Started By
Message

re: Micheal Savage going off on trump for raising his taxes in California

Posted on 12/19/17 at 10:15 am to
Posted by Papplesbeast
St. Louis
Member since Dec 2014
826 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 10:15 am to
quote:

I mean if he would like to trade AGI and tax bills I would gladly take 248k (or whatever he makes minus his wife) opposesed to my little 80k.

You can earn the same income I'm earning. In fact, you could be earning the same income I'm earning, right now, if you had done the same things I did. There is no law preventing it. And you don't need to use government to take money out of my pocket so you can have more in yours.
Posted by member12
Bob's Country Bunker
Member since May 2008
32119 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 10:16 am to
California wants big government.

California can pay for it.
Posted by The Maj
Member since Sep 2016
27193 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 10:18 am to
quote:

And you don't need to use government to take money out of my pocket so you can have more in yours.


But you are perfectly happy if the government takes money out of someone else's pocket to finance your 900K house? That is basically what you are advocating for...
Posted by member12
Bob's Country Bunker
Member since May 2008
32119 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 10:19 am to
quote:

In other words, I have to pay more because Republicans are lazy.


Your state tax burden shouldn't impact your federal tax burden. If you want big government, put your money where your mouth is and cough up the tax dollars to support it.
Posted by 50_Tiger
Dallas TX
Member since Jan 2016
40147 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 10:19 am to
Well considering I’m only three years removed from college (In which I started late) I would say I’m on a good path towards economic independence.

Btw, I am not taking your money. The government is giving me more of MY money back.

Surely you understand the sources of where federal tax revenue comes from.
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 10:21 am to
quote:

But you are perfectly happy if the government takes money out of someone else's pocket to finance your 900K house? That is basically what you are advocating for...


100% dead on.

If anything, the new policy makes the most sense.

Let the people of the various states determine within their own communities what they wish their total tax burden to be.

There is no reason for the Federal government to be saying, "Oh, you want to pay more taxes?.......here, we'll reduce them on our end for ya!!!".


That's just nonsense and really always has been.
Posted by Papplesbeast
St. Louis
Member since Dec 2014
826 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 10:22 am to
quote:

No one likes their tax bill going up so, I wouldn't like it.

What I wouldn't do is use it's effect upon me to then say the whole thing was Marxism. But, I didn't grow up thinking that the only good shite in he world was shite that worked for me.

It actually is Marxism. Why? Because Republicans can't surpass the $1.5 trillion debt limit. That means that in order to pass the tax cuts they want, they have to take money out of my pocket. That's no different, in effect, than someone robbing me on the street.

If Republicans took the more difficult route, one that requires a handful of Democrats to approve, but wouldn't have the arbitrary $1.5 trillion debt limit, they could give a tax cut to literally everyone. There absolutely are vulnerable Democrats who could be convinced to vote for such a tax bill. But Republicans are lazy. It's easier to just raise my taxes to "pay for" other peoples' cuts than it is to bother getting a handful of Democrats on board.
Posted by Papplesbeast
St. Louis
Member since Dec 2014
826 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 10:25 am to
quote:

Well considering I’m only three years removed from college (In which I started late) I would say I’m on a good path towards economic independence.

Btw, I am not taking your money. The government is giving me more of MY money back.

Surely you understand the sources of where federal tax revenue comes from.

Under normal circumstances, yes. But the circumstances under which this tax bill is being passed, with its arbitrary debt limit, it requires Republicans to take money from one group of people to give to another group of people.
Posted by Papplesbeast
St. Louis
Member since Dec 2014
826 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 10:27 am to
quote:

Your state tax burden shouldn't impact your federal tax burden. If you want big government, put your money where your mouth is and cough up the tax dollars to support it.

What makes you think that I want a big government? That I disagree with you on something? Do you believe that you want "small government" and everyone who disagrees with you wants "big government"?

Here's something for you to chew on. I don't want Social Security and Medicare reformed. I want them completely eliminated. I want my money back. If you disagree, then you are on the side of "big government", buddy.
Posted by 50_Tiger
Dallas TX
Member since Jan 2016
40147 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 10:28 am to
But they aren’t redistributing anything to me. They are literally giving me more of MY money back...

I don’t collect EITC nor have kids. You aren’t doing me any favors whatsoever.

In fact, You have gained more from the system than I have. Which is eye opening, considering the difference in AGI.
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 10:32 am to
quote:

What makes you think that I want a big government? That I disagree with you on something?
The point is, your argument is faulty.

The people of the states decided what their taxes will be locally. OF COURSE 100% won't agree, but they decide.

The Federal government should have NO DOG in that hunt. The Federal govt policy should be FEDERAL govt policy.

It shouldn't be, "here's our rate...........oh........wait........you decided LOCALLY to give your LOCAL politicians more?............OK......you don't have to give us as much".

I mean, if you REALLY think about that, it's retarded.

By definition, that policy:
1)Reduces taxes for people who VOTED for more taxes

while

2)Increasing taxes for those who VOTED for FEWER taxes!

An absurdity.
Posted by Papplesbeast
St. Louis
Member since Dec 2014
826 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 11:41 am to
quote:

But they aren’t redistributing anything to me. They are literally giving me more of MY money back...

I don’t collect EITC nor have kids. You aren’t doing me any favors whatsoever.

In fact, You have gained more from the system than I have. Which is eye opening, considering the difference in AGI.

They are only able to do that because they're taking more from me. First they had to take from me, then they were able to give to you.
Posted by The Maj
Member since Sep 2016
27193 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 11:43 am to
quote:

hey are only able to do that because they're taking more from me. First they had to take from me, then they were able to give to you.


No, they simply quit subsidizing the purchase of your extravagant home...
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 11:44 am to
quote:

They are only able to do that because they're taking more from me. First they had to take from me, then they were able to give to you.


You have dutifully ignored for this entire thread that until now, people in lower tax states with your income had a higher tax liability than you.

You've dutifully ignored that people in lower tax states cannot be held responsible for what the people of YOUR state chooses to do.

And finally. You have dutifully ignored that the old policy was effectively the Fed giving people who VOTED FOR HIGHER TAXES a break on Fed taxes.

You ignore these on purpose because they completely gut your absurd paradigm.
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 11:46 am to
quote:

No, they simply quit subsidizing the purchase of your extravagant home...


It's really a simple question.

Should the Fed give a break to people who vote higher taxes on themselves locally or not?

It can't do BOTH. The Fed can't say, "hey, Cali has high state taxes, so everyone in the country can deduct what their taxes WOULD have been if they lived in Cali".

The fed can either say, "you can deduct your local taxes or not".

Only the latter makes sense. The latter then lets you as citizens choose what to do at the local level while treating everyone the same at the Federal level.
Posted by Papplesbeast
St. Louis
Member since Dec 2014
826 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 11:51 am to
quote:

The point is, your argument is faulty.

Nope.

quote:

The Federal government should have NO DOG in that hunt. The Federal govt policy should be FEDERAL govt policy.

The federal government doesn't have a dog in that hunt. This is about not double, triple, and quadruple taxing income.

quote:

It shouldn't be, "here's our rate...........oh........wait........you decided LOCALLY to give your LOCAL politicians more?............OK......you don't have to give us as much".

I mean, if you REALLY think about that, it's retarded.

You're making an argument for eliminating ALL deductions, not just SALT. We should all be taxed on our gross income, with no modifications. I'm okay with that as long as all legal people are held to the same standard. That means corporations are taxed on gross revenue, not profit. Unprofitable corporations don't get a free pass anymore.

quote:

By definition, that policy:
1)Reduces taxes for people who VOTED for more taxes

while

2)Increasing taxes for those who VOTED for FEWER taxes!

An absurdity.

Uhh, no it doesn't. Increasing someone's state income tax rate does not reduce their total tax bill. SALT is a tax deduction, not a tax credit. How do you not understand these fundamental concepts?
Posted by Papplesbeast
St. Louis
Member since Dec 2014
826 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 11:53 am to
quote:

It's really a simple question.

Should the Fed give a break to people who vote higher taxes on themselves locally or not?

It can't do BOTH. The Fed can't say, "hey, Cali has high state taxes, so everyone in the country can deduct what their taxes WOULD have been if they lived in Cali".

The fed can either say, "you can deduct your local taxes or not".

Only the latter makes sense. The latter then lets you as citizens choose what to do at the local level while treating everyone the same at the Federal level.

Just like people can move out of California because its taxes are too high, people can move to California if its high taxes are the massive advantage you seem to think they are.
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 11:56 am to
quote:

Just like people can move out of California because its taxes are too high, people can move to California if its high taxes are the massive advantage you seem to think they are.


Nice try.

I mean, not even close to a response. But, that's cause you really don't have one.

The Fed treating everyone the same and then letting THEM choose locally what kind of local taxes they want is far superior than the Fed creating a rate........then when local people VOTE themselves higher taxes, the Fed gives them a break.

I can tell you know this point is unassailable because you've spent 5 pages avoiding it.
Posted by Papplesbeast
St. Louis
Member since Dec 2014
826 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 12:00 pm to
quote:

No, they simply quit subsidizing the purchase of your extravagant home...

The inconsistent logic is hilarious. When other people's tax bills are reduced, they are getting their own money back. If my tax bill is reduced, it's not me getting my own money back. It's the federal government subsidizing me.

The hypocrisy is pathetic, but typical. Thou shalt not covet...
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 12/19/17 at 12:00 pm to
quote:

The federal government doesn't have a dog in that hunt. This is about not double, triple, and quadruple taxing income.
The fed can't help that local citizens chose to do that to themselves.

quote:

You're making an argument for eliminating ALL deductions, not just SALT.
LOL. No.

quote:

That means corporations are taxed on gross revenue, not profit. Unprofitable corporations don't get a free pass anymore.
This is just spectacularly dumb comparison.

quote:

Uhh, no it doesn't. Increasing someone's state income tax rate does not reduce their total tax bill.
I can only assume you can't read here because I said no such thing. Read again.

quote:

SALT is a tax deduction, not a tax credit. How do you not understand these fundamental concepts?
Did I claim it was a credit? Again, I can only assume you misread.

In any case, nice try at slipping in "total tax bill". The Fed isn't responsible for your "total tax bill". Raising your local taxes previously reduced your FEDERAL tax bill.

Now, it doesn't.

You're trying to wriggle. But, I can tell you realize you're on quicksand.
first pageprev pagePage 7 of 9Next 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