I find this so hypocritical of these supposed "tax the rich" and more government is good Liberals... I mean it is the Liberal States who continually push for more Federal programs and spending, and yet now they are trying hard to find ways to keep their wealthy residents from paying their full share in Federal taxes.
Please remember that the new tax bill left an up to $10,000 SALT tax deduction so most normal folks like ourselves can continue to write off our state and local taxes on the Federal form. So all of these desperate State proposals are actually out to protect the write offs of their wealthy citizens...
Maybe it is true... Big government is good as long as you are not the one paying for it...
CNN DEM States Looking for Ways to Avoid SALT cap
Reuters DEMs States...
Please remember that the new tax bill left an up to $10,000 SALT tax deduction so most normal folks like ourselves can continue to write off our state and local taxes on the Federal form. So all of these desperate State proposals are actually out to protect the write offs of their wealthy citizens...
Maybe it is true... Big government is good as long as you are not the one paying for it...
CNN DEM States Looking for Ways to Avoid SALT cap
Reuters DEMs States...
36 comments:
Are red low-tax states subsidizing blue high-tax states through the tax code?
Laurie,
Please focus... No where in my comment did I say that... I said...
Liberal States demand a big Federal Budget. (ie Medicaid, food programs, welfare, regulatory costs, etc)
Liberal States are trying to ensure their wealthy citizens pay lower Federal taxes than the wealthy folks in other lower taxed States. (ie maintain their State tax write offs)
As for who gets the better end of these Federal programs... That is another hot button for me.
The reality is that the Federal Government is getting more money from the successful States and redistributing it to the unsuccessful States. Just as Liberals typically support. (ie take from rich give to poor with few expectations)
And yet now that the Liberals in Rich States are being asked to pay their full share of Federal taxes they supposedly support, they start whining about wealth transfer... Again. Very hypocritical...
The reason for this has been explained to you before. It used to be a bedrock conservative principle. But, as we've seen, the Trump Administration has caused conservatives to abandon many of their principles in the name of "screw the blue states".
I assume you mean your interpretation of "double taxation"? Maybe the Conservatives learned from the Liberals... :-)
Point still stands why are Liberal States trying to help their wealthiest citizens avoid paying Federal taxes that pay for Federal programs that they supposedly strongly support?
I mean look at the furor they raise whenever the GOP wants to cut Federal programs!!!
So when Liberals continually want to tax "successful people" at much higher rates, is that because they want "screw the successful people"?
Or is it because they think they should "pay their fair share"? :-)
"I assume you mean your interpretation of "double taxation"? "
Well, how do you define it, then, Mr. Economist?
"Point still stands why are Liberal States trying to help their wealthiest citizens avoid paying Federal taxes that pay for Federal programs that they supposedly strongly support?"
That's already been explained. It's not very complicated despite your attempts to muddy the waters.
Personally I think I am cleaning the waters...
The DEM States are like a wealthy person who:
- often demands the city spend a lot of money
- And then demands that he should not have to pay as much as his neighbors because he spends more maintaining his properties.
Just because State governments choose to tax and spend more should not figure into if their citizens are required to support the country's budget.
Now if Liberals were not obsessed with progressive taxation, I may understand your point better.
However since they are all about aggressively raising the taxes on the wealthy... The idea that they are working to shield "their wealthy" from Federal taxes is very ironic.
I mean it should be like a dream for them... This raises tax rates on the wealthiest Americans. Isn't that their Number 1 goal?
Dude, for someone who claims to read such a wide variety of sources and be the only guy on the planet who accurately envisions themselves on your goofy spectrum, you have no freaking clue of what Democrats want or believe in, nor do you have any understanding of basic economic, tax, or health care principles.
It does not take much to understand that DEMs:
- support expensive Federal programs and policies like Welfare, Medicaid, Education, EPA, ACA, HUD, etc
Do you disagree?
Yes, Democrats support things like education and health care. Are they "expensive"? Show me a better, cheaper, feasible alternative.
The better, cheaper, feasible alternative from the Federal government's perspective is simple.
Let each State address Welfare, Medicaid, Education, EPA, ACA, HUD, etc for their citizens.
And yet Liberals demand that these be mandated and funded at the Federal Level.
Do agree that the Liberals want these managed and paid for by the Federal government?
"The better, cheaper, feasible alternative from the Federal government's perspective is simple.
Let each State address Welfare, Medicaid, Education, EPA, ACA, HUD, etc for their citizens."
Having each state address it does not ensure that it is better or cheaper. There's a long history of states mismanaging these programs.
"Do agree that the Liberals want these managed and paid for by the Federal government?"
In your list above, there are clearly some that should be managed and paid for the federal government, yes.
If it was mismanaged or ineffective then it would be a State issue to be resolved by their citizens and government.
And if some citizens were dissatisfied they can just move to a State that better meets their needs and politics.
States that are bad lose citizens / workers...
Oh come one... Man up...
"clearly some that should be managed and paid for the federal government"
Which if any would you remove?
Welfare, Medicaid, Education, EPA, ACA, HUD, etc.
Again I am not trying to insult Liberals for wanting these funded at the Federal level. I am just making a point that this is what DEMs want.
The hypocrisy does not appear until the DEMs want to shield their wealthy citizens from paying for these programs that they demand be in place.
"Welfare, Medicaid, Education, EPA, ACA, HUD,"
All of these functions to some extent are shared responsibilities today. IMO, safety net programs should have a consistent level of benefits and eligibility from state-to-state. We need federal environmental laws and programs because the impacts of pollution don't stop at state borders. Education is mostly a state and local function today, and should remain that way.
"The hypocrisy does not appear until the DEMs want to shield their wealthy citizens from paying for these programs that they demand be in place."
It's adorable how they give you the talking point and you shake your head and growl all aggressively with it like a puppy who was just given a new bone.
I mean, after all -- if consistency is your hobgoblin here -- aren't you worried about how this change is going to discourage wealthy "job creators" in blue states from creating jobs? Why aren't you defending the "successful" Minnesotans who are going to be hurt by this bill?
Mostly because the title of this post is DEMs Strive to Give Wealthy A Tax Cut...
As for high MN taxes hurting wealthy Minnesotans, I am not too worried because many of them are older and are free to change their residency to avoid them.
Finally, the Liberal readers here are usually supportive with making the States rates more progressive and insist that it is fine. It is only in this case that folks are balking.
"Mostly because the title of this post is DEMs Strive to Give Wealthy A Tax Cut..."
Well, there you go. The title of your post isn't correct. Democrats were seeking to keep the law the same.
I'll file this thread under "concern trolling", since your objective, down-the-middle approach appears (yet again) to have blown a fuse.
Since the Federal Law is officially changed and the wealthy of the States are now legally obligated to pay their full share of the Federal tax burden...
Any efforts taken by States from this point forward will be to help their wealthy citizens pay less.
Why does this simple statement of fact bother you so much?
"Since the Federal Law is officially changed and the wealthy of the States are now legally obligated to pay their full share of the Federal tax burden..."
This statement isn't even true, because everyone still gets the $10K deduction. I assume you favor eliminating it completely, then?
"Any efforts taken by States from this point forward will be to help their wealthy citizens pay less.
Why does this simple statement of fact bother you so much?"
It doesn't bother me per se -- what bothers me is that you're suggesting it's hypocritical of Dems to want to do so. It isn't. We want tax policy to work the way it normally has (on a bipartisan basis).
Your assertion suggests that we should only care about the outcomes and not about what means are used to get there. That isn't true. When it comes to things like taxes, how you do it matters because there are downstream impacts.
I would also suggest that this tax bill -- and particularly the SALT provision -- is uniquely in bad faith in American history. The fact that so many Republicans are gloating about this bill's impact on blue states is rather incredible. Can you imagine President Obama and Nancy Pelosi crafting a tax bill with the express purpose of sticking it to Alabama or Texas and then cackling about it?
I stand corrected, all of us will still get to avoid paying some of our Federal tax obligation. However at least now the write off will be similar in low and high tax states. Since even "low tax states" still have taxes.
I am sorry but I think the "way it was" was awful... People voting for a lot of "national expenses" and then not having to pay their full share of them. Who thinks this seems correct?
It would be like passing road construction projects in out state MN and then insisting that they should be funded by someone else.
Oh come now, Liberals cackle every time they stick it to the rich... Of course the GOP is amused that they stuck it to the Liberals who demand the big budget...
And I still remember all that Liberal cheering when SCOTUS passed LBGT Marriage. All those people happy to have stuck it to the Rural Conservatives.
No wonder both sides keep getting more angry at each other...
"And I still remember all that Liberal cheering when SCOTUS passed LBGT Marriage."
The purpose of marriage equality was marriage equality, not scoring points against the other team.
If you say so... :-)
Then in this case it is just about ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of the Federal expenses... :-)
"It would be like passing road construction projects in out state MN and then insisting that they should be funded by someone else. "
So now you're suggesting that the metro should stop subsidizing rural road construction?
"If you say so."
Maybe you need to re-read your principles. That's a pretty snotty response towards folks working hard to earn their civil rights. Even if you disagree with it, that's awfully disrespectful.
Sorry. No Iill intent or snottiness intended.
I just find it amusing how every sees them self as the hero, and the opposition as the villain.
As for paying for out state infrastructure, you know my answer. Most of those dollars are spent on big projects so us city folk can get to our cabins, visit family, etc conveniently and quickly. So of course we should pay for them.
Speaking of "bad faith", let's look at the offshore drilling issue. The Trump Admin recently opened the entire U.S. shoreline to offshore drilling, and 12 states requested to be exempted from the updated regulation before it was issued. Which is the only state to be exempted? Florida -- which wasn't even one of the original 12 states. Why do you suppose Florida was the one state to be exempted?
Maybe because Trump has property there...
I wonder how long before we can impeach him?
Pence would very boring in comparison though...
Oh, and did we notice that Deutsche Bank -- to whom the Trump Org. owes hundreds of millions of dollars -- just had their fines related to the LIBOR scandal wiped away.
IB Times Bank Forgiveness
CNN No Florida Wells
WAPO Year End Changes
Post a Comment