Andrew Cuomo upset about losing SALT deductions

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Oct 18, 2005
14,156
489
136
It is not "just" where I live. Rural areas all over the nation are facing a doctor and hospital shortage. Even hospitals in decent sized towns are having problems.

Here is an example. A town by the name of Orange, Texas recently had its hospital stop providing in patient services.

https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/...osure-leaves-health-care-hole-in-10855556.php

Creating a hospital district vote failed, so now the hospital only provides emergency services. According to wikipedia Orange has a population of 18,595 people. The hospital also served several other communities:

Pinehurst
Little Cypress
Deweyville
Mauriceville
Orangefield

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange,_Texas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinehurst,_Orange_County,_Texas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauriceville,_Texas

Links provided for reference.

In all the hospital may have served 50,000 people? Just a rough estimate.

This is happening all over the nation. It is not "just" rural areas that are having problems.

So under your logic, all 50,000 people of that area should relocate closer to a hospital?
No they don’t have to move. They can elect to pay for a hospital. Why didn’t they do that? Don’t those people care about having a hospital? We can only assume from their vote that a few more bucks a month in their pocket is worth more to them than having to drive hours if they need care that can’t be handled solely in an ER. I would also guess that since care is so limited that there are going to be long term ongoing costs for things like additional medical evacuations via helicopter to get to patients to medical centers that can provide needed care.
 
Oct 18, 2005
14,156
489
136
If we want universal healthcare then we need to have facilities for everybody to use them.
Yes which is actually a feature of a universal system. Rural hospitals are in trouble all over the country especially in states where Medicaid has not been expanded. Any facility needs some kind of income stream to keep going. When the population declines and becomes poorer with lower rates of insurance coverage that income stream disappears.
 

Viper1j

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2018
1,307
327
96
The rich are fleeing New York. Why should they stay?

Take professionals with portable skills - doctors, lawyers, engineers...., why would they stay in a high tax state or city when they can leave?

The budget Andrew Cuomo proposed is no longer affordable becasue of the rich leaving New York. Who takes the blame? President Trump of course. It's not that taxes are too high, its that New York can no longer suck off the governments tit.

Democrats need to blame themselves for overtaxing its citizens, then pushing those taxes off to the federal government.
Please submit yourself for drug testing. New York, Hollywood and many other blue locales have been the ones making sure the government tit stays full of milk. How much do you think some redneck living in his trailer with his sister/wife in ignorant Alabama or Mississippi pays in taxes.

Unless the IRS starts accepting squirrel stew in payment, he'll keep collecting on his food stamps and HUD vouchers, and voting for people like Trump.

And the blue states will being forced to say: "You're Welcome."
1549546118621.jpeg
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
They've cut their tax bases to nothing, have shitty schools, poor infrastructure and are basically unable to attract a sustainable population. Their traditional industries of farming and resource extraction have become highly mechanized so they don't need nearly as many people for the same level of economic output. Look at the OP, he pays $250 a year in property taxes. His country government can't provide much in the way of services for that.
For sake of argument let's stipulate all that to be true, so what? Do not citizens have the right to choose a lifestyle that suits them including their level of taxation and government services? We don't force the Amish population in Lancaster PA to adopt the standards of an urban New Yorker.

That being said and circling back to the topic of the OP, no one in this thread has even attempted to set forth a moral case for why SALT deductions should be unlimited. The closest for an argument to support it has been "well they used the proceeds to give to rich people!" Not even a lame fig leaf rationale why subsidizing state taxes is a good idea, even a scintilla of evidence why someone in a red state like South Dakota could say "well it doesn't benefit me personally but that reasoning makes sense." If you really needed the money that much you should have just asked the people in red states for it directly, they tend to give more in charity than you guys do and I'm sure they would have helped you out had you just come to them and said "you know, paying these high state taxes I voted for is really putting me in a bad place, can you spare a few bucks?" Instead of sneaking a few bucks out of Uncle Sam's wallet at night and trying to hide that fact?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
For sake of argument let's stipulate all that to be true, so what? Do not citizens have the right to choose a lifestyle that suits them including their level of taxation and government services? We don't force the Amish population in Lancaster PA to adopt the standards of an urban New Yorker.

That being said and circling back to the topic of the OP, no one in this thread has even attempted to set forth a moral case for why SALT deductions should be unlimited. The closest for an argument to support it has been "well they used the proceeds to give to rich people!" Not even a lame fig leaf rationale why subsidizing state taxes is a good idea, even a scintilla of evidence why someone in a red state like South Dakota could say "well it doesn't benefit me personally but that reasoning makes sense." If you really needed the money that much you should have just asked the people in red states for it directly, they tend to give more in charity than you guys do and I'm sure they would have helped you out had you just come to them and said "you know, paying these high state taxes I voted for is really putting me in a bad place, can you spare a few bucks?" Instead of sneaking a few bucks out of Uncle Sam's wallet at night and trying to hide that fact?
To be clear, they would be saying ‘can I have some of the money I gave you back?’, agree?

Also, the idea that Republicans give more to charity is mixed at best. That primarily comes from their giving to their own churches which is pretty obviously self interested.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
To be clear, they would be saying ‘can I have some of the money I gave you back?’, agree?

Also, the idea that Republicans give more to charity is mixed at best. That primarily comes from their giving to their own churches which is pretty obviously self interested.
No, they would be saying "can I have some of the money back which I paid to Treasury which Congress can choose how to spend via appropriations". You didn't give the money directly to red state folks and they can't give it back directly. You can say "you know, I said earlier that I think federal income taxes should be raised but now that they have and I'm paying more I take that back and think taxes should not be raised." Then once you're paying less in taxes again you can give it directly to red state folks if that's what you want.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
No, they would be saying "can I have some of the money back which I paid to Treasury which Congress can choose how to spend via appropriations". You didn't give the money directly to red state folks and they can't give it back directly. You can say "you know, I said earlier that I think federal income taxes should be raised but now that they have and I'm paying more I take that back and think taxes should not be raised." Then once you're paying less in taxes again you can give it directly to red state folks if that's what you want.
Oh, so liberals supporting conservatives doesn’t count because they did it through a third party. I guess conservatives helping the poor doesn’t count because they did it through a charity and not directly. Did you not take even one second to think this through?

It’s always amazing to see the intellectual pretzels conservatives twist themselves into in order to protect their belief that they aren’t being supported by liberals. I am totally okay with supporting you guys, I’m glad to do it! It would be nice if you guys would just say thank you though instead of trying to pretend it’s the other way around.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
Today I learned that when liberals support conservatives through tax money that doesn’t count because it went through the treasury. When liberals ask for some of that money back through the federal treasury that’s conservatives supporting liberals and their high tax lifestyle.

Lol.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
Oh, so liberals supporting conservatives doesn’t count because they did it through a third party. I guess conservatives helping the poor doesn’t count because they did it through a charity and not directly. Did you not take even one second to think this through?

It’s always amazing to see the intellectual pretzels conservatives twist themselves into in order to protect their belief that they aren’t being supported by liberals. I am totally okay with supporting you guys, I’m glad to do it! It would be nice if you guys would just say thank you though instead of trying to pretend it’s the other way around.
Liberals "did it through a 3rd party" because that's what they demanded and voted for! For craps sake if you no longer like that arrangement then support and vote for something different. Don't effectively give money to the Red Cross to help people, crow about how much you helped people and say "you guys should just say thank you!" then have the organization's treasurer send some of the money back to you because it went to help people in Kansas rather than Manhattan. If you want to help the people in Manhattan instead, then stop giving so much to the Red Cross and give the money directly to the people in Manhattan. Or give it directly to the people in Kansas. Just make up your damn mind about whether you want to give the money to the Red Cross or keep it yourself.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
Liberals "did it through a 3rd party" because that's what they demanded and voted for! For craps sake if you no longer like that arrangement then support and vote for something different. Don't effectively give money to the Red Cross to help people, crow about how much you helped people and say "you guys should just say thank you!" then have the organization's treasurer send some of the money back to you because it went to help people in Kansas rather than Manhattan. If you want to help the people in Manhattan instead, then stop giving so much to the Red Cross and give the money directly to the people in Manhattan. Or give it directly to the people in Kansas. Just make up your damn mind about whether you want to give the money to the Red Cross or keep it yourself.
Huh? You’re the one complaining about it going through a third party!!!

I’m fine with how things work, I’m just asking that you stop pretending that conservatives are somehow supporting liberals when liberals give them slightly less money than they did before. Just say thank you and move on! There’s no reason to be mad or ashamed, we are here to help!
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
Huh? You’re the one complaining about it going through a third party!!!

I’m fine with how things work, I’m just asking that you stop pretending that conservatives are somehow supporting liberals when liberals give them slightly less money than they did before. Just say thank you and move on! There’s no reason to be mad or ashamed, we are here to help!
No one is claiming conservatives are "supporting liberals." I'm claiming that liberals in certain states claim to support higher taxes (which they say "I will gladly pay") then support a tool to specifically allow them to pay lower taxes. Personally I don't give a damn if you want your taxes to be higher or lower, just pick one option and stop having the states with lower state taxes (including several blue states like Delaware) subsidize your state tax bill. Or if you can't help yourself from subsidizing your state tax bill, do it in a way that consistently helps all Americans (such as a flat $X federal tax credit which can be used to offset state tax bills for someone living in any state without requiring the filer to itemize).
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
No one is claiming conservatives are "supporting liberals." I'm claiming that liberals in certain states claim to support higher taxes (which they say "I will gladly pay") then support a tool to specifically allow them to pay lower taxes. Personally I don't give a damn if you want your taxes to be higher or lower, just pick one option and stop having the states with lower state taxes (including several blue states like Delaware) subsidize your state tax bill. Or if you can't help yourself from subsidizing your state tax bill, do it in a way that consistently helps all Americans (such as a flat $X federal tax credit which can be used to offset state tax bills for someone living in any state without requiring the filer to itemize).
Again, by ‘subsidize my state tax bill’ you mean ‘give me some of my money back’, agree?
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
Again, by ‘subsidize my state tax bill’ you mean ‘give me some of my money back’, agree?
Better be careful with the talk about it being "your money" you almost sound like a Republican. Better disinfect yourself with some of your team's boilerplate about how "you didn't earn it" and "it takes a village."

And I'm fine with "giving some of your money back," but only if it's in a way that doesn't exclude the entirety of the American people from getting some of theirs back also. Such as my idea to equally subsidize the state taxes of someone in Wyoming to the same level as someone in New York if you insist that we *must* continue subsidizing state taxes.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
Better be careful with the talk about it being "your money" you almost sound like a Republican. Better disinfect yourself with some of your team's boilerplate about how "you didn't earn it" and "it takes a village."

And I'm fine with "giving some of your money back," but only if it's in a way that doesn't exclude the entirety of the American people from getting some of theirs back also. Such as my idea to equally subsidize the state taxes of someone in Wyoming to the same level as someone in New York if you insist that we *must* continue subsidizing state taxes.
I just wanted to make sure we are correctly describing reality. Subsidizing other people less does not mean they are subsidizing you.

Again, I'm super fine with subsidizing conservatives, I do it gladly! It is important to live in reality though so we can't have them pretending that liberals giving them less money equals them giving liberals money.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
I just wanted to make sure we are correctly describing reality. Subsidizing other people less does not mean they are subsidizing you.

Again, I'm super fine with subsidizing conservatives, I do it gladly! It is important to live in reality though so we can't have them pretending that liberals giving them less money equals them giving liberals money.
You can have multiple subsidies, some which you receive and some you pay. I'm unsure why you want to deny the basic fact that SALT is a subsidy to you. If you want to take a census of other subsidies you get or pay (get subsidies for anti-terrorism efforts to protect NYC, pay a subsidy to corn farmers in Iowa, get a subsidy for mass transit, pay a subsidy for rural hospital in Texas, et cetera ad infinitum) you might end up on net getting more in subsidies or paying more. That doesn't change the essential fact of SALT being a subsidy. To do otherwise would be like arguing that smallpox isn't a germ because on net you have more "good" germ microbes in your digestive tract because you take probiotics.

Even with the above being said and assuming for sake of argument you do on net pay subsidies, there is still no real justification possible to support why someone in blue state Delaware (low state tax burden) should subsidize the state tax liability of you @fskimospy who lives in New York. None whatsoever. There is absolutely zero benefit any other citizen derives from such a subsidy, even moreso than the extraordinarily flimsy justification for most subsidies (e.g. how you in New York "benefit" from a corn subsidy because farmers are an important part of the American economy" or some similar bullshit).
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
You can have multiple subsidies, some which you receive and some you pay. I'm unsure why you want to deny the basic fact that SALT is a subsidy to you. If you want to take a census of other subsidies you get or pay (get subsidies for anti-terrorism efforts to protect NYC, pay a subsidy to corn farmers in Iowa, get a subsidy for mass transit, pay a subsidy for rural hospital in Texas, et cetera ad infinitum) you might end up on net getting more in subsidies or paying more. That doesn't change the essential fact of SALT being a subsidy. To do otherwise would be like arguing that smallpox isn't a germ because on net you have more "good" germ microbes in your digestive tract because you take probiotics.

Even with the above being said and assuming for sake of argument you do on net pay subsidies, there is still no real justification possible to support why someone in blue state Delaware (low state tax burden) should subsidize the state tax liability of you @fskimospy who lives in New York. None whatsoever. There is absolutely zero benefit any other citizen derives from such a subsidy, even moreso than the extraordinarily flimsy justification for most subsidies (e.g. how you in New York "benefit" from a corn subsidy because farmers are an important part of the American economy" or some similar bullshit).
If I give you $100 and you give me back $50 I am subsidizing you $50, we are not subsidizing each other.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
If I give you $100 and you give me back $50 I am subsidizing you $50, we are not subsidizing each other.
Are federal funds to help build and maintain mass transit in NYC a subsidy or not?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
Are federal funds to help build and maintain mass transit in NYC a subsidy or not?
Irrelevant. The question to whether or not NYC as an entity is subsidized by the federal government is if NYC gets more money from the feds than it gives out. It does not.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
Irrelevant. The question to whether or not NYC as an entity is subsidized by the federal government is if NYC gets more money from the feds than it gives out. It does not.
Are oil and gas exploration tax deductions a "subsidy" to fossil fuel companies since on net Exxon-Mobil et al pay more in federal corporate taxes than the value of these exploration tax credits?

Think before you respond since you're on record here saying they were. Here's one post of many.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...d-climate-change.2551973/page-3#post-39519773


Yes, it's one of those things where people either haven't thought it through or are actively attempting to deceive. 'Renewables aren't cost competitive with fossil fuels so long as you pretend all the subsidies we give fossil fuels don't exist!'
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
Are oil and gas exploration tax deductions a "subsidy" to fossil fuel companies since on net Exxon-Mobil et al pay more in federal corporate taxes than the value of these exploration tax credits?
Exxon-Mobil is subsidized relative to other businesses, yes.

Do we really need an explainer on how taxes and money work?
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
Exxon-Mobil is subsidized relative to other businesses, yes.

Do we really need an explainer on how taxes and money work?
Not really, but I think you might need that explainer given how much you're struggling to rationalize to yourself that SALT isn't a subsidy to you.

Haha, that sure blew up in your face.
LOL, ok. In your world whether fossil fuels are subsidized or not varies with the argument, sorta like Schroedingers Cat. If used to justify SALT for you then they aren't, if used to justify carbon taxes they are.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
Not really, but I think you might need that explainer given how much you're struggling to rationalize to yourself that SALT isn't a subsidy to you.
It must be really frustrating to you to try so desperately to find some inconsistency only to strike out over and over again.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
Not really, but I think you might need that explainer given how much you're struggling to rationalize to yourself that SALT isn't a subsidy to you.

LOL, ok. In your world whether fossil fuels are subsidized or not varies with the argument, sorta like Schroedingers Cat. If used to justify SALT for you then they aren't, if used to justify carbon taxes they are.
By your logic literally every person and entity in the entire country is subsidized by the government, rendering the term useless for determining who is supporting who.

You did not think this through.
 
Dec 18, 2010
18,689
499
91
www.countrylifenet.com
No they don’t have to move. They can elect to pay for a hospital. Why didn’t they do that? Don’t those people care about having a hospital? [...]
That is a very good question. This is not an isolated problem as it is being repeated all over the nation.

When the vote went up, just a few hundred people voted. If one neighborhood had mobilized the vote could have easily passed.

The sad thing, there are minorities, especially black communities, that are being hurt all over the nation by a healthcare problem neither party is willing to address.

If we had some type of universal healthcare system, hopefully hospitals all over the nation could stay in business.

Hopefully ending SALT writeoffs will increase federal taxes and that new money could be spent on healthcare, but I doubt it.[/QUOTE]
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS