Lou Barletta's main opponent in the 2018 Republican Senate primary is positioning himself as to the right of Lou Barletta:

U.S. Senate candidate Jeff Bartos is positioning himself as the anti-establishment candidate in a new Breitbart op-ed where he announced he will not support Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for Leader if he is elected.
“Until the dysfunctional Senate leadership shows that they can deliver for the people who support the president’s agenda, I will not pledge to vote for Mitch McConnell for Republican Leader,” Bartos wrote in the piece.
Bartos cited the failure of McConnell to repeal the Affordable Care Act as a major part of his decision.
“The effort to repeal Obamacare is Senator McConnell’s highest profile failure. For seven years – longer than the time America spent fighting and winning World War II – Republican insiders promised that they would repeal Obamacare,” Bartos wrote.
Bartos has been positioning himself to run as an outsider, including targeting Congressman Lou Barletta earlier this year in an ad characterizing him as a “career politician.”
State Representative Jim Christiana, and businessman Paul Addis, and Bobby Lawrence are all also in the race.

Democratic-leaning PAC fined $60k for failing to file how they spent money:

City Council members Helen Gym, Mark Squilla and Allan Domb paid thousands of dollars to Citizens Organizing for Pennsylvania’s Security to help influence voters. So did developer Ori Feibush, who sent the PAC more than $65,000 during his failed bid to unseat councilman Kenyatta Johnson.
Those payments were totally legal and the campaigns filed the necessary finance reports. But how the PAC spent the money has remained a mystery, since it didn’t file campaign finance reports, as city law requires.

During Feibush’s campaign, for example, the PAC paid protesters to attend his opponent’s April 30, 2015, rally at City Hall. The PAC also spent money on vans to transport the paid protesters to that rally.
The unreported money includes $65,834 Feibush’s campaign paid; $3,000 the campaigns of Domb and Squilla each paid; and $3,200 Gym’s campaign paid.

PAID PROTESTERS!!! And it wasn't SOROS


the last time Feibush was mentioned on this board was when he successfully sued Johnson and a stupid city rule

The president is presenting a Medal of Honor at 3PM, please don't take questions or say anything other then whatever someone with a brain wrote. As a citizen of the United States I beg you Mr. President.

Before this, ~1330, Trump will make a statement with Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. That is the first opportunity to STFU. Again, begging is in effect.

This might be fun. There is a discussion about Trump's first year in office with automaton Sarah Huckabee, Yahoo's Olivier Knox, Fox News's John Roberts, American Urban Radio Network's April Ryan, The New York Times's Glenn Thrush, GW's Sarah Binder, GW's Frank Sesno and Bloomberg's Margaret Talev.It can be livestreamed at 7PM: http://bit.ly/2la9Frv

Mark Meadows is a comic! He was asked about his desire to kill the estate tax. He fumbled changing the discussion from billionaires to his farmers, rightfully saying the the super rich have already planned their way around the tax. Huckster Wolfe Blitzer challenged him with the idea that the farm had to be worth more then $11M. Meadows snuffled around that it was not the heirs, but their children, and there might be 5 heirs. Blitzer let it go, but Meadows seemed to have no idea that this would make the family farm worth north of $25M. Dummy.

More accurately, the decedent's interest in the farm would have to have an appraised fair market value in excess of $5.49 million (which, of course, does not account for any other assets in the estate).

thephan wrote:Mark Meadows is a comic! He was asked about his desire to kill the estate tax. He fumbled changing the discussion from billionaires to his farmers, rightfully saying the the super rich have already planned their way around the tax. Huckster Wolfe Blitzer challenged him with the idea that the farm had to be worth more then $11M. Meadows snuffled around that it was not the heirs, but their children, and there might be 5 heirs. Blitzer let it go, but Meadows seemed to have no idea that this would make the family farm worth north of $25M. Dummy.

The federal estate tax is paid based on the size of the overall estate, not the portion for each heir. (Edit: some states have estate taxes paid by heirs) I know there are separate rules for farms... is this one of them? (Edit: looks like traderdave agrees) I would consider "Estate planning for farmers" a niche, and not necessarily general knowledge. The average person doesn't really need to know that a farm subject to the estate tax can pay their tax over more than a decade.

I'm pro-estate tax -- if we're going to raise tax revenue, it's more moral to shrink an inherited estate over shrinking a working person's paycheck -- but it's really not hard to articulate a logical position against the estate tax. For example, you can be anti-estate tax because you oppose the double taxation of that money. It can be argued that an estate tax means that you never really own anything; the government owns an interest in every business, every piece of art, every dollar stuffed in a mattress, subject to the terms they decide. Even an uniformed politician should be able to make that argument and not embarrass him/herself.

Perhaps I was confused by the per individual, with the couple getting ~11M, so I multiplied. I know you need to plan it carefully, and there is an assessment of lifetime gifts. Spouses are free and clear, it is descendants that need planning.

For 2017, the estate and gift tax exemption is $5.49 million per individual, up from $5.45 million in 2016. That means an individual can leave $5.49 million to heirs and pay no federal estate or gift tax. A married couple will be able to shield just shy of $11 million ($10.98 million) from federal estate and gift taxes.

Looking at the FAQis not helpful either.

Bucky wrote:I believe they would try to act on it. I think they're arrogant enough to think they'll never lose voters no matter how bad their harm their voters as long as the alternative is NO GUNS and LEGAL IMMIGRATION.

I almost kind of hope they do; if the vote to cut the mortgage interest deduction now, not only does that guarantee a Dem sweep of House and Senate in 2018, but whenever the stars align and there is a reasonable person in the WH again plus a Dem legislature, restoring the mortgage interest tax deduction can provide the necessary political cover for also reverting tax rates to their appropriate Clinton era levels. Still think the Bush tax cut was the single worst piece of public policy in my lifetime.

No estate tax in 2010... brilliant!

mozartpc27 wrote:

Bucky wrote:I believe they would try to act on it. I think they're arrogant enough to think they'll never lose voters no matter how bad their harm their voters as long as the alternative is NO GUNS and LEGAL IMMIGRATION.

I almost kind of hope they do; if the vote to cut the mortgage interest deduction now, not only does that guarantee a Dem sweep of House and Senate in 2018, but whenever the stars align and there is a reasonable person in the WH again plus a Dem legislature, restoring the mortgage interest tax deduction can provide the necessary political cover for also reverting tax rates to their appropriate Clinton era levels. Still think the Bush tax cut was the single worst piece of public policy in my lifetime.

I’m in the process of looking for a house right now so I’d really prefer it if the MID is not eliminated/cut

If they eliminate the MID the housing market will crater because pretty much every home with a mortgage is worth more because of the MID. In addition to our homes being worth thousands less, our taxes will go up by hundreds or thousands. Then, if they lower 401(k) contributions we'll be able to save less.

Why would any legislators risk a housing market collapse, raise taxes on every American who itemizes and has a mortgage and make it harder for those same Americans, plus most other Americans with full-time jobs -- all of which are pretty much the exact opposite of what you might do to help an economy which is 70% consumer-based and hugely dependent on a vibrant housing industry?

Because the uber-rich don't have mortgages, so they don't need the MID, the MID doesn't lower their taxes and they don't need a 401(k) to save. So Congress is perfectly happy to risk another recession, reduce the net worth of working Americans, force them to pay higher taxes and make it harder for them to save so the uber-rich can get even richer.

heard an ivanka soundbite from up in bucks county today. Apparently their talking point to the middle class is that this simplifies the tax code. A complicated tax code only benefits people who can hire expensive accountants! they must think their base is really dumb.

Bucky wrote:heard an ivanka soundbite from up in bucks county today. Apparently their talking point to the middle class is that this simplifies the tax code. A complicated tax code only benefits people who can hire expensive accountants! they must think their base is really dumb.

Stop listening to NPR/WHYY you nerd.

(actually it was KYW, trying to stay on top of the impending precipitation)

Any discussion regarding MI or SALT deductions is pointless without knowing what the new brackets are going to look like and, of course, nobody in this joke of an Administration is willing to provide any more detail. It is actually possible that the average taxpayer would be better off losing the deductions but gaining a lower tax rate. More likely, however, is that the average taxpayer is going to get screwed.

A VERY simplified example:
A couple has combined annual income of $100,000 with MI and SALT expenses totaling $20,000. Under current tax law, the couple would itemize and taxable income would be reduced to $73,650 (includes MI/SALT plus standard deduction of $6,350).
The applicable income tax due would be $13,727 ($6,405 + (($73,650-$46,700)*.27)).

For argument's sake, lets say, under the new tax plan, MI and SALT deductions are eliminated and the $100,000 of annual income is subject to a 25% tax rate (the three new proposed brackets are 12%, 25% and 35% so $100,000 @ 25% is probably a reasonable assumption). The new plan also increases the standard deduction to $12,000. Without the benefit of the MI and SALT deductions, taxable income would be $88,000 which would be subject to the 25% tax rate; thus, the income tax due would be $22,000.

In that example, which is obviously extremely simplified, the couple would be approximately $8,300 worse off, though again, the bracket delineation would impact the shortfall. Unfortunately, I think this is likely to be a pretty common situation that dual income families will face.

Side Note - where is all this talk about the MI coming from anyway? I thought the plan specifically made an exception for MI? Everybody in NJ should be hell bent on making sure elimination of the SALT deductions is a non-starter.

Doll Is Mine wrote:

Who is the woman?

Slowhand wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:

Who is the woman?

I believe that is future President Gaga.

FFS, here I thought Kelly might be one of the few adults in the White House with some common sense, and he's just as loony as the rest of them.