In general, the Republican tax plan makes tax cuts for corporations and businesses permanent while making those for individuals and joint filers temporary. Further, those closed loopholes are YOURS. Those special interests are homeowners, students, and employees. The short version is: The loopholes being closed are those which benefit working Americans and not those which benefit the 1% or corporate America.
Here are a few: (pdf)
Section 1204: Under the provision, the deduction for interest on education loans and the deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses would be repealed. The exclusion for interest on United States savings bonds used to pay qualified higher education expenses, the exclusion for qualified tuition reduction programs, and the exclusion for employer-provided education assistance programs would also be repealed.
One of the ways the tax code can be used to encourage people to do certain things is by giving people a deduction for it — like deductions for the interest paid on student loans. It really makes no sense to pontificate on the jobs/education mismatch if one isn’t going to help people retrain for new positions. Nor does it help people wanting to enter STEM jobs to tell them, go ahead but we aren’t going to offer any assistance like a tax deduction for the student loan interest you’re paying. And you can’t even deduct the interest paid by your US Savings Bonds used to pay educational expenses!
Section 1303: Under the provision, individuals would not be allowed an itemized deduction for State and local income or sales taxes, but would continue to be entitled to a deduction for State and local income or sales taxes paid or accrued in carrying on a trade or business or producing income. Individuals would continue to be allowed to claim an itemized deduction for real property taxes paid up to $10,000.
This provision doesn’t hit Nevada (with no income taxes) all that hard, but it does hurt states that do have an income tax — like the other 43 of them. Notice the phrase “or producing income?” if your tax liabilities come from (1) carrying on a trade, or (2) running a business, or (3) producing income — you get to deduct them. Now, what produces “income” without trade or business activities? If you guessed “investments” you’d be correct.
Section 1304: Under the provision, the deduction for personal casualty losses would generally be repealed. The provision would be effective for tax years beginning after 2017. The deduction for personal casualty losses associated with special disaster relief legislation would not be affected.
We’ve highlighted this one previously, and no matter how you cut it, unless Congress votes to declare your area a national disaster (like Texas after Hurricane Harvey) your personal casualty losses aren’t deductible. Thus, if everything you own is pretty much gone after the earthquake, wildland fire, blizzard, or whatever… unless you get the Special Nod from Congress, YOYO.
Section 1307: Under the provision, an individual would not be allowed an itemized deduction for tax preparation expenses. The provision would be effective for tax years beginning after 2017.
Remember the Republicans are touting this bill as a Job Creator — a notion as fictional as the “job creators” who sit around exchanging hybrid and artificial financial products — but consider for a moment the jobs this section eliminates. About 43% of Americans file their taxes from home (using some tax software or the plastic brains calculator and some pencil sharpening) the rest use a tax preparation service — an industry sector with about 109,000 firms in 2012, and a 2% growth rate to 2015. Further, “The vast majority of tax preparers are small businesses – 37% are run by a single person, while 53% employ less than ten people.” And, yet we hear the Republicans claim to be all about “small businesses.” The big accounting firms are going to do quite well under the GOP plan, those Mom & Pop bookkeeping services or small local accounting firms/franchises are the ones to worry about.
Section 1308: Current law: Under current law, a taxpayer may claim an itemized deduction for out-of-pocket medical expenses of the taxpayer, a spouse, or a dependent. This deduction is allowed only to the extent the expenses exceed ten percent of the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income. Provision: Under the provision, the itemized deduction for medical expenses would be repealed. The provision would be effective for tax years beginning after 2017.
Again, this one! Of all the egregious provisions in the Republican plan this has to be the very worst.
Section 1310: Under current law, a taxpayer may claim a deduction for moving expenses incurred in connection with starting a new job, regardless of whether or not the taxpayer itemizes his deductions. To qualify, the new workplace generally must be at least 50 miles farther from the former residence than the former place of work or, if the taxpayer had no former workplace, at least 50 miles from the former residence.
Provision: Under the provision, the deduction for moving expenses would be repealed. The provision would be effective for tax years beginning after 2017.
And this one again. Notice it’s all on the individual employee — the JCT expects this will put about $10.6 billion in the Treasury from 2018 to 2027. ($1.06 billion each year) For about a billion bucks a person could buy a couple of Airbus 380s. Not exactly a major revenue stream for the government in comparison to what employees would face in a major career move or reassignment.
Why are we discussing these items? Because the Republicans want a plan of which 80% of the benefits go to the top 1% of the population. But, how about those ads on TV about how much money we’ll get back to put in our own pockets? A bit of unsolicited advice: (1) the numbers are fudgy — too much of it depends on the Growth Fairy waving her magic wand; (2) the numbers are fudgy — the studies from which the numbers are selected aren’t very well tested; and (3) the numbers are fudgy — the numbers actually show us that what the Republicans are proposing is a deficit financed tax cut. And, here we we’re thinking they were “deficit hawks” and all for “fiscal responsibility” and “lower national indebtedness.” Maybe not. so. much.