This topic contains 33 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by 
TaxGuy 2 years, 9 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
In Trump’s tax plan released last week was a proposal to take away the tax filing status of “Head of Household”. This is a tax bracket that has better tax rates than Single, but not as good as Married filing a joint return. To be Head of Household you have to be unmarried with dependent children. So, probably 95% of the people filing with status are single mothers. So, this will be an increase in taxes on single mommy. He also wants to do away with the personal exemption, which is the approximately $4,000 per person that you just get to write off. This will also hurt single mommy since she will lose at least $8,000 in write offs (her and at least one child). The tax rate will come down, but I would assume not enough to fight off these two law changes.
Now, there is a part of me that I find a little scary. It seems that Trump is taking away a government give-away to people that break up a traditional family. However, I believe the unintended consequence of this tax law change, if enacted, will be men being dragged back into family court by mommy for more money. And given the state of family law in this country, she will get it.
On the surface it looks like a tax incentive for the tradcon family model, but in reality it will just be more men suffering, pulling the plow for his ex while she is out f~~~ing Chad. Call me jaded, because I am.
Just thought I’d share a little nugget from tax land.
Order the good wine
Thanks for data TaxGuy. You f~~~in’ rock!
Now, there is a part of me that I find a little scary. It seems that Trump is taking away a government give-away to people that break up a traditional family.
Interesting how you omit the trade off being a decrease in tax rates with the lowest tax rate being 10% (not including those below the poverty line).
President Trump’s plan removes deductions but lowers the tax rates to where people will pay less overall.
Why cannot more people critically think on subjects instead of posting without doing their research.
Interesting how you omit the trade off being a decrease in tax rates with the lowest tax rate being 10%.
President Trump’s plan removes deductions but lowers the rate to where people will pay less overall.The tax rate will come down, but I would assume not enough to fight off these two law changes.
I did mention it Faust. But to elaborate on the subject, we have all heard that 47% of the country doesn’t pay any taxes. The way they get there is with either the standard deduction or itemizing their deductions, and the personal exemptions (speaking in generalities here). If those two items get you to a zero percent tax rate, then there is no way to get a further benefit. But if you start paying 10% on some of your income, that’s a tax increase. And the lowest tax rate on Head of Household right now is already 10%, going up to 15% after that threshold is met. He would just expand the 10% rate to cover more of their income.
So I would guess that taking away those deductions and replacing it with a 5% tax break is going to lead to cupcake paying more taxes in most cases. And cupcake paying more taxes means the ex husbank paying more taxes.
Order the good wine
Why cannot more people critically think on subjects instead of posting without doing their research.
Um, I do this for a living. I would ask you the same thing. How many tax returns have you prepared? How many years have you been doing this? I am speaking in generalities here because that’s how tax laws are viewed in the tax world. Maybe I gave you too much credit for critical thinking. My bad.
Order the good wine
But he is not doing away with the child tax credit which is nothing but a money give away to single mothers. The CTC is a direct redistribution of resources from men to single mothers. I’ve known women to get back more money through CTC than they even paid in taxes in the first place. IF Trump is serious the CTC needs to go!
I did mention it Faust. But to elaborate on the subject, we have all heard that 47% of the country doesn’t pay any taxes. The way they get there is with either the standard deduction or itemizing their deductions, and the personal exemptions (speaking in generalities here).
So President Trump is cutting off a form of welfare.
Um, I do this for a living. I would ask you the same thing.
You seem to be not looking at the whole plan, but taking parts of it out of context.
If the nation is going to reign in spending, it has to reign in all forms of welfare.
President Trump wants to get rid of most deductions to decrease the bureaucracy.
I did mention it Faust. But to elaborate on the subject, we have all heard that 47% of the country doesn’t pay any taxes. The way they get there is with either the standard deduction or itemizing their deductions, and the personal exemptions (speaking in generalities here).
So President Trump is cutting off a form of welfare.
Yup. And the point I was trying to make is that it will be the father who will end up making up the difference. It won’t be the single mom who suffers, it will be the man. As usual.
Order the good wine
You seem to be not looking at the whole plan, but taking parts of it out of context.
The problem is there is no “whole plan”. For example, he wants to cut the number of tax rates down, but it doesn’t tell you where the rates will change. It’s only a framework without a lot of specifics. I could give you an example under the old plan and the new plan IF the new plan was more specific.
Order the good wine
Yup. And the point I was trying to make is that it will be the father who will end up making up the difference. It won’t be the single mom who suffers, it will be the man. As usual.
Look at the flip side it will further destroy marriage which in the long run with help men.
This is MGTOW.
If President Trump wants to blow up what is left of the institution of marriage, let him do so.
The problem is there is no “whole plan”. For example, he wants to cut the number of tax rates down, but it doesn’t tell you where the rates will change. It’s only a framework without a lot of specifics. I could give you an example under the old plan and the new plan IF the new plan was more specific.
If President Trump gave specifics that press would be screaming about it out right now. The press would be taking everything out of context.
I am sure it is tiring to deal with a lying press, an army of millions of paid internet trolls and protestors to politically insult that president at every turn.
At least KM and others keep this forum clean of such paid trolls.
If the nation is going to reign in spending, it has to reign in all forms of welfare.
Spending has been disconnected from revenue to the tune of about $19 trillion.
President Trump wants to get rid of most deductions to decrease the bureaucracy.
I’m fine with that. Tax simplification would be a welcome site to all of us.
Look at the flip side it will further destroy marriage with in the long run with help men.
That would be funny since it seems like they are trying to benefit the tradcon family model. I do wonder how much this particular policy is meant to favor the traditional family model. I don’t see Trump as a big tradcon guy, but most Republicans are. I wonder if that was even Trump’s idea, or if it was Ryan and the more hard core right.
Order the good wine
If President Trump gave specifics that press would be screaming about it out right now. The press would be taking everything out of context.
I am sure it is tiring to deal with a lying press, an army of millions of paid internet trolls and protestors to politically insult that president at every turn.
At least KM and others keep the forum clean of such paid trolls.And here is point where we agree 100%….
Order the good wine
I have 2 kids, and my ex got it in her head that it’s better if we each have 1 dependent on our tax returns. I’m not going to change her mind on that.
I really don’t have much insight into how the changes in the tax law are going to effect the bottom line of single mothers, so I’m not going to comment on that specifically. However, I wouldn’t expect a run on renegotiated child support agreements. If I remember correctly, taxes are not considered in the calculations to determine the amount of child support. It’s hard to justify a tax change being a valid reason to request more money. The only way she is going to justify more money is if Daddy actually makes more money then when the original agreement was created.
I haven’t looked at it too much, but I am concerned about bringing it down to only 3 tax brackets. I have a feeling that’s going to create some artificial ceilings on income.
Personally, I’d like to see child support payments be tax free, or at least count it as the receiver’s income, not the giver. Having to pay taxes on income I’m not even allowed to spend as I chose…sucks.
And I must see income tax has always been backwards to me. The idea that those that can pay more should pay more makes no logical sense, considering that has no correlation to the benefit received from the government. It’s only that way because it secures more votes.
Ok. Then do it.
Spending has been disconnected from revenue to the tune of about $19 trillion.
Actually, that is the official amount. Counting bail-outs, which continues with the Fed creating $200 billion a month to give to the big banks to keep them afloat, this debt is in the high hundred trillion digit.
This debt will never been paid back. This is why President Trump has no problems suggesting printing a trillion for infrastructure building. Best to get that complete before the collapse.
I’m fine with that. Tax simplification would be a welcome site to all of us.
This we agree on.
That would be funny since it seems like they are trying to benefit the tradcon family model. I do wonder how much this particular policy is meant to favor the traditional family model. I don’t see Trump as a big tradcon guy, but most Republicans are.
I am not so sure that is the case. Some people continue to believe that conservatives elected President Trump to the White House. That is not the case. It was nationalists and private worker unions whom elected President Trump not conservatives.
I wonder if that was even Trump’s idea, or if it was Ryan and the more hard core right.
Do not even get me start on this budget spending bill mess happening right now.
I have 2 kids, and my ex got it in her head that it’s better if we each have 1 dependent on our tax returns. I’m not going to change her mind on that.
She’s right on that one. You are better off if you can both file Head of Household. It’s a much better tax rate than if one of you has to file Single.
Order the good wine
That is not the case. It was nationalists and private worker unions whom elected President Trump not conservatives.
Not entirely. the old Reagan blue-collar democrats certainly are a large part of his base BUT conservative rank-file are also part; and he has made it clear he wishes to follow the path of Nixon, and both Bush’s — write off conservatives because they have no where else to go. WRONG
Ask Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney how that worked out for them. We conservatives are just as happy sitting at home election day—and Trump will end up a one term Prez without us.write off conservatives because they have no where else to go. WRONG
I wrote many conservatives off because they became “Never Trumpers”. If conservatives voted as a block for President Trump his would have done even better in some states during the election.
I am more than happy to give credit to the conservatives whom voted for President Trump, but the conservative group was divided in the last election. It is foolish to ignore that divide.
I don’t think conservatives were the “never Trumpers” rather it was the establishment republicans that were never trump—guys like Paul Ryan. Mark Levin is really the voice of conservatives and he made it clear before the election he didn’t favor Trump BUT he was not a never Trumper. I know I had not voted in a presidential election since Reagan because the republican offerings were not conservative. I did vote in this election. Granted Trump wasn’t my first choice, or my second but to keep Hillary out sacrifices had to made.
She’s right on that one. You are better off if you can both file Head of Household. It’s a much better tax rate than if one of you has to file Single.
But only if you consider the whole. She personally would do better to declare 2 dependents instead of just one (same for me). The government gets less money this way, and it is fair in a way, but it isn’t something she was legally required to do.
Ok. Then do it.
I don’t think conservatives were the “never Trumpers” rather it was the establishment republicans that were never trump—guys like Paul Ryan.
I had conservative friends who were on both sides. The way I see it, Trump forced the conservative base to make a choice between policy of the candidate and character of the candidate. Trump had good policy but lousy character. So people decided they couldn’t vote for Trump despite his policy, or they would vote for him despite his character. Unfortunately for the democrats, Hilary was a poor choice on policy and character.
As for Ryan, his chose of being ‘never Trump’ was entirely related to his personal political career. Really, I believe all the politicians made their choice based on how it would impact their personal career.
The pundits on the conservative side seemed somewhat divided, though mostly in support. It really seemed to be based on whether they viewed their audience as being more concerned about policy or character.
Ok. Then do it.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
