121–130 of 275 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they are vastly wealthier to afford a house that costs ~3x the median?
You got it mixed around. Income is equal for both parties, but the family in the 300k house pays more in taxes because they deducted less interest from their income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet this particular reform _does_ tax the rich more. It's mostly those making >$200k that will be hit, and it removes what were basically subsidies for the richest states in the country.
... And then it removes the alternative minimum tax, starts to phase out the estate tax and lowers pass through income tax rates. This tax cut might hit some really stupid rich people hard, but anyone wise enough to hire an accountant is going to get a lot more take home.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?!
Renters already are paying a piece of the property tax. It's built into the rent. They just can't deduct it.
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…
According to: https://www.investopedia.com/news/how-much-income-puts-you-t... "The top 5% of households earn an annual income of $214,462 or higher"
Most folks in the US, or the world would consider you rich and deserving of paying more taxes.
For comparison, "the U.S. Census Bureau reported in September 2017 that real median household income was $59,039 in 2016".
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:…
You can make the same argument about every single deduction. Texas family makes large donations to Christian churches. Why does a secular family in blue state subsidize that deduction ? Texas has higher property taxes ? Why does a California family with low property taxes subsidize that ? Texas did not expand Medicaid. Which means an average citizen can have higher medical spending ? Why does another state with expan…
And there's a good reason to eliminate most deductions. A lot of deductions complicate the tax code, and many likely exist to create loopholes by which people can avoid taxes.
The purpose of a deduction usually is to promote a certain type of activity (buying homes, giving in charity).
>Out of all these, there is a reason only SALT was chosen to be eliminated. It is not some equalizer of burden. It is a political deduction.
While it may be politically motivated, I should point out that interest on mortgages and property taxes were both considered at some point, but ultimately ruled out as being politically untenable. So it's a bit of both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's all fine, but IN CONTEXT, OP is still getting robbed. They're paying higher taxes while the super-rich pay lower taxes. They could have passed a bill that eliminated those deductions and gave corresponding tax breaks to the middle class. They could have passed a bill that skipped the tax breaks for the super-rich and actually cut the deficit. I'm OK with paying my fair share if we were actually solving problem…
There are tax breaks to the middle + lower classes. Lower bracket rates are lowered, the standard deduction (which is used by people on the lower end of the income spectrum much more) is dramatically increased, and the child tax credit is increased.
The net impact is a tax increase on the very poorest in the short term; and on pretty much the whole segment up to a bit above median income over the 10 year period. Yes, there are individual provisions that, taken in isolation, benefit the working class, but in net it's a loss not a gain.
This seems win-win to me. Techies and bankers pay more in taxes. People in fly-over states get a small tax cut, and maybe can buy a few extra weeks' groceries for their kids.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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:…
Taxes aren't based on how much you benefit from government. Progressive tax rates make sense because the wealthy can afford to pay a larger share of their paycheck to support shared society. Not because they necessarily derive more benefits than the middle class. If we taxed people based on the benefits they receive from the government, then the homeless would pay a fortune.
This is provably and patently false. Homeless people don't have their good protected by the police, don't get fire protection, don't drive, don't get deductions for businesses, don't get inheritance from their wealthy, millionaire parents, don't get lobbying influence. The entire system is set up to the benefit the rich with a few social stability benefits for the poor, which in turn keep them from uprising and storming the gates of the wealthy.