CBO analysis of new tax bill, $100k+ earner gets big cuts, poorer earner will tax more after bill

[fskimospy]

Heh, I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying on tax policy... but let's be honest, all those deductions are for the rich working class who sit in offices/cubicles all day. Defending those deductions and acting supreme as a state that is high in those is basically dragging anyone that is blue-collar through the mud

In NYC once you hit about $70k a year you reach the current standard deduction for state and local taxes. That’s a decent living, but comparable in living standards to $40-50k in lower cost areas of the country. That’s definitely middle class.

Regardless, I agree wealthier taxpayers are the primary recipients of those deductions. If we were eliminating them to finance other middle/lower class tax deductions, programs for the poor, whatever, that would be fine. Instead they are being eliminated so that people who inherit more than $11 million don’t have to pay taxes on it. Raising taxes on the upper middle class makes sense in some ways, but not to pay for a tax cut on the upper upper class.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

McCain has issued a statement that he will vote yes on the tax bill. Odds of passage are now good.

Even with getting rid of the healthcare mandate?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Any word on current proposals for changing HSA contribution limits? They were gone, then down, then way up.

Last I recall, Republicans in general are heavily embracing high deductible plans and like the idea of enticing it with HSAs. Correct me if I'm wrong there, but I don't see them changing HSA contributions.

 

[Jaskalas]

I just don't understand why a person's federal taxes are affected by which State they live in. People in your State made a choice for higher taxes and are realizing the benefits in many ways....and this is fine by me. But why should the Federal government be effectively subsidizing your State by reducing your federal tax burden because a State effectively voted for higher State taxes? Seems to me that MA is not paying their "fair share" of the federal tax burden.

Do you believe in State's Rights?
This "subsidizing" is merely taking what would otherwise be a federal tax burden and allowing the states to handle that same money.

 

[K1052]

Even with getting rid of the healthcare mandate?

yep

His original beef with the healthcare attempts were that they were rammed through without what he considered an acceptable process (hearings, markup, etc). What the GOP did with this seems to have satisfied him, for the moment anyway.

He's also worried about deficits impacting military spending in the future. Assuming the fiscal trigger is included I think his concerns are sufficiently addressed for him to vote yes.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You demonstrate complete ignorance that Blue states are already subsidizing Red states.... this after years of it being mentioned on this very forum. This is data not in dispute and readily available.

Instead of going with the "seems to me" bullshit why don't you educate yourself? California and New York are both net givers already.

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...tates-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

Why don't I educate myself? Really? I'm attempting to reasonably discuss the issue. But if I'm somehow putting you out...please don't bother responding to my posts.

That said, I disagree with the way you've framed the issue. From your post it appears that you think it's unfair for the rich to subsidize the poor. Is that correct?

 

[Starbuck1975]

You demonstrate complete ignorance that Blue states are already subsidizing Red states.... this after years of it being mentioned on this very forum. This is data not in dispute and readily available.

Instead of going with the "seems to me" bullshit why don't you educate yourself? California and New York are both net givers already.

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...tates-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

California and New York are net givers because they have the benefit of significant aggregate federal investments towards infrastructure and geographic advantages over most other states.

Check your state privilege.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Do you believe in State's Rights?
This "subsidizing" is merely taking what would otherwise be a federal tax burden and allowing the states to handle that same money.

Every State should be treated equally under federal income tax laws. States should be free to manage their own taxation as they feel appropriate. That's State's Rights imo.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why don't I educate myself? Really? I'm attempting to reasonably discuss the issue. But if I'm somehow putting you out...please don't bother responding to my posts.

That said, I disagree with the way you've framed the issue. From your post it appears that you think it's unfair for the rich to subsidize the poor. Is that correct?

Deliberately obtuse. Wealthier states already subsidize poorer ones. The Repub plan actually increases the delta by having wealthier states pay even more. If that resulted in poorer states being better off there wouldn't be many honest complaints. It doesn't, however. It just puts more money in the pockets of the wealthiest, particularly the investor class.

 

[fskimospy]

California and New York are net givers because they have the benefit of significant aggregate federal investments towards infrastructure and geographic advantages over most other states.

Check your state privilege.

We already went over this and this is not true. (also, why on earth would states get taxed more based on their location?? lol.)

If you believe California and New York are the beneficiaries of disproportionate federal investment compared to their total tax receipts over the years please provide it.

 

[fskimospy]

Why don't I educate myself? Really? I'm attempting to reasonably discuss the issue. But if I'm somehow putting you out...please don't bother responding to my posts.

That said, I disagree with the way you've framed the issue. From your post it appears that you think it's unfair for the rich to subsidize the poor. Is that correct?

You realize that due to different costs of living the 'rich' and the 'poor' have the same standard of living in between a bunch of these states, right? This makes little difference on an individual level but when aggregated on a state level it turns into billions of dollars. So basically you have two areas with the same standard of living and you're taking money from one and giving it to the other because of an accounting difference, not any actual difference in lifestyle. Does that sound like a good idea?

Edit: regardless of your stance on SALT we agree that overall this tax bill is a nightmare, right? By the end of it most Americans see nothing or a tax increase while the rich and corporations see huge cuts. It also undermines the individual health insurance system for no rational reason and it's already been shown that the drafters of the bill have introduced numerous unintended consequences because they don't know how to write a bill. Just total incompetence on every level.

 

[repoman0]

Every State should be treated equally under federal income tax laws. States should be free to manage their own taxation as they feel appropriate. That's State's Rights imo.

This is exactly how it is currently, and it works out fairly IMO. We still end up being net contributors to the Federal government and pay for what we want in local taxes, a win for all. This proposal just taxes us twice on the same money in order to give more money to people at the tippy top.

 

[Jaskalas]

Every State should be treated equally under federal income tax laws. States should be free to manage their own taxation as they feel appropriate. That's State's Rights imo.

Eliminating state deductions will result in a higher tax burden.
Again, the purpose is to take those federal tax dollars and, instead, let the State handle them.
You... really don't see how you've opposed state's rights here?

Granted, I'd replace the whole system to begin with... but that's another topic.

 

[K1052]

If you believe California and New York are the beneficiaries of disproportionate federal investment compared to their total tax receipts over the years please provide it.

I too would be most interested to see data backing up such a bold assertion.

 

[Jhhnn]

California and New York are net givers because they have the benefit of significant aggregate federal investments towards infrastructure and geographic advantages over most other states.

Check your state privilege.

I suspect you're overplaying the aggregate federal investment angle but are otherwise correct. Under the Repub plan, donor states put more into the federal kitty but all states get less back because of spending cuts. Where does the money go instead? Into the pockets of the Trumps, Romneys, Kochs & Mnuchins of the world.

The way they're doing it also inhibits blue states from raising state taxes to make up loss of federal funds because their residents will already experience a tax hike. It's nefarious.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Deliberately obtuse. Wealthier states already subsidize poorer ones. The Repub plan actually increases the delta by having wealthier states pay even more. If that resulted in poorer states being better off there wouldn't be many honest complaints. It doesn't, however. It just puts more money in the pockets of the wealthiest, particularly the investor class.

Instead of States...look at this as you do people. Rich people shoulder the vast majority of the federal tax burden in this country and in doing so they effectively subsidize the poor...yet your ilk scream bloody murder when there's any wind of them getting some relief no matter how small. With this in mind, why should rich States get any relief from subsidizing poor ones?

 

[yllus]

That whole-cloth analysis from the Treasury about the impacts of the new tax bill? Yeah, that doesn't actually exist.

New York Times - Ahead of Vote, Promised Treasury Analysis of Tax Bill Proves Elusive

WASHINGTON — In pitching the $1.5 trillion tax overhaul, Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, has said repeatedly that the plan will pay for itself through a surge of economic growth and that over 100 people in Treasury are “working around the clock on running scenarios for us.”

Mr. Mnuchin has promised that Treasury will release its analysis in full. Yet, just one day before the full Senate prepares to vote on a sweeping tax rewrite, the administration has yet to produce the type of economic analysis that it is citing as a reason to pass the tax cut.

Those inside Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy, which Mr. Mnuchin has credited with running the models, say they have been largely shut out of the process and are not working on the type of detailed analysis that he has mentioned. An economist at the Office of Tax Analysis, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to jeopardize his job, said Treasury had not released a “dynamic” analysis showing that the tax plan would be paid for with economic growth because one did not exist.

...

A Treasury official said that there was not sufficient time to produce a full analysis with growth and revenue estimates of the final bill, which the Senate Finance Committee passed before Thanksgiving. The official pointed to a letter sent this week to Mr. Mnuchin by nine top conservative economists detailing how the Republican tax bills could bolster economic growth, saying that reflected the findings of its own economic models.​

 

[fskimospy]

Instead of States...look at this as you do people. Rich people shoulder the vast majority of the federal tax burden in this country and in doing so they effectively subsidize the poor...yet your ilk scream bloody murder when there's any wind of them getting some relief no matter how small. With this in mind, why should rich States get any relief from subsidizing poor ones?

Why do you keep avoiding this simple question: if I make $70k in San Francisco that affords me the same cost of living as someone making $35k in Birmingham yet my federal income taxes are much higher. This is generally a large portion of the difference between the 'net donor' states and the 'net recipient' states. That means the people who are paying more in taxes aren't actually any richer than the people paying less. Why would you want to increase that disparity?

EDIT: Also, since you're making this argument presumably that means you think we should raise taxes on the rich? Sounds like another disaster of a bill for you then.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Eliminating state deductions will result in a higher tax burden.
Again, the purpose is to take those federal tax dollars and, instead, let the State handle them.
You... really don't see how you've opposed state's rights here?

Granted, I'd replace the whole system to begin with... but that's another topic.

These States made a choice to have a higher tax burden. That is their right. They have no right to expect others to subsidize their choice.

 

[repoman0]

These States made a choice to have a higher tax burden. That is their right. They have no right to expect others to subsidize their choice.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that higher tax states are the ones mostly subsidizing the Federal government?

 

[bshole]

Instead of States...look at this as you do people. Rich people shoulder the vast majority of the federal tax burden in this country and in doing so they effectively subsidize the poor...yet your ilk scream bloody murder when there's any wind of them getting some relief no matter how small. With this in mind, why should rich States get any relief from subsidizing poor ones?

LoL, we are being pummeled by ads on talk radio about how this a boon for the middle class. That this is tax relief for the middle class..... not a single peep about what it really is. At least you recognize this as a money grab from the middle and working classes and giveaway to the rich. If only the Republican politicians were so honest. If only they ran their campaigns on giving tax relief to billionaires. Instead they lie through their filthy mouths and say it is tax relief for the middle class.

The absolutely most grotesque aspect of this bill is that in reality it is primarily funded by ROBBING the future of our children. It is put on a credit card and given to them.

 

[fskimospy]

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that higher tax states are the ones mostly subsidizing the Federal government?

He is basically arguing that low tax states are subsidizing high tax states because high tax states aren't subsidizing low tax states as much as they could be without the SALT deduction.

It is complete moon logic if you stop and think about it for a second.

 

[Jhhnn]

Instead of States...look at this as you do people. Rich people shoulder the vast majority of the federal tax burden in this country and in doing so they effectively subsidize the poor...yet your ilk scream bloody murder when there's any wind of them getting some relief no matter how small. With this in mind, why should rich States get any relief from subsidizing poor ones?

I do love all the maudlin hand wringing over tax "relief" for the wealthiest. I mean, wtf do you think you're talking about? The biggest winners in all this are people so astoundingly wealthy that their lifestyles would remain unaffected if half their wealth disappeared overnight. People who routinely re-invest the bulk of their incomes. People for whom it's a balance sheet exercise of greed & power, the power to run the country & the economy regardless of what the rest of us want or need. It's just a matter of buying the GOP leadership & they're wealthy enough to do that handily.

I never suggested that rich states get relief. The GOP plan does the opposite & nobody but rich people get more out of it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that higher tax states are the ones mostly subsidizing the Federal government?

Higher tax States aren't subsiding the federal government..they're receiving a subsidy from the federal government and thereby shirking their fair share of the federal tax burden.

 

[repoman0]

The absolutely most grotesque aspect of this bill is that in reality it is primarily funded by ROBBING the future of our children. It is put on a credit card and given to them.

I saw an article on the Atlantic that argued that this plan is basically a baby boomer last chance money grab before younger voters overtake them in numbers, which will happen in the early 2020s. A huge FYGM on their way out.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...l-foot-the-bill-for-the-gops-tax-plan/547097/