7 ms·

I mean it's kind of the point of tax reform. You eliminate deductions that only wealthier people benefit from and lower the rate over all. You'll see a lot of

I mean it's kind of the point of tax reform. You eliminate deductions that only wealthier people benefit from and lower the rate over all. You'll see a lot of deductions go away that are good on their own but in aggregate with all the other deductions give us such a massively complex system.

matt_wulfeck 9y ago
The states and cities that are coming forward with ridiculous EV mandates should be the ones covering the subsidies, not the entire nation.
- fhood 9y ago
  I disagree. Phasing out new production of C02 producing vehicles benefits everyone and by extension, failing to encourage it hurts everyone. This isn't a localized issue. It isn't like Texas (for instance) can produce as much carbon dioxide as they want, and it will only affect Texas.
  - matt_wulfeck 9y ago
    Yet the state you criticize (Texas) is leading the country in green, renewable energy [1] 1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/which-state-is-a-big-renewable-energy-pioneer-texas-1472414098 https://www.wsj.com/articles/which-state-is-a-big-renewable-...
    - fhood 9y ago
      I didn't research, I just picked one at random. Please replace Texas with whatever state you like. That isn't really the point. Edit: And also, I just checked and Texas does NOT do very well on CO2 emissions per capita. Edit: Also I did some more checking and Texas is not leading the country in renewable energy, it is 22nd
- Pfhreak 9y ago
  Yeah! Pollution is a local problem! Definitely address it at the city level. Can we go further? Why not just have specific individuals who care about this funding the subsidies? /s
  - matt_wulfeck 9y ago
    Have you visited LA recently? Pollution is very much a local problem. Why do you think it's cities leading the way on gasoline engine bans? I have no problem with these bans, but cities that take them up should be providing the incentive for switching, not offloading their problems on the rest of the country.
    - fhood 9y ago
      Yes, some pollution is to a degree localized, but not all of it. Don't forget that LA residents aren't somehow polluting more than their counterparts. In fact I suspect they are polluting less. It's just that they are concentrated in one place. And once again reducing C02 emissions (probably the most pressing pollution issue of our time) is not localized.
s0rce 9y ago
Sadly, most of the deductions that disproportionately benefit wealthy people aren't going anywhere (mortgage interest, IRA/401k/tax-free savings, FSA/HSA, etc.) since they appear to benefit everyone and foster the american dream of home ownership.
- dragontamer 9y ago
  * Mortgage Interest is dropping from 1-million to 500k. * State / Local tax disproportionately benefits richer states (which tend to have higher income taxes). That's also going away. The real issue IMO is that the standard deduction is going up, and the top tax rate is going down. The overall effect seems to be a tax-increase for me and a tax-decrease to those who are richer than me. They probably should close the backdoor Roth loophole, and a few other corporate loopholes (Irish Double Sandwich or whatever its called). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
  - bkohlmann 9y ago
    The top tax rate is NOT going down. It remains at 39% under the proposal released by the House today.
    - Rebelgecko 9y ago
      The top marginal rate is the same, but because they're moving the brackets you can make twice as much money before you pay 39%(for a married couple)
      - dragontamer 9y ago
        And because taxes are marginal, that effectively becomes straight CA$H MONEY to everyone in the 39% bracket.
  - chc 9y ago
    How does the standard deduction going up benefit the rich or harm the non-rich? Aren't lower- and middle-class people most likely to take the standard deduction, and thus be able to deduct more?
smileysteve 9y ago
> You eliminate deductions that only wealthier people benefit The Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt aren't particularly upper class cars. Neither is the Model 3.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Nor are people spending $30,000 on a vehicle showing particularly price sensitive behavior. Lots of fine vehicles available for $15,000, $15,000 is an awful lot of gas (and you save on insurance and financing with a cheaper vehicle, so the lower maintenance on the electric isn't the only consideration).
  - chk_ur_autism 9y ago
    Maybe it's not just about cost, but about driving a vehicle that doesn't directly contribute to diffused emissions? And use motor oil, hydraulic fluid, coolant, belts, etc?
    - antisthenes 9y ago
      If you're going to compare long term maintenance costs, you absolutely have to include the battery pack replacement cost. Otherwise you're being disingenuous or even deceptive. Many '11-'12 Leaf owners are already complaining about significantly reduced ranges on their vehicles. What happens after 60,000 miles if your battery starts rapidly going under 9 bars? Keep driving with terrible range anxiety? Plan your routes with chargers in mind? Have a stopless commute now require you to stop and charge, making trips even longer? Replace the battery pack? http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1111264_new-life-for-old-nissan-leaf-electric-car-battery-replacement-and-what-it-took/page-3 http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1111264_new-life-for-old... Whoops, that's going to be $6,200.
      - smileysteve 9y ago
        > If you're going to compare long term maintenance costs, you absolutely have to include the battery pack replacement cost. > Keep driving with terrible range anxiety? If we're bringing all of this up; we must consider the reliability increase as well.
fhood 9y ago
This is not some exploitable loophole abused by the ultra wealthy.
- feverishaaron 9y ago
  Those will remain
awinder 9y ago
Yeah, thats just the point guys, the middle & middle upper classes lose their deductions and the rich lose the estate tax, it all comes out for the little guy right? Wake up.

matt_wulfeck 9y ago

The states and cities that are coming forward with ridiculous EV mandates should be the ones covering the subsidies, not the entire nation.

fhood 9y ago
I disagree. Phasing out new production of C02 producing vehicles benefits everyone and by extension, failing to encourage it hurts everyone. This isn't a localized issue. It isn't like Texas (for instance) can produce as much carbon dioxide as they want, and it will only affect Texas.
- matt_wulfeck 9y ago
  Yet the state you criticize (Texas) is leading the country in green, renewable energy [1] 1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/which-state-is-a-big-renewable-energy-pioneer-texas-1472414098 https://www.wsj.com/articles/which-state-is-a-big-renewable-...
  - fhood 9y ago
    I didn't research, I just picked one at random. Please replace Texas with whatever state you like. That isn't really the point. Edit: And also, I just checked and Texas does NOT do very well on CO2 emissions per capita. Edit: Also I did some more checking and Texas is not leading the country in renewable energy, it is 22nd
Pfhreak 9y ago
Yeah! Pollution is a local problem! Definitely address it at the city level. Can we go further? Why not just have specific individuals who care about this funding the subsidies? /s
- matt_wulfeck 9y ago
  Have you visited LA recently? Pollution is very much a local problem. Why do you think it's cities leading the way on gasoline engine bans? I have no problem with these bans, but cities that take them up should be providing the incentive for switching, not offloading their problems on the rest of the country.
  - fhood 9y ago
    Yes, some pollution is to a degree localized, but not all of it. Don't forget that LA residents aren't somehow polluting more than their counterparts. In fact I suspect they are polluting less. It's just that they are concentrated in one place. And once again reducing C02 emissions (probably the most pressing pollution issue of our time) is not localized.

s0rce 9y ago

Sadly, most of the deductions that disproportionately benefit wealthy people aren't going anywhere (mortgage interest, IRA/401k/tax-free savings, FSA/HSA, etc.) since they appear to benefit everyone and foster the american dream of home ownership.

dragontamer 9y ago
* Mortgage Interest is dropping from 1-million to 500k. * State / Local tax disproportionately benefits richer states (which tend to have higher income taxes). That's also going away. The real issue IMO is that the standard deduction is going up, and the top tax rate is going down. The overall effect seems to be a tax-increase for me and a tax-decrease to those who are richer than me. They probably should close the backdoor Roth loophole, and a few other corporate loopholes (Irish Double Sandwich or whatever its called). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
- bkohlmann 9y ago
  The top tax rate is NOT going down. It remains at 39% under the proposal released by the House today.
  - Rebelgecko 9y ago
    The top marginal rate is the same, but because they're moving the brackets you can make twice as much money before you pay 39%(for a married couple)
    - dragontamer 9y ago
      And because taxes are marginal, that effectively becomes straight CA$H MONEY to everyone in the 39% bracket.
- chc 9y ago
  How does the standard deduction going up benefit the rich or harm the non-rich? Aren't lower- and middle-class people most likely to take the standard deduction, and thus be able to deduct more?

smileysteve 9y ago

> You eliminate deductions that only wealthier people benefit The Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt aren't particularly upper class cars. Neither is the Model 3.

maxerickson 9y ago
Nor are people spending $30,000 on a vehicle showing particularly price sensitive behavior. Lots of fine vehicles available for $15,000, $15,000 is an awful lot of gas (and you save on insurance and financing with a cheaper vehicle, so the lower maintenance on the electric isn't the only consideration).
- chk_ur_autism 9y ago
  Maybe it's not just about cost, but about driving a vehicle that doesn't directly contribute to diffused emissions? And use motor oil, hydraulic fluid, coolant, belts, etc?
  - antisthenes 9y ago
    If you're going to compare long term maintenance costs, you absolutely have to include the battery pack replacement cost. Otherwise you're being disingenuous or even deceptive. Many '11-'12 Leaf owners are already complaining about significantly reduced ranges on their vehicles. What happens after 60,000 miles if your battery starts rapidly going under 9 bars? Keep driving with terrible range anxiety? Plan your routes with chargers in mind? Have a stopless commute now require you to stop and charge, making trips even longer? Replace the battery pack? http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1111264_new-life-for-old-nissan-leaf-electric-car-battery-replacement-and-what-it-took/page-3 http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1111264_new-life-for-old... Whoops, that's going to be $6,200.
    - smileysteve 9y ago
      > If you're going to compare long term maintenance costs, you absolutely have to include the battery pack replacement cost. > Keep driving with terrible range anxiety? If we're bringing all of this up; we must consider the reliability increase as well.

fhood 9y ago

This is not some exploitable loophole abused by the ultra wealthy.

feverishaaron 9y ago
Those will remain

awinder 9y ago

Yeah, thats just the point guys, the middle & middle upper classes lose their deductions and the rich lose the estate tax, it all comes out for the little guy right? Wake up.