4 ms·
So people making over 200K a year will pay more taxes, cry me a river.
by influx 9y ago
So people making over 200K a year will pay more taxes, cry me a river.
- irrational 9y agoThat was my feeling too. I read it and kept looking for the downside, but people making over 200k(!) having to pay more taxes doesn't seem to have a downside.
- deadmetheny 9y agoIt doesn't, the tax bill is generally good for lower income people who take the standard deduction. Everyone's screeching about it because of the people in the top income brackets are saving the most, which is a total "no shit" moment given how much more they pay in overall.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- notconservative 9y agoThis is what a lot of commenters aren't getting. Complaints about raising my taxes to lower corporate taxes is kinda ironic because 200K+ is rich as far as most of America is concerned.
- closeparen 9y agoPeople don’t live in “most of America,” they live in their specific real estate and job markets. The bill punishes expensive areas indiscriminately, not people who are rich in context.
- notconservative 9y agoI'm just saying that that's not how a lot of people see it. Living in an expensive market is not a right.
- closeparen 9y agoNone of food, shelter, water, or healthcare are rights anywhere in America. Policy is still supposed to promote the general welfare.
- notconservative 9y agoYou're right that there are parts of this bill not to like, the estate tax stuff for sure and possibly the pass-through rate as well. But, where we disagree are the parts that "punishes expensive areas indiscriminately". Removing the SALT and mortgage deductions are good IMO. A commenter in another thread posed a hypothetical about a family in CA vs. TX making $250k. Why should the one in CA get a big writeoff because CA has high taxes? Of course, a state is free to tax it's citizens as much as it likes. But, that tax should not be deductible from state taxes, because it leaves families in other states to shoulder the burden. Meanwhile, the mortgage interest deduction subsidizes people who can afford houses (in fact it incentivizes buying larger houses, which is also bad IMO). These are not the people who should be getting tax breaks.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- davidjnelson 9y agoYou can't buy a decent house in the bay area on 200k.
- irrational 9y agoThere are really good jobs (and nice places to live) outside of the bay area.
- davidjnelson 9y agoCould you please list some examples? Butte county and San Diego are nice, but not many tech jobs. The weather outside California is not great, unless there are places that have warm weather, not too much rain/snow, not too much humidity, no issues with tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding. Maybe there’s some real gems I don’t know about. Would love to hear of them!
- irrational 9y agoYeah, it does depend on what you consider a nice place to live. I dislike the sun and heat, so anyplace that is predominantly cool and cloudy I would consider nice ;-)
- pkaye 9y agoHowever the billionaires will pay less.
- davidjnelson 9y agoBingo, that's exactly the issue.
- akhilcacharya 9y agoWhy should working people pay more so that corporations, wealthy inheritors and rent-seekers pay less? Why should we explode the deficit if we need to make CHIP funding revenue neutral? Why do we need stimulus in a booming economy?