Alimony tax increase

[Crepitus]

Another hidden increase in this tax "cut".

You make $100,000 and pay alimony of $40,000. Before the tax "cut" you wrote you check and then figured your income at $60,000, your ex figured her income at $40,000 and you both paid your taxes based on that. Yours = $9150 and hers = $4,800. Total taxes paid = $13,950.

Now you pay taxes on all $100,000 and then send out the alimony check. your taxes = $14,350 and hers still = $4,800. Total taxes paid = $19,150. A $5,200 tax increase for you.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/11/the-peculiar-story-of-the-republican-war-on-alimony/

[Common]

Dont care I dont pay alimony :)

[resister]

Dont care I dont pay alimony :)
No one should have to pay "vaginamony".

[Crepitus]

Dont care I dont pay alimony :)

I and millions of others do.

[gamewell45]

2018 is just around the corner; those who voted to support the tax bill will have to answer to their constituents at that time. I live in a heavily conservative district (yes they do exist outside the cities) and many are not too happy with the new tax bill and my congressman will have to answer for his yes vote in the next election.

[Ravens Fan]

The linked article is from November 4th, did this provision make it into the final bill?

[Crepitus]

The linked article is from November 4th, did this provision make it into the final bill?

Yes, I linked that one for the explanation as the other just said it was there.

[The Xl]

Alimony is theft. Lol at this whole system.

[Ravens Fan]

Yes, I linked that one for the explanation as the other just said it was there.
I'd like to see the one saying that it made it into the final bill. That said, if it did make it in, I could see both sides of the argument.

On the side of the Govt., you pay taxes on your income and if you use part of that income to pay someone else, they then pay taxes on their income. Kind of like how a business owner doesn't get to not pay any taxes on the amount of his gross earnings that go to payroll, or the inheritance tax.

On the side of the person who is court ordered to hand over part of his earnings, I can see the complaint that he is not choosing to use that portion of his income, so he never really sees that money.

I do not agree with this idea being part of the bill, but I will save judgement on the bill until we see the actual results overall. I tend to lean more towards a consumption tax myself, rather than an income tax.

[barb012]

Alimony was created during the era before women started entering the workforce in higher numbers. People paying alimony should fight to have this outdated law eliminated.

[countryboy]

Another hidden increase in this tax "cut".

You make $100,000 and pay alimony of $40,000. Before the tax "cut" you wrote you check and then figured your income at $60,000, your ex figured her income at $40,000 and you both paid your taxes based on that. Yours = $9150 and hers = $4,800. Total taxes paid = $13,950.

Now you pay taxes on all $100,000 and then send out the alimony check. your taxes = $14,350 and hers still = $4,800. Total taxes paid = $19,150. A $5,200 tax increase for you.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/11/the-peculiar-story-of-the-republican-war-on-alimony/

Mother Jones? Riiight.

[Kalkin]

I and millions of others do.
Don't you support paying higher taxes for roads, police, fire dept, etc? Or just for other people to pay more?

[Tahuyaman]

I and millions of others do.Then they should have taken the commitment of marriage more seriously.

[Crepitus]

Don't you support paying higher taxes for roads, police, fire dept, etc? Or just for other people to pay more?

I do. I'm just pointing out that that isn't a tax cut.

[Captdon]

I'd like to see the one saying that it made it into the final bill. That said, if it did make it in, I could see both sides of the argument.

On the side of the Govt., you pay taxes on your income and if you use part of that income to pay someone else, they then pay taxes on their income. Kind of like how a business owner doesn't get to not pay any taxes on the amount of his gross earnings that go to payroll, or the inheritance tax.

On the side of the person who is court ordered to hand over part of his earnings, I can see the complaint that he is not choosing to use that portion of his income, so he never really sees that money.

I do not agree with this idea being part of the bill, but I will save judgement on the bill until we see the actual results overall. I tend to lean more towards a consumption tax myself, rather than an income tax.

A business pays tax on profit. The owner deducts payroll from the gross. No businees could exist otherwise.

[Kalkin]

I do. I'm just pointing out that that isn't a tax cut.
The bill is an overall cut for the vast majority of americans. You're just nitpicking because it's a huge political loss for the democrats. Most importantly, the individual mandate is getting repealed.

[donttread]

Another hidden increase in this tax "cut".

You make $100,000 and pay alimony of $40,000. Before the tax "cut" you wrote you check and then figured your income at $60,000, your ex figured her income at $40,000 and you both paid your taxes based on that. Yours = $9150 and hers = $4,800. Total taxes paid = $13,950.

Now you pay taxes on all $100,000 and then send out the alimony check. your taxes = $14,350 and hers still = $4,800. Total taxes paid = $19,150. A $5,200 tax increase for you.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/11/the-peculiar-story-of-the-republican-war-on-alimony/


Who the hell makes only a hundred grand an pays allimony??

[donttread]

I'd like to see the one saying that it made it into the final bill. That said, if it did make it in, I could see both sides of the argument.

On the side of the Govt., you pay taxes on your income and if you use part of that income to pay someone else, they then pay taxes on their income. Kind of like how a business owner doesn't get to not pay any taxes on the amount of his gross earnings that go to payroll, or the inheritance tax.

On the side of the person who is court ordered to hand over part of his earnings, I can see the complaint that he is not choosing to use that portion of his income, so he never really sees that money.

I do not agree with this idea being part of the bill, but I will save judgement on the bill until we see the actual results overall. I tend to lean more towards a consumption tax myself, rather than an income tax.



The "control code" is outdated and more about control than revenue. We need a consumption tax.

[resister]

Who the hell makes only a hundred grand an pays allimony??

Smell the BS too?

[Ravens Fan]

A business pays tax on profit. The owner deducts payroll from the gross. No businees could exist otherwise.

Good point. Guess that means my example doesn't quite work. The inheritance tax thing does though.

Regardless, I won't judge the entire bill over this. Couples should do pre-nups anyways, that way they decide who gets what, not some judge.

[Crepitus]

I'd like to see the one saying that it made it into the final bill. That said, if it did make it in, I could see both sides of the argument.

On the side of the Govt., you pay taxes on your income and if you use part of that income to pay someone else, they then pay taxes on their income. Kind of like how a business owner doesn't get to not pay any taxes on the amount of his gross earnings that go to payroll, or the inheritance tax.

On the side of the person who is court ordered to hand over part of his earnings, I can see the complaint that he is not choosing to use that portion of his income, so he never really sees that money.

I do not agree with this idea being part of the bill, but I will save judgement on the bill until we see the actual results overall. I tend to lean more towards a consumption tax myself, rather than an income tax.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/15/pf/taxes/alimony-tax-bill/index.html

Sorry that took so long.

[resister]

Alimony needs to be ended, anyways. Do men ever get it?

[Ravens Fan]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/15/pf/taxes/alimony-tax-bill/index.html

Sorry that took so long.

No problem, I have been in and out today myself.

I am having a hard time agreeing with this portion of the bill, it almost seems like a way to punish those who get a divorce. But, I still am holding off judgement of the Bill as a whole until I learn more about it.

[Crepitus]

The bill is an overall cut for the vast majority of americans. You're just nitpicking because it's a huge political loss for the democrats. Most importantly, the individual mandate is getting repealed.

It's a thinly disguised corporate giveaway.

[Crepitus]

Who the hell makes only a hundred grand an pays allimony??

Anyone who gets divorced.

[Crepitus]

No problem, I have been in and out today myself.

I am having a hard time agreeing with this portion of the bill, it almost seems like a way to punish those who get a divorce. But, I still am holding off judgement of the Bill as a whole until I learn more about it.

Appeasement to evangelicalsee since it makes divorce more difficult?

[Kalkin]

It's a thinly disguised corporate giveaway.

Like obamacare was for big insurance?

[Tahuyaman]

I have no sympathy for people who don't take the institution of marriage seriously.

[resister]

I have no sympathy for people who don't take the institution of marriage seriously.

Evidently, some take it lightly. I am not legally married, but I will do whatever it takes to keep my other half comfortable, at home.

[Ravens Fan]

I have no sympathy for people who don't take the institution of marriage seriously.

I don't either, but this looks like it's just another sin tax, and that should not be the function of any Government, IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crepitus]

Like obamacare was for big insurance?

You guys didn't want a public option, who else was gonna insure people?

[resister]

You guys didn't want a public option, who else was gonna insure people?
Their self?

[Dr. Who]

Another hidden increase in this tax "cut".

You make $100,000 and pay alimony of $40,000. Before the tax "cut" you wrote you check and then figured your income at $60,000, your ex figured her income at $40,000 and you both paid your taxes based on that. Yours = $9150 and hers = $4,800. Total taxes paid = $13,950.

Now you pay taxes on all $100,000 and then send out the alimony check. your taxes = $14,350 and hers still = $4,800. Total taxes paid = $19,150. A $5,200 tax increase for you.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/11/the-peculiar-story-of-the-republican-war-on-alimony/
That's terribly unfair and is likely to encourage alimony payers to disappear rather than go bankrupt.

[resister]

That's terribly unfair and is likely to encourage alimony payers to disappear rather than go bankrupt.

No one needs to pay alimony, can you disagree?

[Dr. Who]

I have no sympathy for people who don't take the institution of marriage seriously.

So if the one who files for divorce is the one who didn't take the institution of marriage seriously and is also the one demanding alimony, then what?

[resister]

So if the one who files for divorce is the one who didn't take the institution of marriage seriously and is also the one demanding alimony, then what?
Hand her a Job application? Or a welfare app?

[Dr. Who]

No one needs to pay alimony, can you disagree?
TBH I don't really believe in alimony, except in cases where a woman has been married and a stay at home spouse for so many years that they have no marketable skills. Otherwise, I favor child support or a clean break.

[Dr. Who]

Hand her a Job application? Or a welfare app?
Perhaps, unless the guy was unfaithful or abusive and they were married for too many years for her to be able to earn a living.

[resister]

TBH I don't really believe in alimony, except in cases where a woman has been married and a stay at home spouse for so many years that they have no marketable skills. Otherwise, I favor child support or a clean break.
Kinda like saying, the state should pay ex-cons since they have been supported long enough not to support theirself in life? Right?

[resister]

Perhaps, unless the guy was unfaithful or abusive and they were married for too many years for her to be able to earn a living.
So , that sounds like restitution. Get abused, get a check for life!

[Crepitus]

Kinda like saying, the state should pay ex-cons since they have been supported long enough not to support theirself in life? Right?

Ex-wives are not comparable to ex-inmates in any way shape or form and it is utterly ridiculous for you to even try.

[Dr. Who]

Kinda like saying, the state should pay ex-cons since they have been supported long enough not to support theirself in life? Right?

No. Two very different things. If a woman stayed home to raise children because both made that choice, then she should not be left bereft of income and living on welfare because she has been out of the market so long that she is unmarketable. People who break laws make that choice alone and face the consequences alone.

[resister]

Ex-wives are not comparable to ex-inmates in any way shape or form and it is utterly ridiculous for you to even try.
Why not? You pay one because you have supported them so long in life, they cant make a living. Tell me the difference, besides ex wives not having a record that handicapps employment.

[Dr. Who]

So , that sounds like restitution. Get abused, get a check for life!

Yes. Resititution is appropriate. It's not appropriate to require women to stay with an abuser in order to survive financially. They did in the past and often ended up dead.

[resister]

No. Two very different things. If a woman stayed home to raise children because both made that choice, then she should not be left bereft of income and living on welfare because she has been out of the market so long that she is unmarketable. People who break laws make that choice alone and face the consequences alone.
Not if they have kids or were influenced or coerced. You take a wifes or inmates ability to earn a living away, you have still taken a persons ability to earn a living away.

For the record, I think neither one are owed, jack shit except the ability to get a job, like anyone else.

[Crepitus]

Why not? You pay one because you have supported them so long in life, they cant make a living. Tell me the difference, besides ex wives not having a record that handicapps employment.

Inmates are in that position because they committed a crime bad enough to have their freedom taken away temporarily. The situations are not even remotely similar.

[Dr. Who]

Why not? You pay one because you have supported them so long in life, they cant make a living. Tell me the difference, besides ex wives not having a record that handicapps employment.
If the wife was running an active home and taking care of kids that was a full-time job. He didn't have to lift a finger, do any domestic duties like housecleaning, laundry, child-care, cooking or shopping. Her labor had value.

My mother did that and she only sat down to eat meals. Otherwise, she was on her feet the better part of 12 hours a day. She worked much longer hours than my father, as a stay at home Mom. When he retired, she didn't get to retire and they were the same age. After a while, he helped with the dishes and walked the dog.

So please spare me the "he supported her" all those years. If a man had to pay to have someone else do all of those things he probably couldn't afford it unless he were really well off, in which case he could afford alimony even under the current changes.

[Kalkin]

You guys didn't want a public option, who else was gonna insure people?
Themselves. No one else is responsible for their personal healthcare.

[resister]

If the wife was running an active home and taking care of kids that was a full-time job. He didn't have to lift a finger, do any domestic duties like housecleaning, laundry, child-care, cooking or shopping. Her labor had value.

My mother did that and she only sat down to eat meals. Otherwise, she was on her feet the better part of 12 hours a day. She worked much longer hours than my father, as a stay at home Mom. When he retired, she didn't get to retire and they were the same age. After a while, he helped with the dishes and walked the dog.

So please spare me the "he supported her" all those years. If a man had to pay to have someone else do all of those things he probably couldn't afford it unless he were really well off, in which case he could afford alimony even under the current changes.
GAD ZOOKS your first sentence sounds so misogynistic!:shocked:

I wash dishes and walk the dog. OMG I am an abused male!

[resister]

Themselves. No one else is responsible for their personal healthcare.

You evil con!

[resister]

Inmates are in that position because they committed a crime bad enough to have their freedom taken away temporarily. The situations are not even remotely similar.

Wash, rinse repeat you did not answer my post.

[Crepitus]

Themselves. No one else is responsible for their personal healthcare.

If you didn't understand the question just say so.

Who besides the insurance companies was going to sell insurance to people?

[Tahuyaman]

So if the one who files for divorce is the one who didn't take the institution of marriage seriously and is also the one demanding alimony, then what?
Tough. That's what. I don't care.

[Tahuyaman]

You guys didn't want a public option, who else was gonna insure people?

The word "option" suggests that it is voluntary and not mandatory. You choose to accept that option and you choose to pay for it.

Right now you have the option to opt for the ACA and pay for it yourself.

[Kacper]

Another hidden increase in this tax "cut".

You make $100,000 and pay alimony of $40,000. Before the tax "cut" you wrote you check and then figured your income at $60,000, your ex figured her income at $40,000 and you both paid your taxes based on that. Yours = $9150 and hers = $4,800. Total taxes paid = $13,950.

Now you pay taxes on all $100,000 and then send out the alimony check. your taxes = $14,350 and hers still = $4,800. Total taxes paid = $19,150. A $5,200 tax increase for you.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/11/the-peculiar-story-of-the-republican-war-on-alimony/

Well at least we know how Donald is hurt under his tax bill now.

[Crepitus]

Well at least we know how Donald is hurt under his tax bill now.

Further reading shows it isn't retroactive. Only applies to new divorces. Otherwise he never would have let it in.

Also means I don't have to pay extra, but her next victim will.

[Kalkin]

If you didn't understand the question just say so.
If I didn't understand the question, I would've asked for clarification. As it stands, you seem confused.

Who besides the insurance companies was going to sell insurance to people?
Why are you asking such stupid questions? Run out of intellectual capital again?

[The Xl]

Any man who, in 2017, gets married with all the information that is out there, all the theft and possibly imprisonment perpetrated by ex wives and the courts, unfair arrangements when it comes to the kids, etc, is sort of retarded.