Posted on 10/02/2017 5:57:59 PM PDT by Mariner
To cut taxes on businesses, middle-class families and the wealthy, President Donald Trump’s tax plan relies on the elimination of key deductions that cost the federal Treasury many billions of dollars each year. Getting rid of those giveaways, in theory, will provide new federal revenue that will help offset the revenue loss that will come from lowering rates.
In principle, tax experts support the idea of a cleaner tax code with lower rates and fewer ways for people to reduce what they owe. But tax breaks tend to be popular and notoriously hard to roll back once they’re in place. And the biggest tax break Trump wants to kill — the deduction for state and local taxes, known as the SALT deduction — might just be impossible to kill.
Republicans have targeted the SALT deduction for elimination for a couple key reasons. First, it costs Washington roughly $100 billion per year in foregone revenue — a large sum that would provide a lot of headroom for other tax cuts if captured. Second, the SALT deduction disproportionately benefits residents of blue states that tend to vote Democrat. So taking it away would affect Dems more than Republicans. That supposedly makes it one of the safest ways Republicans who control Congress and the White House can effectively raise taxes on some voters, while suffering minimal electoral harm.
This is lousy logic, however, and a closer look at the numbers reveals a giant flaw in the strategy of placing the burden of tax reform disproportionately on residents of Democratic states. The SALT deduction doesn’t benefit Democratic states more just because they’re blue. It’s simply more popular in states with higher incomes ...
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
One must really be a dumbass to not understand that the increase in taxes would disproportionally affect conseratives.
The high taxes were imposed by the MOOCHER class. I always hoped that FReepers would at least be capable of thinking straight rather than having an emotional need to punish those believed to be worthy of punishment even though it is their allies who will be affected.
I said a combination of a tariff and a NRST. A 20% tariff and a 8% sales tax would do it. The boost in economic activity would be phenomenal. Repatriation of industry would be an incredible stimulation.
There are no inordinate or unsupported assumptions in the article.
Property ownership is far more diverse than Swamp Dwellers. The problem with creating a label is that it starts to be applied thoughtlessly as in your post.
Swamp dwellers would likely be paying higher state taxes than those in other areas but this would affect far more than them.
So the "article" takes precedence over the independent variables of real life?
Get Real, please!
You are fantasizing. Your “solution” would collapse both the US economy and the rest of the worlds’ as well.
All actions produce reactions which would be catastrophic. No economic decision is without negative impacts.
No idea what you are saying. Any article makes some assumptions to get to a conclusion. Rather than your vague accusations specify some of the unwarranted assumptions or falsehoods.
Wrong. The justification is that this creates a perverse incentive for states to increase their taxes. And it allows those states to skirt on their obligations to fund the federal government. They can increase their state taxes while telling their citizens not to fight it because they can just deduct it from their federal taxes. Then the federal government ends up losing more tax revenue from those states disproportionately. And those states are not paying their fair share towards the military and other federal obligations. They should be allowed to cheat the system no longer.
Nope, it’s about fairness. Whatever obligation we have in taxes should be distributed evenly among us. You shouldn’t get to pay less because you’re fat or skinny or earn your income this way or that way or pay more or less in some other taxes. The benefits you get from the military do not benefit you less because your state has a higher income tax. You need to pay the same share as all of us for the same benefits. If you’re paying too much in taxes, complain to your state about that.
Only a commie would think the government should be trying to control the population by offering them breaks on the taxes if they do specific actions the feds say to do. Why do you want a nanny state so deeply involved in your personal life? Why do you want the government turning your life into a game show where you can earn cash and prizes if you complete specific tasks they decide on?
Nonsense. “Hey, little Jimmy, we’re going to take THIS much money from you. BUT if you do A, B and C for us, we won’t take quite so much.”
Why do you want to be treated like a rat in a cheese maze or a trained lapdog? Taxes are a burden. Turning them into some kind of sick parlor game the government uses to control the behavior of the population is perverse.
If we take the current tax situation and term it a 10, and we get a tax plan installed that brings us down to a 7, why should I trash it?
Granted, I want one that puts us at a 2 or 3, but it took over 100 years to get us here. It’s going to take some time to get us back to where we should be.
They are proposing elimination of the personal & dependent exemptions.
The personal exemption is being raised from $6,000 to $12,000. I thought I had read where the child deduction was also being doubled.
The standard deduction is being raised - but they are eliminating the $4080 per person exemption. The larger your family - the harder the hit.
Okay, then for people who itemize, the deduction is being removed.
I don’t care for that one bit.
Definition:
A factor or phenomenon that causes or influences another associated factor or phenomenon called a dependent variable.
For example, income is an independent variable because it causes and influences another variable consumption.
In a mathematical equation or model, the independent variable is the variable whose value is given.
In an experiment, it is the controlled condition (that is allowed to change in a systematic manner)
whose effect on the behavior of a dependent variable is studied.
Also called controlled variable, explanatory variable, or predictor variable.
Example:
Working in a garden, the amount of compost used in an area is a controlled or independent variable, and the resulting plant growth is an outcome or dependent variable.
Double taxation of exactly what?
Right - you can still itemize, but you have to meet a higher threshold now
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.