Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 01-02-2018, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,461 posts, read 7,092,496 times
Reputation: 11707

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Why should people who can't by a home pay more than people who own their home?
It's the government's way of encouraging home ownership.

Which helps people stay tied to a particular geographic area.

Which makes it harder to vote with your feet and move to another state.

Which helps keep the states more homogeneous and minimizes the power and wealth variations from state to state to a certain degree.

Which ensures that the Lion's share of power remains in the hands of Fedgov™.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:12 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,742,017 times
Reputation: 14745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
Link please. I have seen a few leftists promoting this story with nothing to back it up.
quick google search shows it is highly dependent on who you are

http://www.medicaid.alabama.gov/docu...ts_2-11-17.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:14 AM
 
14,221 posts, read 6,963,795 times
Reputation: 6059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
Link please. I have seen a few leftists promoting this story with nothing to back it up.
What are you talking about? Its not a "story". Its a fact that 18% of the federal poverty level is the cutoff for Medicaid in Alabama. Thats $200 a month. Why are you so surprised by that? When taxes are cut to the bone, of course sick people are not going to get support. They are on their own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:14 AM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,068,169 times
Reputation: 17865
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
very good
should of added echo:

echo "Sleepy's statement is " . ($relevance == 'Stereotype') ? 'a ' : '' . $relevance;
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:15 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,742,017 times
Reputation: 14745
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
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.
Personally, I don't think the SALT / MI deductions should exist at all.

However I think that calling everyone who takes them "Rich" is incorrect and deliberately misleading. This is just blue state governors fighting for the interests of their constituents, most of whom are middle class.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:16 AM
 
14,221 posts, read 6,963,795 times
Reputation: 6059
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
quick google search shows it is highly dependent on who you are

http://www.medicaid.alabama.gov/docu...ts_2-11-17.pdf
This is the income cutoff limit for the red states:

https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files...5&h=551&crop=1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:17 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,464,007 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by spankys bbq View Post
Why is it so hard to demand a little fiscal responsibility in some of these states? Is it really that much easier to sue than to tighten up the belt a little and stop some of the unnecessary spending? I'm expected to be responsible with my money, why can't I expect the same of government? Look around today on your drive into work, or just going about town, and see if you can spot where your local government spent money on pet projects or luxury items, where that money could have been spent on the needed stuff. I see it every day, and I bet you would see it too if you looked around for it.

Public art is an obvious one. Don't get me wrong, it is nice to have but it shouldn't be put ahead of fixing bridges, roads, schools, etc.

Redundant staff in local government is another place some trimming could be done. Why have two departments with overlapping job descriptions and staff?

You can go on and on with this stuff. It's like going out and buying a big-screen TV when you can hardly pay the rent.

Who decides what is necessary and what is not?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:18 AM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,411 posts, read 60,608,674 times
Reputation: 61028
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
Personally, I don't think the SALT / MI deductions should exist at all.

However I think that calling everyone who takes them "Rich" is incorrect and deliberately misleading. This is just blue state governors fighting for the interests of their constituents, most of whom are middle class.
I don't know, we've had leaders in Maryland define "rich" as a married couple making $100K/year. You know, a couple of teachers, or cops, or union grocery employees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:20 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,742,017 times
Reputation: 14745
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
I don't know, we've had leaders in Maryland define "rich" as a married couple making $100K/year. You know, a couple of teachers, or cops, or union grocery employees.
If you want to outsource your vocabulary to "leaders in Maryland", that's your business, but leave the rest of us out of that nonsense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,850 posts, read 26,294,125 times
Reputation: 34059
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Explain how paying the exact same thing whether you live in state A or B is penalty.... If anything there was grounds to sue before this change was made. This change to the tax law is how it should of always been. There is no justification as to why someone in one state is paying more or less in federal taxes because of state taxes. If your taxes are going up substantially because of this law you need to direct your complaints to your state legislators who have implemented high taxes.
Ok but what if... the bill had capped charitable contributions to $1000 a year? Many church people tithe 10% of their income. That change in the tax code would ensure that states with a large number of church goers aren't treated differently than a state with less religiosity. Would you support that too?
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:42 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top