Tax Credits, Deductions and Exemptions

Subterms

    Latest story

    75 Shares130 Views

    Those Voters Who Are Still Undecided

    by

    More from our inbox:Michelle Obama’s Plea to American MenAn Ex-N.F.L. Player, on Marijuana ReformBipartisan Action Needed to Support Our Children Rob VargasTo the Editor:Re “These Voters Aren’t Exactly Undecided. They’re Cringing,” by Megan K. Stack (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 20):I am struck by undecided voters who are still, at this point, paralyzed by the feeling that neither of the candidates are “good” options, or that they don’t “like” either choice.To those struggling to vote outside their party affiliation, or to vote at all: The cognitive dissonance you feel is uncomfortable, yes, but consider who benefits most from the resulting inaction. It’s not the voter, it’s individuals and groups who use political power and tribalism for their own gain.This election is not a sporting event, it is real life, and we owe it to ourselves and to each other to use our hard-won right to vote thoughtfully, no matter how uncomfortable it is.Natasha Thapar-OlmosLos AngelesThe writer is a licensed psychologist and a professor at Pepperdine University.To the Editor:Re “Battle Is Fierce for Sliver of Pie: Undecided Votes” (front page, Oct. 22):Women can save our country, and I believe they will. They know what is at stake — not only free choice regarding their bodies but also a democracy that celebrates the diversity of its citizens.As the online summary said of the undecided voters: “Both campaigns are digging through troves of data to find these crucial Americans. They both think many are younger, Black or Latino. The Harris team is also eyeing white, college-educated women.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump and Harris Both Like a Child Tax Credit but With Different Aims

      by

      Kamala Harris’s campaign is pushing a version of the credit intended to fight child poverty, while Donald J. Trump sees the program primarily as a tax cut for people higher up the income scale.Vice President Kamala Harris has made an expanded child tax credit central to her campaign, and former President Donald J. Trump boasts, “I doubled the child tax credit.” With a quick look, voters might think the child-rearing subsidy the rare matter on which the rival candidates agree.It is anything but. The common vocabulary masks profound differences over which parents the government should help and what constitutes fairness for children in a country of great wealth and inequality.Mr. Trump sees the $110 billion program mostly as a tax cut, which as president he increased to $2,000 per child and extended to high-income families. But his policy denies the full benefit to the poorest quarter of children because their parents earn too little and owe no income tax.Ms. Harris would expand the tax cuts and add a large anti-poverty plan, sending checks to millions of parents with low pay or no jobs. That would turn a tax cut into an income guarantee, in a landmark expansion of the safety net.Supporters of the Harris plan say the payments would shrink child poverty. Critics see an expensive welfare scheme that could weaken the willingness to work.“They’re both talking about something called the ‘child tax credit,’ but they’re not at all talking about the same policy,” said Scott Winship of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Is It Better to Buy or Lease a Car? It Depends.

      by

      The lowest overall cost is to buy a car and keep it for a long time. But leasing usually has lower monthly costs. And leasing an E.V. may come with a tax break.Most people have two options when they want a new car: buy it with a traditional loan or lease it.Either can make sense, depending on your personal situation.If you’re looking for the lowest overall cost over the longer term, buying a car with a loan, and then driving it for a while debt free after you finish making payments, is usually the best option.But if low monthly payments and a smaller down payment are a priority, a lease may be worth considering. And if you’re willing to try an electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid, tax breaks available for leased models may make deals more affordable. Almost half of new E.V.s were acquired with leases in the second quarter of this year, up from around a fourth a year earlier, according to data from Experian.The Federal Reserve’s decision on Wednesday to cut its benchmark rate by half a point indirectly affects rates on car loans, which are also influenced by factors like the borrower’s credit score and the level of loan delinquencies. The average interest rate for a new-car loan in August was 7.1 percent, and 11.3 percent for a used-car loan, according to the automotive site Edmunds. “It will take a number of additional rate cuts before the cumulative effect becomes material for car buyers,” said Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.Paying cash for your car is, of course, interest free. But while car prices have eased somewhat, they remain high. The average transaction price in July was around $48,000 for a new car, and about $25,000 for a used car, according to Kelly Blue Book, part of Cox Automotive. Most people who buy a new automobile and many who buy one used get some kind of financing.With a traditional loan, you make a down payment and then pay off the debt with fixed monthly payments over time. (The average new-car loan term is about six years.) When the loan is repaid, you can keep the car and drive it payment free or trade it in and get credit for its value toward your next car purchase.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Proposal to End Taxes on Overtime Pay Could Cost Billions

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump is calling for exempting overtime pay from taxes, the latest in a string of vague tax proposals that have befuddled tax experts, worried fiscal hawks and seemingly charmed voters.Mr. Trump floated the idea this past week during a campaign rally in Tucson, Ariz., telling the crowd that it would supercharge incentives to work more and put money back in the pockets of many Americans.“It’s time for the working man and woman to finally catch a break, and that’s what we’re doing because this is a good one,” he said.The pitch is part of what has become Mr. Trump’s playbook during the presidential race: tossing out potentially huge tax cuts, defined in just a few words, to try and win over middle- and working-class voters. He has also vowed to exempt tips from taxes and end taxes on Social Security benefits, two ideas that have proven popular. At the same time, he has said he would further cut the corporate tax rate.As with his promise to end taxes on tips, though, Mr. Trump left many key details about the overtime plan unaddressed, making it hard to estimate its costs. Among the open questions is whether overtime pay would be exempt from just the income tax or if the exception would also apply to the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare.There is also the issue of how many Americans could benefit from Mr. Trump’s idea. More than 34 million Americans worked over 40 hours a week in 2023, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but only a subset of that group are owed time-and-a-half pay for overtime under federal law. The rules are complex, but in general Americans earning a salary of more than $43,888 a year may not be owed overtime, depending on their job. Americans paid by the hour, currently about 55 percent of the work force, are broadly eligible for overtime pay.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Cass Report: Biased or Balanced?

      by

      More from our inbox:Child Tax Credits Can Save Women’s LivesWake Up, RepublicansRicardo TomásTo the Editor:Re “The Strange Report Fueling the War on Trans Kids,” by Lydia Polgreen (column, Aug. 18):Thank you to Lydia Polgreen for this thoughtful, well-researched piece. She clearly identified the faulty and dangerous unspoken premise of the Cass report and much of the reporting on this topic: that being transgender is socially deviant and harmful, and we should do everything in our collective power to reserve gender-affirming care for those we deem virtuous enough to become “good” members of society.She also pointed out critics’ double standards. Our medical system routinely provides — without controversy — the same gender-affirming medications to cisgender children and adolescents that it provides to trans children and adolescents. The issue is clearly not “concern for children” but the deep-rooted transphobia that this “concern” masks.What if we didn’t think of being trans as being deviant or broken? What if we saw it for what it is: an identity as old as human existence that is as worthy of respect and celebration as any other, especially amid this climate of fear? What if we focused less on creating unnecessary barriers to care and more on protecting the right to self-determination and access to health care that respects each person’s unique needs?Libby Hartle-TyrrellBrooklynTo the Editor:Lydia Polgreen speculates on the legitimacy of the Cass report in what I see as an effort all too common among public figures: to burnish their liberal credentials at the expense of families like mine. They state that pediatric gender transition is too politicized, but blame only the Republicans. But I wish, I beg, that they talk to parents like me.Many of us are liberal, (formerly) Democratic professionals whose kids have been caught up in the left’s politicization of this issue. Our kids — who are smart, but struggle with mental health issues and anxiety — spent too much time online during Covid and self-diagnosed themselves as gender dysphoric. Meanwhile, activists have aggressively pushed an affirm-or-else, one-size-fits-all policy on educators, mental health providers and doctors.This confluence has created a dystopian nightmare for well-educated, thoughtful and compassionate parents who urge caution and question medicalization. People who we used to align with politically are telling our kids that we are transphobic and support their cutting us off. We grieve and watch in horror as our vulnerable kids permanently scar their bodies, reproductive organs and voices.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Harris y Trump presentan un claro contraste sobre la economía

      by

      Ambos candidatos abogan por ampliar el poder del gobierno para dirigir los resultados económicos, pero en ámbitos muy diferentes.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]La vicepresidenta Kamala Harris y el expresidente Donald Trump volaron a Carolina del Norte esta semana para pronunciar lo que se anunciaron como importantes discursos sobre la economía. Ninguno de los dos expuso un plan detallado de políticas: ni Harris, que se centró durante media hora en la vivienda, los comestibles y los medicamentos con receta, ni Trump, que durante 80 minutos desperdigó varias propuestas entre reflexiones en voz alta sobre inmigrantes peligrosos.Pero ambos candidatos, cada uno a su manera, enviaron a los votantes mensajes claros e importantes sobre sus visiones económicas. Cada uno de ellos defendió la visión de un gobierno federal poderoso, uno que utilice su poder para intervenir en los mercados en busca de una economía más fuerte y próspera.Solo discreparon, casi por completo, sobre cuándo y cómo debe utilizarse ese poder.El viernes en Raleigh, Harris empezó a imprimir su propio sello a la economía progresista que ha dominado la política demócrata en la última década. Este pensamiento económico abraza la idea de que el gobierno federal debe actuar con agresividad para fomentar la competencia y corregir las distorsiones en los mercados privados.El planteamiento busca grandes subidas de impuestos a las empresas y a quienes obtienen ingresos altos, para financiar la ayuda a los trabajadores de ingresos bajos y de clase media que luchan por crear riqueza para sí mismos y para sus hijos. Al mismo tiempo, ofrece grandes exenciones fiscales a las empresas que se dedican a lo que Harris y otros progresistas consideran un gran beneficio económico, como la fabricación de tecnologías necesarias para luchar contra el calentamiento global o la construcción de viviendas asequibles.Esta filosofía anima la agenda política que Harris presentó el viernes. Se comprometió a entregar hasta 25.000 dólares en ayudas al pago inicial a cada comprador de primera vivienda durante cuatro años, al tiempo que destinaría 40.000 millones de dólares a empresas constructoras de primeras viviendas. Harris afirmó que reinstauraría de forma permanente el crédito tributario por hijos ampliado que el presidente Biden estableció temporalmente con su ley de estímulo de 2021, al tiempo que ofrecería aún más ayuda a los padres de recién nacidos.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Harris and Trump Offer a Clear Contrast on the Economy

      by

      Both candidates embrace expansions of government power to steer economic outcomes — but in vastly different areas.Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump flew to North Carolina this week to deliver what were billed as major speeches on the economy. Neither laid out a comprehensive policy plan — not Ms. Harris in her half-hour focus on housing, groceries and prescription drugs, nor Mr. Trump in 80 minutes of sprinkling various proposals among musings about dangerous immigrants.But in their own ways, both candidates sent voters clear and important messages about their economic visions. Each embraced a vision of a powerful federal government, using its muscle to intervene in markets in pursuit of a stronger and more prosperous economy.They just disagreed, almost entirely, on when and how that power should be used.In Raleigh on Friday, Ms. Harris began to put her own stamp on the brand of progressive economics that has come to dominate Democratic politics over the last decade. That economic thinking embraces the idea that the federal government must act aggressively to foster competition and correct distortions in private markets.The approach seeks large tax increases on corporations and high earners, to fund assistance for low-income and middle-class workers who are struggling to build wealth for themselves and their children. At the same time, it provides big tax breaks to companies engaged in what Ms. Harris and other progressives see as delivering great economic benefit — like manufacturing technologies needed to fight global warming, or building affordable housing.That philosophy animated the policy agenda that Ms. Harris unveiled on Friday. She pledged to send up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance to every first-time home buyer over four years, while directing $40 billion to construction companies that build starter homes. She said she would permanently reinstate an expanded child tax credit that President Biden temporarily established with his 2021 stimulus law, while offering even more assistance to parents of newborns.She called for a federal ban on corporate price gouging on groceries and for new federal enforcement tools to punish companies that unfairly push up food prices. “My plan will include new penalties for opportunistic companies that exploit crises and break the rules,” she said, adding: “We will help the food industry become more competitive, because I believe competition is the lifeblood of our economy.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Washington Prepares for the ‘Super Bowl of Tax’

      by

      Even with control of the White House and Congress up in the air, lawmakers and lobbyists are gearing up for a big debate next year over expiring measures in former President Donald Trump’s tax law.President Biden’s decision not to seek re-election is upending expectations about who will control Washington next year. But there is one thing lawmakers and lobbyists are certain of: A tax fight is coming.Across the nation’s capital, preparations are quietly starting for what some are calling the “Super Bowl of tax.” On Capitol Hill, Republicans and Democrats are holding strategy and education sessions. Lobbyists are pressing their case to lawmakers and preparing multimillion-dollar publicity campaigns to defend tax breaks for corporations. Think tanks are churning out research assailing or lauding elements of the byzantine tax code.On the line is the future of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which a Republican Congress passed and former President Donald J. Trump signed into law in 2017.To avoid blowing too large of a hole in the federal budget at the time, Republicans scheduled many of the tax cuts to expire after 2025. That deadline has created a rare opportunity to reshape federal tax policy next year, and lawmakers in each party intend to be ready to wield whatever power voters give them in November.“We’re studying and preparing,” said Senator Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, who as the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee has been holding meetings and gathering ideas about next year. “It’s preseason.”Many of the expiring tax measures are ones that benefit middle-class Americans, including a larger standard deduction, lower marginal income tax rates and a more generous child tax credit. Republicans chose to let those tax cuts expire — while making other measures like a lower 21 percent corporate rate permanent — in a bet that Democrats would eventually vote to protect them.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Dear Elites (of Both Parties), the People Will Take It From Here, Thanks

      by

      I first learned about the opioid crisis three presidential elections ago, in the fall of 2011. I was the domestic policy director for Mitt Romney’s campaign and questions began trickling in from the New Hampshire team: What’s our plan?By then, opioids had been fueling the deadliest drug epidemic in American history for years. I am ashamed to say I did not know what they were. Opioids, as in opium? I looked it up online. Pills of some kind. Tell them it’s a priority, and President Obama isn’t working. That year saw nearly 23,000 deaths from opioid overdoses nationwide.I was no outlier. America’s political class was in the final stages of self-righteous detachment from the economic and social conditions of the nation it ruled. The infamous bitter clinger and “47 percent” comments by Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney captured the atmosphere well: delivered at private fund-raisers in San Francisco in 2008 and Boca Raton in 2012, evincing disdain for the voters who lived in between. The opioid crisis gained more attention in the years after the election, particularly in 2015, with Anne Case and Angus Deaton’s research on deaths of despair.Of course, 2015’s most notable political development was Donald Trump’s presidential campaign launch and subsequent steamrolling of 16 Republican primary opponents committed to party orthodoxy. In the 2016 general election he narrowly defeated the former first lady, senator and secretary of state Hillary Clinton, who didn’t need her own views of Americans leaked: In public remarks, she gleefully classified half of the voters who supported Mr. Trump as “deplorables,” as her audience laughed and applauded. That year saw more than 42,000 deaths from opioid overdoses.In a democratic republic such as the United States, where the people elect leaders to govern on their behalf, the ballot box is the primary check on an unresponsive, incompetent or corrupt ruling class — or, as Democrats may be learning, a ruling class that insists on a candidate who voters no longer believe can lead. If those in power come to believe they are the only logical options, the people can always prove them wrong. For a frustrated populace, an anti-establishment outsider’s ability to wreak havoc is a feature rather than a bug. The elevation of such a candidate to high office should provoke immediate soul-searching and radical reform among the highly credentialed leaders across government, law, media, business, academia and so on — collectively, the elites.The response to Mr. Trump’s success, unfortunately, has been the opposite. Seeing him elected once, faced with the reality that he may well win again, most elites have doubled down. We have not failed, the thinking goes; we have been failed, by the American people. In some tellings, grievance-filled Americans simply do not appreciate their prosperity. In others they are incapable of informed judgments, leaving them susceptible to demagoguery and foreign manipulation. Or perhaps they are just too racist to care — never mind that polling consistently suggests that most of Mr. Trump’s supporters are women and minorities, or that polling shows he is attracting far greater Black and Hispanic support than prior Republican leaders.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More