Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Strange but true. The US is actually a low-tax area among the world's developed economies. We send a lower portion of our GDP through the public sector than most others do.
Vat? This is America. We do things differently lol...
There's two kinds of countries in this world, ones that use the metric system and ones that have been to the moon. USA USA USA
And it's always a treat listening to people saying we have super high corporate tax rates compared to other countries....while of course those same people ignore the fact those countries have a vat tax. Vat taxes that average around 15 percent and that are an average of more than 20 percent in Europe.
Oh, good point. I was thinking of corporate income tax in a vacuum. I forgot that in Europe they pay 20% of every markup and every value added that they create.
My only noteworthy thought on the plan is that eliminating state and local income tax deductions is shrewd politics. It's both a relatively easy to sell as a loophole "for the rich" and will disproportionately affect people in Democratic states.
My only noteworthy thought on the plan is that eliminating state and local income tax deductions is shrewd politics. It's both a relatively easy to sell as a loophole "for the rich" and will disproportionately affect people in Democratic states.
I about fell out of my chair when some congressman from one of the high paying state tax states (I forget which, maybe New Jersey) was bumbling on about how it was unfair to put higher federal tax burdens on his citizens because if they lost their large SALT deduction it would cost them a lot.
All the while....his State's high tax burden on its citizens *is* the reason they would have so much to lose. He sure cares about those poor souls and their high taxes....as long as its federal taxes we bring up, and not his state's taxes.
Typical politician. Look at the evil government trying to take money from you! I'm on your side, common man!!!
I about fell out of my chair when some congressman from one of the high paying state tax states (I forget which, maybe New Jersey) was bumbling on about how it was unfair to put higher federal tax burdens on his citizens because if they lost their large SALT deduction it would cost them a lot.
All the while....his State's high tax burden on its citizens *is* the reason they would have so much to lose. He sure cares about those poor souls and their high taxes....as long as its federal taxes we bring up, and not his state's taxes.
Typical politician. Look at the evil government trying to take money from you! I'm on your side, common man!!!
Common men live in NJ, too.
It is not coincidence IMO that red states will benefit, and those who don't vote red will lose. But I care as well that my own Federal income taxes will go up under this plan. IMO someone making $50,000 is a "common man", and doesn't deserve a tax increase while the 1% pocket billions.
No one for the "common man" should be for this plan, as it is really only going to help the very, very rich. They take the entire loaf of bread and toss a crumb to the rest, and people seem to happily gobble it up.
As renting is where you pay a premium for temporary, impaired use of property, there is much disamenity associated with rental property.
Under a VAT, would renters get a 'rebate' on the basis of disamenities, or would they subsidize homeowners while enjoying inferior utility / value?
Believe it or not, there are millions of people in the United States who are happy with their rental situation. Just because you're in an f'd up situation doesn't mean everyone else does nor does it mean that laws should be written specifically for you.
My only noteworthy thought on the plan is that eliminating state and local income tax deductions is shrewd politics. It's both a relatively easy to sell as a loophole "for the rich" and will disproportionately affect people in Democratic states.
It's only shrewd politics if you think your own supporters will never rethink their support for you. People who pay taxes understand that it's not simply for the "rich." It affects a lot of working class Americans. This is going to affect people who itemize. A lot of Republican voters in the suburbs itemize. This is going to hurt them.
If Rs had no Congressional delegation from CA, NY, and NJ, how would you expect them to make up a Congressional majority? Those 3 states alone currently have 28 House Republican members. 28 seats flipping would split the House evenly. There are a lot of GOP members of Congress from high tax states with constituents who make a lot of money and pay a lot of SALT. They also tend to be voters more focused on fiscal issues. If you raise their taxes, do you think they are going to support the party as strongly as they did in the past?
And, of course, far more states than those three will be affected. Any State with both income and property taxes is likely to have a substantial portion of voters with a tax increase. Families with multiple children are likely to have a tax increase.
And this is on top of the Republicans trying to take away healthcare from tens of millions of people. And the Republicans accidentally (successfully?) stripping health care from 9 million children.
This is not good politics, because this party is not good at governing. They were good in opposition, when their goals didn't matter because they couldn't pass them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19
I about fell out of my chair when some congressman from one of the high paying state tax states (I forget which, maybe New Jersey) was bumbling on about how it was unfair to put higher federal tax burdens on his citizens because if they lost their large SALT deduction it would cost them a lot.
All the while....his State's high tax burden on its citizens *is* the reason they would have so much to lose. He sure cares about those poor souls and their high taxes....as long as its federal taxes we bring up, and not his state's taxes.
Typical politician. Look at the evil government trying to take money from you! I'm on your side, common man!!!
That sounds like a Congressman working for his constituents by trying to keep their taxes from increasing. The existence of a SALT deduction does not change the direct impact of State and local taxation. It simply changes the federal tax burden. In other words, a member of Congress should be focused on it, as it is a federal taxation issue.
It's only shrewd politics if you think your own supporters will never rethink their support for you. People who pay taxes understand that it's not simply for the "rich." It affects a lot of working class Americans. This is going to affect people who itemize. A lot of Republican voters in the suburbs itemize. This is going to hurt them.
If Rs had no Congressional delegation from CA, NY, and NJ, how would you expect them to make up a Congressional majority? Those 3 states alone currently have 28 House Republican members. 28 seats flipping would split the House evenly. There are a lot of GOP members of Congress from high tax states with constituents who make a lot of money and pay a lot of SALT. They also tend to be voters more focused on fiscal issues. If you raise their taxes, do you think they are going to support the party as strongly as they did in the past?
And, of course, far more states than those three will be affected. Any State with both income and property taxes is likely to have a substantial portion of voters with a tax increase. Families with multiple children are likely to have a tax increase.
And this is on top of the Republicans trying to take away healthcare from tens of millions of people. And the Republicans accidentally (successfully?) stripping health care from 9 million children.
This is not good politics, because this party is not good at governing. They were good in opposition, when their goals didn't matter because they couldn't pass them.
That sounds like a Congressman working for his constituents by trying to keep their taxes from increasing. The existence of a SALT deduction does not change the direct impact of State and local taxation. It simply changes the federal tax burden. In other words, a member of Congress should be focused on it, as it is a federal taxation issue.
The bolded appears to be true. The tax plan seems to upset a lot of people and satisfy few. The cuts to itemized deductions will affect a lot of people who tend to vote Republican. Ironically, this tax plan seems to help most the most wealthy but also the poor to lower-middle classes, many of whom just send in 1040 EZ's and will probably get bigger refunds with the doubling of the standard deduction.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
