Anyone seen this very simple tax calculator?  It doesn't go into any detail related to itemizing deductions but it's a pretty cool high level tool to get a general sense of your tax savings under the Trump Plan vs the current Plan

Hopefully this is accurate because it reflects just over $7,000 in tax savings that I'd recognize under the new Trump Plan.

Existing Plan - https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/fede...calculator

Trump Plan - https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/trum...calculator


VOTE YES !!!   Ha !!!

---

Anyone seen this very simple tax calculator?  It doesn't go into any detail related to itemizing deductions but it's a pretty cool high level tool to get a general sense of your tax savings under the Trump Plan vs the current Plan

Hopefully this is accurate because it reflects just over $7,000 in tax savings that I'd recognize under the new Trump Plan.

Existing Plan - https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/fede...calculator

Trump Plan - https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/trum...calculator


VOTE YES !!!   Ha !!!

Money back into the middle class pocket? Absolutely NOT! Don't want it!

Nearly 6K tax savings here. Can you imagine the economy if the avg household has 5K to pump back into it??

---

---

Anyone seen this very simple tax calculator?  It doesn't go into any detail related to itemizing deductions but it's a pretty cool high level tool to get a general sense of your tax savings under the Trump Plan vs the current Plan

Hopefully this is accurate because it reflects just over $7,000 in tax savings that I'd recognize under the new Trump Plan.

Existing Plan - https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/fede...calculator

Trump Plan - https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/trum...calculator


VOTE YES !!!   Ha !!!

Money back into the middle class pocket? Absolutely NOT! Don't want it!

Nearly 6K tax savings here. Can you imagine the economy if the avg household has 5K to pump back into it??

No kidding ..... it really doesn't sink in until you see it in the numbers.

Hmmmm ..... I didn't go to MIT but I do know that $7,000 x 4 years = $28,000 and $7,000 x 8 years = $56,000 ----- hopefully we can get a cost of money factored into this plan so it will coincide with the inflation rate.

Year 1 savings (if recognized) are going toward home repairs.  Dang hurricanes and salt air have taken it's tool.
Year 2 is going toward better alcohol.

The Middle Class loves the St Johns Town Center.  Can it possibly get more crowded there !!!   Can martinis really go up in price??

---

Lowers my tax liability by 2k

Yes please.

---

Pretty amazing how bi-partisan it is when it comes to having extra cash in your pocket. We are all more united than you think.

---

It lowers my tax liability.  I am by no means in the upper "1%" (not even close).  While I do make a pretty good salary it would certainly give me and my family some tax relief.

I played with the calculators a bit to get a general idea of what it would be like for people that earn less income than I do, and it still lowers the tax number.

Liberals will hate it because it puts more money into people's pockets rather than into government coffers.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

awesome, I can knock a big chunk of credit card debt out

---

Go Jags!
*To stay up for atleast 2 years 3/6/17
2016 draft players I think will be good

• On the Fournette train, will be best back of his class 3/6/17
  
• Lattimore please,  Lockdowns on both sides would be nice
  
• Engram at TE and the MJD clone Samaje Perine
  

Sign me up!

---

Sign me up!

This made me cry a little.... :-)  2020 hear we come

---

Sign me up!

This made me cry a little.... :-)  2020 hear we come

Lol .... Eric is back !!!

---

Personally, this will be a boon for my business all though I’m guessing I won’t realize it for a few more years.

---

How dare you people celebrate the dire financial straits into which these cuts will place the government! Don't you know the feds work hard for that money? Do you think they can just print more???

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

What do you guys think about the idea of cutting way back on the deductibility of 401k contributions?

The government giveth with one hand and taketh back with the other.

---

What do you guys think about the idea of cutting way back on the deductibility of 401k contributions?  

The government giveth with one hand and taketh back with the other.

Both parties want your retirement savings. A "1 time means tax" of 20 to 30 percent on ALL IRAs has floated up in both their proposals over the years. It always bugs politicians when the people act like they don't need government and they can't have all that money just sitting around when they could be buying votes with it instead.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I

What do you guys think about the idea of cutting way back on the deductibility of 401k contributions?  

The government giveth with one hand and taketh back with the other.

Both parties want your retirement savings. A "1 time means tax" of 20 to 30 percent on ALL IRAs has floated up in both their proposals over the years. It always bugs politicians when the people act like they don't need government and they can't have all that money just sitting around when they could be buying votes with it instead.

I think the idea is that the congress doesn't want to increase the deficit.  So they want to pair a tax cut with either a spending cut or a new tax somewhere else.  And since apparently no politician can bring them self to cut spending, they're left with taxing savings.  Ultimately, that will also fail and they will bow to pressure from the voters and simply increase the deficit. Then they'll claim the increased economic activity will bring in more tax revenue and close the gap between receipts and expenditures. In the long run, the debt will increase to the point where we have a financial crisis and we'll wind up like Greece.

We're doomed, because the politicians don't have the guts to tell us the truth about our mounting debt, and even if they did, the public wouldn't have the courage to man up and deal with a very depressing and painful reality.

Tax cuts! Tax cuts! Don't worry about the future! We're gonna party like it's 1929!

---

I

Both parties want your retirement savings. A "1 time means tax" of 20 to 30 percent on ALL IRAs has floated up in both their proposals over the years. It always bugs politicians when the people act like they don't need government and they can't have all that money just sitting around when they could be buying votes with it instead.

I think the idea is that the congress doesn't want to increase the deficit.  So they want to pair a tax cut with either a spending cut or a new tax somewhere else.  And since apparently no politician can bring them self to cut spending, they're left with taxing savings.  Ultimately, that will also fail and they will bow to pressure from the voters and simply increase the deficit.   Then they'll claim the increased economic activity will bring in more tax revenue and close the gap between receipts and expenditures.  In the long run, the debt will increase to the point where we have a financial crisis and we'll wind up like Greece.  

We're doomed, because the politicians don't have the guts to tell us the truth about our mounting debt, and even if they did, the public wouldn't have the courage to man up and deal with a very depressing and painful reality.  

Tax cuts!  Tax cuts!  Don't worry about the future!  We're gonna party like it's 1929!

Cutting or taxing 401K contributions is a non-starter. The difference is more likely to be made up by ending deductions for state and local taxes. This mostly affects high-income people in high-tax states. For those who itemize* and pay a lot of state tax, there would be a tax increase.

But yes, by the time the dust settles the final bill will probably be a tax cut with no offsetting source of revenue and no (or insignificant) spending cuts. Politicians like to take the easy way out.



*  30% now and it should be much smaller with the standard deduction doubling

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

All this about a plan that is being crafted in secret and is unknown to the general public? And has been delayed in being released to the public?

I'll save millions! I'm guessing that Donald wants a plan that favors the kind of people Donald plays golf with.

Of course Marty is correct in that we'll end up with a larger deficit - but it's not the fault of the politicians. In the long run they'll be out of office/dead. The fault is with the voters. This board is a fine example. All these "small government conservatives" are all Democrats now. They're all for deficit spending that will "spur" the economy. "The growth will be greater than the deficit being created!" Every administration says that but some people continue to believe it.

Once you get in power your prospective changes. Mick Mulvaney was once a deficit hawk, Freedom Caucus and all that. Now he's out trying to sell a bill of goods that many in Congress ain't buying.

---

I

I think the idea is that the congress doesn't want to increase the deficit.  So they want to pair a tax cut with either a spending cut or a new tax somewhere else.  And since apparently no politician can bring them self to cut spending, they're left with taxing savings.  Ultimately, that will also fail and they will bow to pressure from the voters and simply increase the deficit.   Then they'll claim the increased economic activity will bring in more tax revenue and close the gap between receipts and expenditures.  In the long run, the debt will increase to the point where we have a financial crisis and we'll wind up like Greece.  

We're doomed, because the politicians don't have the guts to tell us the truth about our mounting debt, and even if they did, the public wouldn't have the courage to man up and deal with a very depressing and painful reality.  

Tax cuts!  Tax cuts!  Don't worry about the future!  We're gonna party like it's 1929!

Cutting or taxing 401K contributions is a non-starter. The difference is more likely to be made up by ending deductions for state and local taxes. This mostly affects high-income people in high-tax states. For those who itemize* and pay a lot of state tax, there would be a tax increase.

But yes, by the time the dust settles the final bill will probably be a tax cut with no offsetting source of revenue and no (or insignificant) spending cuts. Politicians like to take the easy way out.



*  30% now and it should be much smaller with the standard deduction doubling

I think you're correct. Donald seems to want a HUGE tax cut. That's what buys votes.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

The problem with tax reform is that you actually have to pay taxes to benefit from it. I understand why some people aren't on board.

---

What do you guys think about the idea of cutting way back on the deductibility of 401k contributions?  

The government giveth with one hand and taketh back with the other.

Are you trying to ruin my party?  I lowered my tax liability by $7,000 ... nothing else really matters to me right now.

VOTE YES !!!  

---

What do you guys think about the idea of cutting way back on the deductibility of 401k contributions?  

The government giveth with one hand and taketh back with the other.

Roth IRAs are non-deductible. The tax is collected up front, and then there's no tax on them when it comes time to spend them. So if the money spent on traditional 401-Ks are taxed, people would choose Roth IRAs. That helps the government's bottom line now, but it loses revenue in the future.

That's assuming the government doesn't turn around and change the law sometime down the road so that Roth IRAs can be taxed. Frankly, I don't trust them.

In either case, taxing 401-K contributions would result in less money set aside for retirement. That's incentivising a bad choice.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"