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.
Take a family of 4 on Long Island making around the median income of $100,000
Interest on mortgage comes out to about $1,100 per month (which would be pretty typical on a 30 year loan taking out a few years ago for $325,000)
Property taxes are around $11,000
State income tax on that income would be approx $5,600
They would currently itemize $30,800, and have personal exemptions of $16,200
The actual taxable income would be $53,000
Under the proposed plan, they would now take a standard deduction of $24,000, and no longer have any personal exemptions so the actual taxable income would be $76,000
Why should federal taxpayers subsidize your high state and local taxes? I've been irritated about this for decades...high time you paid your fair share of federal income taxes.
Again, why am I subsidizing homeowners, student loan takers, and parents then???? I know you agree with this but I'm asking everyone. Who is deciding which subsidies are worthy and which aren't? I got NO problems with taking away SALT deductions if I also then don't have to subsidize all those other people.
It has nothing to do with "worthy". It has to do with common sense and reeling your politicians in.
psst, Obama took away our personal exemptions in 2012, I didn't hear anything from you back then. I've adjusted, so can others. Oh and I'm mortgage free because I never benefited from the mortgage deduction (thank you AMT). All Obama's tax policy did is encourage me to buckle down and now debt free (no GDP hit 3.0 during Obama's time in office). I was p*ssed like you but in the end it's the best thing I ever did. You should too but your state taxes will make it awful hard (keeping you struggling).. wait until they want more of your money "because it's never enough".
It has nothing to do with "worthy". It has to do with common sense and reeling your politicians in.
psst, Obama took away my personal exemption in 2012, I didn't hear anything from you back then. I've adjusted, so can others. Oh and I'm mortgage free because I never benefited from the mortgage deduction (thank you AMT). All Obama's tax policy did is encourage me to buckle down and be debt free (no GDP hit 3.0) but in the end it's the best thing I ever did. You should too but your state taxes will make it awful hard (keeping you struggling)
You didn't hear anything from me then because I hadn't even heard of C-D then. But here you go with Obama again. Let's try to live in the present, not the past.
That's great that you have no mortgage. Me neither. So why are we subsidizing people who DO? That seems as much of a common sense issue as the SALT. This entire system of deductions is a bizarre choosing of which behaviors is worthy or not.
Now can anyone answer why I have to subsidize someone's student loans when I worked my ass off not to have any? Or subsidize their home when I don't have a mortgage? Or subsidize their children, when I don't have any? These need to go. Flat tax, no deductions, for everyone is starting to sound much more attractive to me.
It has nothing to do with "worthy". It has to do with common sense and reeling your politicians in.
psst, Obama took away my personal exemption in 2012, I didn't hear anything from you back then. I've adjusted, so can others. Oh and I'm mortgage free because I never benefited from the mortgage deduction (thank you AMT). All Obama's tax policy did is encourage me to buckle down and now debt free (no GDP hit 3.0). I was p*ssed like you but in the end it's the best thing I ever did. You should too but your state taxes will make it awful hard (keeping you struggling)
The personal exemption phase-out starts at $261,500 AGI for single filers and $313,800 for married filers and phases out completely for those with an AGI over $384,000 for single filers and $436,300 for married filers. What Obama did with the personal exemption did not hurt the middle class, this will.
So is sales tax. So is FICA tax. You have no point.
I consider sales tax a totally different issue because it taxes everyone, no deductions, no getting around it - an additional fee. And it would be operationally unfeasible to adjust it for income.
Now, SALT and federal taxes are both based on the premise of adjusting income based on what you may have paid in the past. It's already set up for that. Why wouldn't they include it? And FWIW, again, I have no problems paying it if we treated deductions consistently, like the sales tax. I don't like the gov't deciding something that actually benefits me isn't worthy while another subsidy that hurts me is.
Yes, they are. Long Islanders are paying MUCH LESS in federal income tax and payroll tax than they would otherwise have to pay due to their state and local tax deductions.
You didn't hear anything from me then because I hadn't even heard of C-D then. But here you go with Obama again. Let's try to live in the present, not the past.
That's great that you have no mortgage. Me neither. So why are we subsidizing people who DO? That seems as much of a common sense issue as the SALT. This entire system of deductions is a bizarre choosing of which behaviors is worthy or not.
This might shock you because I'm thanking him. His kick in the ass for my trying to make a better life for my family actually changed how I handle my finances. I got a two-fer. I'm now debt free and in helping my family against his boot in the ass, (and not for vengeance) but with the result, did not contribute to his failing economy. Here is the kicker,
Did people really believe the rich supported him in getting the rich? LOLOL (stupidity)
Did people really believe that he and Democrats were getting the rich?
Did people really believe that those of us he was kicking in the ass were not going to make adjustments in our finances?
I consider sales tax a totally different issue because it taxes everyone, no deductions, no getting around it - an additional fee. And it would be operationally unfeasible to adjust it for income.
Now, SALT and federal taxes are both based on the premise of adjusting income based on what you may have paid in the past. It's already set up for that. Why wouldn't they include it?
Because it's inequitable. Some areas (blue cities/states) tax to the moon, and get subsidized by federal taxpayers everywhere else for doing so.
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.
But here you go with Obama again. Let's try to live in the present, not the past.
