GOP to Make Tax cuts permanent

[Jhhnn]

Then stop all the red state welfare sucking tax funds and lower my rates for real.

I'm not paying taxes for idiots in Texas to build disposable homes in flood plains. Pay for your own hurricane damage

Part of what makes this country great is that we're big enough & rich enough that we can afford to be generous with each other & help each other out. We need to do more of that whether it's hurricanes in Houston, Puerto Rico, & New Orleans, earthquakes in California, tornadoes & flooding in the Midwest or whatever. If we need more money then we can get from people with the most to spare.

 

[Jhhnn]

Fuck your SALT tax cuts. Fuck the concept of giving rewards for living in HCOL states - why should any state have an advantage from a tax perspective?

You want to live in HCOL, you pay for the HCOL.

They already pay in higher state taxes. Now they get to pay more to the Feds, too. So that our wealthiest can get tax cuts they don't need.

 

[fskimospy]

Federal incomes taxes. Not social security. Not medicare. Not sales and use. That's specifically why I said "federal income taxes"

The super rich do not pay lower taxes. They pay a lower tax rate. There is quite a substantial difference.

Which one of these is a higher amount of tax paid -
15% of $2,000,000 or 20% of $1,000,000 ?

Well sure but it hardly makes sense to ignore all the other taxes people pay. Overall the US tax system is just barely progressive. The federal income tax is pretty progressive but that just serves to counterbalance highly regressive state policy.

 

[fskimospy]

Fuck your SALT tax cuts. Fuck the concept of giving rewards for living in HCOL states - why should any state have an advantage from a tax perspective?

You want to live in HCOL, you pay for the HCOL.

I’m perfectly fine with eliminating SALT deductions, it was a regressive deduction anyway.

Considering how the rest of federal taxes don’t adjust for cost of living though we end up with higher cost of living states subsidizing lower ones for no particularly good reason.

Smart tax policy would have ditched SALT and the MID and replaced them with other tax policy that didn’t change the net burden by region. Instead they just stuck it to the blue states and let rich people keep deducting their mortgage interest.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sadly, I predict when we next have a Democratic president the Republicans will pretend to be fiscally conservative again. I can’t wait to hear how they ‘lost their way’ for the fourth consecutive time.

That much I could handle just fine but the real kicker will be that the supposedly liberal media will bend over backwards pretending to believe them.

Then stop all the red state welfare sucking tax funds and lower my rates for real.

I'm not paying taxes for idiots in Texas to build disposable homes in flood plains. Pay for your own hurricane damage.

Is that really the position SC wants to go with as they are about to get Fd by a giant hurricane?

Federal taxes rates should be set so that all states are equal. If you had to pay the cost of being an idiot on your tax return by paying the price of being a conservative, I don't think it would be too long before all states would be blue.

 

[fskimospy]

Federal taxes rates should be set so that all states are equal. If you had to pay the cost of being an idiot on your tax return by paying the price of being a conservative, I don't think it would be too long before all states would be blue.

Some states are quite a lot poorer than others though and I’m totally on board with helping them out. There are a lot of states (fact - most of them red) that just aren’t able to make it alone.

What I don’t agree with is taxing someone more who isn’t actually better off. If $60k in locality A gets you the same quality of life as $40k in locality B it’s hard to see why A should pay higher taxes. The purpose of progressive taxation is to send wealth from people who have more to people who have less, it’s not to give low cost of living states free money.

 

[Moonbeam]

Some states are quite a lot poorer than others though and I’m totally on board with helping them out. There are a lot of states (fact - most of them red) that just aren’t able to make it alone.

What I don’t agree with is taxing someone more who isn’t actually better off. If $60k in locality A gets you the same quality of life as $40k in locality B it’s hard to see why A should pay higher taxes. The purpose of progressive taxation is to send wealth from people who have more to people who have less, it’s not to give low cost of living states free money.

I seem to remember or have heard of a time when federal workers, at least, did not get cost of living allowances on the theory that living in a more expensive area equated to living in a more desirable area and that was reward enough. That drove such people into buy real estate market to hedge against the massive increases in rent that happened as a result. Now such people, bereft of the benefits of commensurate salary raises in federal jobs that already paid a subpar wage, and the fat bank accounts they might have otherwise earned, face the threat of being driven from those homes in the name of property tax relief owing to the one place the got a break on property taxes that to others now seems so unfair. I bet if we could raise all those folk who have died since being driven out of their homes by local costs of living and take them back in time, I would bet they would make very sure everybody would like to live in their areas like people what to live in Chernobyl. 😉 I can't help myself. I was taught that old people had earned some level of exemption from the notion that we are all equal. I mean, they don't have a whole life to recover from being fucked again.

 

[frozentundra123456]

You badly underestimate the hold right win propagandists have on GOP voters. They're conditioned at a deeply emotional level. Rational thinking doesn't have much to do with it.

I assume you mean "right wing". I do agree with you though. Trump has so conditioned his base that any criticism is "lies and fake news" that he can get away with almost anything. And if he hasn'tconvinced them enough, Fox news will finish the job.

I disagree with the general consensus that making the tax cuts permanent will cost the Reps votes though. Despite how great the economy is supposed to be, well paying jobs and real income growth are very hard to find except for the already wealthy. The mindset will be "well at least I will get to keep the extra cash I am receiving" without really thinking of the long term costs to the deficit and cutting of federal programs.

 

[Viper1j]

"Buying" votes?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-republicans-seek-permanent-tax-215114323.html

Cliff's notes from AP:

Republicans looking to make their $1.5 Trillion dollar gift/deficit bill to corporations and rich people permanent and the deficit even bigger.

Weird timing right before the election in my opinion.

Excellent move by the party of fiscal responsibility. Deficits is only a four letter word when you are not writing the checks.

I imagine a bunch of their leadership sitting around trying to find something to bolster support for the mid-terms. Since their only real legislation was a $1.5 Trillion dollar loan, they are going back to the well to see if they can dupe their dumb-ass supporters once again. Based on the comments section, it will work.

It's only a matter of time before Donny and the Republicants try to institute The Purge to get rid of the poor they haven't starved to death.

 

[Bitek]

Part of what makes this country great is that we're big enough & rich enough that we can afford to be generous with each other & help each other out. We need to do more of that whether it's hurricanes in Houston, Puerto Rico, & New Orleans, earthquakes in California, tornadoes & flooding in the Midwest or whatever. If we need more money then we can get from people with the most to spare.

And it's a shame that Republicans started another red vs blue war via the tax code just so they could shave another % off the corporate tax rates.

 

[zinfamous]

Fuck your SALT tax cuts. Fuck the concept of giving rewards for living in HCOL states - why should any state have an advantage from a tax perspective?

You want to live in HCOL, you pay for the HCOL.

damn, sounds like socialism my friend. Why can't states have their own laws, again?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

damn, sounds like socialism my friend. Why can't states have their own laws, again?

Uhhh, what? I think you're confused.

I'm stating that at a federal level there should be no incentives to live in high cost of living states. At no point should it be more advantageous to live in a high cost of living state because you can deduct their income taxes or high property taxes. You're basically propping up the successful states and giving the other (competitive) states the shaft. No state should have advantages at the federal taxation level. If you want lower federal taxes - move to a place with lower cost of living and take a paycut. Want to live in crowded areas with rich hollywood folks and expensive homes? Pay the fuck up.

By all means - high cost of living states can impose all the taxes they want.

 

[sactoking]

So then there should be no incentive at the federal level for living in life COL states? They can just send all those federal dollars they receive back to the states that pay them?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So then there should be no incentive at the federal level for living in life COL states? They can just send all those federal dollars they receive back to the states that pay them?

No idea what you just said - can you rephrase?

 

[fskimospy]

No idea what you just said - can you rephrase?

What he’s saying is that currently the federal tax code is incentivizing living in low COL states. Since you think all states should be equal I assume that means you think this is a problem?

 

[sactoking]

Autocorrect changed "high" to "life."

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

What he’s saying is that currently the federal tax code is incentivizing living in low COL states. Since you think all states should be equal I assume that means you think this is a problem?

I wouldn't call it an advantage - it's simply the fact that it is cheaper to live in that area, likely because it's less appealing... Either it has shittier weather, less jobs, flyover state, tornado alley, rural, etc... There is less of an incentive to live there - hence why it's cheaper to live there. That doesn't sound like an advantage to me. Regardless, how a state chooses to tax their citizens (or not tax their citizens) should have no bearing on your tax liabilities at the federal level.

Either way that is PRECISELY what equal competition is. I could live WAY cheaper than I already do if I just lived in a more rural area where you can buy homes for far less than 6-figures. You can call it an advantage as far as how it compares to our progressive tax system - but that is LEGITIMATELY what that land is worth. Your chances of finding a high paying job around said rural house is very slim. Don't like it? Buy in more of an expensive area with more job potential.

But I mean if you want to say that it is an advantage (which I wouldn't call it an advantage), the only proposition I can think of to counter that would be a flat tax heh.

 

[fskimospy]

I wouldn't call it an advantage - it's simply the fact that it is cheaper to live in that area, likely because it's less appealing... Either it has shittier weather, less jobs, flyover state, tornado alley, rural, etc... There is less of an incentive to live there - hence why it's cheaper to live there. That doesn't sound like an advantage to me. Regardless, how a state chooses to tax their citizens (or not tax their citizens) should have no bearing on your tax liabilities at the federal level.

It's definitely an advantage. I did a quick cost of living check and to have an equivalent life to someone making $50k in New Orleans you need to make $90k in Brooklyn. Those two people are in the same place financially yet person #2's federal tax bill will be much larger, meaning it's better from a federal tax perspective to make $50k in New Orleans. That's the federal government incentivizing living in low cost areas. It doesn't matter if those areas are appealing or not from other perspectives, as we're just talking about federal taxes. Aside from federal taxes though I have no idea why we would want to promote people moving to our least productive areas.

So forget state and local taxes, let's just focus on your position that the federal government should not give any preference to high cost areas. By that logic it should also not give preference to low cost areas as it currently does. That means we either need to adjust federal taxes for cost of living or we need to lower taxes on high cost areas in another way (or raise them on low cost areas) if we're going to uphold your principle of non-preference.

But I mean if you want to say that it is an advantage (which I wouldn't call it an advantage), the only proposition I can think of to counter that would be a flat tax heh.

You could also apply COL adjustments like the federal government does for a lot of other programs.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

It's definitely an advantage. I did a quick cost of living check and to have an equivalent life to someone making $50k in New Orleans you need to make $90k in Brooklyn. Those two people are in the same place financially yet person #2's federal tax bill will be much larger, meaning it's better from a federal tax perspective to make $50k in New Orleans. That's the federal government incentivizing living in low cost areas. It doesn't matter if those areas are appealing or not from other perspectives, as we're just talking about federal taxes. Aside from federal taxes though I have no idea why we would want to promote people moving to our least productive areas.

So forget state and local taxes, let's just focus on your position that the federal government should not give any preference to high cost areas. By that logic it should also not give preference to low cost areas as it currently does. That means we either need to adjust federal taxes for cost of living or we need to lower taxes on high cost areas in another way (or raise them on low cost areas) if we're going to uphold your principle of non-preference.



You could also apply COL adjustments like the federal government does for a lot of other programs.

Again, it's simply the fact that those places are more expensive to live in. Comparing to Brooklyn? It's a packed ass city - this leads to less supply of land and areas for homes/apartments. That drives up prices from the massive amount of people. In comparison - Louisiana has shitloads of land and can spread out far and wide. It's also hot as balls with shit weather in general, subject to hurricanes, and likely has far less high paying jobs.

It's high cost of living - but it's high cost of living because of the basics of capitalism. It's a more desired location. I don't understand how that means you should get a tax advantage - you're free as anyone else to move to those low cost of living areas that you claim are advantageous.

Also - further argument: Since it is indeed HCOL there - that means (as you said) the federal government must pay their workers in those HCOL areas substantially more than federal employees in other areas. Hence, people in that area should pay those higher taxes - which in turn pays for those higher COL federal employees that are derived from said higher taxes.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, it's simply the fact that those places are more expensive to live in. Comparing to Brooklyn? It's a packed ass city - this leads to less supply of land and areas for homes/apartments. That drives up prices from the massive amount of people. In comparison - Louisiana has shitloads of land and can spread out far and wide. It's also hot as balls with shit weather in general, subject to hurricanes, and likely has far less high paying jobs.

Yes but why does that matter for the federal tax code? Remember your point is that the tax code should be location agnostic. The way it functions now someone living in Brooklyn pays higher federal taxes than someone living in Louisiana who has an equivalent lifestyle.

Again, it's high cost of living - but it's high cost of living because of the basics of capitalism. It's a more desired location. I don't understand how that means you should get a tax advantage - you're free as anyone else to move to those low cost of living areas that you claim are advantageous.

I agree with you that we shouldn't subsidize high cost of living areas! I also think we shouldn't subsidize low cost of living areas as we currently do. Since you said the federal tax code shouldn't prefer one over the other I assume that means you agree?

If you don't agree can you explain why you think it's wrong for the feds to subsidize high cost areas but right for them to subsidize low cost areas?

Also - further argument: Since it is indeed HCOL there - that means (as you said) the federal government must pay their workers in those HCOL areas substantially more than federal employees in other areas. Hence, people in that area should pay those higher taxes - which in turn pays for those higher COL federal employees that are derived from said higher taxes.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. If we are now saying that areas should pay for their own federal outlays several problems stem from that:

1) it's kind of getting rid of the purpose of having a fiscal union.
2) high cost of living areas currently pay considerably more in federal taxes than they give back so they are already doing as you suggest and more.
3) if you think areas should pay for their federal outlays well... low COL areas tend to take a lot more in federal dollars than they pay back and that difference basically comes from high COL areas. So once again we are going to need to either increase taxes on low COL areas or lower them on high COL ones if we're going to have that principle.