• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Andrew Cuomo upset about losing SALT deductions

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I have looked at the numbers. How were they gaming the system, specifically? What policies?

First lets agree that they have 35% less state tax money because of the SALT change. 6.2 billion estimated but actuals came in at 3.9 Billion, which corresponds to the OP. Source (https://www.democratandchronicle.co...ax-payments-and-blames-washington/2769553002/)

New York Gov. Cuomo complained last week the $10,000 limit of deductibility of state and local taxes — including property taxes — “will undo all the good work we’ve done and it’ll make us much less competitive”

“A lot of property taxes are above $10,000. And the people who are above tend to be wealthier people, tend to be business owners, we don’t want them to leave. Businesses leave, wealthy people leave and that tax burden falls on everybody else,” Cuomo said.

NY is getting less tax revenue because of the federal deduction change. There should be no correlation but there is, so they used that federal deduction to somehow get people to feel good about paying the NY taxes(more state revenue). The ultra-rich and wealthy would only do this, if it was to their advantage. This advantage is now lost and they are now leaving. The fact that it is 35%, means that the ultra-rich have had a significant defection.
 
NY is getting less tax revenue because of the federal deduction change. There should be no correlation but there is, so they used that federal deduction to somehow get people to feel good about paying the NY taxes(more state revenue). The ultra-rich and wealthy would only do this, if it was to their advantage. This advantage is now lost and they are now leaving. The fact that it is 35%, means that ultra-rich have had a significant defection.

It could also mean that a 35% swing is not atypical year-over-year variation and that NYS tax receipts are quite lumpy - higher one year (during boom times) and much lower during down years (like the Great Recession). Since we can't chain rich people inside a single state we don't know how many "defections" there were but as I stated in an earlier post since state income taxes are generally based on federal MAGI (modified adjusted gross income) a cap on the SALT deduction should raise the MAGI for blue state filers. Thus the state should be imposing its own state taxes on a higher MAGI base and getting more revenue. This of course does not happen in a vacuum where only the MAGI and SALT factors were in play, but all else being equal lower MAGI should be increasing the state tax revenue of NYS instead of decreasing it.

So... where is Cuomo/NYS going to get this 2.3 Billion? Borrow? Raise taxes? Create a new fee? Cut spending (if so, where)?

Good question and I guess we'll find out.
 
First lets agree that they have 35% less state tax money because of the SALT change. 6.2 billion estimated but actuals came in at 3.9 Billion, which corresponds to the OP. Source (https://www.democratandchronicle.co...ax-payments-and-blames-washington/2769553002/)

NY is getting less tax revenue because of the federal deduction change. There should be no correlation but there is, so they used that federal deduction to somehow get people to feel good about paying the NY taxes(more state revenue). The ultra-rich and wealthy would only do this, if it was to their advantage. This advantage is now lost and they are now leaving. The fact that it is 35%, means that the ultra-rich have had a significant defection.

Why would there be no correlation? That makes no sense.
 
First lets agree that they have 35% less state tax money because of the SALT change. 6.2 billion estimated but actuals came in at 3.9 Billion, which corresponds to the OP. Source (https://www.democratandchronicle.co...ax-payments-and-blames-washington/2769553002/)





NY is getting less tax revenue because of the federal deduction change. There should be no correlation but there is, so they used that federal deduction to somehow get people to feel good about paying the NY taxes(more state revenue). The ultra-rich and wealthy would only do this, if it was to their advantage. This advantage is now lost and they are now leaving. The fact that it is 35%, means that the ultra-rich have had a significant defection.

So you think suddenly dropping a states tax income is good governance? And why woudl that be? Because pwn the libs?
 
i would expect a drop as everyone prepaid their property taxes for 2018 in 2017 so they could write it off.
 
When federal tax policy raises the cost of earning income in New York State, people attempt to shift that income out of New York State. This is not 'gaming the system' any more than people buying less aluminium or substituting with a different source when the feds raise taxes on that through tariffs.
 
When federal tax policy raises the cost of earning income in New York State, people attempt to shift that income out of New York State. This is not 'gaming the system' any more than people buying less aluminium or substituting with a different source when the feds raise taxes on that through tariffs.

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.
 
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.

If New York is so terrible why is it that it's so much more prosperous than the average conservative state and why do conservative states depend on it for money?

Like I said in my first response if conservatives were actually serious about being weaned from the government teat their communities would be devastated because they rely on liberal areas to fund them.
 
If New York is so terrible why is it that it's so much more prosperous than the average conservative state and why do conservative states depend on it for money?

Like I said in my first response if conservatives were actually serious about being weaned from the government teat their communities would be devastated because they rely on liberal areas to fund them.

Places like Owsley County-

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/f...ten-america-white-county-161107111708901.html

I mean, God bless 'em. I think we need to do more, somehow, and it's clear the Jerb Creators want no part of it.
 
If New York is so terrible why is it that it's so much more prosperous than the average conservative state and why do conservative states depend on it for money?

Like I said in one of my earlier post, Thomas Sowell talks about that in detail. I feel he accounts it to when people from Europe were moving to the United States, or the colonies at the time.

People who were educated settled in the cities, where they have received continued education for centuries. Exposure to immigrants, best universities in the nation... etc.

People who were less educated moved south and into the wilderness unexplored areas. Even to this day people living in rural areas do not have access to the level of education people in the north do.

Let's be honest, certain groups are lazy. As I mentioned earlier, Sowell talks about how Jews, Germans, Asians... do well regardless of where they go. While the Irish and Scottish are less likely to obtain higher education.

When the factories closed and moved to mexico, china... it left a great number of people who work with their hands unemployed. We can also say there are a great number of people who refuse to relocate to find work. They are happy to live in poverty and work part time jobs than to move even 100 miles away and learn a skill or trade.

Part of it I feel is a lack of culture in the south, along with not valuing higher education. Ask various young people here what they want to do, and the answers may be, "welder, logger... or I do not know."

To directly answer your question:

Lack of drive / laziness.
Lack of culture
Lack of easy access to trade schools / community college.
Lack of value for higher education.
Just lower educated people who either lack the desire to better themselves, or are just lazy.

In 1986 I finished high school and went to work in a welding shop. By 1994 I knew that line of work was not for me, so started going to college at night. I was working a full time job, 40 - 50 hours a week, and going to college three nights a week. I did that for five years. I was taking between 6 - 9 credit hours per semester, typically around 6 hours per semester.

Even working a full time job, I still maintained a 3.6 - 3.7 GPA. Some of the kids fresh out of high school, not even working, were barely able to make a 2.5 GPA.

How do we fix the south? I do not know. Maybe more culture besides losing the civil war and watching sports.

Something we are in serious need of is introducing young people to real life skills, such as welding, auto repair, electrician, plumbing... etc. They get out of high school and have go future. A great number will get pregnant and end upon welfare.

If I wanted to take a college class, I would have to drive close to 75 miles one way. How do you convince a young person they need to drive 75 miles one way for at least 2 years to go to college? Or even get them into the military? It would be almost impossible for a young peson to move near a college, get a part time job, afford rent, food... and pay for college. Their parents are not doing much better as they have low paying jobs and barely getting by.

One of the things I see here that bothers me is people on welfare who could get free college, but do not do so. This is why I favor forced education for people on welfare.

Throwing money at the problem will not fix it. People in rural areas need to change their opinion of higher education and be willing to relocate to find work.

Tired of typing.
 
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.

If a person chooses to live there then they should live with the consequences (no hospitals, etc.) Why should charitable deductions not be eliminated from federal taxes?
 
If a person chooses to live there then they should live with the consequences (no hospitals, etc.) Why should charitable deductions not be eliminated from federal taxes?

You like having wood to build your home with? What about natural gas?

Where do you think stuff like that comes from?

What about food? Do you like to eat?

Good luck growing enough food in the city to feed everyone.

Rural areas provide important commodities that makes life in the city possible. Without some rural farmer you would not even have bread to make a sandwich with, or eggs for breakfast.
 
Like I said in one of my earlier post, Thomas Sowell talks about that in detail. I feel he accounts it to when people from Europe were moving to the United States, or the colonies at the time.

People who were educated settled in the cities, where they have received continued education for centuries. Exposure to immigrants, best universities in the nation... etc.

People who were less educated moved south and into the wilderness unexplored areas. Even to this day people living in rural areas do not have access to the level of education people in the north do.

Let's be honest, certain groups are lazy. As I mentioned earlier, Sowell talks about how Jews, Germans, Asians... do well regardless of where they go. While the Irish and Scottish are less likely to obtain higher education.

When the factories closed and moved to mexico, china... it left a great number of people who work with their hands unemployed. We can also say there are a great number of people who refuse to relocate to find work. They are happy to live in poverty and work part time jobs than to move even 100 miles away and learn a skill or trade.

Part of it I feel is a lack of culture in the south, along with not valuing higher education. Ask various young people here what they want to do, and the answers may be, "welder, logger... or I do not know."

To directly answer your question:

Lack of drive / laziness.
Lack of culture
Lack of easy access to trade schools / community college.
Lack of value for higher education.
Just lower educated people who either lack the desire to better themselves, or are just lazy.

In 1986 I finished high school and went to work in a welding shop. By 1994 I knew that line of work was not for me, so started going to college at night. I was working a full time job, 40 - 50 hours a week, and going to college three nights a week. I did that for five years. I was taking between 6 - 9 credit hours per semester, typically around 6 hours per semester.

Even working a full time job, I still maintained a 3.6 - 3.7 GPA. Some of the kids fresh out of high school, not even working, were barely able to make a 2.5 GPA.

How do we fix the south? I do not know. Maybe more culture besides losing the civil war and watching sports.

Something we are in serious need of is introducing young people to real life skills, such as welding, auto repair, electrician, plumbing... etc. They get out of high school and have go future. A great number will get pregnant and end upon welfare.

If I wanted to take a college class, I would have to drive close to 75 miles one way. How do you convince a young person they need to drive 75 miles one way for at least 2 years to go to college? Or even get them into the military? It would be almost impossible for a young peson to move near a college, get a part time job, afford rent, food... and pay for college. Their parents are not doing much better as they have low paying jobs and barely getting by.

One of the things I see here that bothers me is people on welfare who could get free college, but do not do so. This is why I favor forced education for people on welfare.

Throwing money at the problem will not fix it. People in rural areas need to change their opinion of higher education and be willing to relocate to find work.

Tired of typing.

And yet you generally paint Liberal urbanites as the Enemy. What stops us from reaching out to small town & rural America with more funding for all kinds of things is the GOP. They won't tax the rich to pay for it.

The Catholic Sisters? Medicaid expansion would aid in their efforts in no small way.
 
You like having wood to build your home with? What about natural gas?

Where do you think stuff like that comes from?

What about food? Do you like to eat?

Good luck growing enough food in the city to feed everyone.

Rural areas provide important commodities that makes life in the city possible. Without some rural farmer you would not even have bread to make a sandwich with, or eggs for breakfast.

Like you, I take exception to Cliftonite's attitude. I want all Americans to have good access to basic services. That's an expensive proposition in sparsely populated regions. It's also impossible to put everybody within 2 miles of a hospital, like where I live.
 
And yet you generally paint Liberal urbanites as the Enemy. What stops us from reaching out to small town & rural America with more funding for all kinds of things is the GOP. They won't tax the rich to pay for it.

In all honesty, we have had several hundred years to address southern poverty. Even if we set up trade schools and community colleges every 15 miles, I doubt very many people would attend.

For example, a local community college recently closed an extension campus because hardly anyone was attending. I went to the campus in 2005 and there were probably a hundred people going there at night. I took my daughter there in 2018 for a class and there was hardly anyone there. Now people have to drive at least 75 miles one way.

This was an important extension camp provided services to a poor rural area. And now that campus is gone.

If people were not willing to drive 10 or 15 minutes to visit a campus, adding more will not fix the problem.


The Catholic Sisters? Medicaid expansion would aid in their efforts in no small way.

I wish the affordable care act took the burden of medicaid expansion off of the states. The expansion sounds good, but states will end up holding the bill.

Something has to give with our healthcare.
 
You like having wood to build your home with? What about natural gas?

Where do you think stuff like that comes from?

What about food? Do you like to eat?

Good luck growing enough food in the city to feed everyone.

Rural areas provide important commodities that makes life in the city possible. Without some rural farmer you would not even have bread to make a sandwich with, or eggs for breakfast.

What do you not understand here.

You are totally right that rural areas provide things that urban areas need.

In exchange for that urban areas pay rural areas money for this.

After that, urban areas pay rural areas extra money on top of the value of their trade.
 
You like having wood to build your home with? What about natural gas?

Where do you think stuff like that comes from?

What about food? Do you like to eat?

Good luck growing enough food in the city to feed everyone.

Rural areas provide important commodities that makes life in the city possible. Without some rural farmer you would not even have bread to make a sandwich with, or eggs for breakfast.

So you're basically incapable of supporting yourselves and depend on handouts for basic services?
 
So you're basically incapable of supporting yourselves and depend on handouts for basic services?
Aw, c'mon. They're just some of the people the Jerb Creators dumped on the side of the road. There are many others in urban areas, as well. Small town America has trouble keeping the money coming in to cover the money going out because they've been de-capitalized in a cumulative fashion. If anybody has any honest non-socialist ideas on how to make that better they should speak up. Bootstraps ain't it, obviously, or they would have already used 'em.
 
What do you not understand here.

You are totally right that rural areas provide things that urban areas need.

In exchange for that urban areas pay rural areas money for this.

After that, urban areas pay rural areas extra money on top of the value of their trade.

Extra money as in???????


So you're basically incapable of supporting yourselves and depend on handouts for basic services?

Not sure I understand your question?

Handouts as in what?

There is a demographic not just in rural areas, but everywhere, who are willing to live with less so they can live off the government. They have no drive, no ambition.... nothing. No amount of money is going to fix that as they refuse to help themselves.

I feel your attitude that people in rural areas being "incapable" of supporting ourselves is wrong. We simply can not use blanket statements and put everyone under that blanket.

If we look at the south in general, and over the past 150 years, there is an epidemic of laziness. Thomas Sowell details this in his book Black Rednecks and White liberals on pages 14, 15, 16, 17....

I am going to paraphrase Sowell, but the south had something like 80% of the nations cattle, but only accounted for something like 20% of butter production. I can get my book and provide exact numbers if you want.

So the southern states not being productive is nothing new. This has been an ongoing problem that spans centuries and generations.
 
Aw, c'mon. They're just some of the people the Jerb Creators dumped on the side of the road. There are many others in urban areas, as well. Small town America has trouble keeping the money coming in to cover the money going out because they've been de-capitalized in a cumulative fashion. If anybody has any honest non-socialist ideas on how to make that better they should speak up. Bootstraps ain't it, obviously, or they would have already used 'em.

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.
 
snip long winded response.

It was simple, you can't even have a hospital where you live unless other people give you one. BTW if you look into the finances of that hospital I wouldn't be shocked to see most of their revenue come from Medicare and Medicaid. In short the only way you can live where you do is by subsisting on handouts either from the government or charities.
 
It was simple, you can't even have a hospital where you live unless other people give you one.

<snip>

In short the only way you can live where you do is by subsisting on handouts either from the government or charities.

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?
 
It was simple, you can't even have a hospital where you live unless other people give you one. BTW if you look into the finances of that hospital I wouldn't be shocked to see most of their revenue come from Medicare and Medicaid. In short the only way you can live where you do is by subsisting on handouts either from the government or charities.

If we want universal healthcare then we need to have facilities for everybody to use them.
 
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?

It's a shame the hospital district vote failed. That's on the residents, however. I mean, it's Texas, right?
 
Back
Top