U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-18-2017, 09:24 AM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
13,454 posts, read 8,472,056 times
Reputation: 19562

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruzincat View Post
When you hear someone from a place like New York, Chicago, or Illinois complaining that the new tax bill is raising his taxes, you need to understand what is really happening.

The way the current tax laws are written, the state and local taxes you pay are deductible against your Federal Tax income calculations.

Theoretically, those that live in a state or locality with high taxes, are getting more benefits that the rest of the country is not getting. This could be in the form of paid for higher education, better roads, mass transit, whatever. More power to those areas that can afford to offer their population with the better things that life can offer them. They chose to live or continue to live in these higher taxed, higher COL areas, because of what is available to them to live there.

But, with the ability to deduct these local taxes from their income for Federal Tax liability, the extra benefits are, in effect, being subsidized by the rest of the country. The people in NY may make more money and may be in a higher tax bracket than most of the rest of the country, but when you look at people making the same amount of money as an individual with those higher tax deductions, the people in NY get more take home pay, after the Federal tax is withheld.

So, when you hear them complain about their taxes going up, you should interpret that as them saying, "We are losing our subsidy from the rest of the country." Then you won't have to feel so bad for them. Let them decide if they will continue to live where the benefits are greater, when they have to pay for those benefits on their own.
I read that very analysis a few days ago - I think it was Mnuchin who promoted it. I had never thought of it in that way, but having been exposed to the train of thought I find myself agreeing.

I pay my taxes, and I pay them when they are due.
If some wealthy person earns more than I do, well good for him. But he should pay taxes on the money he has earned and live off what is left. If he chooses to live in a condo in New York, then that is his choice. He should not be allowed to deduct the expenses associated with his choices.

After all if our rich guy finds a way to not pay taxes on $50,000 (for example), and our government runs short of money doesn't that mean they must turn to people in my tax bracket for relief? Seems like it to me.

Bottom line: Pay federal taxes first. Live on the money that is left over. Rich or not-so-rich, the same rule should apply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-18-2017, 09:25 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,339,374 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruzincat View Post
I said nothing about charitable donations in my OP. They should remain deductible. If you look at the higher income and higher real estate taxes, because of higher RE values in those areas, you can better see my point.
I know you said nothing about them, but the left went bonkers whining over them just a few years ago, claiming that because the "rich" can donate, this means others who arent rich had to pay higher taxes as a result.

The exact same argument for SALT deductions. Those who live in higher taxed areas, are also counting on lower taxed areas to "pay their fair share", while they take advantage of the deductions..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2017, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Hiding from Antifa?
6,341 posts, read 4,137,413 times
Reputation: 5654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slats Grobnick View Post
The middle class in those areas will also lose the deductions so not sure how that will mean less taxes for me and the rest of middle class people in Illinois.
The loss of local tax deductions in the new bill is not the only thing in the bill. The rest of the bill provides for the tax reductions that everyone but the extreme highest income earners will see. Those that have an extremely high deduction for local taxes may end up paying more, but that will be because they have been subsidized by the rest of us for so long.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2017, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Hiding from Antifa?
6,341 posts, read 4,137,413 times
Reputation: 5654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
I read that very analysis a few days ago - I think it was Mnuchin who promoted it. I had never thought of it in that way, but having been exposed to the train of thought I find myself agreeing.

I pay my taxes, and I pay them when they are due.
If some wealthy person earns more than I do, well good for him. But he should pay taxes on the money he has earned and live off what is left. If he chooses to live in a condo in New York, then that is his choice. He should not be allowed to deduct the expenses associated with his choices.

After all if our rich guy finds a way to not pay taxes on $50,000 (for example), and our government runs short of money doesn't that mean they must turn to people in my tax bracket for relief? Seems like it to me.

Bottom line: Pay federal taxes first. Live on the money that is left over. Rich or not-so-rich, the same rule should apply.
It is a concept that a lot of people have not realized. This is one reason I created a separate topic for it, and I am holding out hope that a mod does not throw this thread into another thread on the tax bill, where fewer people will become enlightened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2017, 09:34 AM
 
5,296 posts, read 1,968,137 times
Reputation: 6765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruzincat View Post
Theoretically, those that live in a state or locality with high taxes, are getting more benefits that the rest of the country is not getting.
You have it backwards. States with low state taxes often are reliant on the federal government. "In Kentucky, residents see $2.18 in return for every dollar paid in federal income tax, the sixth highest rate in the country." (source: Business Insider)

If Kentucky didn't get $2.18 in federal spending for every dollar they send to DC, Kentucky would have to raise their state and local taxes to make up for it.

California has long been a donor state. We send in more federal dollars than we get back. We deserve the state and local tax deduction because we do a better job of taking care of our own needs than Kentucky does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2017, 09:40 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
4,147 posts, read 4,702,365 times
Reputation: 4817
The Republicans want to keep America stupid because they can't win an election without uneducated dopes in the voting booth. It's all part of their larger plan to stay in office. Look at the exit polls. Facts are scary for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2017, 09:44 AM
 
29,035 posts, read 15,300,370 times
Reputation: 19794
Quote:
Originally Posted by fibonacci View Post
Yeah because one could pay privately for the millions of dollars it takes to train world class scientists and engineers. The US economy and the country is paid back orders of magnitude more compared to the money they have to spend on science and engineering education and training through the form of research grants. We could continue to cut spending on science and technology research, but guess who isn't and is tripling down on it- China is.

You're really not sticking it to those dumb libs at their ivory tower universities with the proposed idiotic tax plan that's on the table. The vast majority of tuition waiver recipients are people who study science, engineering, math and technology, fields that are 1.) apolitical and 2.) Are critical for national defense, communications, AI, medicine and basically every other high tech field that's required to maintain a 1st world economy.
You're claiming tuition is millions of dollars? ROFLMAO!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2017, 09:49 AM
 
8,059 posts, read 4,395,330 times
Reputation: 3063
You are not paying attention. Otherwise, you would not ignore that I said and believe that the answer as to the change of uninsured and consequent savings is somewhere in between the CBO and S&P projections. Instead, you seized upon if the S&P is correct then budget reconciliation could not be used. Which says simply you want to win an argument and not discuss. My actual wording was, "Long term projections are seldom accurate." Four or five sentences, mostly short, into my post.

As to my point about long term projections being inaccurate on the whole, try looking up some of the projections by the CBO on Ocare when it was wending its way to passage, or shortly after its passage. It's a mixed bag, but again on the whole, many key projections were off. I'll provide a variety of links to show how projections were off. You can pick whichever projection bolsters your need to win an argument the most. Me, I'm comfortable in taking any long term projection with a grain of salt.

CBO's Obamacare Predictions: How Accurate? - FactCheck.org

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.911fc1750f28

Fact-checking White House criticism of CBO health care analysis | PolitiFact

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot.../#eb340dd67a27

Oh, and since your trust level is minimal. These were the first four hits on the google search term, "cbo projection accuracy on obamacare".

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Please don't admonish me to pay attention, I pay attention quite well thank you. You frequently scold people not to 'shout' at you or ordering them to 'paying attention'. That's usually a literary device used to demean your intended audience at the beginning of a discussion, I would hope that's not why you do it.

If you think long term projections are seldom accurate then prove it because I don't know enough about you to just take your word for it. Of course eliminating the mandate would raise premiums it's sort of logical since if you take healthy people out of the market who were previously insured because of the mandate insurers will have an older, sicker base of insured people. And what's sad is that an additional 10% increase in premiums will eat up most of the measly tax cut provided in this plan.

S&P's numbers are based on the idea that that people remain in the market because they like the financial incentives, not because dropping the insurance would mean paying the mandate. There is evidence to the contrary But more importantly, S&P states that rather than saving 338 billion over a decade it would only save 50-80 billion which means that if you accept the S&P's numbers this bill can't be passed using using reconciliation
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...t-if-it-works/

http://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1...7.748105/full/

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...h-work/519420/[/quote]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2017, 09:50 AM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
13,454 posts, read 8,472,056 times
Reputation: 19562
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
You have it backwards. States with low state taxes often are reliant on the federal government. "In Kentucky, residents see $2.18 in return for every dollar paid in federal income tax, the sixth highest rate in the country." (source: Business Insider)

If Kentucky didn't get $2.18 in federal spending for every dollar they send to DC, Kentucky would have to raise their state and local taxes to make up for it.

California has long been a donor state. We send in more federal dollars than we get back. We deserve the state and local tax deduction because we do a better job of taking care of our own needs than Kentucky does.
If California had been wise enough to see that Trump was going to become President and supported him, then they may have become a beneficiary in all these tax changes.
But California, stupidly enough, continues to play "not-my-President". Not very smart, I say. So they have made themselves irrelevant.
Just send your money in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2017, 09:56 AM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,207 posts, read 13,969,115 times
Reputation: 6462
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
yes, and it was laughed at then, so they have to start all over, hopefully this way with a different angle..

Liberals.. INCOME IS INCOME, right? you guys are the ones running around whining about loopholes..
exactly

I find it funny, that liberals are the ones who made social-security count as income too


income, be it cash, check, or an exchange of work for tuition is all still income, or even interest from investments

and no income should be taxed higher than 20% max
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:18 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top