“This doesn’t mean the tax goes away, but it’s delayed, delayed, delayed, which is nearly always a better thing.”
True…but there comes a point…where if you have five or six or ten properties, you’re getting up into your late 70s or 80s, and you wish to sell out…
that first property was depreciated /and appreciated - but that’s deferred as you trade to a ‘similar price’ situation in value…and now get to depreciate it…and have ‘cash flow’ again. When you’ve taken most of that depreciation, you can do another Starker trade - deferring the taxes due again.
Then eventually you’ll have tons of depreciation - which, when you sell it, is full income tax rate. Plus of course, some caps on the ‘real estate part’ of the property. Sell several properties at once, and you hit the high tax brackets.
Then eventually you’ll have tons of depreciation - which, when you sell it, is full income tax rate.
No, it’s not. The rate on gain due to depreciation of real estate (section 1250 gain if you care to research it) is limited to 25%. Less if you’re in a lower tax bracket.
The rest of the gain is at capital gain rates, which are no more than 20%. And for many small time investors will be 15%.
The medicare tax on high investment income can add another 2.9% to both of these.
Still, that’s a long way away from the current max of 37% - which will go to 39.6% in 2026 unless congress changes the cutoff date for the lower tax brackets.
Still, that’s a long way away from the current max of 37% - which will go to 39.6% in 2026 unless congress changes the cutoff date for the lower tax brackets.
Ah, you are missing one gigantic step. The President has to not veto it. We could very well end up with a Republican House & Senate that passed a bill to retain current tax rates, but it’s unlikely that a Democratic President will sign off.
Don’t try to get so cute. It’s not a gigantic step. It will be well-known if the President is going to sign or veto before it comes to a vote in Congress. And even if the President vetoes the bill, Congress can override the veto.
I’m pretty sure my meaning is well-understood in context without getting bogged down in the details of how laws are made in the US.
If not, you should mention that the bill will need to originate in the House and not the Senate. And perhaps you should clarify that by House, I mean the House of Representatives, and not the house down the street. And by House of Representatives, I mean the US House of Representatives and not some state’s House of Representatives. And let’s not forget to discuss which committees and sub-committees will need to meet to discuss the bill, and how much better the bill’s chances will be if it has bi-partisan sponsorship and not just sponsors from one party. Except that the bi-partisan sponsors should not be people who are currently on the “outs” with their party (Liz Cheney and Joe Manchin might - or might not - be current examples of people on the “outs” with their party, but that’s another long discussion that might need it’s own thread. And, quite seriously, would be a discussion for another board. But I’m trying to be comprehensive here and not miss any steps or minute details.)
And that’s all to say that the relevant portion of the law currently has an expiration date in the not too distant future. And that laws can be changed between now and then.
Don’t try to get so cute. It’s not a gigantic step. It will be well-known if the President is going to sign or veto before it comes to a vote in Congress. And even if the President vetoes the bill, Congress can override the veto.
I’m pretty sure my meaning is well-understood in context without getting bogged down in the details of how laws are made in the US.
If not, you should mention that the bill will need to originate in the House and not the Senate. And perhaps you should clarify that by House, I mean the House of Representatives, and not the house down the street. And by House of Representatives, I mean the US House of Representatives and not some state’s House of Representatives. And let’s not forget to discuss which committees and sub-committees will need to meet to discuss the bill, and how much better the bill’s chances will be if it has bi-partisan sponsorship and not just sponsors from one party. Except that the bi-partisan sponsors should not be people who are currently on the “outs” with their party (Liz Cheney and Joe Manchin might - or might not - be current examples of people on the “outs” with their party, but that’s another long discussion that might need it’s own thread. And, quite seriously, would be a discussion for another board. But I’m trying to be comprehensive here and not miss any steps or minute details.)
And that’s all to say that the relevant portion of the law currently has an expiration date in the not too distant future. And that laws can be changed between now and then.
–Peter
I stand by my assertion that getting both chambers as well as the President to agree on something as partisan as tax rates is way more difficult than your post would suggest.
I stand by my assertion that getting both chambers as well as the President to agree on something as partisan as tax rates is way more difficult than your post would suggest.
And that may very well be why the TCJA was set to expire on Dec 31, 2025, instead of after 2027, which it could have been extended to.
And I’ll stand by mine - that I never mentioned the difficulty or lack thereof in getting legislation passed. Just that tax law can change, particularly when you’re looking at a 3 or 4 year period.
For the record, having worked professionally in taxes for 40 years, I’d plan on one significant tax bill per Presidential administration. Reagan passed a really big one. Bush Sr got one done in the second year of his administration. Clinton pushed one through. Bush the younger got two done in his first term. Obama passed one. Trump passed one.
My prediction is that Biden will get a tax bill passed. What will be in that bill is something I’m not going to speculate on, other than it will likely be a tax increase rather than a cut. Then again, the expiration of the Trump tax cuts might be sufficient. Who knows?
Don’t try to get so cute. It’s not a gigantic step. It will be well-known if the President is going to sign or veto before it comes to a vote in Congress. And even if the President vetoes the bill, Congress can override the veto.
If that was true then a President would never get to veto a bill, and they do. And even if the Republicans take control of the House and the Senate, they’re not going to get 2/3 of BOTH to override a veto. But sometimes they just take votes so they can say “I voted against taxes” or whatever.
Maybe Biden won’t push for a tax bill and the expiration of the current law will be enough. That remains to be seen. But in any event it won’t be a life changing uh, change for most people, including most of those here.
Hope so. Taxes need to go up. Though it would be good not to penalize working (as intercst says, in terms of taxes working for a living is the dumbest thing you can do). Gotta pay the bills, or at least we should try.
Can’t be done given the state of politicians putting getting re-elected ahead of the best interests for the country. For every dollar of tax revenue raised, politician will spend $1.20. No ability to prioritize. All good ideas must be funded now.
Can’t be done given the state of politicians putting getting re-elected ahead of the best interests for the country. For every dollar of tax revenue raised, politician will spend $1.20. No ability to prioritize. All good ideas must be funded now.
Especially if you are a state that can’t pay your own way. It is amazing that the lowest taxing states take the most from the federal government and hence from the rest of us. I propose that each state pays their own way.
Talk about a failure of imagination. Yeah, I can’t think of any other approach either. /sarc/
Seems to afflict an entire generations.
Fabulous reply. The problem isn’t lack of tax revenue, the problem is insatiable endless (unsustainable) spending. Just look at the (dead for now, but probably not forever) Build Back Better bill. A garden of seedling programs that would transform American into a Euro-like place, with huge taxes, spending and redistribution. And those behind it STILL weren’t satisfied. Unless and until we decide to limit spending, there isn’t enough revenue in the world to tax to the satisfaction of the spenders (on both sides of the aisle, by the way).
Especially if you are a state that can’t pay your own way. It is amazing that the lowest taxing states take the most from the federal government and hence from the rest of us. I propose that each state pays their own way.
Notice the states that think that taxes are bad that rely on the rest of us to pay their way.
Andy
I see this argument frequently. But it’s flawed. Those in the so-called red states that receive more from the government than they pay in didn’t ask for it. Yeah, many have become dependent and wouldn’t want the free stuff taken away. But this is similar to Social Security. Had I had my druthers 40 years ago, I would have opted out and invested the FICA contribution amount on my own. But I had no choice, so, ok, I’ll accept the benefits as promised.
I don’t think the data in the article says anything about taxing policies of the states. Since
states tax income, property assets and/or sales in different ways the conclusion that a lack of
an income tax is using federal funds to “rely on the rest of us” is certainly not the case.
Howie52
Taxes are intended to provide for common needs - some places see needs more expansively than
others. And some places are more or less “inventive” in obtaining funds from “productive
sources” to pay for those needs.
Much like other charitable causes - some charities are able to obtain donations more effectively
than others.
I see this argument frequently. But it’s flawed. Those in the so-called red states that receive more from the government than they pay in didn’t ask for it.
Wow that is what you call a flawed argument. Sure they asked for it. Their Senators, Governors, House of Representatives all asked for it. It’s just like the infrastructure bill that was passed and lots of politicians voted against it and then went back to their states praising it after it passed. Or the Obama care bill that is now giving healthcare to people that want it but don’t realize how they are getting it because their states are lying on how they are receiving it. It’s really easy to not accept money if you didn’t want it, just don’t hold your hand out.
Yeah, many have become dependent and wouldn’t want the free stuff taken away. But this is similar to Social Security. Had I had my druthers 40 years ago, I would have opted out and invested the FICA contribution amount on my own. But I had no choice, so, ok, I’ll accept the benefits as promised.
I would have rather opted out to but no matter what you or I think it has kept a lot of people out of the poor house just like Medicare. With society, as a whole, both of those programs have been very successful without question.
I would have rather opted out to but no matter what you or I think it has kept a lot of people out of the poor house just like Medicare. With society, as a whole, both of those programs have been very successful without question.
Totally true, but has nothing to do with the fact that many people would have rather have not been forced into the system, just as many red states take what the system they are forced into gives, but would rather have “less government” if given the choice.
…just as many red states take what the system they are forced into gives, but would rather have “less government” if given the choice.
People are people: if they’re doing fine now, they want less gubmint; when they are not doing so well, they seem to appreciate the gubmint benefits they get, but often still think others shouldn’t get them. This reminds me of the 2009-2010 era when many folks were saying “keep big government out of our lives - don’t let them touch my social security and Medicare.”