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.
The burden of proof is on you to explain why it does; it's not on me to explain why it doesn't.
so far,
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike
Of course its true
^^ this is the only explanation or evidence I've gotten from PCALMike for any of his claims. "Because I said so" and "Because it is" have been his two core arguments for the past ~15 pages, and I've been watching him go in circles with the constant re-stating of the same naked assertions in various ways.
[quote=le roi;50575722]The burden of proof is on you to explain why it does; it's not on me to explain why it doesn't./QUOTE]
Because some fraction of rich/wealthy people will respond to the loss of their 'excess' SALT deductions by moving to other states, causing the high tax states to lose revenue, leading to some combination of tax reductions and spending cuts.
This will not happen overnight; it's more like this will accelerate the tipping point at which these people move out.
Democrats are the party of the rich and they will sue anyone who wants to close loopholes or limit deductions for the rich.
I guess now liberal, elite Democratic politicians in blue states now want to sue the federal government over President Trump's tax cuts because they closed tax loopholes and tax deductions for the rich.
I guess the Democrats are angry because tax deductions and now severely limited so that the vast majority of property taxes on mansions and estates and the state and local income taxes will be limited.
Democrats are the party of any person or corporation that wants something from the government for example, people who are on welfare, and of course corporate welfare, corporations that want government favoritism (and lobbyist), people who have govt jobs or contracts.
I predicted this back in Sept when it was on the table.
Alaska.
Florida.
Nevada.
South Dakota.
Texas.
Washington.
Wyoming
I've only been to four of these states, but they all have schools and roads. I assume the other three do as well.
Funny how some states can provide public services with no income taxes on their citizens at all.
Alaska, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming all have resource extraction taxes to the extent that other tax revenues are unnecessary - oil, gas and coal. The value of oil and coal has dropped significantly. The game is changing significantly.
Microsoft and software has sustained Washington. Washington has a significant business and occupations tax, a deductible business expense.
I don't know enough about Florida or Nevada's economies to comment.
Because some fraction of rich/wealthy people will respond to the loss of their 'excess' SALT deductions by moving to other states, causing the high tax states to lose revenue, leading to some combination of tax reductions and spending cuts.
I'm impressed that you said in 1 sentence what PCALMike failed to say in about 15 pages.
I think it's a reasonable argument you're making, that the SALT deduction might cause wealthy people to flee to lower-tax states, even if such a prediction cannot be proven as fact.
I still don't think that there's anything 'unfair' about it, though.
While some wealthy people have established their home base in Texas or Florida, it is difficult to imagine them packing up from other states and and moving to South Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, ... to lower their taxes.
I'm impressed that you said in 1 sentence what PCALMike failed to say in about 15 pages.
I think it's a reasonable argument you're making, that the SALT deduction might cause wealthy people to flee to lower-tax states, even if such a prediction cannot be proven as fact.
I still don't think that there's anything 'unfair' about it, though.
Dont you follow news at all? Thats what state governments in democratic states have been warning about constantly over the past months. And you didnt understand what they were saying? I dont understand progressives who support far right tax policies. The only logic behind it is that it can cause so much suffering at the state level that the calls for a strong expansion of federal government will be needed. Thats what the elites who push this tax bill hope wont happen because they control the courts and the money flowing into Congress.
Alaska, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming all have resource extraction taxes to the extent that other tax revenues are unnecessary - oil, gas and coal. The value of oil and coal has dropped significantly. The game is changing significantly.
Microsoft and software has sustained Washington. Washington has a significant business and occupations tax, a deductible business expense.
I don't know enough about Florida or Nevada's economies to comment.
California has Silicon Valley and Hollywood. That dwarfs what Washington state gets from Microsoft and Amazon.
While some wealthy people have established their home base in Texas or Florida, it is difficult to imagine them packing up from other states and and moving to South Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, ... to lower their taxes.
In Maryland they moved to Delaware and Virginia. Then Maryland taxes went up to make up the difference. No problem for the tax and spend while taxing the wealthy until they scream crowd.
Oh, Governor O'Malley and the leading legislators defined "wealthy" at that time as a married couple with a combined income of $100K.
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.
