Loaded question, I think. Depends a lot on what they plan to replace the break with. If they just cut the tax break and did nothing else to the tax rules/code, then it would definitely hurt everyone. But if they raise some deductions here, cut some tax breaks there.. it will have to all be added up, and be different for everyone.
Good to know. Sounds like the basics won't really change to the process of filing taxes itself.
I am cautiously optimistic of what the new administration will do with the tax code, but probably only means that old forms will have different boxes and look slightly different/updated.
Now President Donald Trump made the promise several times during his campaign days that he will stand by the programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and not cut them. Here's a quick vid of him explaining his reasoning -
Now that he is president, do you think he will stand by this campaign promise? Personally I think he will, for the most part. Though he does have somewhat of an uphill battle in some senses, with politicians like Paul Ryan wanting to gut the programs. I do agree with him (at least here) that it simply isn't fair to cut any of these, as we collectively have been paying in for years. It's not fair to the American taxpayers that have been paying in.
Sounds like the COLA is doing its job then, right? It should match inflation rises over time. If it's a wash, that's a good thing. I'll throw at back at you as I'm curious, is it mostly a wash, or should the COLA be slightly higher to cover more inflation?
Also, I would imagine there would be extra annoyance involved for a lot of retailers in those states. They would have to collect that money and earmark it separately for the state somehow. Perhaps easy enough, but maybe not. New software would have to be created and implemented for every single establishment state wide. Also new training across the board. Seems like a lot of trouble to me.
Would the state somehow cover these expenses for every single retail establishment, by some kind of tax break for them?
I have little issue with this loophole. Though I am of the mind that taxing people over every little thing has gotten out of hand, so take my opinion with that in mind.
But still, we are talking about a small, small percentage of people taking advantage of this ability. And for them to do so, they still have to spend at least slightly more money on gas (which is taxed) to get to the Wal-Mart across state lines, or whatever to buy whatever goods.
Also I doubt many are doing this exclusively. I wonder what figures taxing out of state buyers in states with no sales tax would even amount to anyways? Can't be much. Maybe I'm naive on this.. For general and smallish retail purchases (maybe purchases under X amount, say $1000?), I think the extra bureaucracy involved would be more of an annoyance and a deterrent for people to travel freely from state to state than it would be a boon for your state to be proud of.
But maybe for buying large tickets items like cars and boats and whatnot, I can see the logic there. I don't think I should have to show state ID for buying a pair of pants at the mall, for this situation. But maybe if I'm buying a brand new car, perhaps I should.. but then maybe even not.
Is there a viable plan announced yet from the GOP as to what the replacement will be?
Here's a breakdown for estimating 2016-17 college costs, in full.
JFoster Wrote: Doesn't that sound like a lot of work, just to make the educational puzzle pieces fit? I still argue that it was more viable to do that 10 years ago, but with the gauntlet of registration that most colleges put prospective students through, you're better off going to a 4 year and calling it a day.
If the costs were equal, for sure. But we are talking about thousands of dollars in difference for tuition, that a great majority of students will be taking out loans for. Loans that compile interest.
If you google 'average university tuition', here's the stats you get (cited from a student support organization College Board):
Average tuition per year full time (2014/2015):
Public two-year colleges -- $3,347
Public four-year colleges -- $9,139
Public four-year, out-of-state -- $22,958
Private non-profit, four year -- $31,231
And the room and board is also more, sliding on the same scale:
Public two-year colleges -- $7,705
Public four-year colleges -- $9,804
Public four-year, out-of-state -- $9,804
Private non-profit, four year -- $11,188
Total, when adding all the costs for attending each kind of college for a year:
Public two-year colleges -- $11,052
Public four-year colleges -- $18,943
Public four-year, out-of-state -- $32,762
Private non-profit, four year -- $42,419
Of course that will vary from state to state, and school to school. But on average, it costs over $7,000 more per year to go to a 4 year, in state public school for your basics, over a community college. If you take 2 years of general basics (typical) that's $14,000 savings. I would say it's worth the extra effort. At the VERY least, it's worth your time to investigate and be aware of the cost differential. That $14K difference will quickly turn into $20k+ with interest, when it comes time to pay up, minus grants and scholarships.
Roughly 2.5-3.5% of students in the U.S. between the ages of 5-17 are home schooled. That equates to somewhere in the ballpark of 1.5 million kids, give or take, depending on which stat page you read.
Question I have is between home schooled kids, charter schools, private schools, public schools, special prep schools, boarding schools, and other kinds that I'm probably little aware of.. is this the best method or approach to education that the country as a whole should be taking?
It's clearly very fragmented. And the experience a child gets varies as wildly as you could possibly imagine, from one to another. On one end of the spectrum, a child could be home schooled, and have theoretically and very likely almost zero contact socially with the outside world, or other children of their own age. That's the big downfall of homeschooling right? That you miss out on the opportunity to build social skills, during key development stages into adulthood..
On the other hand, would be boarding schools, I guess? Where the child gets all the interaction with other children they could possibly ask for (and some rightly hate, as they are isolated from their family for months at a time).
And the other types of schools fall somewhere in that spectrum, for social development. That's one aspect of education. But then what about the curriculum? Aside from some uniform basics taught generally across platforms, the education you get from homeschooling could be so drastically different from say a charter school, and the same for a private school, that from an outsider's perspective, those kids might as well have been educated in entirely different countries! It very often is that different.
SO is this really the best approach to educating future generations to inherent the US at large?