Republicans always favoring the rich...hmm

Those Republicans always favoring the rich...

Just unbelievable hypocrisy for a party that without fail wants to raise taxes on the top 20% 


"Taxpayers can write off $10,000, which means those with modest means are spared a tax increase. Repealing that $10,000 cap would “almost exclusively provide tax relief to the top 20 percent of income earners, the largest tax cut going to the top 1 percent of earners.” The government would lose $600 billion over 10 years. This must be the first time in years that a Democrat has said the government needs less money, or that the rich need a tax cut."

Oops - its Andrew Cuomo   



Who are you quoting and what is the source of the 20% number you cite?


Anthem said:
Those Republicans always favoring the rich...

Just unbelievable hypocrisy for a party that without fail wants to raise taxes on the top 20% 


"Taxpayers can write off $10,000, which means those with modest means are spared a tax increase. Repealing that $10,000 cap would “almost exclusively provide tax relief to the top 20 percent of income earners, the largest tax cut going to the top 1 percent of earners.” The government would lose $600 billion over 10 years. This must be the first time in years that a Democrat has said the government needs less money, or that the rich need a tax cut."
Oops - its Andrew Cuomo   


this is not the issue.  The issue is that the elimination of the SALT deduction was specifically aimed at states that vote Democratic.  And it's meant to force those states to stop spending on their own priorities.  It was a dishonest, unfair tax increase targeted to a very narrow and specific target -- individuals in Democratic leaning states who earn a salary.  

If the GOP had decided to raise taxes across the board for the top 20 percent of earners, that would be appropriate.  But to target it mainly to places like CA, NY, NJ, MA is underhanded and dirty.


and, it should also be noted Cuomo is wrong on the specifics.  The reinstatement of the SALT deduction would in fact be paid for.  By raising the tax rate on topmost bracket (i.e., the wealthiest taxpayers) to 39.6%.

Menendez (D-N.J.) and Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), the primary sponsors, say their bill would pay for the cost of removing the $10,000 cap by restoring the top income tax bracket to 39.6 percent. 
 https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2019/02/11/blue-state-lawmakers-launch-effort-to-repeal-salt-cap-847174

Anthem said:
Those Republicans always favoring the rich...

Just unbelievable hypocrisy for a party that without fail wants to raise taxes on the top 20% 


"Taxpayers can write off $10,000, which means those with modest means are spared a tax increase. Repealing that $10,000 cap would “almost exclusively provide tax relief to the top 20 percent of income earners, the largest tax cut going to the top 1 percent of earners.” The government would lose $600 billion over 10 years. This must be the first time in years that a Democrat has said the government needs less money, or that the rich need a tax cut."
Oops - its Andrew Cuomo   


 On the balance, the Republican tax cut favored the rich and corporations.  It was a good year to be a stockholder as companies bought back their own stock.  And there is that little detail about increasing government debt in good times when we should be banking money, but I am sure that scum like Paul Ryan understand that stuff better than do I.


and to make their "point", anthem picks the Dem who is probably most loathed by liberals.


Good choice!


Don't feed the troll.


mrincredible said:
Who are you quoting and what is the source of the 20% number you cite?

It’s from a WSJ editorial yesterday/today. Here’s the paragraph without extraneous quotation marks and with the Tax Foundation attribution.

Taxpayers can still write off $10,000, which means those with modest means are spared a tax increase. The Tax Foundation reported last month that repealing the cap would “almost exclusively provide tax relief to the top 20 percent of income earners, the largest tax cut going to the top 1 percent of earners.” The government would lose $600 billion over 10 years. This must be the first time in years that a Democrat has said the government needs less money, or that the rich need a tax cut.

drummerboy said:
and to make their "point", anthem picks the Dem who is probably most loathed by liberals.

But makes the point a lot less verbosely than any point made in the book above, so hurrah for that.


Why is he loathed?  If anyone thinks he is on the wrong track by favoring the wealthy and wanting them to get a big tax cut perhaps there should be more push back.    It is not about the federal government and the tax law restricting states from doing what the citizens want -  the tax break means the entire country is subsidizing the priorities of the state.    NY could find ways to compensate anyone in NY they think is being harmed by the $10,000 limit.    



If the SALT deduction limit is removed and the tax rate on the top income folk is raised and serves to offset the tax losses, it would suggest that the middle to upper middle class folks would be the prime beneficiaries.


Anthem said:
Why is he loathed?  If anyone thinks he is on the wrong track by favoring the wealthy and wanting them to get a big tax cut perhaps there should be more push back.    It is not about the federal government and the tax law restricting states from doing what the citizens want -  the tax break means the entire country is subsidizing the priorities of the state.    NY could find ways to compensate anyone in NY they think is being harmed by the $10,000 limit.    

I might have some sympathy for this POV were it not for the fact that we were already subsidizing Republican welfare states.


https://taxfoundation.org/salt-deduction-benefit/       The source for my info           If Trump and the others who passed the tax code changes enjoyed that it was hitting blue states hardest that was an absolute side benefit for them, though perhaps an awesome one.     The SALT deduction is a very inefficient way to raise revenue and distort financial decision priorities.    In theory it makes a huge amount of sense in simplifying the tax code and allowing decisions to be made based on the benefits, rather than on the fact that one gets a deduction.   



Anthem said:
https://taxfoundation.org/salt-deduction-benefit/       The source for my info           If Trump and the others who passed the tax code changes enjoyed that it was hitting blue states hardest that was an absolute side benefit.    The SALT deduction is a very inefficient way to raise revenue and distort financial decision priorities.    In theory it makes a huge amount of sense in simplifying the tax code and allowing decisions to be made based on the benefits, rather than on the fact that one gets a deduction.   

********.  This is just another example of marshalling seemingly logical explanations for a purely political maneuver.

If the pain of removing the SALT deduction which has been in place for more than 100 years was even distributed, it wouldn't have been removed.


tjohn - Wouldn't you agree that it is an inefficient way to run a tax code, that it gives more benefits to the rich than the poor, that it rewards states that spend a lot of money and that the states that don't spend much are forced to subsidize the high spending, high taxing states unfairly?   



Anthem said:
tjohn - Wouldn't you agree that it is an inefficient way to run a tax code, that it gives more benefits to the rich than the poor, that it rewards states that spend a lot of money and that the states that don't spend much are forced to subsidize the high spending, high taxing states unfairly?   

I suppose that if NJ received more in federal spending than it paid in taxes, I might be able to read what you wrote.  As it stands, we are subsidizing the Republican welfare states like Mississippi.


New Jersey is quite progressive.  Tax the rich states to subsidize the poor states.


Can a defender of the unlimited SALT deduction explain to me why it is appropriate for the federal government to levy higher income taxes on residents of low-tax states and localities than it is on residents of high-tax states and localities?

If two taxpayers have the same income and number of dependents, but one lives in a place with a lean, efficient government, but the other lives in a place with an expansive, bloated government, who should the one whose local and state governments are thrifty be penalized?

What benefit does someone in a low-tax state derive from the high taxes of other states?


Runner_Guy said:
Can a defender of the unlimited SALT deduction explain to me why it is appropriate for the federal government to levy higher income taxes on residents of low-tax states and localities than it is on residents of high-tax states and localities?
If two taxpayers have the same income and number of dependents, but one lives in a place with a lean, efficient government, but the other lives in a place with an expansive, bloated government, who should the one whose local and state governments are thrifty be penalized?
What benefit does someone in a low-tax state derive from the high taxes of other states?

 The welfare states receive my tax dollars and I am paying an overall tax rate higher than people in the welfare states.


Runner_Guy said:

If two taxpayers have the same income and number of dependents, but one lives in a place with a lean, efficient government, but the other lives in a place with an expansive, bloated government, who should the one whose local and state governments are thrifty be penalized?

This distillation of the difference between low- and high-tax states and municipalities is marvelous. (Bloated Maine called, however, and said it wants a word with you. )


Runner_Guy said:
Can a defender of the unlimited SALT deduction explain to me why it is appropriate for the federal government to levy higher income taxes on residents of low-tax states and localities than it is on residents of high-tax states and localities?
If two taxpayers have the same income and number of dependents, but one lives in a place with a lean, efficient government, but the other lives in a place with an expansive, bloated government, who should the one whose local and state governments are thrifty be penalized?
What benefit does someone in a low-tax state derive from the high taxes of other states?

 Are you seriously asking that question? You know full well that low tax states get tons of federal money that flows from high tax states like ours.

And I'm not sure that state governments that starve their residents of good essential services like education should be characterized as "lean and efficient".

Anyway, your opening premise is wrong. Giving deductions to already highly taxed states in no way equates to taxing other states at a higher rate.




in many low tax states teachers need second jobs because their primary profession doesn't pay a living wage. 

Maybe those states' budgets could stand to be a little more "bloated."


drummerboy said:


Runner_Guy said:
Can a defender of the unlimited SALT deduction explain to me why it is appropriate for the federal government to levy higher income taxes on residents of low-tax states and localities than it is on residents of high-tax states and localities?
If two taxpayers have the same income and number of dependents, but one lives in a place with a lean, efficient government, but the other lives in a place with an expansive, bloated government, who should the one whose local and state governments are thrifty be penalized?
What benefit does someone in a low-tax state derive from the high taxes of other states?
 Are you seriously asking that question? You know full well that low tax states get tons of federal money that flows from high tax states like ours.

And I'm not sure that state governments that starve their residents of good essential services like education should be characterized as "lean and efficient".

Anyway, your opening premise is wrong. Giving deductions to already highly taxed states in no way equates to taxing other states at a higher rate.

 It's wrong as a generalization that low-tax states "get tons of federal money that flows from high-tax states."  

You are conflating state's federal tax:federal spending ratio with federal spending per capita, which would be the correct way to evaluate federal support for state & local governments.

These states have the lowest tax burdens according to the Tax Foundation. (2012 data with their ranking in federal grants per capita from 2013)

50. Alaska (6.5 percent), #1
49. South Dakota (7.1 percent), #18,
48. Wyoming (7.1 percent), #15,
47. Tennessee (7.3 percent), #31
46. Texas (7.6 percent), #39
45. Louisiana (7.6 percent), #12
44. New Hampshire (7.9 percent), #42
43. Nevada (8.1 percent), #49
42. South Carolina (8.4 percent), #44
41. Mississippi (8.6 percent), #21

So, that's not much of a correlation there.  Only three of the lowest taxed states are even in the top third for federal grants per capita.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

To have low taxes it helps to have an oil industry, but the reason low tax states have low taxes is usually because they have (obviously!) lower spending, with fewer employees per capita and less-well paid employees.

Contrary to popular myth, New Jersey and New York are not ripped off by the federal government because both states get very large amounts of money for Medicaid.  New York State is actually one of the biggest RECIPIENTS of federal spending.  The formula for Medicaid is actually very generous to New York and New Jersey because they are not required to spend as large a percentage of their GDPs on Medicaid as most other states due to the 50% federal funding minimum.

There are also some federal aid formulas in education that deliver more to high-spending states because the formulas are designed to have federal matching funds and NJ spends a lot on education.  

The federal taxes:federal spending ratio that seems to indicate that NJ does badly includes federal retiree spending and federal military spending and Interior department spending.  It is not the fault of the federal government that NJ has comparatively few retirees living here and New Jersey is too small and densely populated to many military bases nor vast federal landholdings.


If NY and NJ had the feds pick up 85% of the MA costs, our taxes would be much lower, too.  We also tend to like our local services - such as education, police, and fire protection.  Silly things like that we actually pay for.  At the end of the day, the high tax states are, I believe, almost uniformly donor states.  No, we don't have military bases and vast federal lands here because we're too busy working to pay the federal taxes that support those other operations.


Runner_Guy said:

It is not the fault of the federal government that NJ has comparatively few retirees living here and New Jersey is too small and densely populated to many military bases nor vast federal landholdings.

You’d hardly know up here that it exists, but Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst is nothing to sneeze at. Because of it, New Jersey ranks 13th among the states in percentage of land occupied by military bases.


This discussion is silly.  SALT deductions were scaled back purely on the basis of politics.  If states represented by Republicans felt the same pain as those represented by Democrats, this scaling back in SALT deductions would not have happened.

Is it good policy to allow SALT deductions?  Mortgage interest deductions?  To not tax healthcare benefits paid by companies?  Probably not.  Of course, there are many occasions when it would be best if humans acted more like Vulcans.


I'm sincerely curious:

If you had a choice between restoring the unlimited SALT deduction or having New Jerseyans who work in New York to pay taxes to New Jersey (the state they receive services from), which would you choose? 

New Jerseyans pay, on the net, $2.5 billion more in taxes to New York than New Yorkers who work in NJ pay to New Jersey.

https://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/08/why_nj_commuters_subsidize_nys_economic_developmen.html



Runner_Guy said:
I'm sincerely curious:
If you had a choice between restoring the unlimited SALT deduction or having New Jerseyans who work in New York to pay taxes to New Jersey (the state they receive services from), which would you choose? 
New Jerseyans pay, on the net, $2.5 billion more in taxes to New York than New Yorkers who work in NJ pay to New Jersey.
https://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/08/why_nj_commuters_subsidize_nys_economic_developmen.html



 The two taxes are unrelated - why relate them?


drummerboy said:


Runner_Guy said:
I'm sincerely curious:
If you had a choice between restoring the unlimited SALT deduction or having New Jerseyans who work in New York to pay taxes to New Jersey (the state they receive services from), which would you choose? 
New Jerseyans pay, on the net, $2.5 billion more in taxes to New York than New Yorkers who work in NJ pay to New Jersey.
https://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/08/why_nj_commuters_subsidize_nys_economic_developmen.html
 The two taxes are unrelated - why relate them?

 This. 

But paying taxes to NY doesn't bother me. I'm in the city every day and I use an awful lot of their services. Now that we don't have kids in public school, probably as much as I use NJ services. I don't suppose I'm alone in this. 


drummerboy said:

 The two taxes are unrelated - why relate them?

It’s a thought experiment. To get us, I can only assume, to ponder why someone would make a fuss about the former but not the latter.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.