Only one problem with this.. Obamas major debt increase happened during the second worst economic crisis in US history.As of January 2017, approximately half our total national debt had been accrued during the Obama administration. Trump has a way to go to match that. Meanwhile, the closed loophole that is the topic of this thread is a way to get some of that money back in taxes. I assume you support that.
If you idea is that one who subsidizes conservatives in the South should STFU , then we disagree. The conservatives in the South should actually be the ones who should man up and learn how to provide for their families without expecting people from other states to foot the bill. If you want to STFU and subsidize such conservatives, feel free to do so.
It's not only logical, it's a fact that when the rich pay less taxes the country's coffers have less in them. Deficits occur when a country spends more money than it brings in through income-generating activities such as individual, corporate or excise taxes. The national debt can only be reduced through one of five mechanisms: increased taxation, reduced spending, debt restructuring, monetization of the debt or outright default.
Only one problem with this.. Obamas major debt increase happened during the second worst economic crisis in US history.
Trumps is happening during in boom years where the debt should be paying off.. Instead he is going for a record debt increase in a non recession year... And that is really bad.
Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk
You make wild accusations never supported by any data thus your opinions are dismissed. Most of the FIT taxes in this country are paid by the rich whereas approximately 50% of income earners pay ZERO. Keep making those wild accusations showing nothing but partisan ignorance
As of January 2017, approximately half our total national debt had been accrued during the Obama administration. Trump has a way to go to match that. Meanwhile, the closed loophole that is the topic of this thread is a way to get some of that money back in taxes. I assume you support that.
What are you talking about, "wild accusations". It's neither wild nor is it an accusation. These are facts. Less money = more debt.
I am giving you information, not expressing an opinion. The results of your interpolation and extrapolation are your own.
President Obama’s debt actually grew at a slower annual rate than any of the Republican presidents even though there were events that negatively impacted the deficit that started before he became President.
Closing the loopholes is the only common sense approach to putting more money into programs that would benefit the majority of the NY population and not give special privilege to corporations. It's a no-brainer. I know this because I was the co-owner of an LLC corporation. It's the biggest legal tax scam ever perpetrated on the American public in our country's history.
President Obama’s debt actually grew at a slower annual rate than any of the Republican presidents even though there were events that negatively impacted the deficit that started before he became President.
Closing the loopholes is the only common sense approach to putting more money into programs that would benefit the majority of the NY population and not give special privilege to corporations. It's a no-brainer. I know this because I was the co-owner of an LLC corporation. It's the biggest legal tax scam ever perpetrated on the American public in our country's history.
Your claim that the 2018 deficit was due to tax cuts for the rich is a wild unfounded and unsubstantiated claim. Keep ignoring the Treasury data
No, it's a fact. Here's the easier way I can get the idea though to you. Less income tax paid to the U.S. government equals an exploding deficit. Less money- more debt. Got it yet?
Flat tax would be the best, fairest, easiest way to go. Repeal the income tax, go to a flat tax.
That is a liberal fact far from reality, post the treasury data supporting your claim or be mature enough to apologize and admit being wrong
You are an illogical person without common sense or critical thinking. Debating someone like you is like debating a brick wall. You're dismissed.
I think a flat tax is a great idea actually but it wouldn't ever fly in Congress. There's too many millionaires in Congress that would have to pay their fair share. Our current tax system is extremely discriminatory towards the lower income population. The problem that I see is that flat taxes are usually imposed on wages only, meaning that there’s no tax on capital gains or investments. There's too many loopholes for the wealthy to hide their exorbitant incomes.
President Obama’s debt actually grew at a slower annual rate than any of the Republican presidents even though there were events that negatively impacted the deficit that started before he became President.
Closing the loopholes is the only common sense approach to putting more money into programs that would benefit the majority of the NY population and not give special privilege to corporations. It's a no-brainer. I know this because I was the co-owner of an LLC corporation. It's the biggest legal tax scam ever perpetrated on the American public in our country's history.
I don't understand the governor's argument. The SALT deduction impacts federal taxes, anything due to the state and local governments would still need to be paid.
The SALT deduction acts as a subsidy for state and local taxes - reduces their after tax cost. If you're in the top tax bracket, any amount paid over the $10,000 cap acts like a 35% state and local tax increase for the amount over $10k.
Ex. Pay 100k in SALT, take a deduction for the full amount, gives you a $35,000 reduction in your federal income taxes paid/payable.
Post TCJA, you get a deduction for $10k only, saves $3,500 in federal income taxes.
Difference - $31,500, which is equivalent to a $31,500 tax increase, because that's the amount your federal income tax bill exceeds what your bill would have been under the old law.
Yup. The SALT deduction was a subsidy to high earners in high tax states.
A report released on Oct. 3 by the New York State Comptroller said that New York generated 9.4 percent of the federal government’s income-tax receipts, even though it represented 6.1 percent of the U.S. population. It received 5.9 percent of federal spending allocated to the states. According to the report, New York contributed $12,914 per capita in tax revenue to the federal budget — but received $10,844 in per capita federal spending. The problem has only gotten worse in the three years since the report was last produced, state officials said.
Another report, released in September by the Rockefeller Institute of Government, had similar findings. Rockefeller calculated that New York made payments of $12,820 per capita, or $3,401 higher than the national average, while federal spending in New York was $10,395 per capita, $329 lower than the U.S. average.
New York gets 56 cents back for every dollar and California gets 64 cents. But states such as North Dakota, South Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky, West Virginia and Indiana get more than two dollars back in federal spending for every dollar in taxes.
And it should stop, along with the richer states subsidizing the lower taxed red states. Everyone should pay their own way. States like Ala, and Kentucky getting $2 back for every dollar they put in? Disgusting, let them pay their own way.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/06/are-red-low-tax-states-subsidizing-blue-high-tax-states-through-the-tax-code/?utm_term=.ca1b2aa0548a
When calculating how much funding the various states get from the federal government vs how much they pay, it doesn't count the SALT deduction which, in itself, represents a federal subsidy.
They pay their own way, but they receive more under federal programs that are paid everywhere.
Paid everywhere? What?
Anyway they receive more that they put in, so they don't pay their own way, it's a subsidy. Welfare if you like that word better.
No state tax burden is made lighter by federal expenditures, or made heavier by their absence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?