Posted on 10/28/2017 2:30:22 PM PDT by TBP
What do you call a tax break that delivers 88% of the benefits to upper-income families and subsidizes rich states at the expense of poor ones? If you're a Democrat, you call it a sacred cow.
One provision of the Republican's tax-cutting plan that has drawn intense opposition from Democrats is the elimination of state and local tax deductions for those who itemize.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi said it was "an insidious effort to raise taxes on middle class families … across America." Sen. Ron Wyden said that "hardworking middle-class folks are not going to appreciate Congress double taxing them." New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo called it "a pure tax increase."
So what is it that Democrats are valiantly trying to protect?
This SALT deduction, as it's sometimes called, will cost the federal government $1.8 trillion over the next decade, according to the Tax Foundation.
And the benefits go almost entirely to upper-income families.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
First of all, throwing the bit about the Stone Aged, into the mix, is patently ridiculous.
Secondly, there was a time, in recent memory, even with a tax deductible for mortgages, people used to buy houses within their reach or not at all. Ergo...your grass hut theory is that of an uneducated, braindead twit.
Thirdly, your memory, vis-a-vis the recent HOUSING BUBBLE and "easy" mortgages, has failed you utterly.
And for your benefit, I'll now post a bit about factual history, which you neither know, nor probably care about.
Once upon a time, long before there was an income tax, people built homes for themselves, or had them built. Either they could afford to buy them outright/pay for them in full, or took out a mortgage that wouldn't cripple them. Once said mortgage was paid off in full, they would throw a part, to celebrate the fact and burn the mortgage agreement in front of happy family members and friends.
In New England, once the mortgage was paid in full, a small round disc, made of ivory, was placed into the top of the newel post of the staircase.
Oh...and you used to ONLY pay Fed taxes on the sale of a home, IF you made money on it; which wasn't and still isn't always the case! But now, because of ObamaCare, when a home is sold, both the seller and the buyer has to pay a 3% TAX on the deal...on top of a Capital Gains tax, if there is one due.
“Tax on a tax”
NJ has been taxing my federal tax refund for years...nice, huh.
You are not good at math are you? I have been subsidizing your ass since I got a job. Maybe if your state had taxes I wouldn’t have to. Your welcome btw.
Right, and that's why nobody can define what income is. (/sarc)
Sorry, I'd rather not waste my time on your nonsense.
But, in case you don't know we have an entire body of knowledge devoted to determining what income is. Some of it is included in the tax code, accountants know about it, and many other people do to.
But you still have to define income, don't you? And that definition has at its core the exact same situation you claim in untenable. Because any definition of income is inherently just another way of describing the deductions.
But now I understand your point of view - you are enamored with flat taxes and ignore the problem of defining taxable income.
Apparently you forget what you write as soon as you write it. Lots of nice history about mortgages, which are all instances of borrowing, something you think people should not do.
Ivory disks sound like something from long ago, and it was probably a good thing that people back then borrowed money to invest in the future. You wouldn't have thought that borrowing money was a good idea, so you would have staying in your log cabin, or that turf shack on the prairie.
But, in case you don't know we have an entire body of knowledge devoted to determining what income is. Some of it is included in the tax code, accountants know about it, and many other people do to.
Wow, the condescension here is ridiculous. I estimate my own personal taxes within $100 bucks every year despite 5 different sources of income; I have a BS in finance, summa cum laude; and an MBA with a focus in finance. My job is in executive corporate finance and I have to certify every quarter our accounting is accurate before we file our 10Q or 10K. What's your point? I have 2 accountants renting properties from me and they aren't that bright.
The things we're talking about on this thread have nothing to do with defining personal income. For example, why should you deduct state and local taxes to calculate federal and not deduct federal before calculating state and local? All 3 of those entities have an income tax (and most of the country has 0 % local income tax). Food and housing are primary to state and local in terms of survival, yet they aren't deductible to feds. Healthcare and electricity and gasoline is primary to state and local in terms of survival, but they aren't deductible.
Now, if you have a primarily S corp filer, things can get more complicated for income, but the US tax code isn't primarily aimed at S-corp filers. It's aimed at W2 filers. You may not like that, but that is the vast majority of personal income in the US, with most of the rest being capital gains.
The fact of the matter is you personally benefit from the deductions in question which is why you want them. Pure selfishness. That's fine, but at least own up to it.
Get rid of the income tax entirely.
That would be ideal
LOL!
To be honest I don’t know enough about economics to really know what would be the best free market solution. I do think the Laffer curve nails it.
But here’s what I read about low corporate taxes. ( 1st learned about it when Ireland made a booming economy after their corporate tax break. (10%) Microsoft supposedly moved a division there.)
Most Americans have a “DUH” economics knowledge. And I’m abit in that ballpark. Have to keep learning.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/26/heres-how-an-obscure-tax-change-sank-puerto-ricos-economy.html
A great of example that low corporate tax rate is an economic boom. And how progressives kill it. (The Bent One)
Also, your uneducated "reasoning", is appalling; so too is your abysmal lack of any historical knowledge!
Do you imagine that history began the day you were born? It wasn't and borrowing money was looked down upon, for the common man, for much of history.
Housing bubbles come and go. So do PANICS, RECESSIONS, and DEPRESSIONS; the CRASH OF '29, was hardly the first great DEPRESSION visited upon this nation! And many people lost their homes/farms/property throughout America's history, because of the inability to pay off mortgages.
Please refrain from any further attempts to joust with me...you lack the ability to do so and are only hurting yourself.
Eliminate all taxes on corporations and taxpayers. Go to a national sales tax that is revenue neutral compared to our present insane tax system. Business will flourish, workers will get more wages, and the property on K street will be a bargain.
ps
Corporations do not pay taxes. If it cost them one dollar to make something and the tax on them is 25% the base cost of their product becomes $1.25. They do not eat the tax. You the consumer eats the tax when you buy it.
Just think about it. The next time you buy a car you can see the sales tax and state tax etc. You do not see the federal corporate tax on the sticker as it is already incorporated into the cost of production. It is a few thousand dollars but you can not see it.
Bkmk
FU. Without the South, and their solid voting record, this country would be fully Communist by now you idiot. The South is saving the USA from itself.
The “South” doesn’t want your money because it goes to minorities that vote Democrat anyway.
Most mortgages these days are more than $1,000/mo. $12K/yr meets or beats the std deduction without charity or state/local tax write offs. Maybe people are too stupid to itemize?
Yes but of that 1k, 250-300 is principal, 100-120 is insurance. That leaves 600-650/mo of interest and property taxes. Add another let’s say 600 for car taxes and you are at 8500 for mortgage interest and property taxes. Add in 2-3k in state taxes and you are still below the current married standard deduction, much less when it doubles with the pending legislative.
You seem t love taking it though
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.