21–30 of 45 posts
Then at least even if they make stupid cross comparisons in titles, people would know they can quickly look inside for a breakdown of the reality which can't be confused by wording.
Is there any reason there shouldn't be a cap on state and local tax deductions (SALT) from the federal tax, apart from it affect people more in blue (high cost) states? Why should the federal government subsidize high state and local taxes? It obviously most benefits the wealthy who are well above the current SALT cap. The standard deduction is already pretty high, ~25k for married couple. And if you're paying that m…
Regions with higher taxes also tend to have higher populations and more dense populations and provide more social services. And regions with more dense populations also tend to vote for one party over the other. It was pretty clear to most that this was aimed solely at punishing one party over the other, which to me is enough to support its repeal.
But beyond all that, do we support double taxation or not? I think most people would say it's unfair to tax someone on income they derived no value from (beyond the social services aspect).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think about that for a moment, why might that be a bad idea?
I don’t want to get into politics on HN, but I’ll say it’s a bad idea because many people don’t want to pay another penny in taxes. And this isn’t about my personal politics. If you want a tax because society will benefit, great - many of us are for it. But that’s not the debate. If the government was efficient or effective at spending, then it’s just a question of, “well, do we agree spending on X benefits our commu…
...it's amazing how much of this is caused by local and state governments being unable to afford:
1. Qualified talent
2. Equipment
3. Effective professional services
"The beatings will continue until morale improves" or, perhaps more aptly, "funding will trickle until programs improve."
a.k.a putting the cart before the horse.
I get that this isn't uniform across the board, but anecdotally, it's been true everywhere I've been. What's more appropriate, at least to me, is to include temporary funding that renews on meeting certain OKRs.
I'm surprised Democrats haven't made taking a loan against an asset a taxible capital-gains event.
There's a more general proposal to tax unrealized capital gains, for the wealthy. It came up in funding negotiations for this bill but wasn't ever in a draft IIRC.
I have no problem with them eliminating the stepped-up basis on inheritance of investments. IMO, the only reason they do this is because if you inherit stocks from your great grandmother, who knows what she paid for them? But with today's computer systems, tracking the basis through generations should not be a huge deal.
What is the SALT deduction?
The SALT cap put a limit on how much you can deduct. So folks paying more State Tax than the limit that previously benefited from deducting that amount could only deduct up to the limit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think about that for a moment, why might that be a bad idea?
> Think about that for a moment, why might that be a bad idea? This isn't obvious to me. Can you help me understand?
Is there any reason there shouldn't be a cap on state and local tax deductions (SALT) from the federal tax, apart from it affect people more in blue (high cost) states? Why should the federal government subsidize high state and local taxes? It obviously most benefits the wealthy who are well above the current SALT cap. The standard deduction is already pretty high, ~25k for married couple. And if you're paying that m…
The deductibility of state and local taxes has been around since income tax was created in 1913, and almost all state and local taxes have passed under that old framework. That's not to say it has to be done that way forever.
> An analysis from the Tax Policy Center on the latest version of the bill shows that, while nearly all Americans making under $1 million will get a tax cut, those on the upper end of that spectrum — the merely rich making between $500,000 and $1 million — will see a much bigger dollar-value tax cut than the bulk of the working and middle class So everyone under 1 million gets a tax cut, but the 500k-1m range sees a…
Edit: yeesh, phone keyboard really made a mess of that originally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think about that for a moment, why might that be a bad idea?
> Think about that for a moment, why might that be a bad idea? This isn't obvious to me. Can you help me understand?
Which punishes poor people for being poor.