Thoughts on losing deductions for local taxes in GOP tax plan.

Hey guys. I don't play in these waters often, but I did wonder what you guys think of the loss of deductions. I'm from Florida where we do not have a state income tax, but fund our state government with a high sales tax, as well as fees on every little thing. County government {schools, roads, Law Enforcement, Sr Cit Orgs, etc, etc} is funded by a mix of property tax and add on sales taxes. Where I am in Florida, taxes are relatively low. But we have a low level of funding for all of the above.

High taxes, both income and property, pay for the denser based infrastructure of the coasts. More folks mean more roads, schools, hospitals, etc, etc. That is what is needed, and what they decided to do with their money.

Most of the GOP tax cuts will go to the very richest, and I'm not a big fan of that. But I really would not mind seeing all the deductions for local taxes removed. Not sure what the numbers are {I did no research before posting this thread}, but I'm guessing it adds up to serious money. Going from the poorer sections of the county to the wealthier coasts.

I'm guess most will have a geographical based opinion. Folks out in the sticks, like me, don't see why we have to give folks in Northeastern and West Coast cities and suburbs a break on taxes their own people decided to impose.

What say you?

If it's such a good idea, do it for corporations. They are somehow exempt from losing the deduction.

It's not just state and local taxes. They are removing your ability to deduct everything from adoption expenses to healthcare costs to loans.

Believe this. If your income comes from wages, and you own a home, your taxes will go up. This tax plan isn't a tax cut for the average or even above average person. It falls heaviest on low to moderate income families. The only real benefits will go to corporations and people who make money from sources other than wages.

Nothing is going to trickle down. It never has. Companies will have more incentive than ever to move operations off shore and to pay less in wages domestically. The rich will get richer, but you will never see it.

This is a bunch of flim-flammery. This tax bill is ONLY a handout for the super wealthy. It is an attempt to reinstate trickle-down economics. It didn't work then, it won't work now. Paul Ryan is an assclown.

This bill, if passes, will send a few million somewhat intelligent, middle-class, Republicans over to another party. The remaining adult-diapers will stick with their team because that's all they know how to do. Like they stick with the favorite football team.

too larry said:

Most of the GOP tax cuts will go to the very richest, and I'm not a big fan of that. But I really would not mind seeing all the deductions for local taxes removed. Not sure what the numbers are {I did no research before posting this thread}, but I'm guessing it adds up to serious money. Going from the poorer sections of the county to the wealthier coasts.

I'm guess most will have a geographical based opinion. Folks out in the sticks, like me, don't see why we have to give folks in Northeastern and West Coast cities and suburbs a break on taxes their own people decided to impose.

What say you?

Click to expand...

Well, unfortunately, you've been lied to, but as you said, "I did no research," so I guess I'm not surprised. Let's address your claim about you giving folks in the Northeastern and West Coast cities a tax break.



Here's a map of state and local deduction amount by congressional district. I know republicans love to shit on New York and California, but these deductions are used in quite a few more states than your post implies.



Actually the SALT deduction are used by over 30% of tax filers, including people from every state, like myself, and all income brackets. That's over 100,000,000 people and half of them make under $200,000 per year.

The truth about your claim, of you giving folks in California and New York a tax break, are complete and utter horse shit. While it is true California and New York, odd that you picked those without doing any research, do claim around 30% of the deduction, folks like you in Florida, have fuck all to do with it. Larger states, like New York and California, are getting bigger subsidies through the state and local tax deduction because they’re paying substantially more in federal taxes.

They've already got a loop hole for wealthy business owners like the president. He's going to still get the SALT deduction, you'd like to take from regular people. If anything, losing this deduction, will make it harder for states to raise revenue. Which certainly will result in a reduction of services and new ways to generate that missing revenue. Where do you suppose they'll turn to raise that extra money? I'm guessing folks like you and me.

http://www.gfoa.org/sites/default/files/RCC Report on SALT Deduction-092017_Final.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/us/politics/fact-check-state-local-taxes-republican.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-02/oregon-new-york-top-list-of-states-hit-by-ending-tax-deductions
http://buffalonews.com/2017/11/06/cuomo-schumer-detail-impact-on-ny-of-cutting-salt-deduction/
http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/07/news/economy/state-and-local-tax-deduction-loophole/index.html

travisw said:

Well, unfortunately, you've been lied to, but as you said, "I did no research," so I guess I'm not surprised. Let's address your claim about you giving folks in the Northeastern and West Coast cities a tax break.

Here's a map of state and local deduction amount by congressional district. I know republicans love to shit on New York and California, but these deductions are used in quite a few more states than your post implies.

Actually the SALT deduction are used by over 30% of tax filers, including people from every state, like myself, and all income brackets. That's over 100,000,000 people and half of them make under $200,000 per year.

The truth about your claim, of you giving folks in California and New York a tax break, are complete and utter horse shit. While it is true California and New York, odd that you picked those without doing any research, do claim around 30% of the deduction, folks like you in Florida, have fuck all to do with it. Larger states, like New York and California, are getting bigger subsidies through the state and local tax deduction because they’re paying substantially more in federal taxes.

They've already got a loop hole for wealthy business owners like the president. He's going to still get the SALT deduction, you'd like to take from regular people. If anything, losing this deduction, will make it harder for states to raise revenue. Which certainly will result in a reduction of services and new ways to generate that missing revenue. Where do you suppose they'll turn to raise that extra money? I'm guessing folks like you and me.

http://www.gfoa.org/sites/default/files/RCC Report on SALT Deduction-092017_Final.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/us/politics/fact-check-state-local-taxes-republican.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-02/oregon-new-york-top-list-of-states-hit-by-ending-tax-deductions
http://buffalonews.com/2017/11/06/cuomo-schumer-detail-impact-on-ny-of-cutting-salt-deduction/
http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/07/news/economy/state-and-local-tax-deduction-loophole/index.html

Click to expand...

Thank you for replying to the question asked. I should have said the coasts and other heavily populated areas. Higher wages will lead to a higher tax burden. While in Florida, my area has more in common with Alabama than anything south of the Swanee River. We have low cost of living and low wages. So tax revenues are low as well. That means less fire and police protection. Less books in the libraries, etc, etc.

We fund our government to a level we are comfortable with. My point is if other folks want to fund theirs more, they should, but not ask for a tax break for doing it. We pay a high sales tax, but there is no way to get any of that back.

Fighting over funding and what it's spent on is a long American tradition. When I was researching the 1715-1720 period in the seaboard colonies, there was a yearly fight between the Governors and the Assemblies. Every colony was pretty much the same. The folks want to pay less tax and have more services, and the Governors want more taxes and less services. I doubt this subject is going to get resolved anytime soon.

I'm all for elimination of as many taxes as possible, for people, businesses and corporations. This tax plan however is no "Tax Cut" for me and my family. Its merely a tax shuffle where they double the standard deduction and eliminate all of the other deductions.... I will probably pay the same if not more now in the new scheme and our household income is only 100k pre taxes.

p0opstlnksal0t said:

I'm all for elimination of as many taxes as possible, for people, businesses and corporations. This tax plan however is no "Tax Cut" for me and my family. Its merely a tax shuffle where they double the standard deduction and eliminate all of the other deductions.... I will probably pay the same if not more now in the new scheme and our household income is only 100k pre taxes.

Click to expand...

I am about the same income wise. The wife just retired, so her income is about half of what it was. So our taxes will be less than we are used to paying. Our rates may actually go down because of that, no matter what happens on the hill.

p0opstlnksal0t said:

I'm all for elimination of as many taxes as possible, for people, businesses and corporations. This tax plan however is no "Tax Cut" for me and my family. Its merely a tax shuffle where they double the standard deduction and eliminate all of the other deductions.... I will probably pay the same if not more now in the new scheme and our household income is only 100k pre taxes.

Click to expand...

Cutting taxes causes larger deficits. We're already twenty trillion in debt. I don't see the false promise of economic growth and wages making up the difference.

Justin-case said:

Cutting taxes causes larger deficits. We're already twenty trillion in debt. I don't see the false promise of economic growth and wages making up the difference.

Click to expand...

The deficit goes down when we stop spending so much money.

p0opstlnksal0t said:

The deficit goes down when we stop spending so much money.

Click to expand...

You ever heard the saying, it takes money to make money? It's true.

p0opstlnksal0t said:

The deficit goes down when we stop spending so much money.

Click to expand...

welcome new member!

Jack Kennedy lowered taxes in the early '60's.

The top rate was 91% @ $440,000 I believe.

He lowered to 67%.

Now it's 39.6% Bush had it down to 35%

And since I doubt anybody here makes $400,000 (actually $413,000 right now), I don't see how anyone can defend the super wealthy getting a massive tax cut from that 39.6% bracket.

Your doctor makes big money and charges you or your insurance $250. for a 5 minute office visit. They can afford to pay a little more and still have that 28' express cruiser, Mercedes and summer home.

The average middle class tax payer will get peanuts. Some will actually pay more. I keep hearing republican congressman pushing the hell out of $1200 a year. Divide that by your number of pay checks you get in a year and what does that amount to?

A slap in the face.

And potholes on the interstates, bridges falling apart and a massive debt they constantly complain about. (Except for Dick Cheney who once said, 'debt is overrated' when he needed more military money.)

I don't need $50 extra a pay while somebody like Trump saves $31,000,000. (estimated from his leaked 2005 tax return)

I'll pay the $50, he can pay the $31,000,000.

And the estate tax (that kicks in at 5,000,000) shouldn't be eliminated.
If you inherit $10,000,000 be happy. Don't complain they taxed half of it 40%. You'll sound like a whiny bitch.

I wonder what Manafort paid in taxes with an off shore worth of $136,000,000?

Seize it and lock him up. Let's get tough on crime. Isn't that their favorite saying?