There is some evidence suggesting that the TCJA may have given a jolt to the economy and led to more job creation. The TCJA cut the maximum corporate federal income tax rate from 35% to 21% and greatly expanded first-year depreciation write-offs for business equipment additions.
For the federal government’s fiscal year 2019 (the 12-month period ending on 9/30/19), total receipts were $3.462 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That was up by $130 billion, or 3.9%, compared to fiscal year 2018. In fiscal year 22018 (the first year affected by the TCJA changes), tax revenues were $3.33 trillion, versus $3.32 trillion in fiscal year 2017 and $3.27 million in fiscal year 2 2016 (the fiscal year that ending right before the 2016 presidential election), according to the Office of Management and Budget.
So, the TCJA has not hurt the federal government’s tax revenues as many economic pundits predicted. And the TCJA is not the cause of ongoing huge federal budget deficits ($984 billion for fiscal year 2019 and a projected $1.02 trillion for fiscal year 2020). The cause is on the spending side of the equation. Federal spending in 2016 was an already whopping $3.85 trillion. By 2019, it had jumped to an even more whopping $4.447 trillion. While yearly tax revenues increased by $192 billion during this period, yearly government spending increased by $597 billion.
I can only go from my personal anecdotal experience, it sure helped me out.
There is some evidence suggesting that the TCJA may have given a jolt to the economy and led to more job creation. The TCJA cut the maximum corporate federal income tax rate from 35% to 21% and greatly expanded first-year depreciation write-offs for business equipment additions.
For the federal governmentâs fiscal year 2019 (the 12-month period ending on 9/30/19), total receipts were $3.462 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That was up by $130 billion, or 3.9%, compared to fiscal year 2018. In fiscal year 22018 (the first year affected by the TCJA changes), tax revenues were $3.33 trillion, versus $3.32 trillion in fiscal year 2017 and $3.27 million in fiscal year 2 2016 (the fiscal year that ending right before the 2016 presidential election), according to the Office of Management and Budget.
So, the TCJA has not hurt the federal governmentâs tax revenues as many economic pundits predicted. And the TCJA is not the cause of ongoing huge federal budget deficits ($984 billion for fiscal year 2019 and a projected $1.02 trillion for fiscal year 2020). The cause is on the spending side of the equation. Federal spending in 2016 was an already whopping $3.85 trillion. By 2019, it had jumped to an even more whopping $4.447 trillion. While yearly tax revenues increased by $192 billion during this period, yearly government spending increased by $597 billion.
According to analysis from the Tax Policy Center, 65% of Americans received a tax cut from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) while roughly 6% paid more. And the law, passed in December 2017, was widely criticized as a boon for the wealthy and large businesses which saw their corporate tax rate drop from 35% to 21% last year.
The center noted: âThe lowest income households (those making less than about $25,000) got an average tax cut of about $40. Middle-income households (who made between about $48,000 and $86,000) paid about $800 less. Those in the top 1%, who made $733,000 or more, got an average tax cut of about $33,000.â
The IRS collected about $93 billion more from individual American taxpayers than it did in 2017. Interestingly, that number stands close to the tax break amount that corporations received from the TCJA in 2018. Last year, big businesses paid $91 billion less in taxes than they had in 2017, prior to the new lawâs passage.
We are spending time and $'s to give them a number that they already have.
I thought I was the only one who thought this way. Even just calculating my withholding is a couple of orders more difficult/wrong than it should be. I (and apparently half of America) have zero idea whether I withheld enough, too much, or will have to pay more this year.
Just one of those things that seems like it should be easy to get done, but because there is a tax accountants lobby it's not going to happen. A very obvious example of .gov dysfunction.
We are spending time and $'s to give them a number that they already have.
I thought I was the only one who thought this way. Even just calculating my withholding is a couple of orders more difficult/wrong than it should be. I (and apparently half of America) have zero idea whether I withheld enough, too much, or will have to pay more this year.
So I've just about finished my mother-in-law's last tax return. Because we liquidated a lot of stocks before her passing the 8849 form is a mess. There is no simple way to enter it with any of the free return options. This is a simple thing with just a bit of capital gains. These numbers have already been reported to the .gov. As with most of us, they ALREADY know (within a small margin) what the tax return info should be. We are spending time and $'s to give them a number that they already have. It should come to us completed and we should have a checkbox that says "agree". If you want to amend, then you get to do the forms. But now we spend billions in real dollars and time, just to tell them what they already know (with a penalty for getting it wrong). F'ing tax accountant lobbying.
You know our story about variable income and the difficulty of micro managing withholdings. We don't "bank" on a refund, though during our remodeling years that was a nice surprise. I'm actually more concerned about what will come with these tax laws as deductions expire for us mere mortals. Frickin' killed me to not be able to itemize...
I understand. I don't think micromanaging is the way to do it either. If I'm within a few hundred dollars of zero on either side I'm happy. I think there are a lot of changes still to come, the current system is madness (Yachts can be second house! You can expense 100% of private jet purchase costs!). Maybe the .gov will cut spending instead, but I think the chances of further tax reform are likely.
Our income was higher last year, but the tax liability was down by about 14%. Refund down by 14% also. I'm confused.
As I noted, I'm hearing a lot of this....smaller returns, or owing this year, even though the tax burden fell. It appears payroll deductions were less....people were taking home more relative pay than they had in the past.
Generally a good thing. As SirD noted lending the .gov money for 0% interest is not a good money strategy. I get why people do it, but I'll forever be against it as a saving or money strategy. Sure it's 'easy', but if you don't pay attention there is big downside - as people are finding out now. And if you're going to pay attention (as you should always with your $s), then you might as well do something more productive.
I'm still working on this year. It looks like we will be doing a short extension while we figure some stuff out. We actually get some of the unusual (and unjustified) tax breaks, but income has been off while feeding the new business, so now we plan for saving the breaks for later. This year should be a wash - we should be paying a little bit, but overall liabilities are down because earnings are down. Too much movement to really tell. If we were in our old earning bracket it would have helped us a lot, but by the time I get back there I bet the rules will have changed. Probably doesn't matter though, because they will always favor the high earners.
You know our story about variable income and the difficulty of micro managing withholdings. We don't "bank" on a refund, though during our remodeling years that was a nice surprise. I'm actually more concerned about what will come with these tax laws as deductions expire for us mere mortals. Frickin' killed me to not be able to itemize...
Our income was higher last year, but the tax liability was down by about 14%. Refund down by 14% also. I'm confused.
As I noted, I'm hearing a lot of this....smaller returns, or owing this year, even though the tax burden fell. It appears payroll deductions were less....people were taking home more relative pay than they had in the past.
Generally a good thing. As SirD noted lending the .gov money for 0% interest is not a good money strategy. I get why people do it, but I'll forever be against it as a saving or money strategy. Sure it's 'easy', but if you don't pay attention there is big downside - as people are finding out now. And if you're going to pay attention (as you should always with your $s), then you might as well do something more productive.
I'm still working on this year. It looks like we will be doing a short extension while we figure some stuff out. We actually get some of the unusual (and unjustified) tax breaks, but income has been off while feeding the new business, so now we plan for saving the breaks for later. This year should be a wash - we should be paying a little bit, but overall liabilities are down because earnings are down. Too much movement to really tell. If we were in our old earning bracket it would have helped us a lot, but by the time I get back there I bet the rules will have changed. Probably doesn't matter though, because they will always favor the high earners.
Our income was higher last year, but the tax liability was down by about 14%. Refund down by 14% also. I'm confused.
As I noted, I'm hearing a lot of this....smaller returns, or owing this year, even though the tax burden fell. It appears payroll deductions were less....people were taking home more relative pay than they had in the past.
That's what it is. We have become so enamored by getting refunds we forget that it is our money in the first place. It's all a shell game.
Our income was higher last year, but the tax liability was down by about 14%. Refund down by 14% also. I'm confused.
As I noted, I'm hearing a lot of this....smaller returns, or owing this year, even though the tax burden fell. It appears payroll deductions were less....people were taking home more relative pay than they had in the past.
How are folks doing with their effective tax rates? I live in a high SALT state and got hit with the deduction limit. As a result, my effective rate was pretty flat, maybe up slightly after adjusting for 401k over 50 catch ups I'm now eligible for. No tax cut for me. Many folks in my area went from prior years of getting $ back, to cutting a big check...even those who had a lower rate/tax cut.
I'll know Wed how bad. Getting 1099'd for everything, I know I will pay 15 point something on whatever is left after write offs on the P / L. It is all taxable as I pay both sides of SS and Medicare. Since turning 66, I lose the EIC which used to be about half of what I would owe. That hurts.
How are folks doing with their effective tax rates? I live in a high SALT state and got hit with the deduction limit. As a result, my effective rate was pretty flat, maybe up slightly after adjusting for 401k over 50 catch ups I'm now eligible for. No tax cut for me. Many folks in my area went from prior years of getting $ back, to cutting a big check...even those who had a lower rate/tax cut.
Our income was higher last year, but the tax liability was down by about 14%. Refund down by 14% also. I'm confused.
How are folks doing with their effective tax rates? I live in a high SALT state and got hit with the deduction limit. As a result, my effective rate was pretty flat, maybe up slightly after adjusting for 401k over 50 catch ups I'm now eligible for. No tax cut for me. Many folks in my area went from prior years of getting $ back, to cutting a big check...even those who had a lower rate/tax cut.
I benefitted a little bit; return was about the same but I lost my EIC so was expecting to pay more this year that in addition with keeping more of my paycheck balances out that I got a slight tax cut in the end.
How are folks doing with their effective tax rates? I live in a high SALT state and got hit with the deduction limit. As a result, my effective rate was pretty flat, maybe up slightly after adjusting for 401k over 50 catch ups I'm now eligible for. No tax cut for me. Many folks in my area went from prior years of getting $ back, to cutting a big check...even those who had a lower rate/tax cut.
yup I'm in the once a refund now a payer group. I've got 2 grown children living in my home that are attending school but haven't a hope in hell of living on their own. The shitty jobs they have to work are minimum wage and still I can't get a break on my taxes. They make too much annually (over $4100) and not enough to live independently. YAY, thanks!
How are folks doing with their effective tax rates? I live in a high SALT state and got hit with the deduction limit. As a result, my effective rate was pretty flat, maybe up slightly after adjusting for 401k over 50 catch ups I'm now eligible for. No tax cut for me. Many folks in my area went from prior years of getting $ back, to cutting a big check...even those who had a lower rate/tax cut.
The adult film star called the tax "sexist and wrong," saying it ties nude entertainment to violence against women without justification.
March 22, 2019, 9:27 PM EDT
By Associated Press
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. â Adult film star Stormy Daniels briefly appeared at the Illinois Capitol on Friday to protest the state's tax on strip clubs.
The porn actress who alleges she had an affair with Donald Trump before he became president read a two-minute statement opposing the tax. Nicknamed the "pole tax," it's a 6-year-old surcharge on nude-dancing venues that serve alcohol and is meant to fund shelters for women who have been abused.
The businesses pay $3 per patron or a set fee based on gross receipts.
Daniels, who delivered her statement beneath a statue of Abraham Lincoln, told the small crowd of mostly local dancers and news reporters that strippers are often young mothers trying to make a living. She said the tax has forced a price hike "which drives away customers and ultimately takes money out of the G-strings of hardworking dancers."
She called the tax "sexist and wrong," saying it ties nude entertainment to violence against women without justification.
Supporters of the law say the tax doesn't represent the belief that all strip-club patrons abuse women, but that it is akin to casino taxes funding problem-gambling programs.
Illinois Department of Revenue figures show receipts from the extra charge increased from $406,000 in 2014 to $532,000 in 2016, then dropped two successive years to $448,000 last year.
After she spoke, Daniels was rushed away in a dark-colored SUV that was taking her to a local strip club for a book signing.
LOL..........I love her plans after her statement.
