I'm curious about that myself. The tax plan he had before the election had eliminated head of household as a filing status.

I hope someone has seen the plan in greater detail. You'd need to know what the standard exemption is, IF there is one, to figure taxes owed.

I too have been reading this. The standard deduction is doubling to make up for losing the mortgage deduction and I think the dependent child credit is doubling as well. The brackets will also be smaller too but they haven't set the limits yet I think. I would think you will see a decrease but it's all wait and see until the special interests interfere.

The main problem is for high property tax states ((NY, NJ,CA) the because that deduction will be lost so if you are that may have a negative effect for you depending on where you live).

I am in NJ so we will likely move-I refuse to pay more money to the government-our property taxes on a basic middle class house are over $12,000 and our state income tax is second highest in the nation too.

Interesting. A single person making about 125K who itemizes is going to pay more. Is that how you read it as well?

I will watch and see where this goes, if anywhere. I live in CA, one of the high property/income tax states, so it could affect my retirement plans. We'll see.

From what I have read:

The proposal is nice for corporations and the One Percent, according to two non-partisan researchers: The Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. It's not nice for the national debt or military spending. It would reduce federal revenue by $2.4 trillion over ten years. It freezes Pentagon funding. It has the usual rosy scenario (Her again!) of unspecified budget savings and fantastic economic growth figures.

The corporate rate would drop from 35% to 20%.

Fifty percent of the plan's benefits would go to taxpayers with incomes of over $730,000. Their after-tax incomes would rise 8.5%.

The bottom 95% of taxpayers would reap no more than 1.2% income increases.

A third of taxpayers would pay more ($1800 average) due to the elimination of itemized deductions. This bracket has income of $150,000 to $300,000.

There is a special 'sweetener' in this plan to tempt Alaska's senator to vote 'yes'. A provision allows the Senate to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- a longtime GOP goal -- that won't do a thing to help *me*.

anniegriet-I think you may pay less depending on where they put the income brackets. You are currently in the 28% tax bracket ($91K-$191K) so if the highest bracket is 25% then you should pay less plus have the extra standard deduction and tax credits.

But like ElmerFudd says, it is too early to tell. I just want the process to be simpler. I would love to give up saving receipts and keeping track of expenses.

It's the same as always. The rich benefit more, and the administration assumes the middle class is too dumb to understand the tax details, so they just proclaim loudly that it's all done to benefit the middle class.

All you have to do is listen to his hollow promises and claims to "the people" and know that behind the scenes, he is in reality for the opposite of what he is saying. If he's claiming your taxes will go down, rest assured, they will actually go up, just not in a way that is blantently obvious to you.

"I would love to give up saving receipts and keeping track of expenses."

So long as the tax law allows deductions for expenses you have, you will have to be able to produce documentation to substantiate those deductions if asked. "Saving documentation" doesn't require retaining pieces of paper, electronic records (as simple as a scan or downloads from a website if asked) are perfectly adequate.

All you have to do is listen to his hollow promises and claims to "the
people" and know that behind the scenes, he is in reality for the
opposite of what he is saying. If he's claiming your taxes will go
down, rest assured, they will actually go up, just not in a way that is
blatantly obvious to you.

Yes, so if you hear, "the average family will save $2,500 per year, don't believe it.

Right on, Chi. Folks need to pay attention to what the CBO says, not the partisans.

Look at the DEFICIT as well as who does/doesn't benefit. Heck, *I* can cut your taxes with a bogus budget. (Have I ever explained how I saved enough by clipping coupons to buy a Jaguar? hahaha)

Surely there is no way that tax plan will actually come into effect.

Haha, Rita. Surely there's no way Donald Trump could be president of the USA.

Now that America is "great again" all your fantasies can come true.

James Buchanan and Warren G Harding, former US Presidents, have been historically ranked as worst or near next to worst President of all time. If they were still alive, both would have been delighted with the lineup for last Fall's Presidential Election, offering as it did some hope for a newcomer to push them up a bit off the bottom.