$3.5 Trillion doesn’t just grow on trees!

Subscribe
12  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26 
Page 22 of 26
Go to
Quote: States don’t feel rebuked? Then why is the SALT deduction being temporarily returned? Did some mountain have a conversation with a river and decide the SALT deduction was misapplied economic theory? He’s talking about governments, not borders. You’re being pedantic.

His suggestion is for the states to stop sheltering their wealthy at the expense of other states. His suggestion is that two people earning $500,000 in the same country pay the same federal taxes. It’s not rocket science; it’s equal.

“Tax the rich.” Just because it’s a slogan of the left doesn’t mean it doesn’t have application from the conservative perspective of government. The fact of the matter is that the rich pay a massively disproportionate amount of taxes. They are already taxed exorbitantly and most are proud to pay. But when one is paying less than his/her peer, that’s an injustice. Just make it equal. SALT deduction limits are literally shields that allow high earners to not pay “their fair share.”

All this to say, you don’t understand the the opposition very well and don’t have a handle on their views.
This. As you said, my suggestion is for the states to stop sheltering their wealthy at the expense of other states.
Quote: Naw he does. Insecure much?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He so busy riden with uhmmm…you know.. the thing? Come on man!
Quote: This. As you said, my suggestion is for the states to stop sheltering their wealthy at the expense of other states.
This comment is so riddled with misunderstanding of the situation in so few words. First of all, high tax states are not sheltering their wealthy- they are taxing them. Through SALT deductions, the federal government shelters those individuals from a portion of their federal tax burden. The states collect the same amount in taxes from each individual whether or not they are able to claim the deduction on their federal taxes. SALT only indirectly impacts the amount of total state taxes collected to the extent it encourages high tax payers to move into or out of the state, respectively. Thus, while changes in SALT deduction allowances can have significant impacts on the individuals utilizing them, they may or may not have any measurable impact on the financials of the states in question.

Secondly, the narrative of low-income states bearing the financial burden of bloated social programs in liberal havens makes for great outrage porn, but the data doesn’t support that story. In very general terms, red states are the ones getting the most federal subsidies where high-tax blues tend to be the ones bridging that gap.

That’s not to generally champion these states, either- the conversation is far more complex- but this idea that KY coal miners are paying for gender reassignment surgeries of illegal immigrants in CA is just rubbish.
Quote: This comment is so riddled with misunderstanding of the situation in so few words. First of all, high tax states are not sheltering their wealthy- they are taxing them. Through SALT deductions, the federal government shelters those individuals from a portion of their federal tax burden. The states collect the same amount in taxes from each individual whether or not they are able to claim the deduction on their federal taxes. SALT only indirectly impacts the amount of total state taxes collected to the extent it encourages high tax payers to move into or out of the state, respectively. Thus, while changes in SALT deduction allowances can have significant impacts on the individuals utilizing them, they may or may not have any measurable impact on the financials of the states in question.

Secondly, the narrative of low-income states bearing the financial burden of bloated social programs in liberal havens makes for great outrage porn, but the data doesn’t support that story. In very general terms, red states are the ones getting the most federal subsidies where high-tax blues tend to be the ones bridging that gap.

That’s not to generally champion these states, either- the conversation is far more complex- but this idea that KY coal miners are paying for gender reassignment surgeries of illegal immigrants in CA is just rubbish.
Actually the individuals are, the economies are not. I certainly hope that example is made up, BTW,
Quote: Actually the individuals are, the economies are not. I certainly hope that example is made up, BTW,
Wrong. CA residents collectively receive less money from the federal government than they pay in federal taxes. So mathematically speaking, while some individual CA taxpayers are certainly receiving more than they contribute, that money is coming from other CA taxpayers- not outside of the state. KY residents on the other hand receive more federal dollars collectively than they pay in. So some of that money has to come from states like CA that operate at a surplus. In general, federal money flows from high income blue states into low income red states.
Quote: Wrong. CA residents collectively receive less money from the federal government than they pay in federal taxes. So mathematically speaking, while some individual CA taxpayers are certainly receiving more than they contribute, that money is coming from other CA taxpayers- not outside of the state. KY residents on the other hand receive more federal dollars collectively than they pay in. So some of that money has to come from states like CA that operate at a surplus. In general, federal money flows from high income blue states into low income red states.
Please post a citation for that statement.
In the past, all the 'who gets more federal bucks' always, always, always has included military, national park, and other miscellaneous federal spending in each state. Those numbers got very bent when, a couple of decades ago, CA pushed to have most of their military bases closed.
When military spending is included, military bases located in low cost areas survived the last BRAC much better than military bases in high cost areas.
Bottom line on such stats (which states get more money) is that figures don't lie but liars can figure.
Quote: Wrong. CA residents collectively receive less money from the federal government than they pay in federal taxes. So mathematically speaking, while some individual CA taxpayers are certainly receiving more than they contribute, that money is coming from other CA taxpayers- not outside of the state. KY residents on the other hand receive more federal dollars collectively than they pay in. So some of that money has to come from states like CA that operate at a surplus. In general, federal money flows from high income blue states into low income red states.
You're still conflating two issues. One is individual taxes, the other is a totality of taxes taken in from all sources by a state. CA actually takes in more federal funding than they supply to the fed via income taxes, but at a lesser amount than a state like KY. The problem is that how that is apportioned out of federal $$ is programmatic, so comparing the two is not apples to apples. For instance, Virginia gets a hugely disproportionate amount of federal money per capita because of the defense budget. The amount of geography neutral (people programs) items like welfare, medicaid, etc are pretty even expenditures per capita across all states, although they tend to be slightly higher in blue states. Someone paying taxes in KY who makes the same amount of money as a person in CA is underwriting these common expenditures because of CA-local decisions to tax their residents for programs in which the KY resident has no say.
Quote: This comment is so riddled with misunderstanding of the situation in so few words. First of all, high tax states are not sheltering their wealthy- they are taxing them. Through SALT deductions, the federal government shelters those individuals from a portion of their federal tax burden. The states collect the same amount in taxes from each individual whether or not they are able to claim the deduction on their federal taxes. SALT only indirectly impacts the amount of total state taxes collected to the extent it encourages high tax payers to move into or out of the state, respectively. Thus, while changes in SALT deduction allowances can have significant impacts on the individuals utilizing them, they may or may not have any measurable impact on the financials of the states in question.

Secondly, the narrative of low-income states bearing the financial burden of bloated social programs in liberal havens makes for great outrage porn, but the data doesn’t support that story. In very general terms, red states are the ones getting the most federal subsidies where high-tax blues tend to be the ones bridging that gap.

That’s not to generally champion these states, either- the conversation is far more complex- but this idea that KY coal miners are paying for gender reassignment surgeries of illegal immigrants in CA is just rubbish.
But the high income tax states do shelter individuals from paying their share of Federal taxes through SALT deductions.
Quote: The rich pay more than their fair share.
Indeed, and taxation is theft!
Quote: Indeed, and taxation is theft!
Wouldn't it be more like extortion, since you're aware of the money being removed from your coffers?

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk
12  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26 
Page 22 of 26
Go to