• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shrinking Tax Refunds Cast a Shadow on Trump’s Signature Law

j-mac said:
Well, I agree Johnny that the tax code is ridiculously complex...And should be simplified...But, like I said, you are showing some narrow parameters to reach your conclusions....I don't think that over paying is good, however, I'd like to not have to pay at tax time either...I had it worked out to just about break even, and I guess in the big picture you could say that even with having to pay, all in all I am still breaking relatively even....However, it's a little tough having to come up with $1600 in 8 weeks in the budget unaccounted for....But, I will get through it...

Like I said before, I'm not complaining, rather just giving a nod I guess to my friends on the other side of the isle in saying that when the tax cuts first came out and I argued the WH line, that in the practical world as it turns out they were right, and I was wrong...That's all...It's called humility, we all could do good to have just a little of it.
Click to expand...

What were they right about exactly? All Im seeing here is that youre wrong about your own taxes.
 
j-mac said:
ludin....I notice that you now add the qualifier about overcoming the standard deduction. I have been saying that all along....I'm a simple guy...all of this semantic about liability, and such, all I know is last year I got back $400 which was about breaking even, and this year I owe $1600.....Now you consider how that effects a household that for intents and purposes, lives pay check to pay check, and you tell me why I should feel comforted that because I got back $40 per week during the year, that I am not giving it all back now? How did that help me?
Click to expand...

J-mac. Wanna give you kudos for a good thread. Not because it's a gotcha moment for "the Left", but because of your *traditionally* conservative approach to the problem. I see you being honest, not making excuses, asking calm questions...even if it casts some negativity to what your boy is doing up there. Thank goodness there are still some "real" conservatives left in the world.
 
OlNate said:
J-mac. Wanna give you kudos for a good thread. Not because it's a gotcha moment for "the Left", but because of your *traditionally* conservative approach to the problem. I see you being honest, not making excuses, asking calm questions...even if it casts some negativity to what your boy is doing up there. Thank goodness there are still some "real" conservatives left in the world.
Click to expand...

Except its based on an entirely false premise. That makes conservatives looks as bad as liberals. Its a really bad thread.
 
jonny5 said:
Except its based on an entirely false premise. That makes conservatives looks as bad as liberals. Its a really bad thread.
Click to expand...

Ya, you sound like the new type of conservative. Less useful. Much less.
 
Re: Shrinking Tax Refunds Cast a Shadow on Trumpâ€[emoji769]s Signature Law

Hatuey said:
Lol, don't be hurt because you want us to believe the food industry in America had been waiting tariffs on steel and solar panels for businesses could thrive again. We're soybeans really that important to the restaurant business? Just which part of the tariffs affects the service industry?

It's just crazy talk.



Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

So you believe that tariffs on one item won't have an impact on the general economy? You need to stop posting until you learn basic economics. That is what is killing the Chinese, among other things, like their political/economic system.
 
Re: Shrinking Tax Refunds Cast a Shadow on Trumpâ€[emoji769]s Signature Law

OlNate said:
:lamo

I've come to notice that "Dismissed" is Right-lish for "Welp, I lost that one".

I'm sure Left-ese has its own equivalent.
Click to expand...

Yep. You just used it. I use "dismissed" because the response was out of the realm of reasonableness, and has become a waste of time. As in "you are dismissed".
 
Re: Shrinking Tax Refunds Cast a Shadow on Trumpâ€[emoji769]s Signature Law

smallvoice said:
Yep. You just used it. I use "dismissed" because the response was out of the realm of reasonableness, and has become a waste of time. As in "you are dismissed".
Click to expand...

Huh...funny...cuz from over here, it looked like he had you on the run... :shrug:

:lamo
 
OlNate said:
Ya, you sound like the new type of conservative. Less useful. Much less.
Click to expand...

Sorry, not sorry if my actually understanding things is not useful to your goal to demonize conservatives. I wish actually understanding things was neocon/neolib, but Im not seeing any evidence of that. Probably why Im libertarian.
 
jonny5 said:
Sorry, not sorry if my actually understanding things is not useful to your goal to demonize conservatives. I wish actually understanding things was neocon/neolib, but Im not seeing any evidence of that. Probably why Im libertarian.
Click to expand...

haha...I don't need your interpretation, uh, I mean, "understanding" of things to "demonize conservatives"...conservatives seem to be falling over on themselves to do that without anyone else's help.

Anyway, that's not my "goal". I only want assholes demonized. Old fashioned conservatives were anything but. Now? lol...they're too rare, having been replace by whatever the hell constitutes conservatism these days - you know them by the fact that they'll eat their own for asking the wrong type of questions...hehe...
 
Cuts aren't permanent for regular folks.

Failure to lead by Trump and his cabal of corporatist cronies in congress.

Remember who owned congress when this law was passed. It was not the dims.
 
Re: Shrinking Tax Refunds Cast a Shadow on Trumpâ€[emoji769]s Signature Law

smallvoice said:
So you believe that tariffs on one item won't have an impact on the general economy? You need to stop posting until you learn basic economics. That is what is killing the Chinese, among other things, like their political/economic system.
Click to expand...
Yikes, what part of the service industry was supposed to be affected by the tariffs and how? Simple question.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
j-mac said:
Last year it was about 290
Click to expand...
And you couldn't match the per diem with actual expenses? A few years ago I had a job that required travel - not anywhere near yours - and paid a per diem. We carefully collected receipts for every deductible expense to charge against that.
 
OlNate said:
haha...I don't need your interpretation, uh, I mean, "understanding" of things to "demonize conservatives"...conservatives seem to be falling over on themselves to do that without anyone else's help.

Anyway, that's not my "goal". I only want assholes demonized. Old fashioned conservatives were anything but. Now? lol...they're too rare, having been replace by whatever the hell constitutes conservatism these days - you know them by the fact that they'll eat their own for asking the wrong type of questions...hehe...
Click to expand...

Theres only one person here being an asshole.
 
Bullseye said:
And you couldn't match the per diem with actual expenses? A few years ago I had a job that required travel - not anywhere near yours - and paid a per diem. We carefully collected receipts for every deductible expense to charge against that.
Click to expand...

If I may -

In Jmac’s case, the issue isn’t so much the change in the standard deduction that is negatively affecting him.

The new tax bill ELIMINATED the entire category “miscellaneous itemized deductions”. One of which, and the primary one here, is unreimbursed employee business expenses.

W-2 Employees (in any industry) used to be able to claim a miscellaneous itemized deduction for expenses they incurred as a part of their employment that their employer didn’t reimburse. That entire category of deduction has been eliminated. Also included in this category are things like tax prep fees, investment advisory expenses, safety deposit box rental fees, and many others.

So yes it doesn’t surprise me in the least that someone in jmac’s profession would see a relatively significant TAX increase (not refund decrease, and actual TAX increase). Salesmen (who would normally take a large deduction for mileage), railroad workers and truck drivers are all in the same boat.

The only real remedy to this is to either 1. Try to convince your employer to reimburse you for a part of or all of your expenses (not likely) or 2. Become an independent (non-employee) contractor/owner operator. Of course that probably means a significant capital outlay and changing company relationships etc. Neither is a particularly viable option.

Carry on...
 
ludin said:
Actually i do. They are an estimate on how much you should pay in tax by the end of the year. So that amount is withheld during the course of the year out of each paycheck.



maybe as a CPA you should have advised your clients that they should adjust your allowances etc ...
that would have allowed them to ensure that they were paying enough.

again all your refund is whether or not you have paid more than your tax liability.
your tax liability is determined by AGI.

i could take more allowances but i choose not to as i don't want to end up paying at the end of the year.

if people want to see if they had a tax decrease they need to look at their tax liability not their tax return.
Click to expand...

You have completely missed the point here, which is that the withholding tables were aggressively adjusted commensurate with the tax cut legislation of 2017 to front load the savings to give people the illusion that the middle class tax cuts were deeper than they actually were. They did this by "skinning" the withholding tables, which resulted in generally smaller refunds than people had become accustomed.
 
Deuce said:
You need to understand that there are people who saw their total taxes paid actually go up. It's not just about the refunds.
Click to expand...

You're referring to people with 8-10 kids who can no longer populate their way to zero taxes.

And it's high time that was addressed. Reproductive irresponsibility should not be a money-making business.
 
Juggernaut74 said:
If I may -

In Jmac’s case, the issue isn’t so much the change in the standard deduction that is negatively affecting him.

The new tax bill ELIMINATED the entire category “miscellaneous itemized deductions”. One of which, and the primary one here, is unreimbursed employee business expenses.

W-2 Employees (in any industry) used to be able to claim a miscellaneous itemized deduction for expenses they incurred as a part of their employment that their employer didn’t reimburse. That entire category of deduction has been eliminated. Also included in this category are things like tax prep fees, investment advisory expenses, safety deposit box rental fees, and many others.

So yes it doesn’t surprise me in the least that someone in jmac’s profession would see a relatively significant TAX increase (not refund decrease, and actual TAX increase). Salesmen (who would normally take a large deduction for mileage), railroad workers and truck drivers are all in the same boat.

The only real remedy to this is to either 1. Try to convince your employer to reimburse you for a part of or all of your expenses (not likely) or 2. Become an independent (non-employee) contractor/owner operator. Of course that probably means a significant capital outlay and changing company relationships etc. Neither is a particularly viable option.

Carry on...
Click to expand...

But the per diem wasnt eliminated, so its still there. I posted the law above. Not only can you still deduct it, it went UP.
 
jonny5 said:
But the per diem wasnt eliminated, so its still there. I posted the law above. Not only can you still deduct it, it went UP.
Click to expand...

Not if you’re a W-2 employee. Only businesses and self employed. Employee deductions are GONE.
 
Juggernaut74 said:
Not if you’re a W-2 employee. Only businesses and self employed. Employee deductions are GONE.
Click to expand...

If you are a w-2 employee then youre probably reimbursed by your employer, in which case its not counted as income and thus not taxed.
 
It’s almost as if you didn’t read my explanation. The deduction the OP lost was UNREIMBURSED EMPLOYEE expenses. They’re gone...vanished...eliminated...obliterated from the new tax bill completely. I’m having trouble understanding how I could possibly make this any clearer.

Some employees incur expenses (mileage being the most common) that are not reimbursed by their employers.

They used to be a deduction. They are not any longer (at least for federal purposes)
 
Juggernaut74 said:
It’s almost as if you didn’t read my explanation. The deduction the OP lost was UNREIMBURSED EMPLOYEE expenses. They’re gone...vanished...eliminated...obliterated from the new tax bill completely. I’m having trouble understanding how I could possibly make this any clearer.

Some employees incur expenses (mileage being the most common) that are not reimbursed by their employers.

They used to be a deduction. They are not any longer (at least for federal purposes)
Click to expand...

Youre right. But it still doesnt matter. It was subject to a 2% AGI limit, so you could only deduct the part of the expense over 2% of your income. The doubling of the standard deduction would more than cover that. Its a perfect example of a deduction that needs to go, as it was unnecessary.
 
jonny5 said:
Youre right. But it still doesnt matter. It was subject to a 2% AGI limit, so you could only deduct the part of the expense over 2% of your income. The doubling of the standard deduction would more than cover that. Its a perfect example of a deduction that needs to go, as it was unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily - and clearly not in the OP’s case.

If all of your other itemized deductions in the past were ~$20,000 and you had a $10k deduction for mileage (not unheard of for salesmen, truck drivers, and other professions where there was a lot of unreimbursed expenses), you go from $30,000 of deductions in 2017 to $24k (standard - assuming married) in 2018. Plus the loss of 2 personal exemptions.

At this point, we’re getting way too far into the weeds. The only point I’m making is it’s not surprising given the OP’s profession that he saw a legit tax increase. There were winners AND losers in the new tax bill - as is the case with most tax legislation. This is just one example of the latter group.
 
Juggernaut74 said:
Not necessarily - and clearly not in the OP’s case.

If all of your other itemized deductions in the past were ~$20,000 and you had a $10k deduction for mileage (not unheard of for salesmen, truck drivers, and other professions where there was a lot of unreimbursed expenses), you go from $30,000 of deductions in 2017 to $24k (standard - assuming married) in 2018. Plus the loss of 2 personal exemptions.

At this point, we’re getting way too far into the weeds. The only point I’m making is it’s not surprising given the OP’s profession that he saw a legit tax increase. There were winners AND losers in the new tax bill - as is the case with most tax legislation. This is just one example of the latter group.
Click to expand...

I think the OP is wrong, but without seeing his tax return, who knows? I think its unlikely for someone to have 10k in unreimbursed expenses greater than 2k in AGI that fell under MISC, and not per diem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom