Using a tax plan calculator and checking the results with the New York Times calculator, Tallahassee Reports determined the impact of the federal tax reform plan for nine different scenarios in Florida. All scenarios assume the standard deduction.
The analysis below shows the impact for household incomes of $35,000, $70,000, $150,000 and $500,000 with various combinations of marital status and children. The rate cuts will end in 2025 unless they are extended.
Also, the analysis only highlights the impact on taxpayers. The analysis says nothing about the impact of the tax plan on macro economic factors such as the deficit or economic growth.
*******************
Income: $35,000
Single, No Children
Current Tax Law, Tax Bill: $ 3,176 Tax Reform Plan, Tax Bill: $2,570 Savings: $607 or 19.1%
Married, No Children
Current Tax Law, Tax Bill: $1,370 Tax Reform Plan, Tax Bill: $1,100 Savings: $270 or 19.7%
Married, Two Children
Current Tax Law, Tax Bill: – $1,460 Tax Reform Plan, Tax Bill: – $2,800 Savings: $1,340 or 91.8%
*******************
Income: $70,000
Single, No Children
Current Tax Law, Tax Bill: $ 10,491 Tax Reform Plan, Tax Bill: $8,700 Savings: $1,792 or 17.0%
Married, No Children
Current Tax Law, Tax Bill: $6,352 Tax Reform Plan, Tax Bill: $5,139 Savings: $1,214 or 19.1%
Married, Two Children
Current Tax Law, Tax Bill: $3,108 Tax Reform Plan, Tax Bill: $1,139 Savings: $1,968 or 63.3%
*******************
Income: $150,000
Single, No Children
Current Tax Law, Tax Bill: $ 31,861 Tax Reform Plan, Tax Bill: $ 27,410 Savings: $4,451 or 14.0%
Married, No Children
Current Tax Law, Tax Bill: $ 23,482 Tax Reform Plan, Tax Bill: $ 19,599 Savings: $3,884 or 16.5%
Married, Two Children
Current Tax Law, Tax Bill: $21,408 Tax Reform Plan, Tax Bill: $15,599 Savings: $5,808 or 27.1%
*******************
Income: $500,000
Single, No Children
Current Tax Law, Tax Bill: $ 150,369 Tax Reform Plan, Tax Bill: $ 146,490 Savings: $3,880 or 2.6%
Married, No Children
Current Tax Law, Tax Bill: $ 136,996 Tax Reform Plan, Tax Bill: $ 117,979 Savings: $19,017 or 13.9%
Married, Two Children
Current Tax Law, Tax Bill: $ 136,996 Tax Reform Plan, Tax Bill: $ 117,599 Savings: $19,017 or 13.9%
Federal Tax Reform Impact on Florida Residents added by Staff on
View all posts by Staff →
Dear Citizens.
Reading over all of these comments I am sorry to say you all are missing the point, and so miss informed about federal income taxes. I’ve taken on the Commissioner of the Federal IRS and have won every time, so I know what I’m talking about, I’ve asked question they can’t and will not answer.
1st, you all should be asking a simple question, “To Who or Whom is this federal income tax plan for”? “Who is Liable to pay this federal income tax”?
To brian, the Commissioner of the Federal IRS has now Jurisdiction here in the sovereign states of the union when it comes to federal income tax collection. “This is LAW and I have Proof”, so therefor I can make this statement.
We have all been LIED to by the federal government for all these many years and we accept their lies as truth and never question it, but the funny thing is when you take a pole and ask people do they trust or believe the federal government most all will so NO.
The federal government states and “this is LAW” that any money by way of federal income taxes we give the federal IRS is considered a GIFT… and not mandatory by no law..
All I’m saying is ask questions and demand answers from the federal government, their Internal Revenue Manual states it is there mission to help us know what taxes we are required to or liable to pay and which ones we are not to pay, and help us better understand the tax laws and if they apply to us. So ask questions!!!!
> There are like 13 question marks in your response.
And zero responses in yours. I am shocked.
> As soon as you misconstrued my comment about the forcible recovery of taxes to the corporation and not the tax payer I could predict the rest.
My response to Vernon *was about his complaints about us overtaxing corporations!* If you wanted to talk to someone about *individual taxation*, maybe you should read the comments they are typing, lest your proclamations of your relative wisdom seem a bit overstated.
> Good luck with your progressive (slow motion socialism)agenda.
Coming from a guy that that is worried about someone misconstruing an argument! You’ve broken my irony meter completely!
> You have to, under threat of seizure or arrest, pay your taxes.
A corporation chose to incorporate under those rules, did they not? Were the forced to incorporate, under threat of seizure or arrest? It’s such a tired line, the poor downtrodden person who pays taxes. Want to live in a first world country? Then pay your taxes. Want to go somewhere that taxation rules are not applied? Move to Chechnya and live the high life.
> Well, this one.
Ok. Which corporations are struggling as a function of their taxation rates and not some other externality?
> The rest of the World is around 14% and even with this cut we will still be 30% higher.
Those are the rates on paper, but not the *effective* rates, which I am sure you know, are much lower. What’s more, in those *other countries*, while there is a lower corporate income tax, there are *much higher* personal income taxes. You didn’t forget that part, did you?
> The tax cut for corporations is intended to bring back archived money from off shore accounts and at least give us a chance to modernize facilities and make more domestically.
We tried this before with paltry results. Whats more why do you believe that a modern facility won’t just be made in Bangladesh, which continues to have exceedingly low wages, or environmental regulations by comparison?
Do you really think Nike is going to build a shoe factory in America because of this bill?
> So you are suggesting we not lower the rate and keep it inflated and pass on the costs to consumers who are working for stagnant wages for another 30 years?
At no point in the past thirty years of explosive productivity growth and profits have those gains been realized as wage increases; why should they now, this time, result in more wages if corporations gain a one time option to bring money back from off shore accounts? Our tax structure has not kept corporations from productivity gains, has it? And yet, wages stayed static. Our tax structure has not hindered large gains in value, have they? And yet, wages have stayed static. But now, if they have more money, they will turn it into wage gains, instead of shareholder value?
Why? Why not just keep doing what they have been doing? For someone so concerned with repeating history, the irony is very, very thick.
I am suggesting that corporations *are not struggling*.
Look the stock market. Look at profits. Where is the struggle? Sears is struggling, but it isn’t because of taxation, it is because of structural changes.
> Great, lets do what has not worked for 30 years but now do it even harder and see if that helps.
Gross over simplification of where we are. I am suggesting that given all of the exerternalities and moving parts in a globalized economy, picking one thing, ‘corporate tax rates’, and deciding that *this* is the reason for stagnant wages smacks of myopic thinking.
No doubt, in a year, when the shortfalls in revenue appear, and Congress cuts entitlement programs, there will suddenly be a cry for fiscal responsibility. But consider this, when social security recipient gets a monthly check, it is not saved, or moved to Ireland banks, but it is immediately pumped back into the economy. Do you think the same thing will happen with Apple? Will Microsoft take this windfall and decide that it will immediately cycle the dollars into the economy, or just stash it with their existing stockpiles of money?
If our economy is to grow through people spending money, giving it to entities who do not have an immediate need to spend, by taking it from those who do, is a very, very weird idea.
“A fool may ask more questions in an hour than a wise man can answer in seven years. A fool may chance to put something in a wise man’s head. A fool may give a wise man counsel. A fool may make money but it requires a wise man to spend it.”
There are like 13 question marks in your response.
As soon as you misconstrued my comment about the forcible recovery of taxes to the corporation and not the tax payer I could predict the rest. Good luck with your progressive (slow motion socialism)agenda.
We will have to agree to disagree.
Thanks for the breakdown. It helps to get some scenario based information to really understand the effects of the tax plan. I would like to see the examples for a corporation, also. In my circle, individuals are okay paying taxes as they are, but are not okay with corporations getting such a large reduction….especially when there’s no guarantee their reduction will lead to more jobs here in the USA or increased wages. If there was something in the tax bill that would incentivize/penalize corporations from continuing to mass produce goods abroad, then I would be more excited about the new scheme. I do like what you showed, but I also know the tax cuts for individuals are temporary while the cut for the corporations is permanent. And I get it. They need certainty. But what did we get in exchange for their new certainty? Are we for sure getting more jobs brought home? Are we sure trickle down will work this time? It certainly didn’t work the last few times it’s been tried. Thanks again for the details.
Corporations do not pay taxes. They pass the cost through to consumers. Always has been the case and always will be the case.
So now we can expect them to pass the savings onto the consumers, right? Cannot wait.
True. So we should expect prices to now drop? Or does it just work to screw the commoners? I understand business a bit, but at some point the business has to give a care about its customers. If we can’t buy, who can? No one else on earth wastes money like we do, but with so many struggling for the basics, how can we continue to mass consume? There’s no balance.
Ms Pretty…The entire concept of getting the ecocnomy growing and working for everyone depends on corporations and other small business owners becoming competitive again, and having consumers with growing incomes. That doesnt happen if you tax the businesses so bad there’s no incentive for them to spend the money to grow, and their overseas competition has lower cost of maufacturing. You’ve been listening to the democrat talking points too long if are unwilling to listen and understand the basic rules of economics…which is exactly what kept our economy stagnant for the last several years. Those nasty corporations are the ones that provide the jobs that allow us to buy the food we put on the table.
> The entire concept of getting the ecocnomy growing and working for everyone depends on corporations and other small business owners becoming competitive again, and having consumers with growing incomes.
On what planet are our corporations not competitive? In which industries are other countries corporations eating our lunch due to our excessive taxation?
> That doesnt happen if you tax the businesses so bad there’s no incentive for them to spend the money to grow, and their overseas competition has lower cost of maufacturing.
You’ve cut too far. Invest in a spell checker, it might be why your business isn’t competitive.
In any case, there is no mechanism by which we lower cost of manufacturing in America to what it cost in China, or Bangladesh, unless you think that paying American citizens a Bangladeshi wage is somehow consistent with ‘having consumers with growing incomes’.
Seriously, how do you propose we grow the incomes of people manufacturing things in America while we simultaneously compete with wages in the Philippines? As someone with a clear grasp of the basic rules of economics, maybe you could explain that to me.
> Those nasty corporations are the ones that provide the jobs that allow us to buy the food we put on the table.
Earnings and market value are exploding the past 30 years and wages have bee largely stagnant. When does the trickle down start happening again? This time?
Brian – as passionate as you seem, you are really missing the point entirely. You have to, under threat of seizure or arrest, pay your taxes. You do not have to engage in commerce with a corporation you deem is evil.
On what planet you ask? Well, this one. And you answer your own question. We cannot compete against foreign labor costs, foreign import taxes on our goods, and their zero environmental regulations and also hammer our companies with huge income taxes. The rest of the World is around 14% and even with this cut we will still be 30% higher.
The tax cut for corporations is intended to bring back archived money from off shore accounts and at least give us a chance to modernize facilities and make more domestically. That means more jobs and more competition for skilled labor. Competition results in increased wages. Yes, wages have been largely stagnant for the last 30+ years. 30 years ago the Corporate Tax rate on over $100K was 40%. So you are suggesting we not lower the rate and keep it inflated and pass on the costs to consumers who are working for stagnant wages for another 30 years? Great, lets do what has not worked for 30 years but now do it even harder and see if that helps.
Those nasty corporations are not paying people enough. That’s all I’m saying. Why not tie their tax cuts to actual wage increases or increased hiring? If the nasty corporations keep getting away with paying minimum wage, then you have to stop vilifying the poor. Most do work. They aren’t being paid enough so they get assistance through entitlements. What would you propose to fix that disparity? Or are you listening to right wing talking points that say the poor don’t work? They do. They work harder than I do. Maybe you think they should get more skills. I ask from where? Companies do not train anymore. School costs a fortune, if you can find one that isn’t trying to TrumpU. At what point do we all concede that both sides have valid points and move forward? This tax plan will help a lot of Americans in the short term, and for that I will be happy. However, the trade off is elusive. I do not expect the corporations to pass any of their saving on at all. AT&T announced bonuses after they announce layoffs? Okay, what happened? The tax cut wasn’t big enough to give out some christmas bonuses. They had to go and fire thousands of people, too? This is the kind of shenanigans I’ve come to expect.
Now if we can just get the 10 percent tax law passed where you are taxed on 10 percent of all income with no deductions. That way everyone pays taxes and they have a vested interest in the tax system.
I’ve never been a fan of half (or thereabouts) of the adult population paying $0 to the IRS. I think there should be a minimum of, say, $100 if you work and make, say, $10,000 or more a year.
So you have some “skin in the game.”
You could even call it “redistribution of wealth” to help sell it to the progs.
WINNING!