Trump IRS will move to block blue-state workarounds for state, local tax deductions

[MTAtech]

Re: https://youtu.be/-N9nVLXMhPc

That's because the blue states are richer. Given the desire by Democrats to tax the rich, I think they should take all deductions away from blue states, especially California and New York. Those fat cat Democrats aren't paying their fair share.

Are you trying to tell us that Republicans suddenly decided that the rich should pay more taxes? That's ironic because last year, the same tax law that Trump and his allies in Congress rammed through, cut taxes by nearly $2 trillion of which 83% went to the rich. We need to stop pretending. The Republicans did this out of spite against blue states.

 

[Casper]

Re: https://youtu.be/-N9nVLXMhPc

Calling them charitable contributions will not work. Period
That said, removing the state income tax deduction does not only apply to blue States, the vast majority of states Red and Blue have state income taxes so as such removing the deduction applies to any state with an income tax.
Oh, a reminder, removing the deduction has little to do with the States and everything to do with the citizens that now get to pay more in Federal Taxes. There goes that little tax break you got, sooner it later people will realize they got played by the GOP and Trump.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: https://youtu.be/-N9nVLXMhPc

Are you trying to tell us that Republicans suddenly decided that the rich should pay more taxes? That's ironic because last year, the same tax law that Trump and his allies in Congress rammed through, cut taxes by nearly $2 trillion of which 83% went to the rich. We need to stop pretending. The Republicans did this out of spite against blue states.

Actually I don't think it was done out of spite.. well.. who knows with trump.. but I think it was done because they knew that the tax cut was going to explode the budget deficit.. and to keep the amount manageable.. they ran a tax simulation which showed that getting rid of the tax exemption for state taxes.. would decrease the amount of budget deficit increase.. AND primarily impact blue states.. so that that there would be less impact politically.

 

[Conservative]

Re: https://youtu.be/-N9nVLXMhPc

Are you trying to tell us that Republicans suddenly decided that the rich should pay more taxes? That's ironic because last year, the same tax law that Trump and his allies in Congress rammed through, cut taxes by nearly $2 trillion of which 83% went to the rich. We need to stop pretending. The Republicans did this out of spite against blue states.

Still don't get it, do you. You owe two different vendors for two different products purchased, is that double spending? You owe the state for their services and you owe the federal govt. for the services provided and pay for those services with your tax dollars. How is that double taxation?

Now you pay your state taxes for state services and deduct much of them from the federal taxes lowering your tax burden thus not paying for federal services provided. You don't see that as a subsidy by the Federal govt. and a reduction in what you should owe the federal treasury?

 

[Conservative]

Re: https://youtu.be/-N9nVLXMhPc

Actually I don't think it was done out of spite.. well.. who knows with trump.. but I think it was done because they knew that the tax cut was going to explode the budget deficit.. and to keep the amount manageable.. they ran a tax simulation which showed that getting rid of the tax exemption for state taxes.. would decrease the amount of budget deficit increase.. AND primarily impact blue states.. so that that there would be less impact politically.

Tax cuts don't explode the federal deficit as evidenced by the reality that when you cut FIT the total FIT revenue has always grown so how does growing revenue cause deficits? There is no logic or common sense in that argument

Residents of Red States and Blue states pay the same taxes and have the same deductions. Higher state costs mean higher state deductions from the federal taxes due, now they are capped. How is that double taxation?

 

[humbolt]

Re: https://youtu.be/-N9nVLXMhPc

And the blue states where already bearing more financial burden.. they were net payers.\

Meanwhile.. red states were net tax receivers.

You are right.. both states are getting the deduction. It seems pretty hard to me to argue that this deduction is a federal subsidy to "high tax states".. when those residents are paying that tax AND being net tax payers to the federal government (putting more in than the state is getting out). to me.. as a conservative.. the people being subsidized are the red states.. since they are BENEFITING from not only paying less in state taxes.. and less in federal taxes.. but ACTUALLY BEING NET RECIPIENTS of federal tax.

On an individual level.. when you compare me.. who is in the top tax bracket.. and pays a ton of taxes... and then compare me to someone where they get a net INCOME from the federal government..

Sure.. I get that I should pay more in taxes because of my income... but its pretty hard for me to except that I am being SUBSIDIZED by the federal government because I can take business expenses as a deduction. And meanwhile Not believe that the person who is receiving more money from the federal government than they are putting in.. is NOT being subsidized.

that's what makes me upset about you calling yourself a conservative. Basically you are arguing that the person that's not only paying high taxes to their state AND being a net taxpayer to the federal government (in that their state gives more in federal taxes than they get back).. is somehow getting a "backdoor subsidy".

Meanwhile.. the fellow that is enjoying low taxes and in addition lives in s state that gets more money from the federal government (courtesy of the blue states that are net tax payers) than they pay in.. is somehow getting the raw end of the deal. That somehow its UNFAIR.. that he is not getting MORE of the net taxpayers money.

So please.. explain that as a conservative... why you think its unfair. that the person that is a net tax payer to the government.. is being "unfair" and getting a backdoor subsidy".. compared to the fellow that is receiving more from the federal government than they are putting in.

I'm not really interested in a blue state, red state comparison in this matter. I understand that there are conservatives who are gleeful that the elimination of this deduction affects mostly left-leaning states who happen to be wealthier in general than right leaning states. I don't endorse such a partisan view in this. I applaud the tax base restructuring, however modest, that's occurring here. I understand you think your situation sucks, and maybe it does to some extent just now. I think a broader view of the likely effects of such changes over time is desirable in the interest of enabling less financially fortunate states to gain some ground, and thereby offer more to federal tillers than they presently do. That such changes affect the wealthier states to some degree is unavoidable. We get money from those who have it.

 

[Gaea]

I would think conservatives would like the SALT deduction since it advances state's rights by giving them more flexibility in determining how to run their state budget.

 

[Conservative]

I would think conservatives would like the SALT deduction since it advances state's rights by giving them more flexibility in determining how to run their state budget.

You liberals always talk about fairness so tell me what is fair about the Federal Taxpayers funding state and local programs through deductions on their Federal Income taxes in BOTH Red and Blue States? This is all about actually having blue states see the costs of their liberal social programs and it is about time

 

[Dogger807]

It doesn't take much intelligence to call bull when conservatives suddenly start arguing in favor of wealth redistribution.

Why should successful blue states have to pay more taxes so that red states can cut their state taxes even more? It's bad enough that red states continue to implement the same failed policies over and over again, but making others pay for their bad decisions while doubling down on them benefits no one. It only contributes to a lower standard of living for everyone and causes a downward spiral.

Ironically, the red states think that if they lower taxes they attract business. Yet, because of the cheap, overseas labor, American based companies are not looking for a cheap workforce. Instead, they are looking for a smart workforce. Here's the kicker, smart people don't want to live in red states. They have liberal views and standards. Most would not move to Mississippi even for double pay. There are exceptions of course, but there are reasons the populous is drifting toward crowded liberal city centers and away from conservative rural strongholds. Education being a major contributing factor.

 

[late]

More vampire politics.

 

[MTAtech]

You liberals always talk about fairness so tell me what is fair about the Federal Taxpayers funding state and local programs through deductions on their Federal Income taxes in BOTH Red and Blue States? This is all about actually having blue states see the costs of their liberal social programs and it is about time

Let's examine this "blue states see the costs of their liberal social programs and it is about time." You mean like Medicaid, that West Virginia has 1/3 of their entire population using? Yes, West Virginia, the state that went for Trump by 70%. Or maybe you are referring to Kentucky, a state that has reduced their uninsured rate by 9.2% thanks to Obamacare?

The fact is, lots of red states that hate these "liberal social programs," are main beneficiaries of liberal social programs.

 

[polgara]

It doesn't take much intelligence to call bull when conservatives suddenly start arguing in favor of wealth redistribution.

Why should successful blue states have to pay more taxes so that red states can cut their state taxes even more? It's bad enough that red states continue to implement the same failed policies over and over again, but making others pay for their bad decisions while doubling down on them benefits no one. It only contributes to a lower standard of living for everyone and causes a downward spiral.

Ironically, the red states think that if they lower taxes they attract business. Yet, because of the cheap, overseas labor, American based companies are not looking for a cheap workforce. Instead, they are looking for a smart workforce. Here's the kicker, smart people don't want to live in red states. They have liberal views and standards. Most would not move to Mississippi even for double pay. There are exceptions of course, but there are reasons the populous is drifting toward crowded liberal city centers and away from conservative rural strongholds. Education being a major contributing factor.

Greetings, Dogger807. :2wave:

One thing to consider is the fact that those rural red states are the ones that are growing the food, both animal and vegetable, for us to eat - it's not the "crowded liberal city centers" doing that work! And those city dwellers don't have to depend on Mother Nature to go to their indoor jobs to make a living, or to get the exercise they need and probably have to pay for at a gym just to stay healthy. :mrgreen:

I have a large garden that allows me to grow both veggies and fruits chemical-free, but thankfully it's seasonal, since raising cattle, pigs, chickens or other food animals 365 days a year was not how I ever planned to spend my time! :no:

 

[jaeger19]

Re: https://youtu.be/-N9nVLXMhPc

Tax cuts don't explode the federal deficit as evidenced by the reality that when you cut FIT the total FIT revenue has always grown so how does growing revenue cause deficits? ?

Then please explain this:

he combined effect of President Donald Trump's tax cuts and last month's budget-busting spending bill is sending the federal deficit toward the $1 trillion mark next year, according to a new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO report says the nation's $21 trillion debt would spike to more than $33 trillion in 10 years, with debt held by investors spiking to levels that would come close to equaling the size of the economy, reaching levels that many economists fear could spark a debt crisis.


Republicans once laced into President Barack Obama for trillion-dollar-plus deficits but mostly fell quiet on Monday's news.

CBO says economic growth from the tax cuts will add 0.7 percent on average to the nation's economic output over the coming decade. Those effects will only partially offset the deficit cost of the tax cuts. The administration had promised the cuts would pay for themselves.

Tax cuts, spending to raise U.S. deficit to $1 trillion by 2020, CBO analysis shows - Chicago Tribune

 

[Conservative]

Let's examine this "blue states see the costs of their liberal social programs and it is about time." You mean like Medicaid, that West Virginia has 1/3 of their entire population using? Yes, West Virginia, the state that went for Trump by 70%. Or maybe you are referring to Kentucky, a state that has reduced their uninsured rate by 9.2% thanks to Obamacare?

The fact is, lots of red states that hate these "liberal social programs," are main beneficiaries of liberal social programs.

Aw yes, another federal taxpayer interference into a state responsibility and issue all because of liberal social engineering. Medicaid was created by what law??? Stunning how you expect federal bureaucrats who racked up a 21 trillion dollar debt deserve more money and more responsibility for your state and local issues. 9.2% uninsured rate on 325 million people is how many uninsured, almost 30 million and that is a success to you? OMG, it is scary how easy it is to indoctrinate far too many.

 

[Conservative]

Re: https://youtu.be/-N9nVLXMhPc

Then please explain this:



Tax cuts, spending to raise U.S. deficit to $1 trillion by 2020, CBO analysis shows - Chicago Tribune

Awesome, another prediction, did CBO predict the largest monthly surplus in US history for April??? You buy anything negative because quite frankly you have been indoctrinated by the left to believe that the bureaucrats who created the current 21 trillion dollar debt will change and need the money more than the people who pay them the money. It is time to stop spending but bureaucrats won't do that as they buy votes and people like you will never get it

 

[Conservative]

It doesn't take much intelligence to call bull when conservatives suddenly start arguing in favor of wealth redistribution.

Why should successful blue states have to pay more taxes so that red states can cut their state taxes even more? It's bad enough that red states continue to implement the same failed policies over and over again, but making others pay for their bad decisions while doubling down on them benefits no one. It only contributes to a lower standard of living for everyone and causes a downward spiral.

Ironically, the red states think that if they lower taxes they attract business. Yet, because of the cheap, overseas labor, American based companies are not looking for a cheap workforce. Instead, they are looking for a smart workforce. Here's the kicker, smart people don't want to live in red states. They have liberal views and standards. Most would not move to Mississippi even for double pay. There are exceptions of course, but there are reasons the populous is drifting toward crowded liberal city centers and away from conservative rural strongholds. Education being a major contributing factor.

Liberals don't hate America, they love using hate rhetoric to get so called "free stuff" paid for by someone else. Such hatred for rich people just shows that people like you cannot compete. tell me how any rich person prevented you from joining them? You never will because of jealousy and an entitlement mentality created by liberal indoctrination

 

[jaeger19]

Re: https://youtu.be/-N9nVLXMhPc

I'm not really interested in a blue state, red state comparison in this matter. I understand that there are conservatives who are gleeful that the elimination of this deduction affects mostly left-leaning states who happen to be wealthier in general than right leaning states. I don't endorse such a partisan view in this. I applaud the tax base restructuring, however modest, that's occurring here. I understand you think your situation sucks, and maybe it does to some extent just now. I think a broader view of the likely effects of such changes over time is desirable in the interest of enabling less financially fortunate states to gain some ground, and thereby offer more to federal tillers than they presently do. That such changes affect the wealthier states to some degree is unavoidable. We get money from those who have it.

Actually the likely result with be DECREASING the ability of less financially fortunate states to gain ground (as in my state which is extremely red).. as there is less incentive for taxpayers to invest in the state in terms of education and infrastructure.

Sure.. the many on this board would like to think that its just a coincidence that the states that have the most people that need welfare, that have the most unemployment, lower wages, and have the worse education rates.. also are the states that have some of the lowest taxes and also spend the least on education and infrastructure.

Objective, rationale people understand that its not a coincidence.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: https://youtu.be/-N9nVLXMhPc

Awesome, another prediction, did CBO predict the largest monthly surplus in US history for April??? You buy anything negative because quite frankly you have been indoctrinated by the left to believe that the bureaucrats who created the current 21 trillion dollar debt will change and need the money more than the people who pay them the money. It is time to stop spending but bureaucrats won't do that as they buy votes and people like you will never get it

Wow.. april? that's your rebuttal to research analysis by the CBO?

 

[Conservative]

Re: https://youtu.be/-N9nVLXMhPc

Wow.. april? that's your rebuttal to research analysis by the CBO?

You always buy CBO data and ignore the record of CBO for accuracy because that is what you want to believe as you want to continue to give bureaucrats more tax dollars to buy votes, waste money, and social engineer hoping you get some of it

 

[Conservative]

Re: https://youtu.be/-N9nVLXMhPc

Wow.. april? that's your rebuttal to research analysis by the CBO?

Please explain why you believe CBO and why you want to give the federal bureaucrats more tax dollars to spend?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...s-no-better-than-throwing-darts/#7e71f52867a2

 

[Dogger807]

Yup, food production is very, very important. Farm substacies are there for a reason. People need to eat and it is a great export. That doesn't justify the red state draining the blue to fund their bad ideas, though.

I have a very nice computer, hand built and sleek looking. But thankfully it's just for entertainment, since designing and building parts 365 days a year is not how I plan to spend my time.:no:

 

[Dogger807]

liberals use hate rhetoric.... talking point lie check.
free stuff ... another talking point lie check
hatred for rich people with envy implied... yet another check
liberal ideas belittled as indoctrination... and another check

okay, you have the whole babbling nonsense covered. Now, do you have an actual point?

 

[iguanaman]

Re: https://youtu.be/-N9nVLXMhPc

Well, no. This eliminates a state-exploited subsidy that allows states to impose high taxes and shift the burden to the federal government and everyone else. It's a little game high tax states play to keep the wealthy in their state and paying taxes - to that state, at everyone else's expense.

LOL Except that the fact is that it is the Red States that keep their taxes low by depriving citizens of services and sponging off the Federal Govt. to make up the slack.

 

[MTAtech]

Aw yes, another federal taxpayer interference into a state responsibility and issue all because of liberal social engineering. Medicaid was created by what law??? Stunning how you expect federal bureaucrats who racked up a 21 trillion dollar debt deserve more money and more responsibility for your state and local issues. 9.2% uninsured rate on 325 million people is how many uninsured, almost 30 million and that is a success to you? OMG, it is scary how easy it is to indoctrinate far too many.

By what law? The Medicare Law passed July 30, 1965. See picture below.

You aren't a conservative. You are a regressive, who wants to go back to a bygone era. Medicare belongs where Congress said it belongs. What you would do is make it a state responsibility, where the poorest states, that need it the most, won't be able to afford it.

Also, learn to read. That 9.2% uninsured rate was the drop in Kentucky. The last time that I checked, Kentucky didn't have 325 million people. Nationally, the uninsured rate had dropped dramatically (no thanks to people like Conservative who would have done nothing) but has been rising since the GOP attack on Obamacare.

 

[Conservative]

By what law? The Medicare Law passed July 30, 1965. See picture below.

You aren't a conservative. You are a regressive, who wants to go back to a bygone era. Medicare belongs where Congress said it belongs. What you would do is make it a state responsibility, where the poorest states, that need it the most, won't be able to afford it.

Also, learn to read. That 9.2% uninsured rate was the drop in Kentucky. The last time that I checked, Kentucky didn't have 325 million people. Nationally, the uninsured rate had dropped dramatically (no thanks to people like Conservative who would have done nothing) but has been rising since the GOP attack on Obamacare.

We aren't talking Medicare we are talking Medicaid and that was created as part of the SS and Medicare law. Last I checked the US did have 325 million and with 9.2% uninsured that is almost 30 million which in your world is a success. then there is this

Obamacare premiums 2018 increase by state - Business Insider

Another typical liberal feel good program that cost more than intended, does less than intended, and never solves a problem. I never cared what you made or what you pay in taxes or anyone else either so why is this such an issue with you? You think if you give the govt. more money they will do any different than they did in the past creating the 21 trillion dollar debt? You don't seem to understand the role of the Federal govt. as part of your liberal indoctrination as you buy what you want to believe and ignore actual results

Trump has been in office over one year and has generated double the GDP growth he was left, had employment increase by over 3 million, reduced the number of part time for economic reasons, allowed the American taxpayer to keep more of what they earn and that isn't enough for you. Now it is all about PROJECTED debt but not a word about the 9.3 trillion Obama added to the debt. Your double standard is well noted