- Joined
- Nov 15, 2013
- Messages
- 15,853
- Reaction score
- 4,960
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
You might want to add SALT into federal assistance - oh and take out support of military bases.
Seriously - look at it honestly.
You might want to look up which states take MORE in federal assistance than they contribute in taxes raised. Seriously, look it up.
If SALT is your issue, then you have been very fooled on where the taxation problem is in this nation.
Tax breaks for the rich are very important for the democrats. They fight hard to keep them. High tax states like California and New York DEPEND on middle America to support them.
I think the government paying out our tax dollars should be the ones collecting the taxes. If the state is handing out the money then the state should be taxing the people. That way I know where my money is going and who to hold accountable.Yes, No? Either way why do you feel that way? (State and Local Tax). Tying up the OBBB.
SALT only hurts those who can afford the property that hits that limit on property tax. For the lower middle class and below, the reduction of the standard deduction that will result if SALT cap is removed, will hurt more.The S A L T deduction cap hurts those in higher tax states that still contribute more to the federal government than they receive in benefits. This deduction levels the playing field somewhat but not enough to offset the disparity with those states receiving more from the feds than they contribute. I notice those that oppose the SALT deductions have no issue with the redistribution of wealth to the lesser tax and mostly red states. Very interesting indeed.
Higher middle class and above.The rich? Seriously?
If you feel that way, wait until you hear about how those states pay far more into the federal government than they get back in federal spending."Your feelings on S.A.L.T.?"
I don't see why the entire nation's tax payers have to support any state and local government's which can't manage their finances, can't manage to live within their means.
If voters in those locales with high state and local taxes have an issue with the expense of those state and local taxes they need to take this issue up with those state and local governments, not the nation's tax payers at large.
Federal, State, and Local governments are separate government entities, each with their own taxation regulations and laws.Exactly my point. I am being taxed on money I spent on taxes.
Sorry, but you know nothing of which side I 'sit' on that.You have arbitrarily decided that that's a good thing, since you sit on the other side of it.
I've had this discussion with too many red state posters who love seeing blue states getting "their due", who will argue until the cows home.
Fact is, Trump campaigned on getting rid of SALT caps, so if you have a problem with them, perhaps you should address him.
Well, its no surprise, really. NY State and NYC are both one of those Democrat bastions who's Democrat controlled government can't seem to manager their finances, which lead to those excessive SALTs which people are complaining about.Wow. I guess that would explain why most of the SALT issues are coming from NY congresspeople. Its really not an issue in Ohio.
NY taxpayers paid in 89 billion dollars more than they received in federal spending last year.Tax breaks for the rich are very important for the democrats. They fight hard to keep them. High tax states like California and New York DEPEND on middle America to support them.
In the process of giving those tax breaks to the rich, the State and Local governments, can hike their tax rates and get more money, rather than managing their finances better.Why should the people of Montana subsidize the leftist insanity of California?
SALT is welfare for blue state - nothing more or less. Leftist giving tax breaks to the rich.
You're missing my point, which is, and always has been, that the State and Local governments who's voters are demanding relief from their tax rates, laws, and regulations should work to reduce those State and Local taxes so that SALT relief isn't needed or warranted.If you feel that way, wait until you hear about how those states pay far more into the federal government than they get back in federal spending.
Why should a NY taxpayer be penalized and a Mississippi taxpayer benefit? It would be one thing if NY taxpayers got back tons in federal spending, and thus their state tax deductions were actually being subsidized by the rest of the country, but that isn't the case. An NY or NJ taxpayer might get 60 cents back on the dollar in terms of federal spending relative to the taxes they pay in to the federal government. Now, to pile on, they can't even deduct all their state taxes. Y'all aren't ignorant either, you know this.
Which states contribute the most and least to federal revenue? | USAFacts
In 2023, New Yorkers paid about $89 billion more to the federal government than they received.usafacts.org
So…the same people that are arguing that states should take more responsibility for providing for citizens in their states are also arguing out of the other side of their mouths that my tax money should flow to DC to be sent to Mississippi?You're missing my point, which is, and always has been, that the State and Local governments who's voters are demanding relief from their tax rates, laws, and regulations should work to reduce those State and Local taxes so that SALT relief isn't needed or warranted.
Your bringing in the age old diversion argument which is completely separate and immaterial from my point.
1. A military base is a huge economic benefit to a state and to the communities around it.You might want to add SALT into federal assistance - oh and take out support of military bases.
Seriously - look at it honestly.
Seems incongruous to believe that more current federal obligations should be pushed onto the states and believe states should be penalized for raising revenue from their residents.
Whether their state or local taxes are too high is irrelevant. The average New Yorker pays 2 to 3 times as much in federal taxes to the federal government than most residents of other states pay in. To then tell them, despite that, despite the fact they already disproportionately fund the federal government, they can't deduct their state and local taxes, isn't fair and you know it.You're missing my point, which is, and always has been, that the State and Local governments who's voters are demanding relief from their tax rates, laws, and regulations should work to reduce those State and Local taxes so that SALT relief isn't needed or warranted.
'Oh but I want my X, Y and Z level of government services!' OK, if you want them, pay for them, don't try to get others to pay for them.
Your bringing in the age old diversion argument which is completely separate and immaterial from my point.
If you feel that way, wait until you hear about how those states pay far more into the federal government than they get back in federal spending.
Why should a NY taxpayer be penalized and a Mississippi taxpayer benefit? It would be one thing if NY taxpayers got back tons in federal spending, and thus their state tax deductions were actually being subsidized by the rest of the country, but that isn't the case. An NY or NJ taxpayer might get 60 cents back on the dollar in terms of federal spending relative to the taxes they pay in to the federal government. Now, to pile on, they can't even deduct all their state taxes. Y'all aren't ignorant either, you know this.
Which states contribute the most and least to federal revenue? | USAFacts
In 2023, New Yorkers paid about $89 billion more to the federal government than they received.usafacts.org
Well, in a high cost of living area, where incomes are higher due to the higher cost of living, people are often over the standard deduction. I don't live in NJ, California, Mass, or NY, but given how much I pay in taxes every year and the fact that I don't get anything for it out of the federal government, if I lived in one of those places, I would be pretty pissed off if I couldn't deduct my state and local taxes even though I was paying all that money into the federal government and getting basically nothing in return for it.Itemized FIT deductions (like SALT) are only beneficial if their (total) amount exceeds the ‘standard’ deduction.
The SALT cap was MEANT to be punitive to the blue states when Trump 1.0 enacted it.pretty easy to cut state and local taxes when your residents get back more in spending from the federal government than they pay in
Well, in a high cost of living area, where incomes are higher due to the higher cost of living, people are often over the standard deduction. I don't live in NJ, California, Mass, or NY, but given how much I pay in taxes every year and the fact that I don't get anything for it out of the federal government, if I lived in one of those places, I would be pretty pissed off if I couldn't deduct my state and local taxes even though I was paying all that money into the federal government and getting basically nothing in return for it.
How are the states penalized?
Why shouldn't wealthy people pay their fair share?
What happened to end deductions for wealthy people?
It isn’t the individual recipients in as much as it is the overall amount of federal tax dollars received.I’m shocked that higher income folks don’t ‘qualify for’ as much (federal) government assistance as lower income folks. That’s certainly a valid reason for taxing them less.
You need to research your complaint. A $10K in itemized deductions is less than the standard deduction. You'd pay less FIT taxes not itemizing.I oppose all itemized FIT deductions, since they result in larger federal subsidies for those with higher annual incomes. A $10K itemized deduction gets someone with (enough) income in the 25% bracket a $2.5K federal subsidy, while it gets someone with (enough) income in the 35% bracket a (40%) larger $3.5K federal subsidy.
Each state and local government controls their own tax rates.So…the same people that are arguing that states should take more responsibility for providing for citizens in their states are also arguing out of the other side of their mouths that my tax money should flow to DC to be sent to Mississippi?
Or to states where they don’t even HAVE state taxes?
How about those red states start actually having their people pay some state and local taxes instead of relying on MY federal tax dollars to fund their needs?
I see them as two separate issues.Sorry…but you don’t get to call for cuts to the federal government AND demand that I send the federal government more of my money to fund the welfare red states.
Grab those bootstraps
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?