Posted on 09/29/2017 9:59:24 AM PDT by rktman
As President Trump prepares to sell his tax plan to the nation's manufacturing lobby on Friday, his best-laid tax plans have already drawn objections from some fellow Republicans who are fuming over the decision to end deductions for state and local income taxes.
The situation will pit the White House against members of Congress from states that pile high income taxes on top of what the federal government takes from paychecks.
High-income Californians, for instance, pay as much as 13.3 per cent of their income to the state in addition to their federal taxes. New Yorkers can pay up to 8.82 per cent.
Just seven U.S. states have no personal income taxes, including Texas, Florida and Nevada
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Yup, that is EXACTLY how I answer idiotic socialist answers like yours.
If NY and CA are “subsidizing” other states, the people of NY and CA should demand a halt to such nonsense. If it’s the feds forcing the issue, then CA and NY should nullify such unconstitutional federal activity.
Either way your state subsidization of other states is bull sh#t and should be stopped. The answer is NOT to accommodate such nonsense by keeping taxes higher.
Again a socialist answer on a site that’s supposed to be about freedom from government, not socialistic excuses for robbing more of people’s money by government.
yes
“Either way your state subsidization of other states is bull sh#t and should be stopped. The answer is NOT to accommodate such nonsense by keeping taxes higher.”
BINGO!
Honestly I think removal of the state tax deduction is a bargaining chip.... that is out there to just be given up anyway...
Though I would love to see the effect on Cali and NY if suddenly every resident realized just how much more living there was going to cost them.... I really see this as nothing more than something to be negotiated away.... and that’s the only reason its in there in the first place.
I agree, which is why I think this is just there to be negotiated out later in exchange for something else...
the only other way to interpret it is to view it as a poison pill to ensure it never will pass...
What do you mean by a “Democrat state”?
Do you think that everyone living in these states is a Dem or a leftist radical?
My ignorance? We left California and moved to Wyoming.
I’m not going back.
I am in a deep red suburb outside of Houston. I would guess my neighbors all average in the $125 to $150 range of combined household income and live in houses in the $300 to $350 range.
And everything I’m reading indicates that we are about to get screwed to the wall.
I know Trump is not a conservative and he gleefully promised to stick it to the hedge fund guys.
But this feels like a direct assault on the upper middle/lower upper class which in a service economy is where all your economic growth is going to come from.
The way I’m reading this, my deep red upper middle class suburb in Houston is about to take it in the shorts.
And if there is one thing Republicans want to do in a majority minority state like Texas, it’s take money from the suburbanites who give them all their power.
If California and New York stopped subsidizing the reat of the country, Mississippi and West Virginia would be back to dirt roads.
Now, if we were cutting spending dramatically, that would be one thing.
President Trump is has announced far and wide that he is not touching entitlements and may in fact add to them and wants to spend a trillion on infrastructure on top of that.
And he’s apparently going to fund this on the backs of upper middle class taxpayers.
If this passes as is, Democrats will have veto proof majorities in 2020.
Fighting the NFL and threatening North Korea is fun, but if white suburbanites see their insurance costs stay high AND their taxes increase, it will be a bloodbath for Republicans.
No it won't.
Whatever it takes. Our country was founded on and is about INDEPENDECE. The feds have worked hard for about 100 years to create DEPENECE. It's time to reverse that.
Now, if we were cutting spending dramatically, that would be one thing.
The goal is to cut down the 80% unconstitutional portion of the feds. That's more than $3 trillion a year less spending which will have a great positive impact on the states and the people.
President Trump is has announced far and wide that he is not touching entitlements and may in fact add to them
Not sure about that one, but by and large, federal entitlements are unconstitutional and must be scrapped. The feds were never created nor does the Constitution authorize the feds to be a front for a gift shop (that hides the sweat shop in the back).
And he’s apparently going to fund this on the backs of upper middle class taxpayers.
Don't know about that either, but the tax cuts should be funded by CUTTING GOVERNMENT BIG TIME.
bloodbath for Republicans
I don't think so. If Trump's tax cuts are anywhere near what they appear they will be, America will have an economic boom that will rival if not pass Reagan's Morning in America historic tax cuts that brought wealth, prosperity, and economic growth for 25 years.
If it’s not an actual tax cut for 99.99+% of American taxpayers, it’s a scam and won’t have the alleged desired effect..
Not a tax cut, just a tax shift.
Of course, what else could get through the UniParty?
You seriesly need to examine the AMT....
I'm sure people are doing the political math with data like that to drive an increase in tax complexity.
Also note:
“California is the biggest high-tax state. It currently receives a $100 billion subsidy per year under the current tax code. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) called the subsidy “critical to sustaining my state’s status as the wealthiest in the United States. I cannot abide a tax reform that would change this even if it treats all states equally. California voters didn’t elect me to achieve fairness to other states. They expect me to defend our entitlements and that’s what I’m going to do.” - One of Your “Representatives”
AND:
“Feinstein also cited a recent report published by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) showing that illegal immigration costs American taxpayers $135 billion per year as further inspiration for her opposition to Trump’s proposal. “As a sanctuary state, California has to bear a disproportionate share of this cost,” the Senator observed. “If we lose the federal deduction for state taxes our ability to continue as a haven for these immigrants would be threatened.”
“
Feinstein is a fantastic liar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.