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, 09:22 AM
 
14,221 posts, read 7,001,051 times
Reputation: 6059

Advertisements

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.
Why shouldnt SALT deductions exist? Its the only real way a state can raise some extra revenue for their disabled and the elderly or to improve public education. Without it, the federal government must step in instead to increase the federal public safety net. Attacks on SALT is an attack on the disabled, the elderly, the poor and the destitute.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:23 AM
 
33,012 posts, read 27,560,424 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96 View Post
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™.

In the case of those unable to buy a home, isn't that effectively a PENALTY for being unable to buy a home?

Kinda like the PENALTY in Obamacare for not buying insurance?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:24 AM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,618 posts, read 61,049,926 times
Reputation: 61362
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
Why shouldnt SALT deductions exist? Its the only real way a state can raise some extra revenue for their disabled and the elderly or to improve public education. Without it, the federal government must step in instead to increase the federal public safety net. Attacks on SALT is an attack on the disabled, the elderly, the poor and the destitute.
Explain how the deductions raise money for states please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:28 AM
 
14,221 posts, read 7,001,051 times
Reputation: 6059
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Explain how the deductions raise money for states please.
Because no state can have a radically different tax burden than any other state as long as we are the United States with free movement of people. Its a race to the bottom. If you assail SALT, you are attacking states' ability to raise revenue to help their disabled people. And the disabled people have nowhere to go. More federal government for a stronger federal safety net for the disabled and the elderly will be the consequences of this. Is that what you want?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:29 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,820,059 times
Reputation: 14748
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
Why shouldnt SALT deductions exist?
Because they subsidize high-tax states at the expense of low-tax states.

Quote:
Its the only real way a state can raise some extra revenue for their disabled and the elderly or to improve public education.
No. That's not factual. SALT deductions don't raise revenue for states, they decrease revenue for the feds.

Quote:
Attacks on SALT is an attack on the disabled, the elderly, the poor and the destitute.
Sorry, that logic doesn't add up to me.

Eliminating SALT just increases the federal tax burden of certain households. That doesn't "attack the disabled, eldery, poor, and destitute."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:33 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,480 posts, read 7,142,174 times
Reputation: 11736
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
In the case of those unable to buy a home, isn't that effectively a PENALTY for being unable to buy a home?

Kinda like the PENALTY in Obamacare for not buying insurance?


I never said I agreed with it.

I'm all for a flat tax, across the board, no exceptions, no deductions, no loopholes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:34 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,820,059 times
Reputation: 14748
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96 View Post
I'm all for a flat tax, across the board, no exceptions, no deductions, no loopholes.
You have better odds of riding a unicorn to the moon
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:34 AM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,618 posts, read 61,049,926 times
Reputation: 61362
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
Because no state can have a radically different tax burden than any other state as long as we are the United States with free movement of people. Its a race to the bottom. If you assail SALT, you are attacking states' ability to raise revenue to help their disabled people. And the disabled people have nowhere to go. More federal government for a stronger federal safety net for the disabled and the elderly will be the consequences of this. Is that what you want?
How so? Nothing except local laws, and potential political consequences, keeps states or localities from setting whatever tax rates they want.

You still haven't explained how partially eliminating the deduction takes money away from the disabled. According to you guys, smart and wealthy people aren't going to move to low tax states in any event because they're filled with the "wrong" people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:38 AM
 
33,012 posts, read 27,560,424 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler View Post
You and all the liberals are always posting about how the blue states have to carry the red states so isn't a good thing to give the red states some advantages to allow them to catch up?

Here's my thoughts on the new tax changes and they are contradictory:
1) The high tax states haven been buying services that they have been able to write off of their federal income taxes (FIT) giving residents there an advantage. From a fairness perspective, either allow the low tax states residents to purchase the same services and write off the cost or do what this new tax bill does, eliminates that tax free service.
2) It does seem unfair to allow these deductions for decades and people made decisions on where to live and what house to buy based on these write offs and to take them away and not grandfather those that have already made those decisions.
3) Regardless of 1 & 2 above, we needed the tax change mainly to lower the corporate rate.

By the way, there's a difference between a blue state and a high tax state....my state, Washington, is a blue state but low state tax state.

Now THAT is a FAIL - low tax states have long had the ability to do what you suggest, and OBVIOUSLY, they have CHOSEN to not do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:40 AM
 
33,012 posts, read 27,560,424 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96 View Post
I never said I agreed with it.

I'm all for a flat tax, across the board, no exceptions, no deductions, no loopholes.

A flat tax starting at Dollar One?
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.

© 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