who kick out their wives at a certain age did. So ladies, before you sign the prenup..add tax money to it.

Oh...until you want to raise CASH for a MASSIVE Corporate tax SHAM give away,and billions for families like the Trump's and Koch's. Hell tax the same dollar THREE times,Trump doesn't care as long as him and the 1%er's make out like bandits.

Currently alimony payer deducts the alimony payment and the recipient declares it and pays taxes on it.

Under the new scheme, the alimony payer cannot deduct the payment and pays taxes on it while the recipient gets it tax free.

No double payment.

Currently the problem is that more than $10 billion's deducted but less than $8 billion's claimed by recipients. In other words, over $2 billion isn't claimed as income and therefore over $2 billion in income isn't taxed.

This moves the taxation to where it's harder to hide the income. It will raise taxes because the payers typically are in higher tax brackets than the recipients; and because more like the entire amount paid in alimony will have taxes paid on it, not just around 80% of it.

The payer under the Trump SHAM will now pay taxes on that amount because they lose the deduction of the amount they paid over the year,the receiver will still pay taxes on the alimony received during the year as regular income.

Keep in mind I said I'm not sure, but a few weeks ago another article said the payee won't be taxed. Has that changed or is the article poorly written? My guess is whoever wrote the article got it wrong.

I receive alimony and I resent having to pay taxes on it because my income is so much less than his, AND attorneys aren't usually smart enough to figure that fact into the calculations when they are asking for alimony. Though this won't affect my situation since I've been receiving alimony for years, but it will help other women.

Last edited Sun Dec 17, 2017, 01:16 AM - Edit history (1)

to me.

I bet it's something like "but omg my emails"

Afterall, we've been told that Trump is a populist. Still, most of his supporters are unrepentant.

welfare giveaways to themselves and the other 1%ers.

engineering. Note how it won't ever affect currently divorced people, protection for 2018 and 2020.

I'm looking for a list of all the deduction eliminated in the tax scam. If anyone finds such a list, please post it on DU.

and have been cherry-picking certain ones to add back.

you'll remember that this elimination of deductions started back in the Reagan era.

I was working as a fed under Raygun on forward (now retired). I also remember when he initially wanted to take the top rate down to 25% (and a bunch of supply-siders wanted that as a single tax rate with filing on an index card-sized form)... but ended up with it at 28%. The whole thing was a friggin' mess. But it didn't do an elimination of all the deductions like they had been trying to do this go around. Regardless, it's wash, rinse, repeat.

I remember thinking back then that the people were stupid to overwhelmingly vote for him, but looking back now I see things have only gotten worse. The baloney they'll believe over and over again in the face of facts is incredible.

I have a funny story about the Reagan "free government cheese" program (remember that?) My stepmother was about 83 then and living in subsidized senior housing. In one of my visits to see her she had an amazing rant about how they passed out these humongous blocks of cheap, processed cheese to all the seniors in the building. She said, "Just what we need at our ages, as if we aren't constipated enough already."

She hated Raygun.

Yes I remember (and tried) the government cheese. Good-sized long blocks too. We had a neighbor whose son was a truck driver who actually hauled the cheese to various locations, so needless to say she got whatever was leftover that wasn't delivered, and passed it on. Waste not want not!

to pay income taxes on the alimony payment. A wealthy alimony payer -- who is in a high tax bracket -- might lose out a bit, but they are wealthy so why give them an "alimony subsidy." Plus, their attorney will likely take care of them.

What I'm reading is the receiver will pay taxes on alimony as they always have. It's the payer who loses a tax deduction for the amount paid to the ex.

Where did you see that the receiver no longer will pay income taxes on em...income??

"Right now, alimony payments are tax free for the payer, and they're taxed like regular income for the recipient. Since the recipient usually makes less money -- and is thus in a lower tax bracket -- it keeps more money in the family unit and away from Uncle Sam.

Eliminating the alimony tax deduction may also have plenty of spillover implications, complicating how child support is calculated and how assets are divvied up, Zeiderman said."

to pay the tax -- that is, not deduct the alimony (the divorce decree doesn't specify it as alimony) -- and the receiving spouse would not have to include it in income.

If you don't get that, try this: "Currently, alimony is tax-deductible for the paying spouse and taxable to the receiving spouse. But if you get divorced after the plan is enacted, that would change: Alimony would be paid out of after-tax dollars and would be tax-free to the recipient."

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-tax-plan-divorce-penalty-2017-11



I don't say stuff, just for the heck of it unless it's an opinion.

It doesn't say that the receiver will pay no taxes on alimony in the CNN article which is the link on this story--it talks about the payer losing the deduction. Your link says that receiver tax will be eliminated.

I don't say shit for the heck of it either,I'm always looking for facts--that's why I asked where you had read that. So which one is correct?

are divorced.

You didn't read far enough on the matter, or didn't look up the current tax rules and put 2 and 2 together.

The deduction will be removed, but the receiving spouse will not be stuck with paying taxes too. In any event, the "alimony subsidy" was a loophole that needed closing.

...for middle class families, but it will be interesting to see how the final language looks. For lower and middle class families, the net effect seems like it will be more taxes paid. Have no problem closing the loophole as to wealthier earners, but it seems like the goal is to backstop a corporate tax cut.

the knot. I bet there would be all kinds of tax breaks.

Jeez, they are hypocrites.

Last edited Sat Dec 16, 2017, 05:25 PM - Edit history (6)

* Currently the alimony payer gets a tax deduction -- Line 31 on the 2016 1040.

* Currently the alimony recipient gets taxed on it-- Line 11 on the 2016 1040.

(Tax wonks: both these lines are pre-AGI, i.e. the former lowers the AGI, the latter raises the AGI. One big consequence is that the payer doesn't have to itemize deductions to get this particular deduction)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Case A. In the case where both payer and recipient are in the same tax bracket (not the usual case, but let's take it one step at a time), say the 15% tax bracket, and say the alimony payments come to $10,000/year.

CURRENTLY, The payer saves $1500 in taxes, and the recipient pays $1500 in taxes, so on net, the family unit overall is breakeven on taxes.

Under the Republican bill, "Alimony would be paid out of after-tax dollars and would be tax-free to the recipient" {1} . In other words, the deduction by the payer is eliminated, but so is taxation of the recipient.

So in this case the payer saves no taxes and the recipient pays no taxes, so on net, the family unit overall is breakeven on taxes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Case B. In the case where the payer is in a higher tax bracket than the recipient (the more common case), say the payer is in the 25% tax bracket, the recipient is in the 15% tax bracket, and say the alimony payments come to $10,000/year.

CURRENTLY, the payer saves $2,500 in taxes, and the recipient pays $1,500 in taxes, for a net gain of $1,000 to the family unit. In effect, the federal government is subsidizing this alimony payment.

Under the Republican bill, the payer saves no taxes and the recipient pays no taxes, so on net, the family unit overall is breakeven on taxes. {1}

There's certainly no double taxation anywhere. But the family unit overall will be losing a $1,000 benefit (well on future divorces), that they used to enjoy.

------------------------------------------------------------------

{1} "Currently, alimony is tax-deductible for the paying spouse and taxable to the receiving spouse. But if you get divorced after the plan is enacted, that would change: Alimony would be paid out of after-tax dollars and would be tax-free to the recipient."
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-tax-plan-divorce-penalty-2017-11

pays to his two ex-wives would now not be tax deductible for him and he is not a rich guy. He was resigning himself to the new tax. Now he can relax a bit. His divorces were years ago.

that there are many aspects of this horrific law that will not stand up in court.

...meaning we are all going to be double taxed on the same money: by Fed and by the state.

you just can't make this shit up



2018 can't get here fast enough

.....who love them some Republican Party...

That was my first thought.

Right now those who receive alimony must pay tax on it while those who pay alimony exclude that amount from income. The exclusion is an adjustment to income on page 1, you do not have to itemize to have your taxable income reduced. In general those paying alimony are in a higher tax bracket than those who get it so this arrangement reduces tax revenue received by govt. under the new rule those receiving alimony do not include it in income and those who pay it do not get an exclusion. Alimony will simply not be reported on tax returns, it will be ignored. This will lower taxable income of recipients but they are already on average in a low bracket. But it will raise taxable income of those who pay and for many this will be a significant tax increase. Since payers don’t get a tax savings they will be less willing to pay alimony.

Shows you how accurate our news media is. The state of journalism today is appalling.

30 years ago I had a client in LA who was in his nineties. He got divorced when he was in his early twenties and contrary to more recent rules, requiring a longer marriage for alimony, he had to pay $200 per year alimony. In the early 1920’s that was real money. There was no inflation adjustment so he had been paying $200 per year for seventy years. He was pissed that there wasn’t some sort of statute of limitations ending the damned alimony.

Great story! Mine doesn't end until the Payer croaks

It's a payment for financial upkeep of a former spouse. If the couple was married, the same expenses would be incurred, and they wouldn't be tax deductible.

deductible to the paying or taxable to the receiving spouse.

Personally, I think this one aspect is probably a good move, not that that offsets other junk in the tax plan.

the part of the new tax bill that would hurt Trump.

The republicans know Lindsey Graham wasn't kidding around five years ago when he said "We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term". And then there's that other part where Trump and Bannon blew the cover off the party's decades-old umbilical connection to the butt-ugliest racists in America that was always known but seldom mentioned by members of the home team.

But I think the bigger reason for desperation on the right in passing this wildly unpopular bit of legislative anarchy is that the GOP's fat-cat donors have made it crystal clear that if the bill fails, they'll slam their wallets shut so hard that the shock wave will bring the party to its bony white knees.

It's always about the money, honey.

I get opposing the change; at the same time, I don't think both the provider and recipient of alimony will face a tax alimony.

Now Dotard will get taxed on his alimony payments to her, but she won't have to pay tax on them.

That is, if she starts showing her age, and he tries to dump her for a younger one.

The current system calls for the payee to be responsible for tax on alimony.

The proposed system shifts the tax burden to the payor.

Reality, I fear, will set in: unless we cut the taxes of our needy CEO population, two-lobster dinners might become a thing of the past. So, the final bill will probably double-tax alimony in the name of Discouraging Divorce.

In the bill, the payor pays the same amount of taxes whether paying $0 or $50,000 in alimony. So how does that "shift the tax burden to the payor"?

Please see #15 -- under the proposal the payee doesn't pay taxes on the alimony and the payor gets no tax break. Alimony will in effect be ignored by the IRS (the OP title is just plain wrong -- MSN took the CNN Money article and incorrectly retitled it -- please see #50 ).

Sounds fine to me. I don't think other taxpayers should have to subsidize alimony (which is the case under current law in the typical case when the payer is in a higher tax bracket than the payee).

Yes, overall this is a horrible tax bill. But the change in taxation of alimony is not one of the horrible features. Well, except that the money the IRS saves by eliminating the net alimony subsidy will mostly go to the richest few percent, sigh.

What is to stop the GOP from disallowing the alimony tax break to the payor AND requiring the payee to report it as income? Their position will be, "if you didn't want to pay taxes on alimony you should have worked harder to save your marriage."

That they will try to tighten the screws in future tax bills, I have no doubt.

And yup, I'm sure they want to punish divorced people for not taking their marriage vowels seriously, raising their children outside of the bounds of Holy Matrimony, yada.

This can't be legal.

The receiving spouse will get less money, to the tune of whatever the paying spouse pays in added taxes.

If they are both in the same tax bracket (not common) it will be a wash. If the paying spouse is in a higher bracket (most cases), their higher tax bill will be offset by lower support payments. The receiving spouse will, in effect, be paying tax at the paying spouse’s rate.

Obviously for very wealthy couples, this is not an easy thing to get worked up over. But for many splitting couples, divorce is a real financial hardship and it lowers the standard of living for both spouses quite significantly.

This just lowers it even more.

the middle class. Currently, alimony is treated by the IRS as income to the receiving spouse and a reduction of income from the paying spouse. If alimony is awarded, it is safe to assume the paying spouse makes more than the receiving spouse so that money is taxed at a lower bracket. The receiving spouse may not pay any taxes on it after earned income and child credits. Going forward, attorneys will argue for settlement less tax burden payments to the receiving spouse. Uncle Sam gets more and receiving spouse would get less. It is just like you said, effectively, the receiving spouse will be forced to pay taxes at the higher rate, just not on their own tax form.

Keep the tax write off, but apparently only the super duper rich can afford to pay off the exes now eh?? Whatta buncha fuckers.