearing 'get money back' sounds appealing. But how deep is it's meaning? 

_Itemizing deductions_ has its purpose - giving credit to where credit is due, as related to taking responsible expansion for the economy. _Increasing the standard deduction _removes paperwork but also gives credit to where it isn't due. Bad move.

You don't want to know what I think -- IMHO (years ago) removing incoming averaging was a enormous unthought setback in terms of investment in creativity that in-turn helps fuel innovation for our country in other ways... those that relied on this were out. Ever notice how we've lost so much of our innovative edge? - Might be partly to blame. Creativity filters right on through to the consumer.

But this is a bit off topic, so enough...


----------



## tjbnwi (Feb 24, 2009)

Tom


----------



## lawndart (Dec 3, 2006)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Wow, I feel so ripped. And this coming from the guy who thinks middle class is 750k. Talk about dumb.


TNT, not everyone is talking about you. This is the second time in this thread you've made this mistake. I was going to rip Pinwheel for his original comment.


----------



## lawndart (Dec 3, 2006)

tjbnwi said:


> it's 750,000.00 in interest not mortgage, down 250K from 1 million cap.
> 
> Tom


I understand the difference between interest and a mortgage. I was responding to the comment about a 750K mortgage.


----------



## lawndart (Dec 3, 2006)

TNTSERVICES said:


> That's not middle class anywhere. What you mean is average, not middle class. Middle class is defined the same for the entire country. It runs from 42k-125k income.


Which proves my point entirely. Based on those bull**** numbers you need to be rich to live in NYC, CA and other parts of the country and I can assure you, there are very few rich people living here.


----------



## Tom M (Jan 3, 2007)

Dear lord, the liberals are sudden worried about the tax debt. Didn't care and ounce when Obama was taking trillions out to subsidize the unions, his favorite activism programs or fill the pockets of foriegn countries.

Literally programmed to feel guilty for benefiting.

Let's call it what it is. The Democrats are the intellectuals and know what's best for everyone. The Republicans are rich and greedy or to dumb and deplorable to know better.

Well the dam smart people running the show for the last few decades have nearly bankrupted us while enriching themselves. No, they didn't build that......


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

I live in California and the tax bill will help us tremendously. 


Mike.
_______________


----------



## Jaws (Dec 20, 2010)

Fire em all and hire about 20% back in their place with reasonable not insane pay/bennies and use a flat tax. If you don't make the threshold you dont pay taxes if you do you pay the same percentage as anyone else. Even the bleeding hearts buying cell phones for welfare folks should be ok with that.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

pinwheel said:


> At least the rest of us won't b subsidizing those* high tax states *any longer. Maybe it's time those of you in those states, start voting in different politicians.





rrk said:


> No he was talking about federal taxes. People here usually make much more money than the middle of the country therefore pay much more in taxes than the people in the middle of the country even with the interest rate deduction that some take. Many people with high incomes here have multiple houses and can only take a deduction for 1 I believe, if they have a mortgage at all.
> Most of my customers have 2 homes, some 3 homes they can only deduct for 1 home correct?


Read it again sport. He said HIGH TAX STATES. That is referring to state taxes and being able to deduct them. You made it into something else as a gotcha.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

artinall said:


> _Unless what you are saying is at our option:_ Hearing 'get money back' sounds appealing. But how deep is it's meaning?
> 
> _Itemizing deductions_ has its purpose - giving credit to where credit is due, as related to taking responsible expansion for the economy. _Increasing the standard deduction _removes paperwork but also gives credit to where it isn't due. Bad move.
> 
> ...


Double the standard deduction

Double the child tax credit

Decrease in tax bracket

I think your credit where credit is due is based on flawed logic. You assume the gov't allows for fair deductions.

It's never a bad move to give me back more of my money, period.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

lawndart said:


> TNT, not everyone is talking about you. This is the second time in this thread you've made this mistake. I was going to rip Pinwheel for his original comment.


Lol, exactly what clue did you give to indicate who you were referring to again....maybe you should just be more specific next time.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

lawndart said:


> Which proves my point entirely. Based on those bull**** numbers you need to be rich to live in NYC, CA and other parts of the country and I can assure you, there are very few rich people living here.


Actually, it disproved your point. They are considered part of the 1%. It's just a fact, they are rich if they can afford to make a 750k mortgage payment.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Weird they never do.
> 
> But I read somewhere that even if you taxed the top 1% 100% it wouldn't come close to balancing the budget.


However: If they were taxed 100% (at one time the rate was 98%) then they would damned sure bust balls until spending was reduced.

I'd like that idea.


----------



## Robie (Feb 25, 2005)

Add 'em said:


> Basically. I take the time to post something thoughtful and I get an insult in return, I'll call it how I see it.


Okee-dokee.....

Good luck.


----------



## Robie (Feb 25, 2005)

Add 'em said:


> Basically. I take the time to post something thoughtful and I get an insult in return, I'll call it how I see it.


So please, take the time to answer my thoughtful question.

What was that crack about Okies?

Was that thoughtful also?:no:


----------



## Add 'em (Jan 19, 2015)

Robie said:


> Are you under the impression politicians can be trusted with spending your money wisely?


I'll say this:

I think that politicians spend money in response to whatever pressure from special interests they receive. 

That answer the question?


----------



## Robie (Feb 25, 2005)

Add 'em said:


> I'll say this:
> 
> I think that politicians spend money in response to whatever pressure from special interests they receive.
> 
> That answer the question?


Yes it does. It makes your other statement invalid....



> There wouldn't be a deficit if there were a number of streams of positive revenue. Giving Okies food stamps isn't that expensive.


----------



## Add 'em (Jan 19, 2015)

Robie said:


> Yes it does. It makes your other statement invalid....


I don't see it. I think you're making a false assumption about an implied premise. Which one, I don't know.

ETA: I figured it out. I made no implication that special interest pressure doesn't fan out in a relatively rational manner, which is what your claim of invalidity would require.


----------



## Robie (Feb 25, 2005)

Add 'em said:


> I don't see it. I think you're making a false assumption about an implied premise. Which one, I don't know.


Nice try.

You are saying in one breath, there wouldn't be a deficit if there was a number of streams of positive revenue.

I said you are trusting the politicians to spend your money wisely.

Your rebuttal was that politicians spend your money depending upon the whims of the special interest groups.

So, no matter what the amount the positive money stream is, politicians will spend it depending on what the special interests want.

How does that reduce the deficit?

The bottom line is this. Politicians will always want more of your tax money regardless of how much they get. They can always come up with ways of wasting your money. Deficits result.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

SmallTownGuy said:


> However: If they were taxed 100% (at one time the rate was 98%) then they would damned sure bust balls until spending was reduced.
> 
> I'd like that idea.


I think the highest rate was 94%.

However that would not produce the desired result. I don't think taxing anyone unfairly is the way to move the needle. We stop paying our politicians until they balance the budget. That's how we move the needle.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

TNTSERVICES said:


> I think the highest rate was 94%.
> 
> However that would not produce the desired result. I don't think taxing anyone unfairly is the way to move the needle. We stop paying our politicians until they balance the budget. That's how we move the needle.


Do call me when that happens. I'll buy lunch.


----------



## Add 'em (Jan 19, 2015)

Robie said:


> How does that reduce the deficit?


The topic of this portion of the thread is whether or not a state pays more or less to the Fed than what they receive. My point is that a high deficit is evidence that it is at least unlikely that any state pays more than they receive. 

I don't get what you're saying in relation to that.


----------



## Robie (Feb 25, 2005)

Add 'em said:


> The topic of this portion of the thread is whether or not a state pays more or less to the Fed than what they receive. My point is that a high deficit is evidence that it is at least unlikely that any state pays more than they receive.
> 
> I don't get what you're saying in relation to that.


Just replying to what you stated.

Have a great day...:thumbsup:


----------

