Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 5:44 am

freeman3 wrote:A hiccup in the tax bill. California House Republicans don't like the provision getting rid of state deductions. Big surprise. Their constituents hate it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... story.html


Hey, California loves socialism! What's a little more in taxes?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 7:35 am

Fate
45% of Americans pay no Federal Income Taxes. https://www.@#$!.com/story/45-of ... 2016-02-24
I “only” want to talk about Federal Income Taxes because . . . Congress is working on legislation that will affect . . . Federal Income Taxes—and you claimed it was a transfer of wealth from the working poor to the rich.
Let me make this simple enough for even you to grasp: if someone does not pay FIT, a change in the FIT law which still causes them to pay no income tax cannot transfer their wealth to someone else.
To make it really simple: 0+0= 0


1. When services and benefits received by any portion of the 45% you claim aren't paying federal taxes, wealth is being transferred. Agree? After all this is math you can comprehend.People were getting something that they will be getting less of ...
2. You ignore this point,
Congress’s own think tanks — the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office — calculate that in 10 years, people making between $50,000 and $75,000 (around the median income in the United States) would effectively pay a whopping $4 billion more in taxes, while people making $1 million or more would pay $5.8 billion less under the Senate bill.

Because?
Well, I suppose its because its evidence you can't refute.
The middle class in the US has been taking it on the chin since 1980. This tax bill is a particularly direct blow.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 7:53 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
45% of Americans pay no Federal Income Taxes. https://www.@#$!.com/story/45-of ... 2016-02-24
I “only” want to talk about Federal Income Taxes because . . . Congress is working on legislation that will affect . . . Federal Income Taxes—and you claimed it was a transfer of wealth from the working poor to the rich.
Let me make this simple enough for even you to grasp: if someone does not pay FIT, a change in the FIT law which still causes them to pay no income tax cannot transfer their wealth to someone else.
To make it really simple: 0+0= 0


1. When services and benefits received by any portion of the 45% you claim aren't paying federal taxes, wealth is being transferred. Agree? After all this is math you can comprehend.People were getting something that they will be getting less of ...


So, no acknowledgement of your false claims? Typical.

It's not me "claiming" they pay no Federal income taxes, I provided a link demonstrating it. You're free to prove otherwise. But, you won't because you can't.

Your counterargument is this: by letting taxpayers keep more of their money, some who don't pay taxes may receive less in government benefits, thus a transfer of wealth.

That's a point of view. It's not proven, but it's a point of view. However, even if it's accurate (which I doubt: Democrats are claiming it adds to the Debt, so I doubt it can both add to the Debt and reduce dispersals to the poor, but feel free to prove I'm wrong), permitting people to keep what they earn is only "a transfer of wealth" if one presumes all wealth BELONGS TO THE GOVERNMENT!

2. You ignore this point,
Congress’s own think tanks — the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office — calculate that in 10 years, people making between $50,000 and $75,000 (around the median income in the United States) would effectively pay a whopping $4 billion more in taxes, while people making $1 million or more would pay $5.8 billion less under the Senate bill.

Because?
Well, I suppose its because its evidence you can't refute.


No, it's because I don't care. Those numbers are aggregate. If the middle class, and it's a big "if," end up paying more in taxes, I say "great!" Maybe they'll start paying attention to our spending problem. The problem we have here is that too few Americans carry the burden, so few care about how the money is spent. As De Tocqueville said:

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.


When we stop paying attention to how the money is spent, we're sunk.

The middle class in the US has been taking it on the chin since 1980. This tax bill is a particularly direct blow.


In that case, it will be the ruination of the GOP. Rejoice! The sickle and hammer will soon fly over the White House! Your Bolshevik heart will see its dreams realized.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Dec 2017, 8:05 am

As for your concerns for the "middle class," it's interesting that half of Americans make less than $50K. Again, 45.3% of Americans pay ZERO FIT. Zero.

So, if these numbers hold:

About one in three households (30.1 percent) made between $50,000 and $100,000. One in five households (19.9 percent) made more than $100,000 a year.


Let's say it's 20% that make between 50 and 75K.

According to Forbes, there are 171.3 taxpaying units in the US.

So, 1/5 of that would be 34 million, approximately. You talk about them paying $4B more in taxes. I believe that's over 10 years, so $400M a year, which amounts to, hold on, $11.76 annually.

Yup, the middle class is getting hammered!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Jan 2018, 1:15 pm

If you've ever said, "Democrats look out for the lower classes," you need to explain this.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/01/08/ ... hell-game/

Some of the lowlights:

It’s a rather complex shell game cooked up in the state senate. If approved, it would establish a “California Excellence Fund” where residents could make a “contribution” equal to the amount of state tax they owe over the cap. In exchange, the state would give them an offsetting tax credit of an equal amount which they could then deduct on their federal taxes under the exception provided for “charitable contributions.”

But there’s nothing “charitable” about it. The so-called Excellence Fund is nothing more than a holding company inside the state treasury specifically designed to create a tax dodge. Even the LA Times editorial board looked at this scheme and advised against such a corrupt practice.

The Internal Revenue Service has blessed similar arrangements that California has used to raise money for college scholarships, and that several states use to preserve land from development or generate money for private school vouchers. But it’s one thing to offer a tax break to try to support a public project or service; it’s another to do it solely to cut Californians’ federal tax bills. Passing the De León bill would be the state’s version of setting up a shell company in the Cayman Islands in order to shelter Californians’ income.

We should also be asking how many people this SALT cap provision is really affecting. In California, the state legislature is making a point of saying that the “average” SALT deduction by Californians is nearly $18,500. But that’s only because the top earners in the Golden State are so massively wealthy that they tip the scales quite a bit. It’s worth noting that you need to earn more than $140K in California in order to owe $10K in state taxes. In New York (which we’ll get to in a moment) you need to earn $170K before you break the $10K state tax barrier. And you still get to deduct all of the state taxes up to that point, so you’re only missing out on deductions for taxes paid on income above those levels.

So, as the LA Times described it, California is trying to do the equivalent of setting up a shell company in the Cayman Islands to help those residents who are well into the six figure income range avoid paying more federal taxes in an effort to #RESIST Trump. On the opposite coast, New York State is looking at something even more novel. (Or perhaps “crazy” would be a better word.) According to the Buffalo News, Empire State Governor Andrew Cuomo is proposing a scheme where the state would simply stop hitting workers with a state income tax and instead force their employers to pay a “payroll tax.”


So, in a nutshell, in order to prevent the RICH from paying "their fair share," DEMOCRATS are looking to give them a fraudulent investment deduction.

Why?

Because "Trump."
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3220
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 09 Jan 2018, 2:33 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:So, in a nutshell, in order to prevent the RICH from paying "their fair share," DEMOCRATS are looking to give them a fraudulent investment deduction.

Why?

Because "Trump."


No, it's because many residents will be paying more tax and they'll be really angry and politicians want to help keep them from paying more tax.

Limiting the state and local deduction is probably a good thing longer-term, but it's really hard in the short-term because it takes a long time for government to change anything related to budgets.

I agree that what they're discussing in CA is clearly not kosher. And what Cuomo is talking about in NY is clever, but rife with challenges in implementing.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Jan 2018, 3:36 pm

geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:So, in a nutshell, in order to prevent the RICH from paying "their fair share," DEMOCRATS are looking to give them a fraudulent investment deduction.

Why?

Because "Trump."


No, it's because many residents will be paying more tax and they'll be really angry and politicians want to help keep them from paying more tax.

Limiting the state and local deduction is probably a good thing longer-term, but it's really hard in the short-term because it takes a long time for government to change anything related to budgets.

I agree that what they're discussing in CA is clearly not kosher. And what Cuomo is talking about in NY is clever, but rife with challenges in implementing.


Oh, so "making the rich pay their fair share" is just a throw-away?

This only helps those in CA who make $170K or more. Hmm.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3220
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 09 Jan 2018, 9:34 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:Oh, so "making the rich pay their fair share" is just a throw-away?

This only helps those in CA who make $170K or more. Hmm.


Politicians pandering to their donor class. I know, shocking right?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 09 Jan 2018, 11:09 pm

geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Oh, so "making the rich pay their fair share" is just a throw-away?

This only helps those in CA who make $170K or more. Hmm.


Politicians pandering to their donor class. I know, shocking right?


Only when the hypocrisy know no bounds...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Jan 2018, 6:39 am

geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Oh, so "making the rich pay their fair share" is just a throw-away?

This only helps those in CA who make $170K or more. Hmm.


Politicians pandering to their donor class. I know, shocking right?


As bbauska hints, it is the “donor class” of the Democratic Party that rails against tax cuts. They whine about the “loopholes” which allow corporations and the wealthy to pay less in taxes.

So, the Democrats in CA are going to create, out of whole cloth, a loophole to benefit “the millionaires and billionaires” that Bernie and Co scream about?

This is hypocrisy on an epic level.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Jan 2018, 8:13 am

Fate
So, the Democrats in CA are going to create, out of whole cloth, a loophole to benefit “the millionaires and billionaires” that Bernie and Co scream about?


I believe the purpose of the "work around" is primarily to protect the tax revenue in California. Which is required to run schools,police etc.
The Republican answer to the effect of the removal of state tax deductions for individuals is that states should simply lower taxes... However if States want to continue to provide the quality of services that they have, this can't be accomplished with greatly lowered tax receipts.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Jan 2018, 8:45 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
So, the Democrats in CA are going to create, out of whole cloth, a loophole to benefit “the millionaires and billionaires” that Bernie and Co scream about?


I believe the purpose of the "work around" is primarily to protect the tax revenue in California. Which is required to run schools,police etc.
The Republican answer to the effect of the removal of state tax deductions for individuals is that states should simply lower taxes... However if States want to continue to provide the quality of services that they have, this can't be accomplished with greatly lowered tax receipts.


Nope. That is NOT the purpose. At all.

Or, to be blunt: prove your assertion. Feel free. You'll find it simpler to square a circle.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Jan 2018, 9:38 am

Whatever will fly in the courts. I don't care. California and New York are getting screwed in the tax plan. Our rich are playing high state taxes so it makes sense that the State Legislature would try to lessen their tax burden. Good on them for trying to help Californians from the effects of an unfair tax plan. Before you argue that low income tax states are subsidizing California and New York that's bs because we are already subsidizing them.

The federal government should not be getting a share of a person's income because it has already been paid out in taxes. That's completely not right. Now, if a state does not want to invest in infrastructure and have no state income taxes, great, but at that point their citizens have more income that is subject to taxation. Those states are getting subsidized by rich states with higher state income taxes, so they got nothing to complain about. Why the heck would we encourage states to not invest in their people by not having state income tax? It is a disincentive for a state to invest in things like education and other infrastructure by having a state income tax because now its residents are being double taxed on their income. Who the heck ever thought this was fair or a good idea? Do we all want to be like ...Mississippi?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Jan 2018, 10:44 am

freeman3 wrote:Whatever will fly in the courts. I don't care. California and New York are getting screwed in the tax plan. Our rich are playing high state taxes so it makes sense that the State Legislature would try to lessen their tax burden. Good on them for trying to help Californians from the effects of an unfair tax plan. Before you argue that low income tax states are subsidizing California and New York that's bs because we are already subsidizing them.


By creating a questionable loophole that only benefits the rich?

Let's see . . . California won't build dams or reservoirs, has a burgeoning homeless population, is spending billions on a high-speed train very few want, but has the money to help out the rich?

Yeah, okay, priorities of the Left!

The federal government should not be getting a share of a person's income because it has already been paid out in taxes. That's completely not right.


Wait. When did we start arguing about the estate tax?

Now, if a state does not want to invest in infrastructure and have no state income taxes, great, but at that point their citizens have more income that is subject to taxation. Those states are getting subsidized by rich states with higher state income taxes, so they got nothing to complain about.


Or, some states could help their population by . . . stopping idiotic spending and reducing idiotic regulation.

Here's an example: California has a grocery bag fee. Who does it impact disparately and who does the money go to?

Why the heck would we encourage states to not invest in their people by not having state income tax?


Considering Californians only lose out if they earn more than $140K, no one is suggesting CA cannot have an income tax. California has some of the highest taxes in the nation, including its regressive sales tax.

It is a disincentive for a state to invest in things like education and other infrastructure by having a state income tax because now its residents are being double taxed on their income. Who the heck ever thought this was fair or a good idea? Do we all want to be like ...Mississippi?


Nope, we should never strive to be congenial like the good folks of Mississippi. Instead, we ought to value the rude, rich, entitled class of California.

Here's to the "efficiencies" of California. http://www.latimes.com/local/california ... story.html

alifornia’s bullet train could cost taxpayers 50% more than estimated — as much as $3.6 billion more. And that’s just for the first 118 miles through the Central Valley, which was supposed to be the easiest part of the route between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

A confidential Federal Railroad Administration risk analysis, obtained by The Times, projects that building bridges, viaducts, trenches and track from Merced to Shafter, just north of Bakersfield, could cost $9.5 billion to $10 billion, compared with the original budget of $6.4 billion.

The federal document outlines far-reaching management problems: significant delays in environmental planning, lags in processing invoices for federal grants and continuing failures to acquire needed property.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority originally anticipated completing the Central Valley track by this year, but the federal risk analysis estimates that that won’t happen until 2024, placing the project seven years behind schedule.

The report, the most critical official assessment of the project to surface so far, is labeled a “confidential-draft deliberative document for internal use only” and was presented by senior Federal Railroad Administration executives to California rail authority board Chairman Dan Richard and Chief Executive Jeff Morales on Dec. 1 in Washington.

This analysis puts the state on notice that it could face bigger cost overruns than anticipated and much longer delays than have been made public, a troubling critique by an agency that has been a stalwart supporter and longtime financier of the nation’s largest infrastructure project.


California, heal thyself!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Jan 2018, 11:13 am

You have lived in California and Massachusetts? Yeah...you just hate living in liberal states with their terrible policies. Why don't you move to Mississippi if it's so darn great?