Posted on 09/28/2017 9:15:45 AM PDT by NohSpinZone
Tax reform should be:
(1) revenue neutral under static assumptions or at least revenue neutral under dynamic assumptions
(2) incidence neutral (meaning not change the burden of taxes across income classes)
(3) provide for a transition (e.g., for 2 years, individuals can continue to file under the old rules)
Realistically, “3” is all that can be done for states and localities that are heavy into the complexity of the current system.
They are so much as admitting that they are manipulating their state and local tax systems so as to screw the federal government. And, although it will be tough for them, they’re just going to have to learn to pay their fair share of federal taxes.
If I had my druthers, I’d move to a value-added tax, including one that applied to any border where they hit us with a value-added tax, and eliminate the social security tax and exempt everyone under the median from federal income tax. (This was the Cruz plan.) Everybody would pay something, and the rich would pay more, but we’d cut out all the paper work.
Having said this, I’ll take a meaningful step in the right direction.
isn’t this true for any large population state? no, Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming have no state income tax. Absolutely brilliant!
They don’t care as long as the burden is always on someone else.
So you couldn’t actually respond on point.
Well, I knew you couldn’t, so big surprise.
Oh no! Think of all the California votes Trump will lose! He could lose the election!
If enacted, Trump’s tax plan might encourage California and New York libs to move to red states.
Let me ask you this.
By your own reasoning, should we do away with all household mortgage interest deductions?
I mean, why should folks who don’t own a home have to subsidize homeowners?
I don’t advocate for this, but it seems to be something you might, if your reasoning is applied across the board.
This is why I moved to rural Kentucky from Seattle. They both fall under the exact same federal tax rules.
And all that that implies. :)
Yep, not to mention NY, NJ, and IL who are the next three states who have enjoyed most of the state and local tax deductions. California is far far ahead though with $101B in deductions in 2014.
You seem to think deficits and debt are not really money.
The mind of a four year old.
++++++
So you couldn’t actually respond on point.
Well, I knew you couldn’t, so big surprise.
“Wake the F up, California.”
Anything that will motivate California further along to secession I’m for. Bye bye Cali.....
Doubt it. Not your classic elitist libs anyway who have nothing but open disdain for “flyover” country. What it’ll likely do is encourage good families to move and make these wretched states even bluer. Who cares, the GOP does not count on those states for electoral votes anyway.
I asked you what amount came out of your pocket, and you flipped your answer to address the federal deficit.
You said YOU were having to subsidize someone.
You weren’t.
By your own reasoning, should we subsidize people buying million dollar houses?
The MID is really only used by the very upper middle class and wealthy as the standard deduction is usually greater than mortgage interest + the other itemized deductions (charity, health care, local taxes, etc.)
++++++
By your own reasoning, should we do away with all household mortgage interest deductions?
Okay, then you’re for doing away with the home mortgage deduction. LOL
I love it when you folks get hung by your own petard.
I can tell you where this will go. The working-class...I would put this as the folks who generally make $35k or less across the nation are the ones to benefit from this tax change.
But when you do this math...states like NY, California, and urbanized areas like Seattle, Atlanta and Miami....won’t see any relief. When you do the numbers in three years...those regions or states will see more money going into the national pot, and less coming back to their city, region, or state.
If you go and review this big fight going on in Spain with Catalonia...this is mostly about a productive part of the nation which contributes roughly 20-to-25 percent of the national budget but they have only around 11-percent of the population. They don’t see the revenue coming back to themselves in a fair way. This is triggering separation issues. In a way, Trump is planting this long-term issue of unfair taxation (up and down the lines) and unfairness in redistribution of taxable revenue.
If there was some big ‘cut’ going on and a quarter of the government’s spending was gone...people might see things different. So far, spending cuts have been somewhat marginal.
But, Trump is correct in helping the working-class Americans...more than the urban dwellers or the wealthy...they were the ones who voted for him.
I want everyone to get a tax cut.
I have no envy of folks who make a lot more money than I do.
If the plan is to free up money so that our economy will expand, then free up money across the board.
Giving tax cuts to one group and raising tsxes on others, nullifies the announced goal.
All it does is shift who is paying taxes. There will be no benefit to the economy.
Don't tax me.
Tax that man behind the tree.
I mean, why should folks who don’t own a home have to subsidize homeowners?...
The reason is a matter of simple fairness. People who don't own a home and rent already benefit from a mortgage interest deduction. How? Mortgage interest is deductible on their landlord's taxes. In a competitive environment this savings is reflected in the amount of rent charged.
Allowing a mortgage interest deduction for a homeowner levels the playing field.
If we do not allow a home mortgage interest deduction the US will become a nation of renters. Do we really want that?
And, if you think your rent is too high now, what do you think will happen when a large percentage of the population suddenly discovers that the buy/rent decision has tilted toward renting? That's right, more renters chasing the available properties will drive rents up.
I’m not in favor of removing the mortgage interest deduction.
I was addressing it as another potential “subsidized savings”, only some people had access to, for argument purposes.
Renters cannot deduct mortgage interest payments.
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.