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

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

#251

Post by kamaal » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 4:12 AM UTC

viridian wrote: post #236

52804375092485 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>>Based in the GP, he's likely in the 3rd percentile for income in the US, and the .1 percentile for the world.

Most people don't understand this. When they are talking about 'the rich' or 'the 1%', they are really talking about your every day doctors, managers in most software companies, lawyers etc.

Its very hard to notice how poor and how many poor there are in the remainder of the world.

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

#252

Post by kamaal » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 4:15 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #66

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?

> People have been clamoring for more taxes on the rich. But this “tax reform”, in net, does exactly the opposite.

If you mean by rich, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet level rich, then there are only a few dozen people whom you can tax that way.

Also tax is on income, not wealth. Unless Bill Gates sells his stocks, its pretty much untouchable.

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

#253

Post by kamaal » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 4:37 AM UTC

freditup wrote: post #42

First, this article would've been much better off using medians instead of means. High earner outliers tend to skew stats like these. Second, it's interesting to see people who were in favor of tax increases suddenly change their mind when it hits them. While I agree that tax cuts for the rich seem unnecessary, some tax hikes for the upper middle-class aren't out of line compared with a Democrat led tax plan. I wonde…

>>Second, it's interesting to see people who were in favor of tax increases suddenly change their mind when it hits them.

Deep down humans just optimize for personal profit.

Which is why one must always see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires and not exploited proletariat.

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

#254

Post by Redoubts » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 5:00 AM UTC

lebanon_tn wrote: post #129

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

#1 in gross collections, but per capita is a different story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

I don't see revenue vs outlays in that link.

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

#255

Post by sundaeofshock » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 7:32 AM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #55

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:…

Yes, liberals love high taxes when it hits someone but themselves. No one likes paying taxes.

I don’t mind paying higher taxes if society as a whole benefits. The good people of California vote for taxe increases all the time for things like better schools or improved infrastructure.

If my taxes were going up to pay for something like single payer, I wouldn’t complain for one minute. However, in this instance, my taxes are going up to increase Ivanka Trump’s inheritance when that stuttering idiot father of hers dies. That’s some bullshit.

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

#256

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 7:52 AM UTC

meritt wrote: post #93

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…

Tax payments which directly fund public schools (SALT) are no longer deductible but they added the ability for private school tuition to be deductible. This is going to have dire consequences for America's public school system.

[deleted]

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

#257

Post by SmellTheGlove » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 2:53 PM UTC

AznHisoka wrote: post #250

SmellTheGlove wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Ok that may be true but why should they be allowed to deduct it? They are not a business owner (unlike the landlord). Its like allowing people to deduct 10% of everything they buy from Amazon because they are paying a part of Amazon’s warehousing costs.

I'm not advocating for renters to be able to deduct a piece of the underlying property tax. I don't think it makes sense to have property tax as a federal deduction at all.

In general, I'm not sure how great it is that we favor home ownership over renting in our tax policy. My bigger issue is being able to deduct mortgage interest but not rent. Mortgage interest is essentially rent on money, so I've always thought it'd be fair to make rent (or a percentage of it at least) deductible as well. Or, even better, eliminate the mortgage interest deduction entirely.

Full disclosure, I'm a homeowner. Fuller disclosure, my home is paid off, so it's easy for me to say these deductions shouldn't exist. I would gladly give up the property tax deduction if that additional revenue was used for something other than cutting taxes for the wealthy, though.

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

#258

Post by lebanon_tn » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 3:12 PM UTC

klipt wrote: post #232

lebanon_tn wrote: post #94

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.

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

I agree that a church should not be broadly exempt from taxation as the current system allows. Perhaps it could be narrowed to only exempt the value of actual goods and services provided to the community (like operating a homeless shelter or soup kitchen)

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

#259

Post by alexanderstears » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 3:50 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #157

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at the new tax law as a whole, you are right, but the focus of this article is on changes to the state and local tax deduction, which currently favors rich states with high taxes.

People in expensive states are not somehow better off, dollar amounts are just higher in both the labor and real estate markets. It’s better understood as localized inflation than localized wealth.

Compensating and equivalent variation.

A Taco Bell beefy frito burrito costs the same in Mobile, AL and San Fran, CA.

A 2 bedroom apartments costs more in San Fran, CA than Mobile, AL.

But more people try to get into the bay area than cheap cities in the South and Midwest so perhaps people in the desirable areas really are better off?

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

#260

Post by ctdonath » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 4:00 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #205

ctdonath wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes are fundamentally different from other expenses. I'm not opting to purchase a service (or not, just saving the money) when paying taxes, I'm facing the implication of a gun to my head (the ultimate enforcement of government power). No other expense comes directly from simply how much I earn, and is not compulsory based thereon. If there's going to be deductions at all, the first should be taxes paid to other le…

I do not see how compulsory nature of the expense matters in this particular case. You need to eat to live - should food expenses be deducted? What if you're sick and need to pay for medicine - should that be deducted? You need to be clothed to go on the street - should clothing expenses be deducted? You can find argument for many of those, but ultimately the decision is arbitrary based on preferred policy by state.…

Income earned for mundane food/clothing/shelter/healthcare costs SHOULD be deductible. That's basically what the poverty line is: the minimum income necessary for basic sustenance in national standard culture. If you're functioning at that level, you shouldn't pay taxes - precisely because you can barely care for yourself & your own, so you shouldn't be compelled to pay for others (with a bureaucracy siphoning off a significant percentage for themselves). Insofar as sales taxes are a thing, all documentable taxes paid should be refunded if your income is below the poverty line[1], and even those above that line should be able to deduct "mundane sustenance" costs including taxes paid.

[1] - exactly how the transition from "below poverty line" to "above" should be handled, to mitigate the tax cost transition, will require a bit more thought than this casual comment. Suffice to say we pay representatives to sanely figure out such things.