Andrew Cuomo upset about losing SALT deductions

[Jhhnn]

I pay virtually no tax because I made a decision to live in a rural area and buy a home I could easily afford.

Why would I want to move to Houston and join the rat race? I could easily get a job in Houston building boilers, heat exchangers... etc. But why?

This is the stuff I use to build and a company I worked for - http://www.ieeinc.net/ The have a facility in Pearland, Texas.

As for schools, I am for the Robin Hood program. Shouldn't all children have an equal education? We all benefit from a fair and balanced education system. The problem is getting young people to leave rural areas and seek employment elsewhere.

In 2000 I left my small hometown which had a populaton of less than 8,000 and moved to Houston, stayed there a few years, then moved back. The cost to live in the Houston area was not worth it. By the time you count rent, taxes, crime, traffic... and everything else, I feel my standard of living is better in a rural area.

Then why are you complaining about it?

 

[glenn1]

Why are charitable deductions still allowed?

Probably it’s mostly inertia, the charity break (and home mortgage interest deduction) akrady exist and people fear change to status quo. They arguably serve a more logical goal of public policy than SALT although folks would obviously still give to charity and buy houses on mortgage without the deduction.

If considered without the emotional baggage, we would do away with deductions of this kind. They primarily benefit the well off and solely exist to “positively influence behavior” in a creepily paternalistic way. Replace them with a higher personal exemption all can benefit from (regardless of income, home ownership status, etc) and the system is both fairer and makes more sense.

 

[Texashiker]

Why are charitable deductions still allowed?

Because charities do stuff the government can't / won't do.

For example take the Christus hospital network - they provide critical hospital services in rural areas. The population is not large enough to support a standard "for profit" hospital. So the counties establish a hospital district fee that is added to the local property tax rates.

See their wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHRISTUS_Health

Let's say the government ends charitable deductions, donations take a nose dive, so the Catholic church closes those hospitals and care facilities. Who and what is going to replace them?

Please be exact and describe how people living in rural areas are going to be able to find basic healthcare, and emergency services. Because right now Christus provides those services.

Then why are you complaining about it?

All SALT dedications should be eliminated from federal taxes.

If a state or local government passes a tax, the people who live there, and vote there, should be responsible for the taxes.

 

[glenn1]

Because charities do stuff the government can't / won't do.

For example take the Christus hospital network - they provide critical hospital services in rural areas. The population is not large enough to support a standard "for profit" hospital. So the counties establish a hospital district fee that is added to the local property tax rates.

See their wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHRISTUS_Health

Let's say the government ends charitable deductions, donations take a nose dive, so the Catholic church closes those hospitals and care facilities. Who and what is going to replace them?

Please be exact and describe how people living in rural areas are going to be able to find basic healthcare, and emergency services. Because right now Christus provides those services.




All SALT dedications should be eliminated from federal taxes.

If a state or local government passes a tax, the people who live there, and vote there, should be responsible for the taxes.

Nothing personal against you, but if you need to be bribed with other taxpayers money before you donate to a charity that primarily benefits you, that’s a good reason why you don’t deserve that deduction and it shouldn’t exist. It’s a bad idea for a tax break even when it truly is an altruistic act of philanthropy that doesn’t benefit you. It’s a really bad idea and borderline immoral when it’s a tax break for a self serving “donation” that primarily benefits you anyway.

 

[Jhhnn]

All SALT dedications should be eliminated from federal taxes.

If a state or local government passes a tax, the people who live there, and vote there, should be responsible for the taxes.

Because somebody else gets something you don't get? I'm pretty sure that taxes in blue states were set with the knowledge that Salt deductions existed at the time. But now they don't, as an act of political revenge from the GOP.

 

[glenn1]

Because somebody else gets something you don't get? I'm pretty sure that taxes in blue states were set with the knowledge that Salt deductions existed at the time. But now they don't, as an act of political revenge from the GOP.

Translation: “I meant we should tax rich Republicans, not rich Democrats.”

 

[Jhhnn]

Translation: “I meant we should tax rich Republicans, not rich Democrats.”

So desperate. The GOP raised taxes on upper middle class families in blue states regardless of their political leanings. Hence the revolt in Orange County. They also cut taxes for the Uber wealthy at the same time.

 

[Texashiker]

Because somebody else gets something you don't get? I'm pretty sure that taxes in blue states were set with the knowledge that Salt deductions existed at the time. But now they don't, as an act of political revenge from the GOP.

I feel it goes back to no taxation without representation.

Your states pass a tax hike, but my state has to subsidize it? No thank you.

 

[glenn1]

So desperate. The GOP raised taxes on upper middle class families in blue states regardless of their political leanings. Hence the revolt in Orange County. They also cut taxes for the Uber wealthy at the same time.

So you’re cool with the rich getting tax breaks so long as “upper middle class families” get it also? Cool, then all future tax cuts for the wealthy can just include cuts for upper middle class also and you’ll support them. Good to know.

 

[Jhhnn]

I feel it goes back to no taxation without representation.

Your states pass a tax hike, but my state has to subsidize it? No thank you.

In what universe is a state who puts more into the federal kitty than they get back getting subsidized by anybody?

 

[Jhhnn]

So you’re cool with the rich getting tax breaks so long as “upper middle class families” get it also? Cool, then all future tax cuts for the wealthy can just include cuts for upper middle class also and you’ll support them. Good to know.

Even more desperate. I haven't said that at all.

 

[glenn1]

Even more desperate. I haven't said that at all.

Your “fix” is easy then, lower state taxes to account for the cap on SALT deductions that effectively served to lower the state tax you actually paid. Now that your state taxes aren’t being subsidized by others you can reset them to levels you actually are willing to pay.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your “fix” is easy then, lower state taxes to account for the cap on SALT deductions that effectively served to lower the state tax you actually paid. Now that your state taxes aren’t being subsidized by others you can reset them to levels you actually are willing to pay.

How quaint. You propose that we fix what the GOP broke by doing what they want.

 

[glenn1]

How quaint. You propose that we fix what the GOP broke by doing what they want.

“Broke” a tax subsidy where 90% of the benefits went to people making at least 6 figures? So you were for taxing the wealthy more before you were against taxing the wealthy more?

 

[JSt0rm]

“Broke” a tax subsidy where 90% of the benefits went to people making at least 6 figures? So you were for taxing the wealthy more before you were against taxing the wealthy more?

atleast 6 figures?! gasp. You dont live in a big city do you?

 

[Texashiker]

In what universe is a state who puts more into the federal kitty than they get back getting subsidized by anybody?

WTF are you talking about?

SALT should not be written off federal income taxes, period.

 

[Bitek]

Your “fix” is easy then, lower state taxes to account for the cap on SALT deductions that effectively served to lower the state tax you actually paid. Now that your state taxes aren’t being subsidized by others you can reset them to levels you actually are willing to pay.

Even easier to fix. Repeal it, or wait it out. The tax cuts on individuals are only temporary, as is salt limits come 2025.

The raison detre was the "Tax Cuts and Jobs" act.
If it's not actually a tax cut, and if it's only creating debt and not jobs, then no reason to continue it, and better yet repeal the corp tax cuts.

 

[Jhhnn]

“Broke” a tax subsidy where 90% of the benefits went to people making at least 6 figures? So you were for taxing the wealthy more before you were against taxing the wealthy more?

Tax breaks for the financial elite more than made up for any extra they have to pay because of changes to the SALT formula. By leaps & bounds, I'm sure. Otherwise the GOP wouldn't have done it.

It's basically an act of spite against high tax states. You know it as well as I do.

 

[Jhhnn]

WTF are you talking about?

SALT should not be written off federal income taxes, period.

You claimed that Texas shouldn't have to subsidize California. They obviously don't.

 

[glenn1]

Tax breaks for the financial elite more than made up for any extra they have to pay beccause of changes to the SALT formula. By leaps & bounds, I'm sure. Otherwise the GOP wouldn't have done it.

It's basically an act of spite against high tax states. You know it as well as I do.

Someone calling for 70% tax rates without irony says tax subsidy from poor taxpayers to self proclaimed “upper middle class” people should be kept in place. Then no doubt will turn around with the same lack of self awareness and complain about tax subsidies to other “upper middle class” people for fossil fuel exploration, etc.

 

[Jhhnn]

Someone calling for 70% tax rates without irony says tax subsidy from poor taxpayers to self proclaimed “upper middle class” people should be kept in place. Then no doubt will turn around with the same lack of self awareness and complain about tax subsidies to other “upper middle class” people for fossil fuel exploration, etc.

When taxes are progressive wrt the financial elite only then can tax increases on anybody else be justified. Filers making north of $60M currently pay the same federal tax rate as filers making $85K. Fix that utterly immoral situation & we can talk. Or do your "values" somehow conflict with that proposition?

 

[glenn1]

You claimed that Texas shouldn't have to subsidize California. They obviously don't.

Of course they do that’s the point of unlimited SALT deductions. Federal taxpayers from other states including Texas are subsidizing the state tax bill for wealthier California residents. Kinda like how federal taxpayers are subsidizing corn farmers in Iowa by mandating ethanol. Or any other number of subsidies not generally available to any and all taxpayers. Subsidizing states for having high state income tax rates is like subsidizing states for naming a state bird or flower, none these things support some federal policy objective.

 

[glenn1]

When taxes are progressive wrt the financial elite only then can tax increases on anybody else be justified. Filers making north of $60M currently pay the same federal tax rate as filers making $85K. Fix that utterly immoral situation & we can talk. Or do your "values" somehow conflict with that proposition?

So subsidies in perpetuity for everything unless we raise marginal rates? Enjoy those subsidies on fossil fuels and everything else you hate then. There’s a shit load more subsidies for red states then there are blue states that’s for sure. If you wanna lock in that situation forever then have at it I guess.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course they do that’s the point of unlimited SALT deductions. Federal taxpayers from other states including Texas are subsidizing the state tax bill for wealthier California residents. Kinda like how federal taxpayers are subsidizing corn farmers in Iowa by mandating ethanol. Or any other number of subsidies not generally available to any and all taxpayers. Subsidizing states for having high state income tax rates is like subsidizing states for naming a state bird or flower, none these things support some federal policy objective.

Absurd. No state that puts more into the federal kitty than they get back is being subsidized by another state regardless of how that comes to be.

 

[Jhhnn]

So subsidies in perpetuity for everything unless we raise marginal rates? Enjoy those subsidies on fossil fuels and everything else you hate then. There’s a shit load more subsidies for red states then there are blue states that’s for sure. If you wanna lock in that situation forever then have at it I guess.

So dishonest. When people at the entry level to the 1%, ~$450K, pay a considerably higher rate than those at the .0001%, >$60M, we're subsidizing insatiable greed at the top.

Are you contending that it is right to do so, or just obfuscating?