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.
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.
Now, the Democrats are wanting the sue the federal government because the rich can only deduct a small amount of the taxes on their estates and mansions.
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.
I think this illustrates why the Framers gave us a Senate of members appointed by state legislatures - a Senate so constituted would not have capped the SALT deduction.
What I'm finding funny is that some of those wailing the most about partially losing SALT deductions are the same ones who, a few short years ago, were demanding they be totally done away with because some damned Bible Thumper, racist, Nazi, white guys in the South and MidWest got them.
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.
And those states that you hate so much will continue to subsidize the low tax red states, ain't life grand?
What I'm finding funny is that some of those wailing the most about partially losing SALT deductions are the same ones who, a few short years ago, were demanding they be totally done away with because some damned Bible Thumper, racist, Nazi, white guys in the South and MidWest got them.
Sorry-but it was bad before this when our tax policy did exactly the same thing, but in reverse. Two residents with the exact same income, family situation and housing. Why should the person in the state with high local taxes contribute less in FEDERAL income tax than someone in a state with lower local taxes? Why should people in other states be expected to subsidise those people's high state taxes? Even more-why should renters in any state have to subsidise homeowners?
The real fear among those governors has nothing to do with the serfs paying more. It is that, because those people are no longer subsidised by other taxpayers-they fear that they will turn their attention to where it belongs. To the state, counties and cities that are charging exorbitant taxes. They fear that those taxpayers will demand that the taxing districts get their spending in order and offer more competitive tax rates in line with the rest of the country. They have reason for concern.
We finally have a system that is fair, or at least fairer, for everyone.
Why should people who can't by a home pay more than people who own their home?
you are indeed mistaken, so how about this...go search my posts and show me where I said that or apologize for falsely attributing that to me.
I already said I might be wrong, but if it helps you sleep at night, I'm sorry. You do complain a lot about the wealthy not paying their fair share.
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.
