I'm confused on why Pelosi said 86 million households face tax increases

[nitpicker]

Did she mean after the temporary individual tax changes expire?

If so, that means that after the tidbit tax cuts expire, the reversion to the current status quo (with exemptions back in) would increase taxes.

Did she mean that withholding increases would decrease weekly paychecks?

But for those with kids under age 17, the CTC refund the next year more than offsets the loss of exemptions.

What about families with kids 17-24? Where the exemptions suspension is not offset by the CTC?

Census data indicates that there are about 30 million such kids. Perhsps Ms. Pelosi meant that 86 million Americans live in households with such kids?

[emulatorloo]

1. Maybe call her office and ask for clarification

[Igel]

2. Ignore the rules of conversational implicature.

They don't apply in political speech any more than when being interrogated by a lawyer under oath or when dealing with a used car salesman.

I face death. I'm 58. I've faced death since I was born. It's true, but irrelevant. At some point I will still face death, but it will be imminent--maybe I'll be in freefall, perhaps a fraction of a second away from impacting another vehicle, perhaps a small piece of metal will be hurtling towards me at very high speeds or perhaps I'll look at a hospital monitor that shows my heart's about to give out. Still, my future includes death, so I face death. It's just not the usual meaning of that sentence.

The entire debate over the tax reform leaves out a lot of stuff. What you leave out depends on what you need to remove to reach your conclusion. It's $1.5 trillion. Oh, noes. But we were facing a projected $12 trillion deficit for that time period anyway. Oh. So it's a deal, but not a huge deal, not necessarily a big deal. It's a sort of mediocre sized unpleasant deal.

And it's over 10 years. So "what could we do with that?" where they total up all the things that they'd want as long as the total is under $1.5 trillion? Or all those facing (there's that word again) tax increases. Or who'll pay for it because they'll get less in government subsidies. It's complicated. We simplify. Sometimes more than possible.

But harder for most to grasp is that these are all projections. It assumes a stable 1.9% growth rate for the next 10 years, it assumes that no changes will be made to the law. It assumes that if the CBO is correctly thinking that people will not get insurance because of the lack of a mandate requiring that they, the healthy, subsidize the less healthy, and have all the numbers right. It assumes a constant rate of growth for medical expenses, for interest on the debt, for military spending, for education spending.

In other words, draw a line through a whole bunch of spending and revenue levels for the last year or three and that's the projection. Because we all know that the future in 9 years will be exactly the same as the last couple of years. Even the CBO says to take their numbers with a grain of salt. The $12 trillion could be trillions of dollars too low or too high. The $1.5 trillion could be a lot bigger or a lot smaller.

At least we don't have the rhetorical pandering that we've seen over stimulus packages for the last 20 years. If we like the package and politician, then the estimate "this will create 100,000 to 3 million jobs" becomes "this will create up to 3 million jobs". If we don't like the package and politician, the same statement gets phrased, "this will only create as few as 100,000 jobs." Of course, given the reading skills of most Americans those immediately get shortened to the absolutist "this will create 3 million (or 100,000) jobs." So I'm just sort of grateful that nobody's going around citing extreme numbers from the CBO. Then again, nobody's really quite sure how the CBO comes up with its numbers and for budget projections it takes Joint Tax Committee numbers as gospel and the estimates have no error bars.

[denbot]

3. My household did, along with every long distance trucker household in the USA.

My taxes will go up $8,0000 at the end of 2018 with the loss of the 2106 Form deduction, and I’m but one of 3.5 million trucking households.

[Fred Sanders]

6. Yes, but your trucking corporation will be much richer and shower you with gifts. If not I suggest

everyone in those 3.5 million families get out and vote the Big Liar out of power.

[GoCubsGo]

4. I suspect she is referring to the people who live in states with high state income taxes.

They can no longer to deduct all of their state and local taxes on their federal income tax returns; there’s a cap of $10,000. It will hit people who live in states like NY, CA, and IL especially hard. There is also now a cap on the mortgage interest deduction, which will affect people in places where real estate is expensive (e.g., CA, NYC.) One also can no longer deduct moving expenses, unless you are in the military. Here is a handy-dandy interactive chart that will give you an idea of who will lose out now:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/17/upshot/tax-calculator.html

Childless people are about to get screwed.

[Iliyah]

5. And the GOPers will have to compensate for the

permanent tax cuts for the 1%. Therefore while GOPers are damaging and taken away the healthcare insurance, CHIP, SNAP, Medicare and Medicaid, Meals on Wheels, HUD, Social Security, and other benefits, the GOPers will still take those deductions from your paycheck and that maybe $18.00 per week additional in your paycheck will not be able to compensate for the other loses. And after 6 months (I predict), middle class and the poor won't even see that.

A win win for the 1%ers and a lost lost lost lost for the rest of the country. Corporations will not create many jobs because it is still cheaper to employ overseas or next door. And with assholes and crew plotting to start a major conflict, many people will die as well. Again a win win for the 1%ers because war is profit.

[dugog55]

7. It's in the Standard Deduction.

In the new tax bill the Standard Deduction was almost doubled to $24,000 from $12,600 for a married couple filing jointly. (Not sure what the rate is for single filers) But, the dependent deduction of 4,050 has been eliminated. So a couple with no children were getting $12,600 plus two dependent deductions- $8100, totaling $20,700, a $3,300 increase in deductions. However, any family with children will be losing money in deductions depending how many children they have. Even one child puts them behind the previous tax forms. Three children (plus themselves) would would have been $32,850 previously, which means they will pay taxes on $8,250 more under Trumps plan.

They are punishing families for having children. The number of families this affects would have to be in the 10's of millions. Doubling the standard deduction really only benefits childless couples, and even then only slightly. A couple with $50,000 gross income would save approximately $500 on their taxes. Big deal. Everyone else will pay more than before.

And most people do not realize the Obama tax cuts benefited the working class greatly. I routinely paid 13-15% in taxes during the Bush years, under Obama it was less than 10%. That may be the least amount of my working life percentage wise, going back to 1972.

[greymattermom]

8. So what does this mean

for quiverfull families? If I read that right, they are in for a disaster.

[progree]

10. But they increased the child tax credit by $1,000

I know, at first glance, that doesn't seem to make up for a $4,050 exemption loss per child.

But actually, a $1,000 additional credit reduces ones taxes by $1,000.

Whereas in the 25% tax bracket, for example, a $4,050 exemption (a $4,050 deduction from AGI) is worth $1,012 in tax savings, so pretty close

If I recall correctly, 83% of tax filers are below the 25% tax bracket, i.e. 15% or below.

In the 15% tax bracket, a $4,050 exemption is worth only a $608 tax savings, In the 10% tax bracket it's only $405 in saved taxes.

In addition, for those with lower income, $1400 of the new $2000 child tax credit is "refundable", i.e. you get the $1400 even if you don't have a tax liability otherwise. Whereas the $4,050 exemption isn't in any way "refundable".

(I know that the TCJA reduced the 15% bracket to 12%, and the 25% to 22%, I'm using the current tax rates in the above explanation...)
=============================

In my situation, which I don't think is very common, I get screwed a bit by the loss of the exemption, because I itemize, even more than the new $12,000 standard deduction ( I'm single )

Itemized deductions: $20,000

Currently (in 2017), my Taxable Income is my AGI less $20,000 in deductions and less the $4,050 personal exemption:
Taxable Income = AGI - $24,050

Under the SCTCJA (So Called Tax Cuts and Jobs Act), my itemized deductions are still the same, but I lose the $4,050 exemption, thus

Taxable Income = AGI - $20,000.

Note that my combined property tax and state income tax (the so-called SALT deduction) is below $10,000, because I live in a shitty house and the tax assessor agrees. But for those with a SALT higher than $10,000, they lose the amount above $10,000 as a deduction under the TCJA

=================================

I think Nancy Pelosi's 86 million household figure is what happens after 2026 when the beneficial parts for individuals expire. The changing of the inflation measure that determines the tax bracket income levels and standard deduction -- from CPI to Chained CPI -- is going to affect a lot of people quite significantly as the years go by. (The switch to chained CPI does not expire, i.e. it's permanent barring future legislation to change that)

[uponit7771]

9. THEY DO!!! by 2017, why is the media leaving that out?;?