ok, the first parts of your response are up for debate but I will wait until we have the finale details of the actual tax plan before pursuing that. That leads us to this last response. So are you saying that not all taxes are regressive?. If all states had income tax then it could be more fairly administered but alas not all states do. If I am not mistaken, all states do have property taxes. That leaves that one of the fairer qualifiers imho. Sales tax too for that manner. The people from the states with the most regressive tax policies will suffer the worst. The richest from those states will suffer the most. Is that not the lefts goal? That leads to the qualifying question of is it fair for people who live in the states with the most regressive tax policies to pay less of a percentage of their income to the federal government than people from states with less of a tax burden just because they choose to live in those states with higher tax burdens? Why should they get to deduct more for their state taxes (no matter whether they be income, property , or sales taxes) all the while avoiding federal taxes do to deductions. How do we make this fair? What are your suggestions?
Of course not all taxes are regressive. Income taxes are not regressive unless you weirdly have higher rates for the poor, which no one does. Our income tax with rising rates are exactly the opposite - they are a progressive tax that puts a higher burden on the wealthy. Payroll taxes are regressive since they are a flat rate only on low incomes - it's why many people think that's our worst tax. Property taxes are also regressive because poor people spend more of their money on rent/mortgage. Sales taxes are a bit mixed - they are generally regressive, but it's partly countered by not taxing staple foods. Currently, SALT (State and Local Taxes) deductions apply to all the major state and local taxes - property, sales, and income. Each state uses a different combination of taxes. Some, like Texas, have no income tax but very high property taxes. Others have much higher income taxes but lower property taxes. The federal government, rightly, doesn't care which method states use - each uses what makes sense for their state. Some places have more land or more dense land, so that changes the value of property vs income for them. A state that has lots of park land or unused land would be silly to rely on property taxes, for example. It makes no sense for all states to tax the same way, and it has nothing to do with liberal vs conservative. Under the new proposal, the property tax deduction stays but the others goes. So it penalizes or benefits states completely arbitrarily. No. Did you just make that up? It's simple - you simply either deduct all SALT taxes (as is currently done) or none. I have no problem with either solution. But the worst option is to pick and choose because homeowners and realtor groups were upset.
Obsession? When you move wealth to one person to another - it is taxed. That is the nature of our system. It's a privilege that the federal gov't allows you to pass on $5MM to your kids tax free. That's very generous tax break. Now you want it to be more? So that Trump can not just pass billions to his children but an extra half-billion that they did nothing but be born to the right person???? No, that's not how it works. Well people are arguing that it's unfair that a State like New York gets to deduct their state income taxes. Part of the reason we have state income tax in New York is because New Yorkers get less federal tax dollars per capita than red states. We get screwed as it is. New York is subsidizing Oklahoma and many other states. I pay for roads in Arkansas that I will never use. How is that fair??? So the state tax deduction exists to balance things a little bit. And now you want to take that away? Fine take it away. But then give us more federal dollars so we can reduce or eliminate our state tax all together. We don't need states like Kansas and Missouri and so on leeching onto us. Why can't they take care of themselves? Why do they get a handout??? I thought you right-wingers didn't like handouts? I guess it's ok to get handouts so long as you are white in a red state.
How about we get rid of federal tax? That sounds like a winning plan, I am sure everyone will be happy, LOL. This isn't really directed at you.
We surely do not need defense SSN, Medicare, NASA, homeland security, etc. I am sure libertarians would all be jumping with joy.
Get rid of it all. Let every state create it's own space program. NY can take care of NY. This is how you drain the swamp, you take away all Federal Revenue.
Why should rich liberal states give handouts to the poor red states? Why can't the red states do it on their own? This is America? Land of opportunity. Tired of having to pay for red state initiatives.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/ How states are dependent on federal government, looks like red states win by a land slide. If we use this for federal election, GOP would never lose a presidential election.
Isn't it funny that the states that bemoan big gov't and want to cut gov't spending are the ones that most depend on it?
We have full employment, record corporate profits, and 80 million boomers....... can a conservative tell me why we need this major tax cut?
Cuz they won, and cuz Jesus. That means they get to gut the US and rid the poor of their unconstitutional "entitlements". Owning gunz=civil liberty Affordable living=entitlement Tax cut during an era of extreme inequality=you bet yer ass that's a God Given Right.
Not a genuine conservative, no. There is a legislator currently drafting proposal to make "fiscal conservative" an endangered species in the US. LOL.
As far as the Corporate tax cuts go, it is in order to make the US more competitive on a global basis, in the hopes to keep companies within the US borders.
That's what we, the big republican donors want, and if you don't vote for these tax cuts to happen, don't bother to call me. Lol
What would make us more competitive is if we secured entitlement programs and got our deficit under control.
No **** that's the narrative the gop pushes but American corporations are sitting on the most wealth they ever had in the history of the United States accounting for inflation of course. So why aren't they producing more jobs now?
This probably deserves its own thread. Neither party has a political answer. As an aside, corporate raiders have got to have their eyes locked on all of that idle corporate cash.
So Trump called 12 democrats (not sure house/senate composition) to solicit their support for his tax reform plan, and told them that he would personally be "financially killed" under the tax proposal. Lol. This guy.
Not much of a simplification. I rather go complex to be more fair (which has been the trend forever), then to simplify for the sake of "simplification". All the crazies extremely hard to understand situational rules put in place was to deal with cheaters and to try to be more fair. Unwinding that is ungodly hard to the point where I'm thinking, you can't unwind (you either end up picking winner/loser or making it more complex to continue to be more fair) and you have to start over from scratch for true simplification. Having more kids isn't a luxury, it's additional expense. At the end of the day, I don't care about a bit more or less of complexity. The big picture is the same here. Give money to the top and bet on it trickling down. Tax cuts will pay for itself. Right. Clinton raises tax, economy boom. Reagan cut tax, economy did good. Reagan raises tax multiple times, economy did fine. Kansas cut deeply to services and tax, economy suffer. If anything, tax cut or gain doesn't seem to impact economy much, but when you start to cut into services along with Taxes, you get Kansas. This proposal will eventually mean cuts into services down the road.
