Posted on 11/11/2017 9:55:57 AM PST by WilliamIII
California Republicans are about to vote for a major tax increase, on California Republicans. That’s what will happen when they pass the Congressional Republican tax reform bill that does away with the state and local tax deduction to your federal taxes, widely used by middle class Californians.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxandhoundsdaily.com ...
Always follow the money trail.
Me too. I’m sick of almost half our adult population not paying a dime.....and alot of them getting money back they never paid in. Just done with it.
“That’s why the biggest “donor” states are invariably the ones with the highest state and local taxes. “
Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Kansas are all net donor states too.
If your theory were correct they would not be on the list of 14 net donor states.
As to scale, the California donation could likely pay the entire state budgets of 3 of the 5 above.
CA and NY and many of the others are donors because they are very rich states with millions of high income workers.
Worrying about short term self induced problems in California is like giving them cough syrup for lung cancer.
What will really happen is that the Laffer curve will engage in the middle classes. This can result in many things:
1) The rapid expansion of the gray and black markets. Many more private sales in cash.
2) More business departures from the state, resulting in big jumps in unemployment.
3) Lots of tax avoidance (legal) and evasion (illegal).
4) Asset preservation out of state. For example, selling a house in California at a slight loss, then buying a house in Florida, where state law prohibits the bankruptcy sale of a primary residence. Then renting a room for cash from a friend in CA.
5) Removing all fungible items out of state prior to sale.
The list goes on and on. And not only does it result in lower tax revenues, it will likely substantially increase government expenditures.
Of course the legislature will not reduce its profligate spending by a thin dime, likely increasing spending on ever more frivolous things.
"If California is such a prosperous state as liberals claim, why does it have the highest poverty rate in the nation? According to the Census Bureau, the poverty rate is 23.4%, which is 17% higher than second place Nevada."California also has the highest welfare rate in the USA at 33%. Any claim that Californians themselves are paying in more than they take in is ridiculous. Taxes on oil leases, and oil revenue, payments for Military bases, etc. are not generated by taxpayers. Californians pay the same federal tax as all Americans.
Hollywood gave us smoke and mirrors and fantasy, just like their accountants. Subsiding state and local taxes hides their real cost. Those who bemoan the Democrat stranglehold on California better realize that if Californians were to bear the full burden of their state and local taxes then you would see more conservatives serving in Sacramento.
Please cite the source where you got those numbers about the “donor” states. I have seen a lot of conflicting information about this, and it’s important to know what exactly is included in the two sides of the calculations.
As a resident of a state that sends more than $40 BILLION dollars of tax revenue OUT to the Federal Government than it gets back, I'm a little tired of "arguments" such as yours which not only have no basis in fact, it's we who are subsidizing YOU.
FACT.
Obamacare and now this idiocy.
This should completely finish off the middle class.
Middle class was a quaint notion back in the middle of the 20th century.
Today, government desires a wealthy elite class with the rest of the chattel dependent on government.
“taxing money you’ve already paid as taxes. Double taxation”
This comes up over and over again. It’s BS.
Puts the cart before the horse.
SALT is a loophole for high tax, big gubmint states.
(Mostly School Taxes which creates a “Private School”
only for those in the district, with deductible “Tuition”)
Local taxes are high because local folks voted for it. Don’t make everyone else pay for your deductions. Treat all the same.
Far a huge chunk of folks, doubling the standard deduction will offset most, if not all, of the state tax.
Folks with lots of other alternative approaches for tax avoidance would be directly impacted.
It’s basically a wash for most.
Some local homes have a tax bill of over $20K a year. That’s TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. Folks who live there work hard and make a good living. They can also arrange things to make up the difference quite easily.
Hamptons Hedge fund folks have already figured another path for another piece of it; LLC’s to hold the property to get ALL the mortgage interest deduction (above the $500K value cap).
Regarding most (all?) of the federal deductions that I have heard about concerning the RINO Trojan Horse tax plan, patriots are reminded of the following.
Just as with the failed Obamacare repeal, the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the corrupt feds the specific power to tax and spend for the reasons addressed by those deductions imo.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me
Consider that the ultimate tax reduction plan is for patriots to support Pres. Trump in working with the states to repeal the ill-conceived 17th Amendment (17A) imo. The 16th Amendment (16A) can disappear too.
Patriots must first make sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting candidates on the primary ballots who will commit to express-laning a ConCon for the specific purpose of repealing 16 & 17A.
For those patriots concerned about a possible overthrow of the country by a pirated ConCon, note that the product of a ConCon is never a new amendment to the Constitution, but a proposed amendment that the states can either reject or ratify.
Once 16 & 17A are repealed, and patriots support Pres. Trump in working with the states to put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes, the states will probably find a tsunami of new revenues that they won’t know what to do with.
For starters, they can establish their own healthcare and retirement programs, increase funding for public schools, police and fire departments, and repair infrastructure, ultimately depending on what the legal majority voters of a given state want.
Consider that repealing 17A will also effectively secede the states from the unconstitutionally big federal government imo. (Are you listening Gov. Brown?)
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
I look at this a different way: California republicans are being encouraged to move to low tax states where they will have a voice.
WalletHub disagrees with you.
And it’s been widely known, to everyone who is interested, that California has been a net donor state for at least 50 years.
CA has nearly always paid more to DC than it receives in federal expenditure of any and every kind. Despite the 33% of all welfare, all the illegals and their commie environmental policies.
It’s just a very, very rich state...being raped by commies. And, now, Congressional Republicans.
There is truth in your statement. California is a very rich state. They do send a lot of money to DC. However, California politicians have always wielded lots of political muscle to get things done their way. The latest is Gov Jerry Brown's high-speed train to nowhere, which he wants funded by the feds. In the past, high-powered Californian politicians have gotten fed money for bridges, ports, highways, train rail and other very expensive projects. True, more money is sent to DC than comes back, on an annual basis; however at times they get a lot of expensive projects paid for by the feds. I remember Congressman Phil Burton and the power he wielded in the 1960s to steer federal projects here, he had enormous power like Pelosi and Feinstein.
I'm going to get hit in the wallet, as a California resident. If it happens, so be it. Maybe it'll shake up the politics here and destroy the democrat base.
Two answers:
ANSWER 1: I really do hope you are right.
ANSWER 2: In your dreams.
“SALT is a loophole for high tax, big gubmint states.”
Oh, really! I didn’t realize that me PAYING taxes is a loophole.
Thanks - I feel much better now.
The numbers shown in that horizontal bar chart are based on Federal spending per state, but it doesn't say exactly how this number is computed. Does it include Social Security and Medicare payments, for example? That alone would weigh "Federal spending" heavily toward states with large numbers of retirees even though the outlays go to the recipient directly or to their doctors and medical professional, regardless of where they worked and paid their FICA and Medicare taxes.
These "Federal spending by state" figures are then compared to Federal income taxes paid by the taxpayers in each state -- even though income taxes represent less than 50% of the Federal government's revenue in any given year. So you have total Federal spending per state (regardless of how that is computed) compared to only one source of tax revenue. This is an "apples-to-oranges" comparison if I ever saw one. It also explains why the numbers make it look like 36 out of 50 states -- including some of the largest in terms of population (Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Georgia and North Carolina, etc.) -- are net "recipients" instead of net "donors." I find that last point hard to believe.
No, they are going to cut the subsidy that California gets from all federal taxpayers.
If California Republicans do not like high state taxes, they should take it up with the state, or move to an efficient state.
All those leftist websites that promote the idea that California and New York are actually subsidizing Fed.gov are full of bunkum
Its a slogan and cliche with no basis in truth
Besides, that wasn’t my argument - you missed my point entirely.
Sure about that? I live in Illinois and it's well established fact that we send some $40,000,000,000 more in taxes to the Federales than we get back YEARLY and it's been doing on for decades that Illinois sends far more than we get back.
So what exactly was your point since I missed it?
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.