Andrew Cuomo upset about losing SALT deductions

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
The OP does know that Texas has the highest property tax rates in the US, right? And that he is celebrating that people are having to pay taxes on taxes. yes?
I guess principles don't matter when you're stickin it to the libs, eh?

You do know we also have exemptions for various types of properties?

Taxes on my house are around $250 a year.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
So to be clear you are against states subsidizing other states? New York will be very happy to hear this as my state is a large net donor to conservative states. We will have so, so much more money after conservatives start taking care of themselves and stop relying on liberals to take care of them.

Maybe conservative states should take ownership of their failure to invest in their populations in order to remain economically competitive.
That is not what this thread is about. Liberals lamenting the loss of SALT deductions is simple hyppcrisy, as it is nothing more than another tax loophole for the wealthy. Why should the federal government provide incentives for high wage earners to park their assets in high tax states?

I live in a high tax area, and I’ve noticed an uptick of residents engaging the political process to question where their property taxes are going. When it was a deduction, they didn’t care. Now, they are suddenly embracing fiscal conservatism. This is healthy. For the wealthy that choose to live in high tax states, they now get to pay more taxes.

As for Cuomo, a Democrat supermajority is a double edged sword. He can no longer hide behind Republicans to do his dirty work in Albany, and the wheels are starting to come off the car. He is on a collision course with Amazon.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
That is not what this thread is about. Liberals lamenting the loss of SALT deductions is simple hyppcrisy, as it is nothing more than another tax loophole for the wealthy. Why should the federal government provide incentives for high wage earners to park their assets in high tax states?

I live in a high tax area, and I’ve noticed an uptick of residents engaging the political process to question where their property taxes are going. When it was a deduction, they didn’t care. Now, they are suddenly embracing fiscal conservatism. This is healthy. For the wealthy that choose to live in high tax states, they now get to pay more taxes.

As for Cuomo, a Democrat supermajority is a double edged sword. He can no longer hide behind Republicans to do his dirty work in Albany, and the wheels are starting to come off the car. He is on a collision course with Amazon.

So blue state residents should pay even more as they subsidize red states?

People always care about their property tax rates. It's not like deductions are the same as tax credits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
That is not what this thread is about. Liberals lamenting the loss of SALT deductions is simple hyppcrisy, as it is nothing more than another tax loophole for the wealthy. Why should the federal government provide incentives for high wage earners to park their assets in high tax states?

This thread is 0% about whether or not the wealthy benefit primarily from SALT deductions as the OP does not mention that even once.

Instead, he complains about how Texas is subsidizing New York and other high tax areas, which is ironic considering in reality New York heavily subsidizes conservative areas.

I live in a high tax area, and I’ve noticed an uptick of residents engaging the political process to question where their property taxes are going. When it was a deduction, they didn’t care. Now, they are suddenly embracing fiscal conservatism. This is healthy. For the wealthy that choose to live in high tax states, they now get to pay more taxes.

Embracing fiscal conservatism is not inherently healthy. Just look at the plight of the red states to see that. Also, the idea that they didn’t care about their taxes before because they were getting a small percentage of them back as a deduction strains credulity.

If people are ensuring their taxes are being well spent, good! None of that changes the fact that we are now further unbalancing an already unbalanced system. I’m all for eliminating SALT but it should have been coupled with additional tax breaks for the states most affected.

As for Cuomo, a Democrat supermajority is a double edged sword. He can no longer hide behind Republicans to do his dirty work in Albany, and the wheels are starting to come off the car. He is on a collision course with Amazon.

Cuomo is a dirt bag but that has nothing to do with the fact that this thread is about conservatives complaining about paying for liberals when reality is the opposite.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
So blue state residents should pay even more as they subsidize red states?

People always care about their property tax rates. It's not like deductions are the same as tax credits.
Blue states have the lowest military enlistment rates relative to population. Framing the discussion as a subsidy is unproductive.

Many of the red states dependent on the federal government also have a disproportionate number of retirees. My grandfather’s generation, all WW2 vets and lifelong union guys, fled to Florida when they retired because the blue state property taxes were simply too much of a financial burden.
 

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,580
1,629
136
The OP does know that Texas has the highest property tax rates in the US, right? And that he is celebrating that people are having to pay taxes on taxes. yes?
I guess principles don't matter when you're stickin it to the libs, eh?

Texaspiker shows that conservatives really do like taxes but only on those they have been taught to hate. I mean, here he is getting wood about people he doesn't like (nor has ever met) having to pay more taxes. If he was a real fiscal conservative then he would have hated the thought of some people being forced to pay higher taxes because of the state that they live in.

The Texas Constitution may forbid collecting an income tax but that could be changed if they wanted to. The problem with that is that Texas couldn't nickle and dime their citizens to death. Here in Oregon we pay property taxes and have an income tax. No sales taxes to chip away at your wallet every time you go shopping, no online taxes to pay either. Nice and simple. We know pretty much how much we pay in taxes each year and the best part is that if our state collects too much in revenue (greater than 2% of budget), we all get a "Kicker" check from the state each tax season (last two tax years have been kickers).

If Texaspiker wants to go this way then I'm all for getting the blood-sucking tax welfare states off of the tax welfare teat and investing that tax money back in to the states that created it. Maybe that will force them to improve conditions in their state for their people like the smarter states in our nation have been doing instead of depending on the feds to pay their way. Tossing federal tax dollars at those states is a loser for our nation. While Texas isn't a tax welfare state, just about every state around Texas is...lol!

Conservative may bitch about California but at least California pays their own way, and then some.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Instead, he complains about how Texas is subsidizing New York and other high tax areas, which is ironic considering in reality New York heavily subsidizes conservative areas.
NY is paying the benefits of its retirees who have fled insane property taxes for warm weather low cost of living red states. I am sure Kentucky and West Virginia would love to have the economic benefit of being a port of entry, but alas geography does not smile upon them...and they’re forced to compete for lousy service economy jobs by offering corporate tax incentives that only perpetuate the problem.

Embracing fiscal conservatism is not inherently healthy. Just look at the plight of the red states to see that. Also, the idea that they didn’t care about their taxes before because they were getting a small percentage of them back as a deduction strains credulity.
Jerry Brown and Charlie Baker beg to differ.

I’m all for eliminating SALT but it should have been coupled with additional tax breaks for the states most affected.
I thought tax breaks were bad bad bad?

Cuomo is a dirt bag but that has nothing to do with the fact that this thread is about conservatives complaining about paying for liberals when reality is the opposite.
This thread is about that dirtbag whining on twitter about lost tax revenue. He should be more concerned about the utter failure in oversight over the bridge that has his father’s name.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Blue states have the lowest military enlistment rates relative to population. Framing the discussion as a subsidy is unproductive.

Many of the red states dependent on the federal government also have a disproportionate number of retirees. My grandfather’s generation, all WW2 vets and lifelong union guys, fled to Florida when they retired because the blue state property taxes were simply too much of a financial burden.

So what? Enlistments & retirements are two different things. Geezers move south for the weather, anyway. Those who can find a way often move back north in the summer, like from Arizona to Colorado. They're known as snow birds.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,238
136
That is not what this thread is about. Liberals lamenting the loss of SALT deductions is simple hyppcrisy, as it is nothing more than another tax loophole for the wealthy. Why should the federal government provide incentives for high wage earners to park their assets in high tax states?

I live in a high tax area, and I’ve noticed an uptick of residents engaging the political process to question where their property taxes are going. When it was a deduction, they didn’t care. Now, they are suddenly embracing fiscal conservatism. This is healthy. For the wealthy that choose to live in high tax states, they now get to pay more taxes.

As for Cuomo, a Democrat supermajority is a double edged sword. He can no longer hide behind Republicans to do his dirty work in Albany, and the wheels are starting to come off the car. He is on a collision course with Amazon.

People are earning high wages because that's where the economic activity is happening.

Additionally, it tends to be where lots of people live, so scarcity drives up prices.

So high wage earners to park their asses in high tax states. (Ftfy)

Lastly, there are legacy effects of existing infrastructure and land use, especially in the NE where roads, farms and villages were established centuries ago. Building is very disruptive and expensive. If you've ever been to NY, you would know the terrain itself is difficult.

So as discussed in another thread, this law has the net effect of attacking the nation's economic engine and encouraging underinvestment and misappropriation of resources.

You can't just draw this line at $10,000 and ask why NY and CA can't be as cheap as WY when it's obvious.
No one lives there, there's no jobs there, if there ever got to be you'd just build a grid system on empty, flat land, and eventually end up with something dense and expensive anyway (aka Denver.)

fixr-realgdp2014-2.png


usmappopdistort-640x418.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,238
136
So why did the GOP do this? To afford to cut corporate rates a few more %.

The tax cut has demonstrably failed to encourage increased corp investment, a complete waste. Deficits over a trillion, and growing to 1.5T-$2T/yr in the next decade.

So while we drown in debt and crumbling infrastructure, you'll get useful idiots like @Texashiker gloating that someone else will pay higher rates than he will.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
People are earning high wages because that's where the economic activity is happening.
That’s been the case for centuries. The current concentration of wealth is something else entirely.

Additionally, it tends to be where lots of people live, so scarcity drives up prices.
Inadequate planning and absurd zoning is what drives up prices.

So high wage earners to park their asses
But will play residency games when it comes to taxes

Lastly, there are legacy effects of existing infrastructure and land use, especially in the NE where roads, farms and villages were established centuries ago. Building is very disruptive and expensive. If you've ever been to NY, you would know the terrain itself is difficult.
I grew up in NY. It has nothing to do with terrain and everything to do with the state and local government. There is nothing unique about NY that a good engineer can’t design around. Europe has even more scarcity of land and legacy infrastructure, and yet they don’t have the disparity issues we do.

So as discussed in another thread, this law has the net effect of attacking the nation's economic engine and encouraging underinvestment and misappropriation of resources.
It takes away a tax deduction from the people who can afford to take the hit. This only hurts the $200k + crowd.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,090
136
Another TH absolute fail. Shocker. It's as if he doesn't actually understand, to any level of depth, what he's talking about...
 
  • Like
Reactions: jman19

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,085
146
This is hilarious, democrats in high tax states flailing around screeching about lost tax revenue.


If a state passes a tax, why should the federal government subside that tax? Someone in Texas should not be subsidizing high taxes in New York, California... etc.

Local taxes should be the responsibility of the people who reside in that state, and nobody else.

I would like to see all SALT deducations removed from federal taxes. You pass it, you pay it.

You really have no fucking clue how any of this works.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
NY is paying the benefits of its retirees who have fled insane property taxes for warm weather low cost of living red states. I am sure Kentucky and West Virginia would love to have the economic benefit of being a port of entry, but alas geography does not smile upon them...and they’re forced to compete for lousy service economy jobs by offering corporate tax incentives that only perpetuate the problem.

I love how states are never responsible for the economic consequences of their policies and it is all geography. Unless those policies are high taxes, of course, haha.

For example Louisiana has the benefit of one of the largest and most active ports in the world yet it is desperately poor. I hope someday you ask yourself why that’s the case.

Jerry Brown and Charlie Baker beg to differ.

This argument makes no sense. Kansas should tell you that much.

I thought tax breaks were bad bad bad?

Tax breaks are not inherently good or bad.

In this case SALT was eliminated because very few Republican lawmakers live in areas that benefit from it, therefore they saw little risk in eliminating it. This is because they are acting tribally.

This thread is about that dirtbag whining on twitter about lost tax revenue. He should be more concerned about the utter failure in oversight over the bridge that has his father’s name.

The OP is crystal clear about what this thread is about. He doesn’t like conservative areas paying for the policy choices of liberal areas.

What he does not appear to realize is that liberal places pay for the policy choices of conservative areas all the time. They chose to emphasize low taxes over economic competitiveness and so liberal areas need to prop them up.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
So what? Enlistments & retirements are two different things. Geezers move south for the weather, anyway. Those who can find a way often move back north in the summer, like from Arizona to Colorado. They're known as snow birds.
And where they claim residency has an impact on the flow of federal dollars for their entitlements. Also, if we insist on having this futile and childish discussion of who contributes more, then you need to take into consideration the inconvenient facts that don’t your myopic narrative.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
And where they claim residency has an impact on the flow of federal dollars for their entitlements. Also, if we insist on having this futile and childish discussion of who contributes more, then you need to take into consideration the inconvenient facts that don’t your myopic narrative.

Surely you realize this works both ways, right? Young people are drawn to liberal areas because of their increased job availability and earning potential. If conservative areas had invested in making their states more competitive instead of foolishly cutting taxes without thinking of the consequences you would see less of a talent drain and their balance of payments would be better.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
I love how states are never responsible for the economic consequences of their policies and it is all geography. Unless those policies are high taxes, of course, haha.
That door swings both ways.

For example Louisiana has the benefit of one of the largest and most active ports in the world yet it is desperately poor. I hope someday you ask yourself why that’s the case.
It is a port that deals primarily in the export of agricultural products that barge down the Mississippi. In terms of volume and tonnage, its an active port, but also unfortunately does not create many jobs.

This argument makes no sense. Kansas should tell you that much.
So should Connecticut and Rhode Island.

In this case SALT was eliminated because very few Republican lawmakers live in areas that benefit from it, therefore they saw little risk in eliminating it. This is because they are acting tribally.
The SALT elimination disproportionally impacts high income earners. Liberals should be for this.


The OP is crystal clear about what this thread is about. He doesn’t like conservative areas paying for the policy choices of liberal areas.
And I don’t like paying for the corruption, cronyism and incompetence that tends to manifest when one party controls state and/or local governments, but such is the price of society.

What he does not appear to realize is that liberal places pay for the policy choices of conservative areas all the time. They chose to emphasize low taxes over economic competitiveness and so liberal areas need to prop them up.
And who is going to pay the price for the widening income disparity and indentured servitude of our increasingly automated economy.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Surely you realize this works both ways, right? Young people are drawn to liberal areas because of their increased job availability and earning potential. If conservative areas had invested in making their states more competitive instead of foolishly cutting taxes without thinking of the consequences you would see less of a talent drain and their balance of payments would be better.
Cities aren’t going to just magically emerge. There is a geographic and historic reason why cities and hubs of economic activity exist where they do. Red states are competing the only way they can, and that is with tax incentives and the promise of nonunionized low cost labor. This is why some red states are increasingly attracting the few remaining manufacturing and assembly jobs.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
That door swings both ways.

It is a port that deals primarily in the export of agricultural products that barge down the Mississippi. In terms of volume and tonnage, its an active port, but also unfortunately does not create many jobs.

Interesting how so many liberal states were able to leverage their ports and Louisiana was not.

So should Connecticut and Rhode Island.

Huh? My point is that fiscal conservatism is not inherently good. It can be good, it can also be Kansas.

The SALT elimination disproportionally impacts high income earners. Liberals should be for this.

I am for it, but that doesn’t mean I’m for taking even more dollars out of the regions in which they are generated, which our our best and most productive. We should be further building them up. You could take that money and say, make a child care tax credit that would return money to lower and middle class people in high cost areas.


And I don’t like paying for the corruption, cronyism and incompetence that tends to manifest when one party controls state and/or local governments, but such is the price of society.

And who is going to pay the price for the widening income disparity and indentured servitude of our increasingly automated economy.

I don’t see what this has to do with the OP.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
Cities aren’t going to just magically emerge. There is a geographic and historic reason why cities and hubs of economic activity exist where they do. Red states are competing the only way they can, and that is with tax incentives and the promise of nonunionized low cost labor. This is why some red states are increasingly attracting the few remaining manufacturing and assembly jobs.

This isn’t the only way they can compete, this is the way they have CHOSEN to compete.

Again, why are high taxes a policy choice that apparently has consequences and is but the choices to not spend money on education or infrastructure are somehow excused by geography?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
the blue states pay so much more then the red states and they fucked us. You lost california completely for it. orange county? Gone. Stupid fucks.

Must be confusing to be a progressive; one moment you're complaining about how the "rich" don't pay enough in taxes and how they should be higher then the next you're complaining about how the feds do something to help you in achieving that goal via removing a subsidy (SALT) from poorer folks in other states. Then you complain about how "blue states subsidize red states with spending." You know there's a solution for both "problems" of SALT and "blue state subsidies to red states," and that's support lower taxes in your state and lower levels of federal transfer payments (a.k.a. welfare). That way you'll be able to keep more of that money you seem unhappy about going to other folks. You know, the transfer payments and higher taxes you, ahem, constantly say you're in favor on these boards and in your votes. Or were you not serious when you said you are willing and indeed eager to pay more in taxes? Or you could carry out your "threat" to withhold your generous support to red states because you're "donor states" or whatnot, at some point people will being to consider that an empty threat.