TexasCHLforum.com

rotor wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

rotor wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Here is a compromise. Keep the full deductibility of State And Local Taxes (SALT) for anyone making less than $100,000 a year. Phase it out between $100,000 and $200,000 and the richest 8% (or so) of tax payers get no SALT deduction. Let Chuck and Nancy rail against that plan all they want. The republicans could simply respond that this would have no negative impact at all on the middle class.

Why compromise? If you make $100,000 in NY or in Texas pay the same Federal tax. If you make $20,00 in NY or in Texas pay the same tax. If you make $10,000,000 in NY or Texas pay the same federal tax. Why give NY something Texas doesn't have? Are they better than us?

Why compromise, because compromise may actually get this thing passed. If we pass nothing we are much worse off than we would be under my proposed compromise. That is why we might want a compromise on this.

There are many ways to compromise on a bill but if I said the only way for this bill to pass is for Soccerdad to pay more than his fair share is that what you want? We all get the same benefits from a federal government and we should all get penalized equally, correct? Any federal tax system that favors a NY taxpayer over a Texas taxpayer with the same income should be illegal. What we have now should be illegal. Obamacare does that now with giving states that accepted medicaid funding a leg up. Another reason to dump Obamacare but many republican governors have sold their souls (Ohio) on this. We are actually doing NY residents a favor by closing this loophole as perhaps they can vote in people that won't tax them so much. We had a revolution once for taxation without representation. The present tax system favors the rich as they pay the most tax in NY and therefore get the most federal deduction. Do the rich need more (or continued) loopholes? Is this going to be tax reform or will the rich still have favored loopholes? Your compromise continues this loophole for the rich. That's probably the way it should be argued that we are after a middle class tax bill, not one for the rich.

To Abraham, New Yorkers outside of NYC are good people. I happen to have been born in The Bronx and I don't know too many good NYC people. Look who their mayor is. They keep voting for progressive people. Weiner might have been better.

To answer your question, yes. If the only way to get this bill passed is for me to pay more than my "fair share" then yes, lets do it. We collect $12,000 per person, per year, in federal taxes. There are 5 members of my household. So my "fair share" is $60,000 a year. I pay more than that now, and I will continue to pay more than that under any plan that could conceivably be passed. That's not a perfect situation, but it is reality.

I am all for getting as good a result as we possibly can get. If it's better than the situation we have now, then it's a win in my book. It will never be perfect, and it will never be "fair". And that's OK. I can live with less than perfect.

rotor wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Here is a compromise. Keep the full deductibility of State And Local Taxes (SALT) for anyone making less than $100,000 a year. Phase it out between $100,000 and $200,000 and the richest 8% (or so) of tax payers get no SALT deduction. Let Chuck and Nancy rail against that plan all they want. The republicans could simply respond that this would have no negative impact at all on the middle class.

Why compromise? If you make $100,000 in NY or in Texas pay the same Federal tax. If you make $20,00 in NY or in Texas pay the same tax. If you make $10,000,000 in NY or Texas pay the same federal tax. Why give NY something Texas doesn't have? Are they better than us?

Why compromise, because compromise may actually get this thing passed. If we pass nothing we are much worse off than we would be under my proposed compromise. That is why we might want a compromise on this.

cyphur wrote:

ninjabread wrote:

cyphur wrote:

KLB wrote:Keeping deductibility in place means those of us in places with low state and local tax burdens pay more federal income tax, thereby subsidizing the taxpayers of places such as New York. No wonder Cuomo is so worked up.

So you're OK with letting some of our citizens getting taxed twice?

If the politicians in New York are opposed to double taxation of income, they can change their tax laws to allow residents to deduct Federal income tax and FICA on their state income tax returns. See, that was easy.

The Federal government should bend around the State, not the other way around. This is a very similar slope, slippery as it is, as we discuss other issues with the Feds, et al.

I am not advocating that NY's tax strategy/rules/laws are solid. I don't have to deal with them. What I do have issues with is not advocating a path that maintain's State's rights when it comes to managing their own citizens.

I think I understand your point, but I disagree with it.

States should have the right to levy taxes on their citizens as they see fit. And the federal government should also have the right to tax those same citizens as they see fit. I do not see how independent and separate taxing powers infringe on the rights of either states, or the federal government.

I think we may agree that in a perfect world, states (and municipalities) would provide for the vast majority of citizens needs. The federal government would only be called upon to do those things which states could not effectively do on their own, or through co-operation with neighboring states. This would be things like settling disputes between states on rights to shared natural resources, co-ordination of national defense (the forces for which would primarily be provided and funded by the states), etc. In short 95% of the money spent by Washington DC would no longer need to be spent. State spending would go up instead. This would be a very good thing for a number of reasons.

But as long as we are going to have the federal government do way more than they should, IMHO, they need a way to pay for those things. And I don't see why a resident of Texas should pay more to the federal government than a resident of California or New York, just because Texans have decided that they value fiscally responsible state government that does not need to tax us heavily so they can pay for all the needs of any illegal immigrants who happen to reside here, etc. Forcing Texans to pay a higher portion of federal government spending is not consistent with states' rights, IMHO. You could even argue that it might violate the equal protection clause.

Here is a compromise. Keep the full deductibility of State And Local Taxes (SALT) for anyone making less than $100,000 a year. Phase it out between $100,000 and $200,000 and the richest 8% (or so) of tax payers get no SALT deduction. Let Chuck and Nancy rail against that plan all they want. The republicans could simply respond that this would have no negative impact at all on the middle class.

The vast majority of folks living in these high tax states will be paying less taxes under the Trump plan because the doubling of the standard deduction more than offsets the loss of their state and local tax deduction.

Rich folks living in these liberal states will pay more. But rich liberals are constantly telling us all that they want to pay more in taxes, so this seems to be a win-win situation.

cyphur wrote:

KLB wrote:Keeping deductibility in place means those of us in places with low state and local tax burdens pay more federal income tax, thereby subsidizing the taxpayers of places such as New York. No wonder Cuomo is so worked up.

So you're OK with letting some of our citizens getting taxed twice?

We pay lower sales tax, lower property tax, and no income tax. We can still deduct the sales tax and property tax, so how exactly is it any different? They're paying income tax to their state instead of the Feds.

Double taxation on income is not cool. No matter what state you live in.

I think they are talking about getting rid of the deductibility for all state and local taxes, not just income taxes. A dollar I make is taxed at the federal level. Any state or local taxes on that same dollar, whether as income or sales / real estate taxes is double taxation. Unfortunately it is necessary for the state and local government entities to function.