Utopia Talk / Politics / SALT taxes are back

Habebe Member	Sat Nov 06 14:16:49 Well, I'm in the camp that wants 0 deductions for state and local taxes. It's both a tax break for tge wealthy and a subsidy to high tax locales. The worst argument Ive heard is that someone living in LA or NYC making a million dollars a years or more doesnt "feel rich" They dont feel rich They say becayse of how expensive it can be and they choose to spend their money in such a way. If I start making millions a year but dont feel rich because I decide to spend my money on crack and $40,000 bottles of wine, should I get a break for that?
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 06 14:17:52 Im not sure if they passed the Senate.
Rugian Member	Sat Nov 06 14:26:43 I assume this thread is a spillover from that thread where you and the communist effectively argued that price indexes should be constant across the entire country.
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 06 14:36:25 Rugian, No, this is because 1/3 of the new spending bill is now going to NYC and LA billionaires. I didn't argue anything in that thread, Im undecided in the Amazon thing from a policy standpoint. Is it fair for Amazon to do that? Absolutley not, but not everything is fair.But then it begs the question of how it plays put in public opinion.
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 06 14:39:14 My point bwing in thenother thread that If your going to argue for equal pay for equal work for any number of protected woke classes, than what makes that more or less fair to pay someone less because of their geography? It should be all or none.
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 06 14:44:40 In this case the hypocrisy is the people who constantly bitch about "taxing the rich" want to give the largest share of this spending bill to the top 5%.
Rugian Member	Sat Nov 06 15:56:10 When you bought your house, you probably paid 1/3rd the cost that you'd need to pay in Bergen County. That's why salaries are lower in your area, because the cost of living is lower. As for SALT, I'm not in principle opposed to the idea of giving the states a wide latitude in terms of what fiscal policies they want to set (the marketplace of ideas and all that), although the Democrats' desire to restore the desire seems primarily motivated by Nancy Pelosi's desire to not pay taxes. So they're self-interested hypocrites. Show me someone who isn't, Mr. I-Want-To-Get-Paid-$200,000-A-Year-In-My-$30,000-CoL-Area.
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 06 16:37:36 Someones expenses have no impact on the value they offer as an employee. Now I agree people will accept pay rates for jobs based on their expenses. What Im saying is that if it's "fair" to make it law that men/women get paid the same the argument is the same. Im not arguing for it. As for salt, I am Absolutley against it. Its bad policy. States have leeway to do what they will, but the federal tax base shouldn't subsidize the wealthiest cities in the country. It also taxes a billionaire im Omaha Nebraska more than one from CA, NY and other high tax areas.
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 06 16:41:13 "When you bought your house, you probably paid 1/3rd the cost that you'd need to pay in Bergen County." By choice though. They are choosing to live in a costlier area.They are spending more money because its a more desirable peice of land. Would it be different if I chose to splurge on something else other than real estate?
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 06 16:56:08 Lets say Bob and Mike both earn 10 million/year. They both spend 5 million per year on housing. Bob lives in San fran , mike lives in bumblefuck Utah. Mike's housing expense cost the same as bobs.But bob lives in a condo while Mike lives in a mansion. Why should the one choice be subsidized at the expense of the other?
murder Member	Sat Nov 06 17:23:32 "Well, I'm in the camp that wants 0 deductions for state and local taxes. It's both a tax break for tge wealthy and a subsidy to high tax locales." SALT taxes allow states to spend money on the types of programs that Democrats can't pass at the federal level ... which is why Republicans want to kill it ... and where the dumb "tax breaks for the wealthy" narrative came from. SALT should be fully deductible to encourage more states to increase their taxes and expand their budgets so they can take care of their own problems ... rather than begging the federal government for money.
murder Member	Sat Nov 06 17:26:35 "As for salt, I am Absolutley against it. Its bad policy. States have leeway to do what they will, but the federal tax base shouldn't subsidize the wealthiest cities in the country." I think you have that backwards. It's the hillbillies that are sponging off of everyone else.
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 06 18:09:52 "I think you have that backwards. It's the hillbillies that are sponging off of everyone else." Ive gone over the twisted accounting it takes to get those numbers before by mostly counting who has the most elderly poor people. But the bottom line is that the federal government doesnt tax states, it taxes people. And people of the same means get taxed heavier federally in lower tax states. So there is a financial tax incentive for rich people to cluster in certain areas. Not to mention many of these places are naturally desirable places. Its an odd mind set to claim someone who lives in a state that happens to have a cluster of subsidized wealthy people that pay the bulk of taxes is somehow any less of a mooch because he mooches off those in his state instead of the neighboring state. Its like neck beards that cant get laid thinking They are better than anyone because they are white.
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 06 18:13:48 The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that the top 1% of households, or those making $755,000 or more, would get 56% of the tax cut. About 3% of middle income households, or those making between $49,000 and $86,000, would pay less in taxes, and lower income earners would get virtually nothing. “This is a problem Democrats have. Repealing the cap...helps higher income people more than lower and middle income people,” said Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the center. If the entire cap is repealed — which is highly unlikely to happen anytime soon — and the top tax rate went from 37% to 39.6% as Democrats proposed last month, the average California resident with incomes of $53,500 or less — about 40% of all income earners — would get no tax cut from the repeal. The middle 20% of state taxpayers, defined as those earning $53,500 to $86,900 would save an average of $10 each. But the state’s wealthiest 1%, those earning $963,700 or more, would save an estimated average of $79,540. http://www...congress/article239273878.html
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 06 18:29:18 Rugian , "As for SALT, I'm not in principle opposed to the idea of giving the states a wide latitude in terms of what fiscal policies they want to set (the marketplace of ideas and all that), " I would argue that SALT skews that really in favor high tax areas. Look at San Francisco and Austin Texas. Both cities want wealthy citizens. Well what SALT would do would be to tax a wealthy person more to live in Austin. It favors inefficient use of tax money.
murder Member	Sat Nov 06 19:22:09 "And people of the same means get taxed heavier federally in lower tax states." No they don't. Some people just qualify for this deduction and others don't. Just like every other deduction under the sun. "So there is a financial tax incentive for rich people to cluster in certain areas." No, their tax burden isn't any lower there. It's just that some of their taxes are going directly to the state they live in ... so hillbilly states can't block their social programs or pilfer their tax dollars. "Its an odd mind set to claim someone who lives in a state that happens to have a cluster of subsidized wealthy people that pay the bulk of taxes is somehow any less of a mooch because he mooches off those in his state instead of the neighboring state." I don't know wtf you're talking about. "The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that the top 1% of households, or those making $755,000 or more, would get 56% of the tax cut. About 3% of middle income households, or those making between $49,000 and $86,000, would pay less in taxes, and lower income earners would get virtually nothing." There are no "tax cuts". That money is going to State and Local Taxes ... hence the "SALT". All SALT deductions is allow states, counties, and cities, to keep those tax dollars where they initiate rather than having them funneled and distributed by the federal government. It's funny how "states rights" "small government" Republicans want to force states to go begging the federal government to finance their spending. Really odd. ;o)
murder Member	Sat Nov 06 19:25:53 "Well what SALT would do would be to tax a wealthy person more to live in Austin." That is some authentic frontier gibberish. :o)
murder Member	Sat Nov 06 19:27:41 btw if you really believe that nonsense, there is a simple remedy. Texas and Austin can simply tax their residents more so they too can get those fat deductions. That way the state benefits. The city benefits. And their residents benefit. lol :o)
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 06 19:34:07 It's very simple , the same person in Austin would pay a greater share of federal taxes as the same guy in SF. For all the talk that they want family paid leave, preK and medicare for all, you could probably pay for all of that for the 70-80 billion a year salt tax cut.
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 06 19:35:19 "btw if you really believe that nonsense, there is a simple remedy. Texas and Austin can simply tax their residents more so they too can get those fat deductions. That way the state benefits. The city benefits. And their residents benefit. lol" Exactly, it encourages inefficient spending of tax money.
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 06 19:35:20 "btw if you really believe that nonsense, there is a simple remedy. Texas and Austin can simply tax their residents more so they too can get those fat deductions. That way the state benefits. The city benefits. And their residents benefit. lol" Exactly, it encourages inefficient spending of tax money.
murder Member	Sat Nov 06 19:50:39 How the fuck is that "inefficient"? You're going to claim that funneling tax dollars through the federal government is efficient?
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 06 21:07:15 If Austin can make a better offer of a place to live why subsidize SF and NYC? It's not that the federal government is the more efficient than San Fran, its othwr state and local areas that they don't get a tax break to live in.
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 06 21:10:17 The real reason democrats like it is because its a tax break to their campaign donors.
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 06 21:16:11 Actually I should point put that plenty of if not most Democrats are in agreement with the Republicans on this issue. Only Dems from a handfull of rich areas support it. ----- Democrats have pushed hard for repeal but there were 16 Democrats who voted against the legislation to lift the cap in December. Some saw repeal as a giveaway to the wealthy in high-tax, higher-income states such as California. “Removing the SALT deduction cap is just another example of Washington making policies that benefit the powerful in New York and California, but not doing anything for working folks in Maine,” said Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine. Added Rep. Greg Stanton, D-Arizona: “I simply cannot support a proposal that helps the wealthiest taxpayers in other parts of the country at the expense of Arizona.”
murder Member	Sun Nov 07 11:13:51 Only stupid Democrats that don't understand what is going on oppose SALT deductions. Every single cent of state and local taxes should be deductible. Every single cent.
Habebe Member	Sun Nov 07 13:38:59 And what is going on? A handout to superwealthy Democrat donors while thwir streets are violent and covered in shit. Great use of funds.
Habebe Member	Sun Nov 07 13:51:38 It doesn't get morenl clear cut than this. The party of tax the rich actually hates poor and middle class people . While in fact the party of your average Joe is the Republicans. 2022 should be fun to watch.
murder Member	Sun Nov 07 19:50:23 I won't engage with nonsense trolling.
Habebe Member	Sun Nov 07 22:15:44 What? Why not?
jergul large member	Mon Nov 08 01:49:03 Habebe You are not a fan of state rights? Here is a unitary state perspective on local taxes. Conservatives do not like that local governments try to raise their own taxes and have capped local property taxes. The feeling is that if local governments can raise their own taxes, then it gets in the way of using austerity to promote government effeciency. Local revenue is determined centrally to a large degree. But individuals are not double taxed. Its either National income tax, or local income tax.
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 08 02:29:20 A states right only extends til it runs into another. States dont pay taxes, people do and with SALT the same wealthy person will be get a tax credit for federal tax to move to a high locally taxed area.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 08 03:36:13 The SALT deduction goes back to 1913. What it actually does is avoid double taxation. The gripe here is that SALT removes incentives to underfund State governments. Philosophically (since you are misquoting Locke), SALT is a State rights issue. It enhances the States ability to keep money within the state. Or you can just be a hack and think that it is bad because taxes are bad and States should not have them.
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 08 03:44:21 But it only does that by federally taxing most other states. State governments can just raise their tax rates. The problem here is it clustwrs wealth by essentially saying if you move to a handfull of the wealthiest areas you dont have to pay the tax rates that everyone else does.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 08 04:47:42 Oh, do you have a link to that bill that increases federal taxes in other states to cover SALT losses in federal revenue? SALT does not decrease the tax burden on anyone. It simply changes who gets the tax revenue. The problem with it is that if all taxes are bad, then state taxes are bad, and SALT gives States an incentive to increase taxes on people that can deduct them federally. It makes GOP tax regimes in states look stupid.
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 08 05:14:41 1st off, your making a lot of assumptions. 2ndly, yes the federal tax burden on a wealthy person in NYC will be less than the same man of he lived in say bumblefuck TX.Thats how it works. TX for example does not tax income, so the wealthy man cant deduct it from his federal burden.But enjoys the same benefits. Bottome line its a subsidy for high tax locales.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 08 05:35:22 Shrug, it would be tax neutral for Texas to tax that same person. That the state chooses not to do so for silly reasons is a choice it makes.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 08 05:37:04 SALT has incidentally been a standard part of the US tax system since 1913.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 08 05:39:37 I still dont get how you parce this with state rights. Power follows the pocketbook. Surely state taxes instead of federal taxes is a good thing from a state rights perspective? That some states choose to opt out of increasing their power at the expense of the Federal government is on them.
Forwyn Member	Mon Nov 08 14:24:12 The way to allow for federalism and empowered state programs is to lower federal taxation and spending - not transfer wealth to the very states that right now control taxing and spending.
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 08 14:32:36 I dont mix it withbstates rights because it doesnt make sense to. My general philosophy follows that an entities rights stop when they infringe upon another's. Now, don't look too deep into that, because a butterflies wings flap a tornado aroumd the world yadda yadda. But this blatantly favors high tax states at the expense of low tax states. 1913 era had all sorts of crazy ideas, so what? Honestly Im not sure how you reconcile this with your idea that The wealthy should pay their fair share of taxes.The VAST majority of this goes to rich white people who choose to live in upscale areas vut don't want to pay to do so. I'm in support of what I see as a level playing field for states.At its core IMHO this is federal subsidy to a handful of locales. Obviously states and cities want wealthy people in there area, this helps them stay in already wealthy areas. NY has a 15% income tax, CA 13%. FYI TX as well as other 8 other states have zero.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 08 15:18:36 Habebe SALT does not infringe of federal rights because it is freely given. Do try to get your Locke right. It blatantly favours States willing to tax what is covered by SALT. States covered less than other are freely choosing not to be covered. The field remains just as even. Unless you are arguing that high tax states are inherently better and it is unfair that they are compensated for being better. Seems like a stupid decision of Texas to not tax people that will be reinbursed the tax from federal receipts. You should take being stupid up with Texas.
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 08 15:58:10 First off, that is the 2nd time you've claimed Ive been quoting Locke.I am not well versed in him, far less than you atleast, so any channeling of him is purely coincidental. As for the rest, our ideas of fair are not the same. The fact is Joe Rogan paid a greater amount of federal taxes in TX than in CA.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 08 16:29:55 Misquoting Locke. And not coincidentally at all. Freedum lovers love to misunderstand Locke. Yes, it is very unfair that Texas did not give Rogan access to SALT deductions. Texas should definitely fix that.
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 08 17:02:40 Hackery.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 08 17:51:15 Why do you favour double taxation at the expense of state rights when the reprieve from double taxation is freely granted and available to all states? You are not coming across as particularly principled.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 08 17:58:20 In Sum: You think it is unfair that Rich people dont need to seek out tax havens.
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 08 18:19:02 Jergul logic.^ The one benefit of this passing may be* it has the potential* to be very popular for the opposition. As forndouble taxation, well yes they live in two major governments. Its sort of how a federation works.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 08 18:33:04 You have already said you think its unfair that rich people dont have to move to tax havens to avoid double income tax. That is not my logic, it is yours. Federation has worked with SALT since 1913. You know, the year Federal income tax was permanently introduced. By design a measure to avoid double taxation.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 08 18:33:50 Perhaps not repeat soundbytes you hear on Fox news? They are rarely defendable.
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 08 19:21:16 You can try to frame it anyway you want, your not fooling anyone that ypur grasping at straws to avoid reality.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 08 20:08:39 The reality is that SALT is as old as permanent federal income taxes by design. If you pay income taxes to the state, then you do not pay it to the Federal Government. Fast forward to 2017 and the GOP makes a play on running a tax haven strategy for some of their states to force rich people to migrate to avoid double income taxation. And in 2021, we get to hear semi-literate arguments regurgitating soundbytes from Fox news on why SALT is bad. Yay.
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 08 20:17:19 Sonyour argument is that. SALT is old so we should keep it? "Fast forward to 2017 and the GOP makes a play on running a tax haven strategy for some of their states to force rich people to migrate to avoid double income taxation." Why should they get to skip paying federal taxes? By your definition everyone is "double taxed". You have not come up with a reasonable argument in why we should spend the plurality of our spending in this bill giving tax cuts for the wealthiest 5%. So instead of attacking any issues you Throw a hissy fit "but but but, Fox news, orange man bad...wah"
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 08 20:23:23 The one thing I may have been off by was the cost. According to a NJ.com article apparently that half trillion dollar figure was closer to 5 years (475 billion in 5 years) Which I beleive was a Bernie quote.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 09 04:54:50 habebe Income taxes themselves were very contraversial and introduced through a constitutional ammendment. Legislators at the time took specific care to ensure double taxation on income did not occur. The principle that double taxation should not occur on income tax is firmly established. It is not a loss of revenue, but rather a reversal of a Trump era tax policy that was otherwise very good at giving money to rich people. I have made the argument many times now that it is good that State revenue increase at the expense of Federal revenue as a matter of balance between state and federal power. As you pointed out, to the order of 100 billion a year. The measure should by rights be tax neutral overall. What it breaks is the 2017+ of encouraging rich people to become tax refugees in Denver instead of say Texas introducing income taxes on rich people so that SALT is truly tax neutral overall. The glee you show with ahahaha California failed state. Look at everyone moving to Texas is probably part of why you want SALT to die. My overall view is that States are underfunded and fail to provide vital services to its inhabitants. Vital services also means jobs to its inhabitants. So, yah, don't fuck with revenue potential that costs their tax payers nothing. For the Federal government? Well, you know my view on that. But at least it can borrow money for free at far lower interest rates than that of inflation.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 09 09:26:12 "The principle that double taxation should not occur on income tax is firmly established" And yet pretty much everyone who lives in one of 41 states with a state income tax does. Why should the wealthiest 5% deserve this huge tax break? If you don't want double taxation there are 9 states you can go to, Inthinknits a good thing tonlet these places compete for people, let them vote with their feet. So far the best answer and I suspect its also the reason for much of the opposition is because Trump did it partly out of spite. Now I cant prove that, but "come on man" we all know it was a motivation. "What it breaks is the 2017+ of encouraging rich people to become tax refugees in Denver instead of say Texas introducing income taxes on rich people so that SALT is truly tax neutral overall." This is another argument I hear that, the wealthy will flee high tax locales for low tax locales. And yes, to a degree that is likley to happen.why should we subsidize high tax states? You mentioned Denver.Thats still a win for Democrats Now that Colorado leans left. I'm entirely fine with that, take the win. The over consolidation of wealth is not something I aspire for. "My overall view is that States are underfunded and fail to provide vital services to its inhabitants. Vital services also means jobs to its inhabitants." States may be underfunded. By design states dont go into debt like the feds.If your goal is to increase jobs, increasing taxes sounds rather inefficient. What local services in general do you find are missing in lower tax places than higher tax? This democratic tax cut couldnhave paid for alot of services the Dems.CLAIM they wanted pre K , family leave, lowering college cost etc. 100 billion/YEAR is roughly what it is alot of money.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 09 11:22:53 50% do not pay federal income tax at all. Others use a blanket deduction instead of itemizing their filings. Same difference. The tax haven ploy is a race to the bottom that thankfully SALT ends. Note that Trump only pushed for it after deciding to leave New York because people did not like him there. So yah, you are probably right about the vindictive part. But are projecting again as MAGA always does. Being a vindictive shrew is a core part of Trump's MO. I dont know what services you are missing in your local area. But I do know you are missing out on a job in parks or recreation or whatever. Good for you, good for the municipality, good for the state. Much better than pretend jobs in the military if you wanted to balance costs for some reason. 100 billion a year can cover a lot of jobs like that. What is your fetish about the Feds paying for stuff up front? Stable door open, horse has bolted. Right now money is free for it to borrow. You will pay the piper soon enough. You may as well enjoy the ride.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 09 12:02:58 "dont know what services you are missing in your local area. But I do know you are missing out on a job in parks or recreation or whatever." So, filler jobs? Its still too concentrated. Id rather see that 100 billion go towards a UBI or infrastructure or almost anything than paying rich people to live outside their means atbthe expense of the rest of the country. We don't disagree on the facts. You simply favot high taxes and I suspect you also like that these are almost soley far left wing cities being subsidized.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 09 12:23:06 Habebe Filler jobs? No. Not more so than gardeners are filler jobs. Still not a subsidy. The rich get a deduction for taxes they are paying locally. Cities are not being subsidized either as they are all free to set whatever taxrate is optimal for the circumstance. That the crazy right are opting out of tax neutral revenue is just the normal ideology of stupid.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 09 13:28:52 Filler jobs meaning jobs for the sake of jobs. What makes it different from a subsidy? If they are so worried about double taxation then why do they have state income taxes?
jergul large member	Tue Nov 09 15:17:35 habebe Hence parks and recreation not being filler jobs. Same as gardening. You are entering the realm of words mean anything if you start viewing tax write-offs as subsidy of the taxpayer. The local governments get nothing, so its not a subsidy of them. What double taxation? SALT renders it moot. For unfair, why not have state income taxes? It is a bit sad that you support policies directly contrary to your own best interests. Proper state and local tax rates would help create jobs that need to be done, but that there is no money for. It is an inherent part of democracy that people vote in their own interests. Otherwise, it is too vulnerable to manipulation that undermines the common good.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 09 15:23:21 Raising taxes in your mind is how you create jobs. Giving half a trillion dollars to millionaires in NYC and LA benefits me how?
jergul large member	Tue Nov 09 15:42:39 Tbe bill that paused SALT gave millionaires 1.3 trillion dollars to use your terms. Its no secret that local government is seriously underfunded. There are lots of things that should be done and no money to get it done. Just lift up your head from the phone and look around you. Note the lack of appropriate government services.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 09 15:56:49 "Its no secret that local government is seriously underfunded." And they can remain as they are and have to offer something for their taxes. Money alone won't solve it. This tax consolidates the wealthiest into a few areas, sowhen you say bumblefuck should raise their local taxes they are not doing so off the same tax base, ot would just further impoverish these areas. Its funny how I mentioned earlier how many will claim that these states pay far more in federal taxes.But states dont get taxed, people do this tax only really helps the wealthy and this tax subsidizes their living in clustered areas. Its like wondering why Israelnhas so many Jews, well they are encouraged to go there.Its self fulfilling.Plus many areas here are naturally desirable to boot. Salt has been around for over 100 years, and it has not encouraged TX to tax more nor has it made San Francisco a great place comparitivley.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 09 17:03:08 What State in particular do you think has no people that would qualify for SALT write-off if there had been local income taxes? SALT is tax neutral. Rich people pay local taxes instead of federal taxes. It does not encourage people to cluster unless you think areas with better funded civic services are somehow more attractive.
murder Member	Tue Nov 09 17:49:52 You must be bored. :o)
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: