Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue State Taxpayers

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 275 posts

Re: Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue State Taxpayers

#101

Post by AznHisoka »

vkou wrote: post #8
mmanfrin wrote: post #5

I'm a highish earning single homeowner in Alameda County (Bay Area) -- between the Mortgage Interest deduction, the Property Tax deduction, and the State Income Tax deduction being slated for removal, my taxable income is about to go up something like $60k, which is a large chunk of my actual income. This tax bill utterly fucks me, to the point I'm considering selling my house to get ahead of the inevitable housing c…

> I cannot see this bill as anything short of theft. Why do I have to pay double-digit percentage more on my taxes to give the ultra rich a tax cut? In what fucking world does that make any economic sense. My rent isn't tax deductible. Why is yours blessed with such a status (In the form of a mortgage, and property tax deduction)? All that mortgage tax deductions do, economically, is increase the overall price of hom…

Ok, lets play this game. From now on its renters that have to pay 50% of the property tax. No? But you get to deduct it! an extra deduction for you! whats not to like?!

Re: Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue State Taxpayers

#102

Post by hcknwscommenter »

SmellTheGlove wrote: post #43
mmanfrin wrote: post #5

I'm a highish earning single homeowner in Alameda County (Bay Area) -- between the Mortgage Interest deduction, the Property Tax deduction, and the State Income Tax deduction being slated for removal, my taxable income is about to go up something like $60k, which is a large chunk of my actual income. This tax bill utterly fucks me, to the point I'm considering selling my house to get ahead of the inevitable housing c…

I'm approaching from the opposite situation - I have a paid off house in my lower cost of living state and am relocating to the Bay Area for a job next month. I will not be selling my current home, nor buying in the Bay Area, until the fallout of this tax bill is known. At the very least, housing prices may come down where I'm going, but likely not where I'm moving from (since the mortgage interest deduction on most…

"That said, it's always been a little odd to me that we could deduct our mortgage interest and property taxes, but a renter cannot even though they're paying a good portion of that on our behalf."

I'm not going to suggest that it is as simple as the following, but the underlying rationale is that the renter benefits from lower rent than it would otherwise be because the landlord has lower expenses.

Re: Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue State Taxpayers

#103

Post by dv_dt »

BeetleB wrote: post #46
mmanfrin wrote: post #5

I'm a highish earning single homeowner in Alameda County (Bay Area) -- between the Mortgage Interest deduction, the Property Tax deduction, and the State Income Tax deduction being slated for removal, my taxable income is about to go up something like $60k, which is a large chunk of my actual income. This tax bill utterly fucks me, to the point I'm considering selling my house to get ahead of the inevitable housing c…

Disclaimer: This bill adversely affects me as well, and I'm not in favor of it, but: >This tax bill utterly fucks me, to the point I'm considering selling my house to get ahead of the inevitable housing crash. Can you imagine any type of reasonable tax reform that would not cause someone's tax to go up? Just the fact that some folks' taxes will go up does not make it a poor plan. If your deductions are about $60K, th…

This is not a reasonable tax reform - its a net negative 1.5 trillion dollars to the federal budget, but really it's giving even more than that to corporations and the rich while increasing taxes on people who primarily make their income from labor (vs capital rents).

Re: Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue State Taxpayers

#104

Post by munk-a »

eridius wrote: post #65
refurb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have been clamoring for more taxes on the rich. Well, this is what it looks like. Oh wait! You didn't think you were rich, right?

No, this is a hit on the upper middle class. The actual rich aren't feeling the pain.

Honestly the upper middle class should do pretty well, if you're not currently earning income through a pass-through s-corp I'd suggest looking into setting one up.

We dev folks will be fine, it's the classic american middle-management folk who will be put through the ringer with this bill.

Re: Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue State Taxpayers

#106

Post by mullen »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #24
mmanfrin wrote: post #5

I'm a highish earning single homeowner in Alameda County (Bay Area) -- between the Mortgage Interest deduction, the Property Tax deduction, and the State Income Tax deduction being slated for removal, my taxable income is about to go up something like $60k, which is a large chunk of my actual income. This tax bill utterly fucks me, to the point I'm considering selling my house to get ahead of the inevitable housing c…

When the federal government gives high tax states tax cuts, that means those areas give less to the federal government, meaning those generally rich states end up getting federally subsidized by the poorer states. How does _that_ make sense? Shouldn't the richer areas help pay for the poor? Why not do something about the high taxes in your state instead?

We do subsidize poor states. You speak as though Red states contribute anything to the federal government. With the exception of Texas, Georgia and some oil rich states, all of the Red states are takers and just about all of the Blue states are givers.

Re: Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue State Taxpayers

#107

Post by AFNobody »

nostromo wrote: post #12

I don't see why state taxes should be federally deductible to begin with. Two families both make $250,000 a year. One is in New York and one is in Texas. The family in Texas is carrying more of the federal tax burden than the family in New York. Why? Both are (in theory) receiving the same benefits from the Federal Government and should pay the same in taxes. If you're a progressive this should make even less sense:…

> Two families both make $250,000 a year. One is in New York and one is in Texas. The family in Texas is carrying more of the federal tax burden than the family in New York. Why? Both are (in theory) receiving the same benefits from the Federal Government and should pay the same in taxes.

This assertion isn't true. Federal policies already heavily favor funding Red, rural states over more urban states. It "sounds" true when you think about a person/household but when you factor in the other state services being funded (i.e. roads) it falls apart.

https://taxfoundation.org/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spen...

5 of 24 years (1981-2005) CA has received less. And if you look up the scattering (but less concentrated) stats from 2005-2017, CA has been getting less than 80% of its money back from the Federal government. So its really 31 of the past 36 years that CA has been drained to help red states.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid/

> If you're a progressive this should make even less sense: rich states are currently keeping additional funds for themselves local, in their rich states, via high taxes, that are then shielded from the federal government via deductions.

That is a strawman.

Progressive taxation has nothing to do with aggregate wealth and everything to do with individual wealth.

Re: Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue State Taxpayers

#108

Post by vostok »

closeparen wrote: post #88
vostok wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two questions: ---- 1. What about the property tax deduction? Why are property taxes deductible, but income taxes are not? ---- 2. How do you feel about the mortgage interest deduction? A very similar question could be asked. Two families both make $250,000 a year. One took out a $750k mortgage and one took out a $300k mortgage. Why should the second family carry more of federal tax burden than the first? I don't hav…

Because they are vastly wealthier to afford a house that costs ~3x the median?

How do you know that the second family is vastly wealthier?

Either way, if you want to tax wealthy people then you can introduce a wealth tax.

Re: Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue State Taxpayers

#109

Post by mmanfrin »

Aloha wrote: post #95
EgoIncarnate wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you paid state income tax, you should have been able to deduct that at the very least (probably around 6k, or about the same as the standard deduction).

which makes it not worth the paperwork effort to do so.

Are you kidding me? $6k deductions is about $2k in rebates. A $150 accountant fee would take care of any paperwork. Taxes aren't that fucking hard.

Re: Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue State Taxpayers

#110

Post by hcknwscommenter »

lebanon_tn wrote: post #94
mmanfrin wrote: post #5

I'm a highish earning single homeowner in Alameda County (Bay Area) -- between the Mortgage Interest deduction, the Property Tax deduction, and the State Income Tax deduction being slated for removal, my taxable income is about to go up something like $60k, which is a large chunk of my actual income. This tax bill utterly fucks me, to the point I'm considering selling my house to get ahead of the inevitable housing c…

Lifelong Californian here. Recently moved to Florida. You should consider complaining to your local and state government about your high taxes. Why should workers in other states subsidize local taxes for higher cost of living areas through federal deductions? Force your politicians to justify what you are paying.

"Why should workers in other states subsidize local taxes for higher cost of living areas through federal deducations"

Because those workers do not in fact subsidize my local taxes. As a Californian, I subsidize those low tax states as CA residents pay more in federal taxes than the state gets in federal benefits.

Post reply on HN