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

231–240 of 275 posts

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

#231

Post by klipt »

jartelt wrote: post #61
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…

Why should you get to make all those deductions in the first place? Just because you bought an expensive house doesn't mean you should pay that much less tax than a renter living in the same county as you.

The House version of the tax bill keeps property taxes deductible, because Texas has high property taxes and votes GOP.

Deduction used by GOP voters? Keep! Deduction used by Democrat voters? Remove!

This bill is a weaponization of the tax code against majority Democrat voting states.

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

#232

Post by klipt »

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.

You can say that about any deduction. Why should taxpayers who aren't Christian subsidize donations to churches?

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

#233

Post by klipt »

refurb wrote: post #14
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…

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?

I'm fine with paying tax if we get something good like universal healthcare out of it.

I don't want to pay more tax and cut medicare just to subsidize corporations and billionaires.

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

#234

Post by harryh »

munk-a wrote: post #167
harryh wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) If we're also talking about how the cost of health insurance might change then you could be correct about the very poorest. It's a bit hard to say. If we're only talking about taxes paid, then you are wrong there. 2) I think that the whole "over the 10 year period" is a bit of a red herring. The US tax system isn't getting set in concrete with the (potential) passage of this bill. Numerous things will almost certa…

Regarding 2: This tax law has specifically baked in expirations of some portions. When they come up for renewal the GOP will whine and moan about the unbalanced expenditures and they'll either lapse or be supplemented with additional cuts, the corporate side of these cuts is not subjected to this. It's fine to say "Oh, things may change down the road" but today they designed a tax cut that will benefit the rich, I do…

> When they come up for renewal the GOP will whine and moan

They didn't do this in 2013 when some of the Bush tax cuts expired. There is little reason to think that they will do so in this case.

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

#235

Post by JBlue42 »

harryh wrote: post #140
wehadfun wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main argument is that richer people buy more expensive houses and get bigger deduction then lower income people and basically lower income people are subsiding rich people mansions. BUT there is a cap which I would guess would work good enough to mitigate this.

Also people who buy are subsidized by those who rent. We don't need a cap, the deduction shouldn't exist at all. In fact, homeowners should pay taxes on imputed rent like they do in The Netherlands, Iceland & Switzerland.

>pay taxes on imputed rent

What does this mean? Rent that the home would go for?

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

#236

Post by viridian »

52804375092485 wrote: post #74
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?

But... this tax bill dramatically _lowers_ taxes on people who make a lot more money or have a lot more assets. So sure, this guy is rich relative to an unemployed coal miner. But you're being a little disingenuous by implying that this guy is remotely close to "the rich" who people commonly think of raising taxes on, and doubly so in implying that people who want higher taxes want them for everyone but themselves. I…

You are being disingenuous. He's not just rich compared to an unemployed coal miner, or an employed one for that matter. He is rich compared to the vast majority of the US, and and even more vast majority of the world. Based in the GP, he's likely in the 3rd percentile for income in the US, and the .1 percentile for the world. This is essentially a minor noble complaining that the major nobles have nicer things than he does, and that the king should redistribute it (but not too much, we can't have the peasants wasting any of our precious resources)

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

#237

Post by harryh »

JBlue42 wrote: post #235
harryh wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also people who buy are subsidized by those who rent. We don't need a cap, the deduction shouldn't exist at all. In fact, homeowners should pay taxes on imputed rent like they do in The Netherlands, Iceland & Switzerland.

>pay taxes on imputed rent What does this mean? Rent that the home would go for?

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent

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

#238

Post by JBlue42 »

harryh wrote: post #237
JBlue42 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>pay taxes on imputed rent What does this mean? Rent that the home would go for?

Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent

Thanks.

I wonder how that would work out in LA where we already have high rents, high houses prices, and lower wages.

I don't quite know how much one can deduct off their mortgage in taxes but I would assume the imputed rent would be a similar amount in such a market?

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

#239

Post by klipt »

BeetleB wrote: post #126
dmode wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>You can make the same argument about every single deduction. 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 elimina…

> 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.

The GOP house Ways and Means head is from Texas which is a red state, relies heavily on property taxes and has no income tax.

Coincidence? I think not.

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

#240

Post by [deleted] »

wanderer2323 wrote: post #48
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…

The government was subsidizing your lifestyle -- owning an expensive house in a state with a high income tax. It does not want to do this anymore. It makes as much economic sense as other subsidies do. Props for figuring out that taxation is theft though. Maybe next time don't vote for state government with highest state income tax in US?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN