>>>>>>I just ran my 2016 taxes using the new brackets:
>>>>>>Best Case: They keep the personal exemption and the age 65+ bonus on the standard deduction
>>>>>>Taxes down $4000
>>>>>>Worst Case: no over 65 bonus and no personal exemption
>>>>>>Taxes down $800
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Capital gains limits, pass through taxes and expensing could make a lot of difference.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not so good here in NJ
>>>>>
>>>>>State income taxes are high here, so the loss of that deduction will hurt.
>>>>>Also, real estate taxes are high here, and the elimination of deductions over $10K will hurt.
>>>>>The losers will be people with mid-to high salaries who own homes with high taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ditto with NY.
>>>>>
>>>>>No one is sweating, though.
>>>>>The pendulum will swing quickly and the dems will reverse it all.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's really wild to see dems complaining about budget deficits and repubs saying they're OK
>>>>
>>>>Here in MA, we are in the same boat: high state tax and very high property tax. But mostly what I don't like about the new tax law is that it will hurt charitable organizations. Because for most of us, the charitable contributions will not be tax deductible.
>>>
>>>I never understood the charitable deduction.
>>>I don't see why other taxpayers should be forced to support a charity that I choose to support.
>>
>>By your logic, why should taxpayers who have no children be forced to support others who have children (I am talking about child tax credit).
>
>Good question.
>I think that there are cases (not many) where people can agree on what is good for the country and try to support those activities.
>For example, the medical deduction supports the idea that healthy people are better for the country at large than are sick people.
>The child deduction says that growing the population contributes to the general welfare.
>The interest deduction says the borrowing money helps the overall economy, etc., etc.
>At one point - I don't think it does any more - filing a joint return had a benefit, reflecting the idea that married people are helping the country.
>
>Reasonable people can disagree on these points, and we probably went overboard on them, but they are different from saying that someone who hates classical music has to subsidize my contributions to my favorite symphony orchestra, even though I think that the symphony orchestra benefits the whole community, even those who hate its music.

I am not disagreeing with you - in principle - that one's charity should not be subsides by other people. But the reality is that subconsciously people know that they can deduce and therefore tend to give more. People who want to give will still give but many will reduce their contribution. Then there is a school of thought that only money that ppl pend on their own needs and the family should be taxed. Therefore, money given to another organization should not be taxed.