Broker Proposal Sample: Fill & Download for Free

Although I believe many aspects of the two GOP tax proposals are morally bankrupt and fiscally irresponsible, I’m not sure that reducing the tax incentives for home ownership in our expensive housing market will have an inhibiting effect.The reason I say this is that, even though being able to deduct mortgage interest and property taxes reduces the effective cost of ownership, I haven’t seen very many people whose purchase decisions are motivated by tax considerations.In my previous life as a real estate broker and my current one as a mortgage loan officer, I would hear people say, “I need some tax write-offs,” but most people don’t even know how our progressive tax system works. When someone says, “I’m in the 25% tax bracket,” they often think that means they pay 25% of their income in taxes. This is completely false; the marginal “tax bracket” means that one pays the specified percentage of each dollar over a base amount. Someone whose gross income is, say, $100,000 will likely be in the 25% bracket. I say “likely” because we get to adjust our income with deductions and exemptions.Today, the personal exemption (we once called them “dependents”) is $4,150. A family of three will be able to claim $12,450 in exemptions.Then there are deductions. At a minimum, a taxpayer can claim the “standard deduction,” which is $13,000 for a married couple filing jointly. One would choose the standard deduction if that number is higher than what they can itemize.A married couple with one child will have taxable income of $74,550 if they choose the Standard Deduction. That drops them into the 15% marginal bracket, which covers taxable income between $19,051 and $77,400. They’ll pay a base tax of $1,905 plus 15% of all income over $19,500—$8,325. Their total income tax will be $10,230. (I’m going to disregard the $1,000 child credit in the interests of simplicity)If that same couple bought a home for $575,000 with a 20% down payment, they’ll pay about $20,000 a year in mortgage interest and $7,000 in property tax. They’ll obviously get some benefit from itemizing their deductions, since $27,000 is more than the $13,000 Standard Deduction. For the sake of this example, I’ll assume they also pay $5,000 in California income tax. Now their deductions amount to $32,000. Now their taxable income is $55,500 compared to $74,550 wit the Standard Deduction. Their income tax liability (not including the child credit) drops to $7,380—a savings of $2,850. Sweet.That’s what they save by being able to itemize their deductions under the current law. It’s not a trivial number, but it’s not a particularly motivating figure. Very few people are inclined to do the level of analysis I’ve just inflicted on you, dear reader.As long as we’re in number-crunching mode, let’s compare the two GOP proposals (at least what we’re aware of so far) to what I’ve just described.You should be aware that these two proposals are complex and massive. The House proposal, the “Tax Cut and Jobs Act,” HR1, is 460 pages—88,000 words. Just the official analysis of the bill is 320 pages. The Senate version is bigger: 550 pages and 102,000 words (yes, I counted). That mass of verbiage provides a great many nooks and crannies to hide things.One example: since 1986, there has been a program for first-time buyers of low and moderate income called Mortgage Credit Certificates, or MCC. This allows a first-time buyer whose income is below certain maximums to claim a percentage of the mortgage interest they pay as a tax credit. The credit comes off the bottom line of their taxes. Here in the Bay Area, the maximum income for MCC is $146,000 for a family of three. They’ll be able to claim 20% of the interest they pay as a tax credit. It’s a big number, and amounts to a 20% discount in the interest rate for as long as they live in the property and have a mortgage on it.One line in the House version, buried on page 76, takes the program away. The good news is that owners of golf courses can still claim their tax credits for “environmental easements.”But I digress.Both tax proposals call for increasing the Standard Deduction, but disallowing the itemization of state income taxes and limiting the mortgage interest and property tax one can claim as a deduction. The personal exemption would be eliminated.Our couple earning $100,000 would pay income taxes of $8,032 (House) or $8,379 (Senate). Compare this with the $7,380 they would pay under the current tax schedule.Oops.In fairness, I should mention that the two proposals increase the child credit from its current $1,000 to $1,600 (House) or $2,000 (Senate), so the difference in the taxes would be minimal. One of the sneaky aspects of both House and Senate versions is that the tax credits expire in 2025, so those families with children would see their taxes go up.The bottom line of this (and thanks for your patience in reading this far) is that any changes in tax law are unlikely to have much effect—if any—in the real estate market, at least in those areas, like the Bay Area, with high values and high property taxes. One argument put forth by the GOP in promoting their tax bills is that only about 30% of households itemize their deductions. It’s worth noting that all but seven states have some form of income tax that would would no longer be deductible.Disclosure: I am not a CPA or tax preparer. If anyone more knowledgeable than I am finds flaws in my analysis or calculations, PLEASE let me know, and I’ll make corrections. I’m reasonably confident in the validity of these numbers, however.[EDIT: I was asked to expand my analysis to someone in the Bay Area earning $300,000 owing a $1 million home. It gets a bit complicated (and, honestly beyond my capabilities to do it in proper detail), but here’s a back-of-the-envelope look at it. One thing to keep in mind is that the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was enacted as the “minimum tax” in 1969, then codified is the Alternative Minimum Tax in 1982. Its purpose is to ensure that certain high-income taxpayers with many deductions and shelters and corporations don’t get to skate out of paying any tax. Someone earning $300,000 would almost certainly pay the AMT. I am disregarding that part of the tax law in this case, but suffice it to say that the AMT would be repealed by either version of tax reform.I’m assuming that the sample case would be a married couple filing jointly, with $300,000 gross income. They may or may not have children, but at that income level, the child tax credit would phase out anyway. The couple owns a home worth $1 million. They have a loan of $800,000 at 4.5%, so they’ll pay about $35,000 interest. Their property tax would be around $12,500 per year. I’ll also assume that they pay $10,000 in California income tax, so their total itemized deductions amount to $57,500.Their Taxable Income under today’s tax code would be $234,200 (300,000–57,500–8,300=234,200). They’d be in the 33% marginal tax bracket and would pay income tax of $52,199.Under the House proposal, they’d be in the 25% marginal bracket. Their base tax would be $10,800, marginal tax (35% of the amount over $90,000) $41,375. Total tax owed would be $52,175. That’s almost the same as the current code, but the repeal of the AMT is what would really make the difference. My guess is that this couple would pay over $20,000 in AMT under today’s code, but not under either proposal making their way through Congress.The Senate version doesn’t allow for deduction of property tax and limits interest deduction to loans of $1 million. The tax would be about the same—$52,900. Again, the AMT is the big kicker.When these guys write these kinds of bills—and it’s not unique to the GOP—they make them so complex and opaque that there are lots of places to hide things. Even things unrelated to the subject of the legislation. For example, there is a provision on page 97 of the House bill stating that “unborn persons” can be named account beneficiaries. While this may seem innocuous on its face, it is designed to advance the “fetal personhood” principle to strengthen case of those hoping to outlaw abortion in all cases.As I said earlier, I am not a CPA or tax professional. I am very open to corrections from knowledgeable people. The goal is to inform.

Well, sadly a princess’ fancy has little to no say in her match in Westeros… but then again, if the said crush is her father’s quasi-namesake, the son of his best friend and the heir of one of the Paramount lordship of the Kingdom I can see the match becoming much more possible.Although a marriage proposal has already been proposed between Houses Stark and Baratheon, so politically some might see it as a superfluous match, Robert was sentimental when it came to Ned. Plus, he still has Tommen and the theoretical capacity for another baby or two in the future (Jaime would not complain) an unmarried brother, and poor Shireen, so he could broker some matches with other houses to further expand his alliances.Similarly with Ned, while he would probably like a match with a Northern maiden for the future Lord of Winterfell, a double match with the Royal family, especially with a clever, beautiful and good-natured girl as Myrcella, would bring immense prestige in the North, so most of his vassals would not object, especially is she was fostered in Winterfell for some time. And again, Ned has another three kids he can marry off into northern families and he and Cat are young enough to have a couple more.The real problem in this scenario is the Lannister faction. Cersei would foam from the mouth with the idea, Jaime would probably be indifferent or not see any reason to complain, Tywin would make his disapproval known by calling in a royal loan or two, and Tyrion… if Bran’s fall didn’t happen, he might be glad to be visiting with his niece and sample northern hospitality without Cersei around.

A2A.These slides are provided for instructional purposes only. The slides capture one approach to creating a pitch deck for an independent consultant (say when the sales strategy is to provide more of an introduction). Pitch decks for consulting firms can be somewhat more elaborate, but they usually share similarities to these slides in that they try to capture the spirit of the type of problem statement being addressed, the consulting approach, and case studies illustrating where the consulting team has done similar engagements before.Steve Shu – Sample Behavioral Economics Intro DeckAs an additional note, these slides were tailored based on help from a company insider that brokered me to the client sponsor who eventually signed a proposal/contract. So each pitch deck will reflect a bit of a twist based on the situation._______________Steve Shu specializes in incubating new initiatives with a primary focus on strategy, technology, and behavioral science. He is author of Inside Nudging: Implementing Behavioral Science Initiatives and The Consulting Apprenticeship: 40 Jump-Start Ideas for You and Your Business.