Tax Reform Framework

[Craigy]

jfoxcpacfp wrote:

StarTrekDoc wrote:

Ha;  conveniently lawyers not mentioned in that bunch

Click to expand…

They would be included, also  . This was just an interview, not a testimony, and just threw out a few examples. Although…lawyers might pollute the rarefied atmosphere, present company on this forum excluded  

Click to expand...

Lawyers can't be included since about half of congress is made up of lawyers.   

It'll be interesting to see their mechanism to prevent employees from converting to businesses.

[jfoxcpacfp]

Zaphod wrote:

jfoxcpacfp wrote:

Listened to Pat Toomey interview this morning and he said any corporate tax reduction will exclude professional services. He specifically mentioned doctors, accountants, and hedge fund managers – I’m in rarefied company.

While I think there is a lot of tweaking to be done, I’m cautiously optimistic.

Click to expand…

Will they exclude them categorically like by their job type number, or just those in real corporations. Would be a bummer if categorical.

Click to expand...

By "real corporations" do you mean PSCs or C-corps with no attached election? By job type number, do you mean NAICS code?

Although, I'm not sure there is enough certainty to comment at this point.

[Craigy]

ScientistPhysician wrote:

I’ve never understood why so many docs have historically backed republican tax plans.  Apparently they enjoy paying high taxes on wage income to subsidize low capital gains taxes for people who are already wealthy.

Click to expand...

The alternative is to back democrat tax plans, which historically only increase taxes, sometimes dramatically, and generally involve increases across the board.

For the tax-conscious high-income physician, the only vote is the republican vote, whether or not the republicans put it to good use.  They're pretty good at wasting an opportunity but every now and then they come through.

Realistically speaking, even if this tax reform goes nowhere, the Trump victory & republican control of congress translates to maintaining the status quo, which, for the tax-conscious high-income physician, is immensely preferable to the broad tax increases proposed and supported by both 2016 democrat presidential candidates, and virtually every democrat candidate in the modern era.

[Zaphod]

jfoxcpacfp wrote:

Listened to Pat Toomey interview this morning and he said any corporate tax reduction will exclude professional services. He specifically mentioned doctors, accountants, and hedge fund managers – I’m in rarefied company.

While I think there is a lot of tweaking to be done, I’m cautiously optimistic.

Click to expand...

Will they exclude them categorically like by their job type number, or just those in real corporations. Would be a bummer if categorical.

NVM, I dont get it, that forbes article says any wages paid out would still be ordinary. Sure shifting but this thing looks terrible and not long for reality.

[jfoxcpacfp]

StarTrekDoc wrote:

Ha;  conveniently lawyers not mentioned in that bunch

Click to expand...

They would be included, also  . This was just an interview, not a testimony, and just threw out a few examples. Although...lawyers might pollute the rarefied atmosphere, present company on this forum excluded  

[jfoxcpacfp]

StarTrekDoc wrote:

Ha;  conveniently lawyers not mentioned in that bunch

Click to expand...

They would be included, also  . This was just an interview, not a testimony, and just threw out examples.

[StarTrekDoc]

Ha;  conveniently lawyers not mentioned in that bunch

[jfoxcpacfp]

Listened to Pat Toomey interview this morning and he said any corporate tax reduction will exclude professional services. He specifically mentioned doctors, accountants, and hedge fund managers - I'm in rarefied company.

While I think there is a lot of tweaking to be done, I'm cautiously optimistic.

[nachos31]

Great explanation/analysis--thanks for sharing that article.

[StarTrekDoc]

Good read and breakdown of the process and reasons.  Not bad for a guy recovering from anesthesia.

This is why they wished healthcare to pass first to give them precious dollars to pass the tax reform in reconcilation.

 

[djohnflatfeecfp]

Good article here.  Short version is the numbers are not adding up right now for permanent tax cuts approval via reconciliation process.  Either net tax cuts need to be scaled back, revenue increased, cuts become temporary or 8 Democrats come on board.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2017/09/27/release-of-gops-long-awaited-tax-plan-reveals-exactly-why-tax-reform-is-so-hard/#1e64f0414597

[MPMD]

StarTrekDoc wrote:

Just like healthcare process — the devil is in the details and I don’t think they will do that either and end up with a crappy partisan vote that goes no where.

It would great to see some bipartisan work on this and maybe, just maybe, it’ll get some life in it.

I can see it getting muddled with DACA and Immigration bill or at least with Budget and ceiling extension since that was punted to holiday season.

As others have said — snowballs chance at this time, but, hey at least they are talking and ‘trying’.

Click to expand...

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[ScientistPhysician]

I've never understood why so many docs have historically backed republican tax plans.  Apparently they enjoy paying high taxes on wage income to subsidize low capital gains taxes for people who are already wealthy.

[djohnflatfeecfp]

I shared this with my clients last week.  Years ago I met my first person who made 8 figures annually.  He never complained about how much he paid in taxes.  His comments were always directed at why did he pay more because his income was higher than the person who inherited their wealth.  Bloomberg had a nice article on it too. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-12/why-american-workers-pay-twice-as-much-in-taxes-as-wealthy-investors

Considering I don't expect much to happen with substantive tax reform I certainly hold out no expectation they would consider anything where income tax cuts are offset by changes to how unearned income is taxed.

On a side note, I am already getting emails from all my CPA contacts about the upcoming tax changes.  I have so far fought the urge to respond asking them to specifically identify which ones will go into effect.

[StarTrekDoc]

There's a reason --- the long term capital gains and dividend helps all boats across the tax spectrum.   There's little/no support for a HIGHER tax bracket, especially at the 44% level (aside from uncle Bernie who would use that for single payor healthcare--not a bad idea, but not passable in USA).

What's proposed is already going to be a Herculean lift.  The SALT (State And Local Tax) provision is a major hurdle.   Not only CA/NY but swing states going to be some fighting --

• Minnesota 9.85%


• Iowa 8.98%


• New Jersey 8.97%


• Vermont 8.95%


• Wisconsin 7.65%