Andrew Cuomo upset about losing SALT deductions

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
7,205
403
136

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,870
171
126
Glenn only argues theoreticals, you know, because he's wishing for a libertarian Utopia and doesn't support Trump (except all those times he does.)
SALT isn't an abstract it's very real and should be done away with. Giving people a federal tax break because they voted for and thus pay high state income taxes would be like giving folks a federal income tax break because they voted to allow more oil fracking in their state or "open carry" of firearms. Or residents of one state to get a federal tax break because their state is landlocked and another not get it because they have access to the ocean. None make any sense including SALT. Impacts caused by SALT caps to "upper middle class people" can be addressed by increasing commonly available deductions such as the personal exemption or standard deduction and thus reducing their overall federal tax liability. The federal tax code needs to have far few (preferrably zero) special tax breaks that go to small subsets of people as a giveaway; there is little practical or moral difference between giving someone a federal tax subsidy for their private jet or giving them a subsidy for their state and local taxes.
 

dyna

Senior member
Oct 20, 2006
799
76
91
Glenn only argues theoreticals, you know, because he's wishing for a libertarian Utopia and doesn't support Trump (except all those times he does.)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/andrew-cuomos-tears-of-salt-11549930778

Taxpayers can still write off $10,000, which means those with modest means are spared a tax increase. The Tax Foundation reported last month that repealing the cap would “almost exclusively provide tax relief to the top 20 percent of income earners, the largest tax cut going to the top 1 percent of earners.” The government would lose $600 billion over 10 years. This must be the first time in years that a Democrat has said the government needs less money, or that the rich need a tax cut.
I don't know how much more clear this can be, removing the SALT change impacts the top 20% and mostly the top 1%. The SALT change was a tax increase for the wealthy. It also fixed the federal tax liability in a few states i.e. they got away with not paying there fair share of federal tax.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
61,207
2,536
126
https://www.wsj.com/articles/andrew-cuomos-tears-of-salt-11549930778

I don't know how much more clear this can be, removing the SALT change impacts the top 20% and mostly the top 1%. The SALT change was a tax increase for the wealthy. It also fixed the federal tax liability in a few states i.e. they got away with not paying there fair share of federal tax.
I don't know how much more clear this can be:

1) removing SALT was a tax increase mostly on wealthier households. Let's go with the 20%+.
2) this tax 'savings' from the tax increase was used to finance absolutely colossal tax cuts for the top 1% (and really the top 0.1%+)
3) this means in the end the 1% got a SALT increase, coupled with way, way larger tax cuts. Net, they paid less, to the tune of the better part of a trillion dollars.
4) the 20%-1% just got their taxes raised.

I am very sure that anyone can understand why Democrats would oppose a tax increase on the upper middle class that was done in order to finance a tax cut on the richest of the rich. The game conservatives are playing here is the same one they play with the income tax, where they try to examine that tax in isolation while ignoring all the other ones. If we were JUST talking about Republicans repealing SALT that would be correct. Them repealing SALT to give more money to billionaires? Give me a break.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
52,109
2,313
126
I don't know how much more clear this can be:

1) removing SALT was a tax increase mostly on wealthier households. Let's go with the 20%+.
2) this tax 'savings' from the tax increase was used to finance absolutely colossal tax cuts for the top 1% (and really the top 0.1%+)
3) this means in the end the 1% got a SALT increase, coupled with way, way larger tax cuts. Net, they paid less, to the tune of the better part of a trillion dollars.
4) the 20%-1% just got their taxes raised.

I am very sure that anyone can understand why Democrats would oppose a tax increase on the upper middle class that was done in order to finance a tax cut on the richest of the rich. The game conservatives are playing here is the same one they play with the income tax, where they try to examine that tax in isolation while ignoring all the other ones. If we were JUST talking about Republicans repealing SALT that would be correct. Them repealing SALT to give more money to billionaires? Give me a break.
Well, yeh, but that involves understanding more than one thing at the same time. You're not supposed to do that.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,870
171
126
I am very sure that anyone can understand why Democrats would oppose a tax increase on the upper middle class that was done in order to finance a tax cut on the richest of the rich. The game conservatives are playing here is the same one they play with the income tax, where they try to examine that tax in isolation while ignoring all the other ones. If we were JUST talking about Republicans repealing SALT that would be correct. Them repealing SALT to give more money to billionaires? Give me a break.
The thread title is "Andrew Cuomo upset about losing SALT deductions." The reason the thread exists is because Cuomo did complain about that one tax in isolation while ignoring all the other ones. The exact text of his Tweet follows: "In New York estimated tax payments are $2.3 billion below forecast thanks to the politically-motivated assault on blue states through the federal tax code. We will fight the loss of the SALT deduction and do everything possible to protect our taxpayers."

This is a forum where there are certain rules of conduct (like "don't thread crap by bringing up unrelated topics to OP") and that's what you've been doing. There's absolutely nothing stopping you or anyone else from starting a new thread to discuss the tax code as a holistic whole with SALT being one of many subjects in play. I think this thread has reached its natural end since your side doesn't seem to have any remaining arguments for SALT as a standalone item (you said in the post I quoted "If we were JUST talking about Republicans repealing SALT that would be correct ") and you have a great desire to transition the thread to talking about "big picture" taxation. You should start that thread with your big picture on taxes concern.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
61,207
2,536
126
The thread title is "Andrew Cuomo upset about losing SALT deductions." The reason the thread exists is because Cuomo did complain about that one tax in isolation while ignoring all the other ones. The exact text of his Tweet follows: "In New York estimated tax payments are $2.3 billion below forecast thanks to the politically-motivated assault on blue states through the federal tax code. We will fight the loss of the SALT deduction and do everything possible to protect our taxpayers."

This is a forum where there are certain rules of conduct (like "don't thread crap by bringing up unrelated topics to OP") and that's what you've been doing. There's absolutely nothing stopping you or anyone else from starting a new thread to discuss the tax code as a holistic whole with SALT being one of many subjects in play. I think this thread has reached its natural end since your side doesn't seem to have any remaining arguments for SALT as a standalone item (you said in the post I quoted "If we were JUST talking about Republicans repealing SALT that would be correct ") and you have a great desire to transition the thread to talking about "big picture" taxation. You should start that thread with your big picture on taxes concern.
I want to be absolutely clear: you think I am thread crapping and bringing up unrelated topics to Cuomo complaining about SALT repeal by... discussing the legislation that repealed SALT.

Lolwut.

You should definitely report me for this.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
61,207
2,536
126
Can anyone imagine the stupidity of that standard applied to other things?

For the ACA:

Glenn: I think the individual mandate is bad and should be repealed.

Me: repealing it would be bad because it’s part of a larger health care bill that has guaranteed issue and community rating.

Glenn: STOP THREAD CRAPPING THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,870
171
126
I want to be absolutely clear: you think I am thread crapping and bringing up unrelated topics to Cuomo complaining about SALT repeal by... discussing the legislation that repealed SALT.

Lolwut.

You should definitely report me for this.
I must have missed the part of his tweet where he was talking about his objections to other parts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Oh wait he didn't.

Your way of debating would be like going into a thread about whether wall money should be included in the budget talks and complaining about how the proposed budget doesn't fund climate change and arguing how "of course it fits in a thread about Trump's wall, they're both in the same budget!" While technically true they're also different subjects.

This is all pointless anyway since you've already agreed that SALT should go away. The rest is just insincere arguments about process.


Can anyone imagine the stupidity of that standard applied to other things?

For the ACA:

Glenn: I think the individual mandate is bad and should be repealed.

Me: repealing it would be bad because it’s part of a larger health care bill that has guaranteed issue and community rating.

Glenn: STOP THREAD CRAPPING THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.
Yes you can actually talk about the individual mandate as a standalone piece of policy. Many threads here did exactly that. Just like ACA the Trump tax bill was made up of individual components (like SALT or the individual mandate) which can all be discussed independently on their own merits.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
61,207
2,536
126
I must have missed the part of his tweet where he was talking about his objections to other parts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Oh wait he didn't.

Your way of debating would be like going into a thread about whether wall money should be included in the budget talks and complaining about how the proposed budget doesn't fund climate change and arguing how "of course it fits in a thread about Trump's wall, they're both in the same budget!" While technically true they're also different subjects.

This is all pointless anyway since you've already agreed that SALT should go away. The rest is just insincere arguments about process.
Ridiculous straw man. Shameful.

SALT was eliminated explicitly to provide funding that could be used to ‘pay for’ the remainder of the bill (ie: tax cuts for rich people). It was not an unrelated provision of an omnibus bill, it was literally required to fund the remainder.

So again, I encourage you to report me for bringing up unrelated subjects like the tax bill in a thread about...provisions of the tax bill.

Lol. This is so dumb, I know you know it too.

Yes you can actually talk about the individual mandate as a standalone piece of policy. Many threads here did exactly that. Just like ACA the Trump tax bill was made up of individual components (like SALT or the individual mandate) which can all be discussed independently on their own merits.
I cannot remember a single, solitary thread in which the individual mandate was discussed without mentioning its reason for existence. If you can find one by all means link it for me.

More importantly though, it is literally impossible to intelligently discuss the individual mandate without discussing why it exists. A mandate to buy insurance without community rating or guaranteed issue would be pointless and illogical. One with those is very good. Discussing it without such context would be moronic, which was of course my point.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
61,207
2,536
126
The easiest way to think about whether the rest of a bill is relevant is - would Congress have passed the provision individually without the other components?

1) Would Democrats have passed an individual mandate without the rest of the ACA? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Therefore, the rest matters.
2) Would Republicans have repealed SALT absent the other tax cuts for rich people? LOL. Therefore, those cuts matter.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,870
171
126
The easiest way to think about whether the rest of a bill is relevant is - would Congress have passed the provision individually without the other components?

1) Would Democrats have passed an individual mandate without the rest of the ACA? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Therefore, the rest matters.
2) Would Republicans have repealed SALT absent the other tax cuts for rich people? LOL. Therefore, those cuts matter.

Or we flip it and say "Will Democrats restore unlimited SALT deductions if at some point they raise overall tax rates for rich people"? It's all well and good to link SALT to other provisions of TCJA2017 but at some point when your side regains the power to do so, you'll still need to figure out what you're going to do with SALT. You could raise taxes on the rich to 70% or even 99.9% and you'll still be presented with the same 5 options about SALT deductions; restore unlimited SALT deductions, keep but raise the cap (e.g. to $20k), do nothing and keep the cap the same at $10k, lower the cap (e.g. to $5k), or eliminate SALT deductions outright.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
52,109
2,313
126
Or we flip it and say "Will Democrats restore unlimited SALT deductions if at some point they raise overall tax rates for rich people"? It's all well and good to link SALT to other provisions of TCJA2017 but at some point when your side regains the power to do so, you'll still need to figure out what you're going to do with SALT. You could raise taxes on the rich to 70% or even 99.9% and you'll still be presented with the same 5 options about SALT deductions; restore unlimited SALT deductions, keep but raise the cap (e.g. to $20k), do nothing and keep the cap the same at $10k, lower the cap (e.g. to $5k), or eliminate SALT deductions outright.
Which is merely diversion from current GOP created reality.
 

Viper1j

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2018
1,475
444
96
Play the game the way the Donnies do. Get creative. Look to Form 4684 for salvation. Losses due to "Casualty, Fire and Theft.

That wasn't a 400.00 laptop your niece accidentally spilled that coke on. That was your "portable workstation" with $35,000.00 worth of business data on, that when you deduct 100% of it, makes the first 35k of your taxable income 100% deductible.

Donations to churches are almost NEVER questioned. (Even Donny isn't stupid enough to fuck with God's money.) Give (on paper) until it hurts, then deduct.

Get your good eye on the issue if you want a fat refund.:cool:
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,870
171
126
Which is merely diversion from current GOP created reality.
LOL, it's your side that's talking about changing that reality and that means you need to indicate what your alternative reality would be. If it's merely repeal TCJA2017 then you're putting SALT deduction money right back into the pockets of rich folks. Which is fine but you should admit that to yourself that's what you're doing. You have a chance now to put yourself on records as being for something other than "restore unlimited SALT deductions" *IF* that's really what you want to do.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
61,207
2,536
126
Or we flip it and say "Will Democrats restore unlimited SALT deductions if at some point they raise overall tax rates for rich people"? It's all well and good to link SALT to other provisions of TCJA2017 but at some point when your side regains the power to do so, you'll still need to figure out what you're going to do with SALT. You could raise taxes on the rich to 70% or even 99.9% and you'll still be presented with the same 5 options about SALT deductions; restore unlimited SALT deductions, keep but raise the cap (e.g. to $20k), do nothing and keep the cap the same at $10k, lower the cap (e.g. to $5k), or eliminate SALT deductions outright.
I'm not doing any linking, the people who wrote the bill were the ones who linked them together. The bill would not have existed in anything resembling its current form without SALT being capped and this is simply a fact.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,870
171
126
I'm not doing any linking, the people who wrote the bill were the ones who linked them together. The bill would not have existed in anything resembling its current form without SALT being capped and this is simply a fact.
So you'd vote to leave the SALT cap intact in the future then? Again this is future world, you @fskimospy are the POTUS and need to decide whether to sign or veto a bill which only contains the return of unlimited SALT deductions, what are you going to do? Surely you're not a coward who avoids a simple and straightforward question.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
61,207
2,536
126
So you'd vote to leave the SALT cap intact in the future then? Again this is future world, you @fskimospy are the POTUS and need to decide whether to sign or veto a bill which only contains the return of unlimited SALT deductions, what are you going to do?
I wouldn't support simply restoring SALT, no. I've already said as much before as you well know.

It's very odd though that you think I would somehow get this one issue tax bill placed in front of me. If I were the president any tax bill we were negotiating would start from the place of massive tax increases on the rich. After all I think we all agree that's where we really need to be focusing our efforts.

Surely you're not a coward who avoids a simple and straightforward question.
Did you really think internet challenging my manhood was going to coerce me into answering something I wouldn't do otherwise?

Like, really?
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,870
171
126
I wouldn't support simply restoring SALT, no. I've already said as much before as you well know.

It's very odd though that you think I would somehow get this one issue tax bill placed in front of me. If I were the president any tax bill we were negotiating would start from the place of massive tax increases on the rich. After all I think we all agree that's where we really need to be focusing our efforts.



Did you really think internet challenging my manhood was going to coerce me into answering something I wouldn't do otherwise?

Like, really?
There you go @Jhhnn if he can answer it so can you. Would you support returning to unlimited SALT deductions (status quo ante) or join @fskimospy in opposing removal of the SALT cap if it came up as a standalone bill?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
52,109
2,313
126
There you go @Jhhnn if he can answer it so can you. Would you support returning to unlimited SALT deductions (status quo ante) or join @fskimospy in opposing removal of the SALT cap if it came up as a standalone bill?
I reject the way you frame the whole issue. The GOP is trying to force a low tax model on prosperous high tax states by imposing greater federal taxes on their residents. That, or suffer the loss of perhaps even greater revenue if they don't, which is what Cuomo is talking about. It's pure partisan ideology in action.

The fact that it partially fills the deficit hole created by their tax cuts to the ultra wealthy is a bonus.
 
Sep 5, 2000
25,175
524
126
I reject the way you frame the whole issue. The GOP is trying to force a low tax model on prosperous high tax states by imposing greater federal taxes on their residents. That, or suffer the loss of perhaps even greater revenue if they don't, which is what Cuomo is talking about. It's pure partisan ideology in action.

The fact that it partially fills the deficit hole created by their tax cuts to the ultra wealthy is a bonus.
Well they (the gop) are gonna get hammered again next election. The top 20% taking it for the top .01% is gonna rage like a wild fire over any remaining red districts in affluent areas.
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
7,205
403
136
Well they (the gop) are gonna get hammered again next election. The top 20% taking it for the top .01% is gonna rage like a wild fire over any remaining red districts in affluent areas.
That's the thing... It keeps getting discussed like it's only a "blue state" issue, but I think it's far more likely to be a "high COL/higher income" area like you would find around dense cities or better suburban areas.

I can easily Zillow into suburbs around say, Cleveland, and find $350k, 4 bd houses with $7k in property taxes.

Not a poor neighborhood, but we're not talking mansions for millionaires either. They ain't buying jets to wipeout the tax bill.

More like something you would see with an Accord in the driveway in a Wayfair or Home Depot commercial for your avg suburb dweller.

Considering the Trump has already pissed off suburban women, dad's are going to pissed when they see the refund check get savaged.

Not where I'd want to be in a battleground state...
 
Dec 12, 2000
19,694
478
126
I love it when democrats who promote tax and spend finally have to pay more in taxes.
You’re that bitch crab at the bottom of the bucket who sees other crabs trying to crawl out and pulls them back in.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,870
171
126
That's the thing... It keeps getting discussed like it's only a "blue state" issue, but I think it's far more likely to be a "high COL/higher income" area like you would find around dense cities or better suburban areas.

I can easily Zillow into suburbs around say, Cleveland, and find $350k, 4 bd houses with $7k in property taxes.

Not a poor neighborhood, but we're not talking mansions for millionaires either. They ain't buying jets to wipeout the tax bill.

More like something you would see with an Accord in the driveway in a Wayfair or Home Depot commercial for your avg suburb dweller.

Considering the Trump has already pissed off suburban women, dad's are going to pissed when they see the refund check get savaged.

Not where I'd want to be in a battleground state...
Whether it gains Dems seats or not doesnt really change things that eventually you’ll have to take a position on SALT one way or the other. Avoiding the question and “do nothing” just locks in the cap; you’d have to take action to change it. This applies whether that change is removing the or changing the cap amount in either direction. The question of whether you want to restore a tax cut in SALT that almost exclusively benefits the well-off will still be there waiting for you as well.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS