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.
You dont get Medicaid in Alabama if you earn more than 18% of the federal poverty line if you have children. Which is $200 a month. If you dont have children, you dont get Medicaid even if you earn nothing.
Odd how the Democrats say the Republicans are bought and sold by the rich when the Republicans severely limited rich people's deduction's with the new tax bill. .
If I'm right, and I am, sales tax is deductible for those who live in states with no income tax.
Moving on. Don't anyone think for even a nanosecond that losing some deductions, at least partially, is going to force high tax states to lower their tax rates. If anything the rates will be raised. As several Democrat legislators in Maryland said about the tax bill, "Trump's taking our money".
Republican Governor Hogan has stated that he would like to return any additional state income tax collections due to the tax bill back to residents (Maryland's income tax system mirrors the federal one). That's not going to happen since this is an election year and no way in Hell will the Democratic Legislature give him a tax cut victory.
Arent you a regular working stiff yourself? Why do you think it will be good if deep cuts are made in programs supporting the disabled and the elderly? The disabled already are living on $700 a month now. Further cuts will just be brutal. People who launch attacks on states' ability to raise revenue simply open up calls for a stronger federal safety net. A true nightmare.
Imagine all people in America who are born disabled or get in a car accident as a child automatically getting $3000 a month to survive on. From the FEDERAL government. No states rights baloney about so-called freedom. This is the nightmare scenario that could happen when states are robbed of their ability to raise revenue to support the people in need.
We are helping liberal states understand they need to lower their taxes. Tough love. Tech jobs will find new homes in better tax climates within the country.
lol yeah sure they will all move to Appalachia and teach unemployed coal miners with a 3rd grade education how to code
lol yeah sure they will all move to Appalachia and teach unemployed coal miners with a 3rd grade education how to code
I'm not sure why you think the possibility of companies moving to a more favorable tax state is so far-fetched. Not every tech company is the size of Google or Amazon. It wouldn't be that hard to move a company of 100 or so if the numbers worked out. And, realistically, there is not really anything tying these companies to the areas they are currently in.
Arent you a regular working stiff yourself? Why do you think it will be good if deep cuts are made in programs supporting the disabled and the elderly? The disabled already are living on $700 a month now. Further cuts will just be brutal. People who launch attacks on states' ability to raise revenue simply open up calls for a stronger federal safety net. A true nightmare.
Imagine all people in America who are born disabled or get in a car accident as a child automatically getting $3000 a month to survive on. From the FEDERAL government. No states rights baloney about so-called freedom. This is the nightmare scenario that could happen.
Actually, I'm retired, so I'm counting on you to remain gainfully employed to keep me in the style to which I'm accustomed.
You know what screws you guys every time? The constant gloom and doom and end of the world predictions.
Reality: in most state and local budgets around 80% is mandated spending (Maryland's is 82%). So when the various current gubernatorial hopefuls promise something like free college for all they're actually saying "I'm going to increase mandated spending to 85%".
Federal mandated is around 60% or so.
In theory, more money in the pockets of consumers will lead to more economic activity and increase tax collections. Will that happen? Probably, but how much is the question. And it's an aggregate number.
What people always fail to take into account is that businesses aren't taxpayers, they're tax collectors. Every penny of tax levied on a business is baked into every product sold. Cars, clothes, hamburgers, whatever.
And, to show I'm not real probusiness, I will state that in my little corner of the cosmos businesses cost my residents a significant portion of their property tax payments. From business license cost not covering how much it costs to process them, to businesses dumping their trash in public trash cans instead of having a contractor pick it up so our town employees have to take it and dump it to business owners not living in town so we don't get the pittance of personal income tax for them from the state.
People who launch attacks on states' ability to raise revenue....
There is nothing preventing them from raising state taxes even more but they will not be doing it unfairly where someone else is paying more federal in another state that has lower taxes. The simple fact is there is no justification for anyone to be paying more or less federal taxes based on where they live.
I'm not sure why you think the possibility of companies moving to a more favorable tax state is so far-fetched. Not every tech company is the size of Google or Amazon. It wouldn't be that hard to move a company of 100 or so if the numbers worked out. And, realistically, there is not really anything tying these companies to the areas they are currently in.
Because workers with the skills necessary to work in a tech company do not want to live in a state like Oklahoma or Alabama, they want their kids to go to decent schools and they want a good quality of life. If those states were all that great, why haven't they already attracted tech firms requiring well educated skilled employees? Do you really think that a California tech company with 100 employees could convince even 1/4 of them to move to Mississippi?
It's too bad that so far in this thread the tax issue can't be discussed in a mature and adult way.
Here's the objective truth: it is bad for the economy and it is bad for America for federal policy to pick winner states and loser states. If Trump wants a strong economy he can't do it without California's tech sector and New York's financial prowess. The blue states need the the industry, energy, and agriculture from the red states. We are the United States and we should be working together.
The federal government isn't picking winners or losers. Every individual in every state has the exact same cap on how much of what they pay in state/local/property taxes can be claimed as a deduction on their federal taxes.
CA's tech sector benefits far more from the corporate tax reduction than they are hurt by the cap on the state and local taxes for individuals. Same for NY's financial sector.
What was happening before was federal-to-state tax redistribution scheme that used federal tax payments to mask the reality of the high tax burden some states and towns like to foist upon their citizens. The difference between actual and effective state/local/property taxes will get smaller, and in the super high tax states, it will be MUCH smaller. Now, those tax bills will be much more tangible to the citizen paying them, who can no longer recoup them to the same degree from the federal revenue transfer scheme.
Not only is the increased visibility good for the nation itself, it's great for increasing the visibility and understanding of federalism. Effective tax rates are one of many ways that states compete with each other for individual and corporate citizens to take up residence. With the federal government masking those rates with the wealth transfer, the lower tax states were having one of their selling points artificially dulled by the federal government in favor of high tax states who weren't offering that selling feature.
Now, the individual and corporate consumer will have a more realistic value applied to the effective tax rate of any given state, which will better inform them on where they receive the highest value for their input. End of the day, it will foster more robust competition between the states, and the consumer always benefits from increased competition. Maybe CA will...gasp...lower their onerous tax rates and become more friendly to their citizens than have been the last 30 years. Maybe New York will as well. You wouldn't hear anyone in those states (other than Democrat politicians) complaining, that much is certain.
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.
