4 ms·

You mean the party pushing for tax cuts?

acqq 9y ago
> You mean the party pushing for tax cuts ..." for the rich and the corporations and on the costs of the public services."
wnevets 9y ago
>You mean the party pushing for tax cuts for the very rich? ftfy
nerfhammer 9y ago
They're raising them for Californians
- losteric 9y ago
  They're raising them for everyone except the rich.
  - lurr 9y ago
    I dunno, every calculator I've looked at says I get a bit back. But that's just for me, and it's the simplest look at the rules. I may get screwed on some other tax, others might as well. I also live in a state with no income tax. (WA)
    - losteric 9y ago
      Do think about whether lower taxes is even a good thing in the long-run. Accruing $1 trillion national debt just kicks the burden to the next generation, as does gutting public services to fill the gap. I also live in Washington, and honestly it's rather disgusting that we don't pay any income tax... our overreliance on property taxes is inefficient and leads to systemic funding problems for some programs.
      - lurr 9y ago
        > Do think about whether lower taxes is even a good thing in the long-run. I didn't realize I in any way implied I'm in favour of the tax bill.
  - adventured 9y ago
    That's blatantly false. They're doubling the standard deduction, which will cut taxes for the majority of all middle-class tax payers. Most of the middle class pays no or little in the way of net income taxes as it is, with 85%-90% of all income taxes being paid by the top 20% income bracket. The tax cuts the middle class will receive, will drive their net income taxes that much closer to zero. 85% of all the value of the SALT / local income tax deduction goes to people making over $100,000 per year. 97% of all home owners own homes worth less than the new proposed cap on mortgage interest deduction. Both of those tax increases will almost exclusively hit well-off people.
    - grey-sunshine 9y ago
      I think he was being sarcastic.
- Shivetya 9y ago
  why should the Federal government finance the tax methods the states impose on their citizens. this change is good because it will bring the methods of taxation, the value of taxes taken in, and their usage, to light. far too often high taxation states have lived with the idea that the rich won't complaint too much since they can deduct a large portion from their federal taxes. yet all those not rich enough to itemize got stuffed. people need to understand that deductions of state, real estate, and similar taxes, only serves the wealthy. Yet oddly the very same people who complain about the wealthy and taxes instantly pivot when they learn how its all done and that they will be affected. We are the rich, the vast majority posting here make far more than the average if not in multiples. people think it takes millions to be rich, but its not true when you look at the numbers.
  - lazyasciiart 9y ago
    Why should states like California finance the federal government's handouts to other states that refuse to actually tax their own population, do you mean? And why are you ok with the federal government financing states that use property taxes, but not other types?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > why should the Federal government finance the tax methods the states impose on their citizens. It should be neutral to them, which is why State/local taxes should be deductible; non-deductibility creates an artificial incentive to avoid tax-funded programs that are a net economic benefit before considering the distortion produced by federal taxation. A longer write-up and worked example of how this is a problem that I wrote in an earlier discussion of the tax plan is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15855955 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15855955
  - marshray 9y ago
    > why should the Federal government finance the tax methods the states impose on their citizens The underlying assumption to your question is that the money belonged to the government in the first place. By that logic, you go to work, produce economic value, various levels of government take what they want, and you receive whatever is left at their pleasure. That's your income: whatever part they decide to let you have after they're done dividing up the money that your employer desired to pay to you. Thus by not "allowing you to deduct" taxes paid, one level of government is literally trying to tax you for money that has been taken by another before you got any of it.

acqq 9y ago

> You mean the party pushing for tax cuts ..." for the rich and the corporations and on the costs of the public services."

wnevets 9y ago

>You mean the party pushing for tax cuts for the very rich? ftfy

nerfhammer 9y ago

They're raising them for Californians

losteric 9y ago
They're raising them for everyone except the rich.
- lurr 9y ago
  I dunno, every calculator I've looked at says I get a bit back. But that's just for me, and it's the simplest look at the rules. I may get screwed on some other tax, others might as well. I also live in a state with no income tax. (WA)
  - losteric 9y ago
    Do think about whether lower taxes is even a good thing in the long-run. Accruing $1 trillion national debt just kicks the burden to the next generation, as does gutting public services to fill the gap. I also live in Washington, and honestly it's rather disgusting that we don't pay any income tax... our overreliance on property taxes is inefficient and leads to systemic funding problems for some programs.
    - lurr 9y ago
      > Do think about whether lower taxes is even a good thing in the long-run. I didn't realize I in any way implied I'm in favour of the tax bill.
- adventured 9y ago
  That's blatantly false. They're doubling the standard deduction, which will cut taxes for the majority of all middle-class tax payers. Most of the middle class pays no or little in the way of net income taxes as it is, with 85%-90% of all income taxes being paid by the top 20% income bracket. The tax cuts the middle class will receive, will drive their net income taxes that much closer to zero. 85% of all the value of the SALT / local income tax deduction goes to people making over $100,000 per year. 97% of all home owners own homes worth less than the new proposed cap on mortgage interest deduction. Both of those tax increases will almost exclusively hit well-off people.
  - grey-sunshine 9y ago
    I think he was being sarcastic.
Shivetya 9y ago
why should the Federal government finance the tax methods the states impose on their citizens. this change is good because it will bring the methods of taxation, the value of taxes taken in, and their usage, to light. far too often high taxation states have lived with the idea that the rich won't complaint too much since they can deduct a large portion from their federal taxes. yet all those not rich enough to itemize got stuffed. people need to understand that deductions of state, real estate, and similar taxes, only serves the wealthy. Yet oddly the very same people who complain about the wealthy and taxes instantly pivot when they learn how its all done and that they will be affected. We are the rich, the vast majority posting here make far more than the average if not in multiples. people think it takes millions to be rich, but its not true when you look at the numbers.
- lazyasciiart 9y ago
  Why should states like California finance the federal government's handouts to other states that refuse to actually tax their own population, do you mean? And why are you ok with the federal government financing states that use property taxes, but not other types?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > why should the Federal government finance the tax methods the states impose on their citizens. It should be neutral to them, which is why State/local taxes should be deductible; non-deductibility creates an artificial incentive to avoid tax-funded programs that are a net economic benefit before considering the distortion produced by federal taxation. A longer write-up and worked example of how this is a problem that I wrote in an earlier discussion of the tax plan is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15855955 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15855955
- marshray 9y ago
  > why should the Federal government finance the tax methods the states impose on their citizens The underlying assumption to your question is that the money belonged to the government in the first place. By that logic, you go to work, produce economic value, various levels of government take what they want, and you receive whatever is left at their pleasure. That's your income: whatever part they decide to let you have after they're done dividing up the money that your employer desired to pay to you. Thus by not "allowing you to deduct" taxes paid, one level of government is literally trying to tax you for money that has been taken by another before you got any of it.