5 ms·

You have this backwards. California and New York subsidize the nation (along with other productive, higher tax states), not the other way around. If you get ri

You have this backwards. California and New York subsidize the nation (along with other productive, higher tax states), not the other way around. If you get rid of SALT entirely, which has always existed as part of the federal income tax, you incentivize states to stop spending their own money and relying on the federal government for everything. The idea to get rid of SALT might make sense if the federal government provided few services and had a small budget. Imagine if the federal government had a budget 1/10th of its current size. In that world, state and local governments would pick up the slack with their taxation and spending. Many smaller, so-called "low tax states" simply don't provide services to their residents, and instead rely on the federal government to subsidize them. Medicaid expansion, which many lower-tax/poorer/less healthy states have benefited greatly from is paid for by higher-tax/richer/more healthy states. It doesn't make sense for the federal government to further incentivize low productivity states to mooch off of more productive parts of the economy.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>You have this backwards. California and New York subsidize the nation (along with other productive, higher tax states), not the other way around. The overwhelming majority of federal money is spent on safety nets (SS, medicaid, etc) and military. Whether a state is a net contributor or recipient basically depends on ratio of rich people to poor people and how many military installations you have. Even transportation spending is a drop in the bucket compared to those and it's mostly based on area (kind of hard to fit hundreds of miles of interstate in RI). It's really not as cut and clear as many here would like it to be. Edit: Since apparently it is that cut and clear would anyone care to elaborate why?
dahdum 8y ago
Why shouldn't the richer states pay more in taxes than the poorer ones? Our entire income tax system is progressive. Are you proposing that poor states tax their citizens more when they already have less?
Shivetya 8y ago
The key factor you are leaving out is, California and New York, also have very large numbers of very wealthy people, who pay on average a much higher percentage of all taxes in this country. That California and New York charge their residents higher rates is immaterial to this. Hence the change is a soak the rich change would you would think that progressives would like. the same tax law changes included raising the standard deduction to twelve thousand thereby giving the poor, the middle class, and even portions of the upper middle class, a bigger write off. The only people negatively affected by the change are in income categories far in excess of the average American. The same people who many claim are not paying their fair share. Well here is the simple truth, the wealth needed to pay for all the programs politicians are wanted cannot be made off the backs of billionaires. There aren't enough of them. You could take all their money and barely pay a year of the government. However the wealth does exist in the upper income earners, those north of hundred thousand and more. Over twenty percent of America is beyond that income level and they are most likely to be affected. So, you have to ask yourself, who do we need to help? Who do we tax to pay for it?
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >Hence the change is a soak the rich change would you would think that progressives would like. the same tax law changes included raising the standard deduction to twelve thousand thereby giving the poor, the middle class, and even portions of the upper middle class, a bigger write off. Even filing as a single male in a state that collects tax like it's going out of style and making a respectable tech salary I had a net decrease in taxes paid this year compared to last. That increase in standard deduction helped a lot of people. The inability to deduct SALT only hurt people who itemize and with the higher deduction very few people need to itemize.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

>You have this backwards. California and New York subsidize the nation (along with other productive, higher tax states), not the other way around. The overwhelming majority of federal money is spent on safety nets (SS, medicaid, etc) and military. Whether a state is a net contributor or recipient basically depends on ratio of rich people to poor people and how many military installations you have. Even transportation spending is a drop in the bucket compared to those and it's mostly based on area (kind of hard to fit hundreds of miles of interstate in RI). It's really not as cut and clear as many here would like it to be. Edit: Since apparently it is that cut and clear would anyone care to elaborate why?

dahdum 8y ago

Why shouldn't the richer states pay more in taxes than the poorer ones? Our entire income tax system is progressive. Are you proposing that poor states tax their citizens more when they already have less?

Shivetya 8y ago

The key factor you are leaving out is, California and New York, also have very large numbers of very wealthy people, who pay on average a much higher percentage of all taxes in this country. That California and New York charge their residents higher rates is immaterial to this. Hence the change is a soak the rich change would you would think that progressives would like. the same tax law changes included raising the standard deduction to twelve thousand thereby giving the poor, the middle class, and even portions of the upper middle class, a bigger write off. The only people negatively affected by the change are in income categories far in excess of the average American. The same people who many claim are not paying their fair share. Well here is the simple truth, the wealth needed to pay for all the programs politicians are wanted cannot be made off the backs of billionaires. There aren't enough of them. You could take all their money and barely pay a year of the government. However the wealth does exist in the upper income earners, those north of hundred thousand and more. Over twenty percent of America is beyond that income level and they are most likely to be affected. So, you have to ask yourself, who do we need to help? Who do we tax to pay for it?

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>Hence the change is a soak the rich change would you would think that progressives would like. the same tax law changes included raising the standard deduction to twelve thousand thereby giving the poor, the middle class, and even portions of the upper middle class, a bigger write off. Even filing as a single male in a state that collects tax like it's going out of style and making a respectable tech salary I had a net decrease in taxes paid this year compared to last. That increase in standard deduction helped a lot of people. The inability to deduct SALT only hurt people who itemize and with the higher deduction very few people need to itemize.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]