Started By
Message
locked post

Removing state and local tax deduction: A left jab at liberals?

Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:22 am
Posted by KeyserSoze999
Member since Dec 2009
10608 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:22 am
LINK

quote:

Many Californians face a big financial hit under the Republican tax plan, which would eliminate a major tax break that benefits state residents more than those anywhere else in the U.S.

The federal deduction for state and local taxes allowed Californians to reduce their taxable income by $101 billion in 2014, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.



quote:

“Republicans in Washington have once again zeroed in on California to punish us and make our state the single biggest loser in their reckless tax scheme,” said Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles).



quote:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said the elimination of the deduction was one reason the plan was a “non-starter” for her.

“I don’t believe California should suffer in order for President Trump to give tax cuts to the rich,” she said.

The plan also left open the possibility of another big hit: new limits on the deduction for home mortgage interest, which would have a greater effect on states with higher housing costs, such as California and New York.

Homeowners now can deduct interest paid on as much as $1 million in mortgage debt. Some Republicans have been considering reducing the limit to $500,000. If that were to happen, about 489,000 filers in California would see an average increase of about $3,290 in their federal taxes, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Trump pitches tax plan as 'once-in-a-generation opportunity,' but leaves many issues unresolved
The Republican tax outline would slash business tax rates, nearly double the standard deduction for individuals and married taxpayers filing jointly, and compress the current seven tax brackets to three. But the plan still lacks many crucial details.

That made it difficult to analyze the effect on the nation, let alone specific states, experts said. The plan, for example, doesn’t specify the income levels of the new tax brackets. Those details and others — such as whether to limit the mortgage interest deduction — are being left to members of Congress to figure out.

“It’s a slapdash wish list that does not deserve the dignity of the word ‘plan,’ ” said Edward Kleinbard, a USC professor and former chief of staff to Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation.

“We don’t know what the effect will be on lower-income Americans vs. middle-income Americans vs. higher-income Americans except that we know that the highest-income Americans come out way ahead,” he said. “That’s the only thing we know for sure.”

The proposed reduction of the top marginal tax rate to 35% from 39.6%, along with the elimination of the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax, would help California’s wealthiest residents, analysts said.

And the huge reduction in the corporate tax rate, to 20% from 35%, would be a boon to major California companies such as Apple Inc., Chevron Corp., Wells Fargo, Alphabet and Disney. The state is home to 53 Fortune 500 companies, second only to New York’s 54.




Top Ten Counties for State and Local Tax Deductions

County Average State and Local Deductions Taken:
New York County, NY $20,621
Westchester County, NY $14,136
Fairfield County, CT $13,751
Marin County, CA $13,693
San Mateo County, CA $12,513
Nassau County, NY $10,985
Morris County, NJ $10,833
Somerset County, NJ $10,454
Hunterdon County, NJ $10,444
Santa Clara County, CA $10,140

:NB4BoozieInsult



This post was edited on 9/28/17 at 8:29 am
Posted by Mr.Perfect
Louisiana
Member since Mar 2013
17438 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:24 am to
Screw them. They are broke and still don't understand
Posted by KeyserSoze999
Member since Dec 2009
10608 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:25 am to
quote:

Screw them.


agree
Posted by imjustafatkid
Alabama
Member since Dec 2011
50522 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:28 am to
quote:

Homeowners now can deduct interest paid on as much as $1 million in mortgage debt. Some Republicans have been considering reducing the limit to $500,000. If that were to happen, about 489,000 filers in California would see an average increase of about $3,290 in their federal taxes, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.


People who are able to afford this kind of house are also able to afford good accountants. They'll be just fine.
Posted by Draconian Sanctions
Markey's bar
Member since Oct 2008
84874 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:28 am to
quote:

Screw them


can't imagine why our country is as divided as it is with comments like this.

income redistribution from blue states to red ones, especially when red states already take more than they give, all under the guise of "tax reform" is pathetic but entirely predictable.

Don't be shocked when the next D POTUS tells the red states to go frick themselves, i'm sure y'all will cry foul then while you cheer this now.
This post was edited on 9/28/17 at 8:29 am
Posted by imjustafatkid
Alabama
Member since Dec 2011
50522 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:29 am to
quote:

especially when red states already take more than they give


Link? Make sure it doesn't include military bases and spending. Only money spent for the state's benefit.
This post was edited on 9/28/17 at 8:30 am
Posted by jb4
Member since Apr 2013
12664 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:29 am to
Brilliant and trump better not cave even though the GOPe will demand it
Posted by Draconian Sanctions
Markey's bar
Member since Oct 2008
84874 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:30 am to
quote:

Link?


LINK
Posted by imjustafatkid
Alabama
Member since Dec 2011
50522 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:31 am to
I knew you couldn't do it.
Posted by Draconian Sanctions
Markey's bar
Member since Oct 2008
84874 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:32 am to
truth hurts, keep that head in the sand baw
Posted by Mr.Perfect
Louisiana
Member since Mar 2013
17438 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:32 am to
Noooo

California is in debt up to its eyeballs and needs those deductions so that they can keep the income taxes and not send the money to the fed.

If this passes and their citizens start to see California isn't sustainable people move or the state collapses.

I'm supposed to care ?
Posted by imjustafatkid
Alabama
Member since Dec 2011
50522 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:32 am to
quote:

truth hurts


I know it does. That's why you don't want to look at the numbers without including military spending.
Posted by Draconian Sanctions
Markey's bar
Member since Oct 2008
84874 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:34 am to
quote:

I know it does. That's why you don't want to look at the numbers without including military spending.


you seem to have a hard time reading
Posted by roadGator
Member since Feb 2009
140552 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:36 am to
quote:

i'm sure y'all will cry foul then while you cheer this now.


So, just like you, now? Weird.
Posted by Y.A. Tittle
Member since Sep 2003
101467 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:36 am to
quote:

So, just like you, now? Weird.


He's a uniter, bro.
Posted by Draconian Sanctions
Markey's bar
Member since Oct 2008
84874 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:37 am to
here's another one. Read the methodology, military spending is not included:

LINK /
Posted by Draconian Sanctions
Markey's bar
Member since Oct 2008
84874 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:38 am to
quote:

So, just like you, now? Weird.


i'm for sensible tax reform, not political games
Posted by imjustafatkid
Alabama
Member since Dec 2011
50522 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:39 am to
quote:

you seem to have a hard time reading


The study you linked includes federal contracts. You want me to believe that's not military spending?
Posted by ChineseBandit58
Pearland, TX
Member since Aug 2005
42622 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:41 am to
I have always been a fan of 'ZERO DEDUCTIONS" = but combined with sane tax rate structures and a requirement to REDUCE SPENDING as the FIRST RESPONSE to budgetary problems.

Only existential emergencies should even be considered for unfunded expenditures.

NO SOCIETAL EXPERIMENTATION in any tax policy.

Leave all charity to private individuals/organizations that receive no tax incentive to "do what their hearts tell them to do."

If a person doesn't want to work, he needs to find someone who sympathizes with his plight to help him survive. If he cannot find someone who will take from their own pocket to assist him, then I don't care if he starves himself to death.

I exempt from all my statements, now and forevermore, true emergency situations on a temporary basis as a public health issue.

I do not exempt generational dysfunction from this draconian concept. If a culture wants to become 'on the edge' or lazy or disrespectful or violent, or unproductive, they need to find themselves a sponsor who can provide their sustenance out of personal sympathy with their plight or agreement with their objectives. If they cannot sustain themselves, or find someone to support them in their culture, then that culture should be allowed to die out from natural selection. Let the laws of nature determine the way cultures 'progress.'
Posted by Draconian Sanctions
Markey's bar
Member since Oct 2008
84874 posts
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:41 am to
i posted another one which clearly explained the methodology as not including military spending
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram