Why some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress want to bring back a tax break for the rich.
Democrats want to raise taxes. So why are they debating cutting them for some well-off taxpayers?
One of the things I liked about the Trump Tax Cuts was that it made the High Income Citizens of Liberal states pay their fair share of the Federal Income tax. Before that Liberal citizens would vote for many federal spending programs while avoiding paying their full share of the bill by deducting their state tax payments.
So a wealthy person in California would pay less Federal Tax than they would in SD. Hopefully Biden says NO to this silliness !!!
7 comments:
So a wealthy person in California would pay less Federal Tax than they would in SD.
But they would pay more in state income tax, since SD doesn't have a state income tax.
From a tax perspective, and without a political perspective, it's best to think of how much you pay in taxes. What are the numbers on the checks you write? For purposes of tax planning, it doesn't make a difference who gets the money. It's just government in one form or another.
How tax burden actually falls involves a lot of number crunching, and the outcome of the analysis depends a lot on the orignal assumptions. Bear in mind also, although tax policy is general, taxes are paid individually, and the way each individual pays them is unique. What I have heard people lean who live in no income tax states, is that they are taxed in other ways. Florida, where I have a lot of experience, has high sales taxes which are regressive particulaly in the way they are applied. Also, low taxes means low services, and not paying state income tax may well end up meaning you have to pay high tuition and private schools. Those additional taxes that are paid, may not be deductible in the way state income taxes are, so it is a tax advantage foregone, one which might benefit the poor at the expense of the rich.
Bear in mind that rich people are rich not because of the income they receive but because of how their wealth appreciates, and that is beneficial tax wise no matter where you live. Avoiding taxes is the key to wealth accumulation.
--Hiram
My point is that if California liberals want to force liberal policies across every state / county / city via the Federal government, then they should pay their full share of that cost.
Not cut their federal tax burden because they choose to live in a high tax state.
Avoiding / minimizing taxes is definitely important in wealth creation, however being educated, working hard, spending wisely, saving, investing, etc are the key. Inheriting well also is a big benefit for many.
My point is that if California liberals want to force liberal policies across every state / county / city via the Federal government, then they should pay their full share of that cost.
Generally people in wealthy, high tax states, pay more in taxes than the receive in benefits. I think that's fine, really, it is, after all one country after all, I just don't have much patience with states that benefit from that surplus of federal tax expenditures telling the rest of of how self reliant they are.
Lots of people are wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice because they gave the right answer to a stock broker a couple of years ago. It has nothing at all to do with personal merit, how educated they are or how hard they work.
--Hiram
I don't disagree, however forcing welfare systems upon a state / county / city so that some minority of residents benefit against the will of the other residents who want them to feel pressured to straighten out their lives will not necessarily make the majority feel dependent or thankful.
It is true that the majority of residents are self reliant, and you apparently want them to thank you for coddling their irresponsible residents.
While the wealthy in the Blue states try to pass their tax burden of on others.
There are some folks who are lucky. Most of us rely on educated, working hard, spending wisely, saving, investing, etc. We need to have some nest egg to risk on that investment.
More and more, I get a sense that there is a view out there that when the other party wins elections and governs, that is regarded as attack on the freedom of the members of minority party. The freedom to speak, does not include a requirement to be listened to. And the reality today is that the Republican Party has destroyed it's own credibility as a political party. They have a sense that they aren't being listened to and they are right.
--Hiram
Ignoring the Republican party is fine.
Ignore the Republican voters at your own peril. :-)
One of the things I am most against in politics is ignoring voters, particularly those who currently vote Republican. In Minnesota, the question I ask political people is why we run so poorly in rural areas. What is it we are missing? As the cliche goes, what is it that we don't "get"?
For myself, I am very supportive of many things that primarily benefit greater Minnesota. I am a strong supporter of public education throughout the state. I am a strong supporter of statewide instructure improvements. Where's the problem?
What I do wonder is what my opposite number, the mirror image of me is doing. Is the Republican equivalent of me bugging his party leaders about why the Republican Party runs so poorly in the cities and suburbs? Is there someone like me telling their leaders that we must be a statewide party, that listens to all Minnesotans and respond to their concerns no matter where they happen to live?
I can tell you it is my perception that this reaching out from Republicans does not happen. The Republican Party instead of being a pro rural or a pro Minnesota party, has become an anti suburb and and anti city party.
One of my favorite political jokes seems to apply here. A farmer complains to God, "My neighbor has a goat, and I don't and that's so unfair". God hears the complaint, and asks "What is it, my son, that you want me to do about this injustice?" "Kill my neighbor's goat" the farmer replies. Republicans have no agenda currently, they didn't enact a platform at their last convention, but if they did it would mostly have consisted of measures designed to kill neighboring goats.
--Hiram
Post a Comment