Get rid of the March 15th/April 15th deadline and just make it September 15th/October 15th by default. The amount of unnecessary work that has to be done just to put people on extension is asinine.
Keep the W-2/1099 deadline as if there is filing by March/April so not everyone waits last minute. This will prevent a burnout season in Sept/Oct. Can work 40hr works almost all year at that point
Pretty small beer I guess, but I’d love to see the dependent care tax credit and FSA amounts indexed to inflation (and adjusted one time for the decades of not doing that). The limits are already a joke.
Here here!!
2,500 individual contribution limit to a flex spending dependant care doesn't cover shit. Even with a 100% company match, it covers less than half the cost of 1 child in daycare half the time.
Yeah, $5k is the max for a DCFSA no matter who contributes, employee or employer, and no matter how many parents work.
I read recently that the DCFSA limit hasn’t been changed since it was set in the 80s. It would over $14k today if it had just been indexed to inflation. 🙄 I assume the credit has a similar problem since it hasn’t changed in my adult life that I’m aware of.
I'd like to see some sort of US based employee credit for companies to curb some of the offshoring that's been going on. I don't think BEAT does enough to penalize base erosion.
174 should be repealed for the US based spend, you can keep it for foreign or alternatively let the taxpayer decide if they want to capitalize or expense it under the old 59e rules.
Immediate expensing of fixed assets seems to be popular. I'd just wish they'd stop with the sunsets and phase outs. Make it permanent.
Probably an unpopular opinion but I'd like a repeal or energy tax credits or the ability to sell them. I think it's a bait and switch and allows utility companies to profit outside of regulations and allows big banks to profit on facilitation of sales/purchases of credits. The same big banks are the ones that purchase them for a discount and end up using it to offset their liability which I think is just wrong.
I'd like capital losses to be indexed to inflation instead of being capped to 3k a year.
So many things...
If I understand this comment, you want (certain types of) restructuring to be taxed at higher rates. Why? I didn't know converting equity into debt and vice versa was s process that was taxed at a specific tax rate in the first place. Or, by "capital conversion" do you mean transferring an asset from the ownership of an entity to the ownership of an individual?
Broadly it is because I have identified the highest earners as paying a lower effective tax rate than the lowest earners, and there are significant public programs I would like to fund.
When I say capital conversion, I mean most business combinations and corporate actions need some sort of tax.
Stock buy back should have some sort of tax because it bypasses cap gains.
Private market acquisitions of large companies should be disincentived with transaction taxes
ESOP should be encouraged with tax advantages.
Basically I dislike concentrations of wealth and the tax code should reflect that.
1. Get rid of the step-up in basis at death.
2. Carried interest should be earned income.
3. FICA/Payroll taxes should be increased by 2% to maintain solvency in our entitlement programs.
4. Go back to pre-Bush tax rates on individual income.
Oh interesting, I didn’t know that was the justification.
I doubt it would pass in the current Congress, but seems like you could increase the tax threshold now, and phase in an increased benefits calculations somehow, and still come out ahead. Raising the age is probably a non-starter considering our life expectancy has plateaued.
Until we see real reform of HHS and their (mis)management of CMS, the costs incurred for Medicare will only go up. If people want M4A or single-payor, reform and increased withholding will need to happen. If I could only have one of those, I'd rather see reform. Increased Medicare withholding without reform would only give HHS/CMS more money to waste.
I understand 3 and 4, but why the first two? Regarding 1, if wealthy inheritances have to pay a little more in tax, so what? Regarding 2, why should hedge fund or private equity managers have more of their income classified as earned? I'm probably missing something, but I don't see how these effectuate the goals of tax policy/reform, like simplifying the tax code, making it more efficient (e.g. making taxes easy to pay and collect), raising adequate revenue for government, encouraging productive/desirable activities like R&D investments and job creation, etc. EDIT: Actually, 1 and 2 *would* simplify the tax code, but I don't see other reasons for them (again, I'm missing something).
For 1, you get rid of the step up to make heirs pay more in taxes. It makes no sense to act as if an inheritor has full basis when they paid nothing for the assets.
For 2, carried interest is income that the fund managers make in exchange for managing the assets. It's income earned from their work as fund managers. There's no social or economic justification for treating that as investment just because their labor was in the realm of investment.
Thanks for your input. While I agree with higher personal income taxes (generally and especially on the wealthiest), I want to know why you want higher tax rates on corporations. Economists agree the ideal corporate tax rate is low and maybe 0%. Corporate income tax is just not a good tax for many reasons.
Most work in academia and are inherently academic/intellectual since they have PhDs. Anyway, its not like economists all agree corporate taxes are undesirable for no reason. Back to my question: why more taxes on businesses? Why kill jobs, kill R&D investments, encourage corporations to hire lobbyists to influence the tax code instead of hiring laborers to actual produce goods/services, etc.? And, why have a tax that brings in a lot of money when the economy is doing well and no money when the economy is doing bad, when we could just have a stable source of revenue from, for example, taxing land values, pollution, intellectual property, high income-earning individuals, or speculation?
Higher corporate taxes don't kill jobs or r&d. Those are all pretax expenses. And if you think the current low tax environment is somehow restricting corporations from lobbying for more preferential tax treatment, then I have a bridge to sell you.
And the idea that the economy is doing well is based on a calculation of averages. Total profit is higher than ever yet income disparity is at levels similar to France right before their revolution. It's unsustainable and an increasingly poor way to judge the wellbeing of society at large.
I like most of your other ideas too though.
I want to deduct penalties and interest assessed by taxing authorities. Because apparently they shouldn’t be deductible, because if they were, then it would be an incentive to commit more fraud 🤷♂️
I think it has far less to do with incentivizing anything and more to do with the government not wanting to allow people any benefit from not following the law.
> deduct penalties and interest
No. Penalties should not be rewarded with a tax deduction. That includes penalties issued by the IRS. That's just shifting the burden to people who didnt commit the infraction.
1) Apply a tax for loans that are collateralized with unrealized gains.
2) Apply an excess tax on rental properties.
3) Increase ERIC eligibility. That way my car will stop getting it's windows smashed 3-4x a year even if I leave my windows open.
I dont think people realize that the crunch will always exist regardless of where the deadline is. You are just moving around the crunch, not smoothing it out.
Extending the amount of days from when a k-1 comes in to when a 1040 needs filed is not moving the crunch. It may be creating a different crunch, but 60 days to do 1040s vs 30 days is significant
Better yet, remove the SALT deduction entirely, for businesses and individuals. People in high-tax states already get extra state benefits (which aren’t taxable), so there’s no reason to give the added benefit for federal deductibility
Just for the sake of making my job easier, I’d want to go back to the days of employer paid relocation expenses not being considered income assuming there’s an accountable plan where only the actual expenses are paid. It is a huge headache at my job dealing with these, mainly because we also provide an allowance in an attempt to keep the employee from owing additional tax due to their relocation being paid, but it requires a ton of hoops for both the employee and the people who have to try to track everything.
I agree and think a simple solution would be flip the ordinary and capital tax brackets. So capital gains would be taxed at the current ordinary income rates and ordinary income would be taxed at the current capital rates. It incentivizes ‘working’ or activities that actively produce income while not penalizing investing for median income households.
I agree. I'd also have one rate for capital gains instead of having different rates for long-term and short-term, which are unnecessary. I would also exclude/except certain investments from capital gains tax, like small business ownership. Speculative investors should be taxed, not entrepreneurs.
First one that is not directly related to tax but adjacent. Social security benefit amounts should be based on need. So people earning a pension/taking out of retirement assets would earn less than someone who really needs it.
Folks with just w2 income shouldn't have to file taxes, they should still pay taxes but the filing process should be automated.
I'd like to see the higher standard deduction stick around after TCJA expires, especially for low income folks. Itemizing is generally a dumb concept imo
Finally, our govt needs to pull their head out of their ass and get some updates in the rules for how modern/internet based businesses work. Sch C seems to assume that most people have a brick and mortar retail business. I feel like I use the other expense lines more than I use the actual boxes on the face of the form.
Not to mention the grey area in deductibility of influencer type expenses.
Totally agree. When I have clients who get $65k of social security but then make $3m in income, it seems silly that they dont have to pay that amount back. Add a tax to pay back SS if you make above a certain threshold.
>I'd like to see the higher standard deduction stick around after TCJA expires, especially for low income folks. Itemizing is generally a dumb concept imo
Yes to this, and not bringing back personal exemptions. That was just overly complicated for no real reason. I have plenty of quibbles with TCJA but it did genuinely simplify things for the average filer.
I’m actually a fan of personal exceptions. Because at the end of the day, a person with children won’t have as much disposable income as a person without children if they are in identical situations, making it more costly for the person with children to pay the same rate of tax as the person without.
"Capital" broadly speaking is taxed way less than labor is. Once you have enough cash, you basically have escape velocity into a new tax bracket where you live off investments and loans on those investments. But who has the cash and credit to actually do that? So many people are scraping by.
And I find the language around raising taxes on capital dissonant from the discussion of taxes in general: raise taxes on capital gains? "Do you want to *punish investment*?" I don't know, we tax wages much much more, are we actively *punishing* people for working? That doesn't sound right...
Subject income from all flow thrus to self employment tax.
Let bonus depreciation wither and die.
Do away with the R&D tax credit.
Do away with 179D shenanigans.
Do away with 121 exclusion on home sale
Do away with 1031 exchange.
1. Do away with pass through entities
2. Change 1040s and everyone has to file their own return (no married returns). Also change everyone’s taxable year to be the last day of their birth months. All w-2s and 1099s are done on your fiscal year. Computers are smart enough to figure this out.
- Add tax breaks for renters or remove the tax incentives for homeowners
- Tax capital gains like income if it makes up 35% or more of your total income
- Permanently put in the place the TCJA standard deduction
- Make tax breaks far less dependent on kids and more dependent on income. We're taxing some adults into poverty simply because they don't have kids.
Having kids doesnt change your tax rates unless you are single and have HOH status because of a dependent. But a married couple that has kids doesnt see a reduction in rates or special treatment outside of tax credits that will NOT cover their expenses.
What tax brakes are people getting that have kids that arent offset directly by expenses they have to pay for having kids? To my knowledge its just the Child Tax Credit and the credit for Childcare - neither of which cover the costs associated with the credits.
>What tax brakes are people getting that have kids that arent offset directly by expenses they have to pay for having kids?
That's the mentality I have an issue with. It's not childless people's responsibility to cover your expenses because you decided to have a kid. Not when we are literally [taxing low income childless adults into poverty](https://www.cbpp.org/research/childless-adults-are-lone-group-taxed-into-poverty).
I **would not** be saying this is the Child Tax Credit was only for low income people. But the income threshold is 200k for single and 400k for MFJ. That's insane.
It's not doing a good job at that. Birth rates are so low. Imo it'd be a much better investment to close the CTC altogether and invest in universal childcare.
While the credits are nice, it's not like I feel like I'm "winning" w/ 8k off my tax bill. My groceries alone are 14k/yr.
Family insurance alone probably costs me an extra 6-8k a year....
If I had the cost of daycare to deal with then we obviously know that would dwarf the credit....
> We're taxing some adults into poverty simply because they don't have kids.
You made these statements and I am asking for examples. There doesnt seem to be any.
It seems the only issue is the phaseout amount. Which is small potatoes all considered honestly.
I linked an article in the last post. It's linked again at the bottom of this list.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/poverty-and-poverty-reduction-among-non-elderly-nondisabled-childless-adults-in-affluent-countries-the-united-states-in-cross-national-perspective/
>Compared to these countries, the U.S. is notable for its large share of low-wage workers, the extent to which income taxes and social contributions push childless adults into poverty, and the meagerness of income transfers for this focal group.
And
https://www.hamiltonproject.org/publication/paper/the-austere-u-s-safety-net-for-poor-non-elderly-childless-adults-no-disability-benefits/#:~:text=One%20of%20every%20two%20Americans,%2C%20or%20deeper%20into%2C%20poverty.
>One of every two Americans living in “deep poverty,” with incomes below half of the poverty line, is a childless adult not receiving disability benefits. And childless adults with low earnings are the only group in America that the federal tax code taxes into, or deeper into, poverty
And
https://www.cbpp.org/blog/a-clear-policy-choice-repeat-success-by-expanding-the-eitc-for-adults-without-children
>Largely because the EITC for adults who aren’t caring for children is so paltry — or even zero for many — the federal tax code taxes more than 5 million adults aged 19 and older into, or deeper into, poverty each year. That’s because their EITC is too small to offset the payroll taxes they pay for Social Security and Medicare and any federal income tax liability they incur.
Remove all gambling income and deductions (except professionals). Just exempt it. The casual gambler does not make money by definition, yet we tax them with an overly-complicated system that can increase people's taxes even when they are at a net loss for the year. If you're lucky enough to beat the odds, Congress thinks they need their cut.
Get rid of the March 15th/April 15th deadline and just make it September 15th/October 15th by default. The amount of unnecessary work that has to be done just to put people on extension is asinine.
Keep the W-2/1099 deadline as if there is filing by March/April so not everyone waits last minute. This will prevent a burnout season in Sept/Oct. Can work 40hr works almost all year at that point
Will never happen. The government wants their money
None of the stuff in this thread will ever happen, just let me dream.
Repeal of irc 174
Remember in the beginning of the year when everyone was saying that bill was gonna pass before 4/15? Good times lol
Stop subsidizing R&D through the tax code? Why?
No— allow R&D to be immediately expensed
Whoa whoa, coming in here looking for serious answers about related topics? Not sure that’s gonna fly lol
Pretty small beer I guess, but I’d love to see the dependent care tax credit and FSA amounts indexed to inflation (and adjusted one time for the decades of not doing that). The limits are already a joke.
Here here!! 2,500 individual contribution limit to a flex spending dependant care doesn't cover shit. Even with a 100% company match, it covers less than half the cost of 1 child in daycare half the time.
Yeah, $5k is the max for a DCFSA no matter who contributes, employee or employer, and no matter how many parents work. I read recently that the DCFSA limit hasn’t been changed since it was set in the 80s. It would over $14k today if it had just been indexed to inflation. 🙄 I assume the credit has a similar problem since it hasn’t changed in my adult life that I’m aware of.
I'd like to see some sort of US based employee credit for companies to curb some of the offshoring that's been going on. I don't think BEAT does enough to penalize base erosion. 174 should be repealed for the US based spend, you can keep it for foreign or alternatively let the taxpayer decide if they want to capitalize or expense it under the old 59e rules. Immediate expensing of fixed assets seems to be popular. I'd just wish they'd stop with the sunsets and phase outs. Make it permanent. Probably an unpopular opinion but I'd like a repeal or energy tax credits or the ability to sell them. I think it's a bait and switch and allows utility companies to profit outside of regulations and allows big banks to profit on facilitation of sales/purchases of credits. The same big banks are the ones that purchase them for a discount and end up using it to offset their liability which I think is just wrong. I'd like capital losses to be indexed to inflation instead of being capped to 3k a year. So many things...
>I'd like to see some sort of US based employee credit Credits for US employee bases **AND fines** for NON US EE bases.
Higher tax rates for capital conversion out of Business, higher tax rates in general for high networth individuals, things like that.
If I understand this comment, you want (certain types of) restructuring to be taxed at higher rates. Why? I didn't know converting equity into debt and vice versa was s process that was taxed at a specific tax rate in the first place. Or, by "capital conversion" do you mean transferring an asset from the ownership of an entity to the ownership of an individual?
Broadly it is because I have identified the highest earners as paying a lower effective tax rate than the lowest earners, and there are significant public programs I would like to fund. When I say capital conversion, I mean most business combinations and corporate actions need some sort of tax. Stock buy back should have some sort of tax because it bypasses cap gains. Private market acquisitions of large companies should be disincentived with transaction taxes ESOP should be encouraged with tax advantages. Basically I dislike concentrations of wealth and the tax code should reflect that.
1. Get rid of the step-up in basis at death. 2. Carried interest should be earned income. 3. FICA/Payroll taxes should be increased by 2% to maintain solvency in our entitlement programs. 4. Go back to pre-Bush tax rates on individual income.
For 3, why an across the board increase rather than increasing the income cap? The former is functionally pretty regressive.
I'd be in favor of doing both. The justification for the income cap is that SS benefits are calculated only on income up to the cap.
Oh interesting, I didn’t know that was the justification. I doubt it would pass in the current Congress, but seems like you could increase the tax threshold now, and phase in an increased benefits calculations somehow, and still come out ahead. Raising the age is probably a non-starter considering our life expectancy has plateaued.
Until we see real reform of HHS and their (mis)management of CMS, the costs incurred for Medicare will only go up. If people want M4A or single-payor, reform and increased withholding will need to happen. If I could only have one of those, I'd rather see reform. Increased Medicare withholding without reform would only give HHS/CMS more money to waste.
I understand 3 and 4, but why the first two? Regarding 1, if wealthy inheritances have to pay a little more in tax, so what? Regarding 2, why should hedge fund or private equity managers have more of their income classified as earned? I'm probably missing something, but I don't see how these effectuate the goals of tax policy/reform, like simplifying the tax code, making it more efficient (e.g. making taxes easy to pay and collect), raising adequate revenue for government, encouraging productive/desirable activities like R&D investments and job creation, etc. EDIT: Actually, 1 and 2 *would* simplify the tax code, but I don't see other reasons for them (again, I'm missing something).
You both agree on number 1. Step-ups upon death are a reason that wealth isn't taxed as much as it could be.
For 1, you get rid of the step up to make heirs pay more in taxes. It makes no sense to act as if an inheritor has full basis when they paid nothing for the assets. For 2, carried interest is income that the fund managers make in exchange for managing the assets. It's income earned from their work as fund managers. There's no social or economic justification for treating that as investment just because their labor was in the realm of investment.
Yep the step up in basis only makes sense if that asset had estate tax paid in association with its FMV at death.
I agree. I think the step-up make sense if estate taxes were paid on the asset. Otherwise, the basis should carry to the inheritor.
Look back rule with net section 1231 is dumb
Significantly higher corporate taxes and add more high-income personal brackets.
Thanks for your input. While I agree with higher personal income taxes (generally and especially on the wealthiest), I want to know why you want higher tax rates on corporations. Economists agree the ideal corporate tax rate is low and maybe 0%. Corporate income tax is just not a good tax for many reasons.
"Economists" say a lot of shit, and most of them work for corporations.
Most work in academia and are inherently academic/intellectual since they have PhDs. Anyway, its not like economists all agree corporate taxes are undesirable for no reason. Back to my question: why more taxes on businesses? Why kill jobs, kill R&D investments, encourage corporations to hire lobbyists to influence the tax code instead of hiring laborers to actual produce goods/services, etc.? And, why have a tax that brings in a lot of money when the economy is doing well and no money when the economy is doing bad, when we could just have a stable source of revenue from, for example, taxing land values, pollution, intellectual property, high income-earning individuals, or speculation?
Higher corporate taxes don't kill jobs or r&d. Those are all pretax expenses. And if you think the current low tax environment is somehow restricting corporations from lobbying for more preferential tax treatment, then I have a bridge to sell you. And the idea that the economy is doing well is based on a calculation of averages. Total profit is higher than ever yet income disparity is at levels similar to France right before their revolution. It's unsustainable and an increasingly poor way to judge the wellbeing of society at large. I like most of your other ideas too though.
I want to deduct penalties and interest assessed by taxing authorities. Because apparently they shouldn’t be deductible, because if they were, then it would be an incentive to commit more fraud 🤷♂️
This has to be the same people who think there are smart people who go out and spend $100,000 to “write-off” $10,000 .
I think it has far less to do with incentivizing anything and more to do with the government not wanting to allow people any benefit from not following the law.
You are most definitely correct, lol This post is a slight bit more serious than the normal post on the sub, so pardon the joke :P
> deduct penalties and interest No. Penalties should not be rewarded with a tax deduction. That includes penalties issued by the IRS. That's just shifting the burden to people who didnt commit the infraction.
1) Apply a tax for loans that are collateralized with unrealized gains. 2) Apply an excess tax on rental properties. 3) Increase ERIC eligibility. That way my car will stop getting it's windows smashed 3-4x a year even if I leave my windows open.
Move up the partnership deadline or move back the individual deadline. The unnecessary one month crunch from 9/15 to 10/15 is so dumb
I dont think people realize that the crunch will always exist regardless of where the deadline is. You are just moving around the crunch, not smoothing it out.
Extending the amount of days from when a k-1 comes in to when a 1040 needs filed is not moving the crunch. It may be creating a different crunch, but 60 days to do 1040s vs 30 days is significant
get rid of the SALT deduction cap which wealthy business owners are bypassing anyway with state PTETs
Better yet, remove the SALT deduction entirely, for businesses and individuals. People in high-tax states already get extra state benefits (which aren’t taxable), so there’s no reason to give the added benefit for federal deductibility
Increase cap gain loss limit from 1.5k/3k to at least 3k/6k
Just for the sake of making my job easier, I’d want to go back to the days of employer paid relocation expenses not being considered income assuming there’s an accountable plan where only the actual expenses are paid. It is a huge headache at my job dealing with these, mainly because we also provide an allowance in an attempt to keep the employee from owing additional tax due to their relocation being paid, but it requires a ton of hoops for both the employee and the people who have to try to track everything.
Capital Gains rates are too low, should be increased.
I agree and think a simple solution would be flip the ordinary and capital tax brackets. So capital gains would be taxed at the current ordinary income rates and ordinary income would be taxed at the current capital rates. It incentivizes ‘working’ or activities that actively produce income while not penalizing investing for median income households.
I agree. I'd also have one rate for capital gains instead of having different rates for long-term and short-term, which are unnecessary. I would also exclude/except certain investments from capital gains tax, like small business ownership. Speculative investors should be taxed, not entrepreneurs.
this
First one that is not directly related to tax but adjacent. Social security benefit amounts should be based on need. So people earning a pension/taking out of retirement assets would earn less than someone who really needs it. Folks with just w2 income shouldn't have to file taxes, they should still pay taxes but the filing process should be automated. I'd like to see the higher standard deduction stick around after TCJA expires, especially for low income folks. Itemizing is generally a dumb concept imo Finally, our govt needs to pull their head out of their ass and get some updates in the rules for how modern/internet based businesses work. Sch C seems to assume that most people have a brick and mortar retail business. I feel like I use the other expense lines more than I use the actual boxes on the face of the form. Not to mention the grey area in deductibility of influencer type expenses.
Totally agree. When I have clients who get $65k of social security but then make $3m in income, it seems silly that they dont have to pay that amount back. Add a tax to pay back SS if you make above a certain threshold.
>I'd like to see the higher standard deduction stick around after TCJA expires, especially for low income folks. Itemizing is generally a dumb concept imo Yes to this, and not bringing back personal exemptions. That was just overly complicated for no real reason. I have plenty of quibbles with TCJA but it did genuinely simplify things for the average filer.
I’m actually a fan of personal exceptions. Because at the end of the day, a person with children won’t have as much disposable income as a person without children if they are in identical situations, making it more costly for the person with children to pay the same rate of tax as the person without.
"Capital" broadly speaking is taxed way less than labor is. Once you have enough cash, you basically have escape velocity into a new tax bracket where you live off investments and loans on those investments. But who has the cash and credit to actually do that? So many people are scraping by. And I find the language around raising taxes on capital dissonant from the discussion of taxes in general: raise taxes on capital gains? "Do you want to *punish investment*?" I don't know, we tax wages much much more, are we actively *punishing* people for working? That doesn't sound right...
Canada is in a housing crisis. Why do we charge GST on most new construction?
More likely they gonna do another tax hike for capital gain for selling house instead.
Make the kidnapped kid not qualify for the dependent.
Subject income from all flow thrus to self employment tax. Let bonus depreciation wither and die. Do away with the R&D tax credit. Do away with 179D shenanigans. Do away with 121 exclusion on home sale Do away with 1031 exchange.
What sense would that make for passive investors? This would destroy any incentive for prospective investors
I agree - in my mind while typing this I meant to type something alluding to what you mentioned.
1. Do away with pass through entities 2. Change 1040s and everyone has to file their own return (no married returns). Also change everyone’s taxable year to be the last day of their birth months. All w-2s and 1099s are done on your fiscal year. Computers are smart enough to figure this out.
- Add tax breaks for renters or remove the tax incentives for homeowners - Tax capital gains like income if it makes up 35% or more of your total income - Permanently put in the place the TCJA standard deduction - Make tax breaks far less dependent on kids and more dependent on income. We're taxing some adults into poverty simply because they don't have kids.
Not having kids should not be penalized via the tax code, but it definitely feels like it in this HCOL area. 28% taxation is egregious in this area!
Having kids doesnt change your tax rates unless you are single and have HOH status because of a dependent. But a married couple that has kids doesnt see a reduction in rates or special treatment outside of tax credits that will NOT cover their expenses.
What tax brakes are people getting that have kids that arent offset directly by expenses they have to pay for having kids? To my knowledge its just the Child Tax Credit and the credit for Childcare - neither of which cover the costs associated with the credits.
>What tax brakes are people getting that have kids that arent offset directly by expenses they have to pay for having kids? That's the mentality I have an issue with. It's not childless people's responsibility to cover your expenses because you decided to have a kid. Not when we are literally [taxing low income childless adults into poverty](https://www.cbpp.org/research/childless-adults-are-lone-group-taxed-into-poverty). I **would not** be saying this is the Child Tax Credit was only for low income people. But the income threshold is 200k for single and 400k for MFJ. That's insane.
I mean, my opinion is that the CTC really is to encourage people to create future taxpayers.
It's not doing a good job at that. Birth rates are so low. Imo it'd be a much better investment to close the CTC altogether and invest in universal childcare.
While the credits are nice, it's not like I feel like I'm "winning" w/ 8k off my tax bill. My groceries alone are 14k/yr. Family insurance alone probably costs me an extra 6-8k a year.... If I had the cost of daycare to deal with then we obviously know that would dwarf the credit....
I think we agree then? The CTC isn't incetivizing people to have kids.
Agreed. But the government doesn't usually incentivize me to do anything 🙂
> We're taxing some adults into poverty simply because they don't have kids. You made these statements and I am asking for examples. There doesnt seem to be any. It seems the only issue is the phaseout amount. Which is small potatoes all considered honestly.
I linked an article in the last post. It's linked again at the bottom of this list. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/poverty-and-poverty-reduction-among-non-elderly-nondisabled-childless-adults-in-affluent-countries-the-united-states-in-cross-national-perspective/ >Compared to these countries, the U.S. is notable for its large share of low-wage workers, the extent to which income taxes and social contributions push childless adults into poverty, and the meagerness of income transfers for this focal group. And https://www.hamiltonproject.org/publication/paper/the-austere-u-s-safety-net-for-poor-non-elderly-childless-adults-no-disability-benefits/#:~:text=One%20of%20every%20two%20Americans,%2C%20or%20deeper%20into%2C%20poverty. >One of every two Americans living in “deep poverty,” with incomes below half of the poverty line, is a childless adult not receiving disability benefits. And childless adults with low earnings are the only group in America that the federal tax code taxes into, or deeper into, poverty And https://www.cbpp.org/blog/a-clear-policy-choice-repeat-success-by-expanding-the-eitc-for-adults-without-children >Largely because the EITC for adults who aren’t caring for children is so paltry — or even zero for many — the federal tax code taxes more than 5 million adults aged 19 and older into, or deeper into, poverty each year. That’s because their EITC is too small to offset the payroll taxes they pay for Social Security and Medicare and any federal income tax liability they incur.
Remove all gambling income and deductions (except professionals). Just exempt it. The casual gambler does not make money by definition, yet we tax them with an overly-complicated system that can increase people's taxes even when they are at a net loss for the year. If you're lucky enough to beat the odds, Congress thinks they need their cut.
Get rid of SALT limitation