Four Blue States Sue Over Tax Reform. Dumbest 'Resistance' Lawsuit Yet?

Waddy · Jul 24, 2018

Anyone have a chart showing a correlation between increasing school funding and student achievement gains? Such as; school funding was increased by 35% over the past decade (adjusted for inflation) and student achievement advanced by31%. I'd like to know if large increases in funding result in modest or large gains academically.

jaeger19 · Jul 25, 2018

ludin said:
lol it doesn't matter if you live in a blue state or a red state. your capped at the same amount
that means there is no targeting.

You should be happy aren't you guys always saying federal government should get more money.
here is your chance to practice what you preach.

that's wrong. It most certainly is targeting. In fact.. it was specifically designed to target blue states so that it had less impact in republican states.

ludin · Jul 25, 2018

jaeger19 said:
that's wrong. It most certainly is targeting. In fact.. it was specifically designed to target blue states so that it had less impact in republican states.

No it goes for everyone not jsut blue states.
that along shows that it wasn't targeting.

so it is correct and you are wrong.

jaeger19 · Jul 25, 2018

ludin said:
No it goes for everyone not jsut blue states.
that along shows that it wasn't targeting.

so it is correct and you are wrong.

No it doesn't show its wasn;t targeting.

there is a cut off.. and if it can be shown that the cut off inordinately affects certain states (blue) versus (red) states.. then a case can be made for targeting.

JasperL · Jul 30, 2018

nota bene said:
Here is Guy Benson's take:

Several state-level Obamacare lawsuits were built on fairly solid constitutional claims, eventually worming their way up to a closely-divided Supreme Court. Likewise, a number of state-based challenges to Trump policies, including the original travel ban, resulted in challenges, injunctions and mandated alterations. This farce, however, is headed nowhere....

….The point is to appease a political constituency that wants to see "progressive" politicians doing something, no matter now frivolous or dumb. Ironically, what New York et al are attempting in this case is a demanding an effective tax cut for the rich. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/07/19/ny-ag-tax-reform-lawsuit-n2501426

Disclaimer: I'm not a tax/government spending expert and simply found this article's questions interesting. Why would Democrats from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Maryland "[insist] that rich people in their states get special treatment"? Are they? Are they "jeopardizing middle class tax relief to help the wealthiest"?

The problem is always is we have morons running the government, and these same morons made EXPlICIT their desire to punish a bunch of blue states, often by name, and to try to force them into cutting taxes and services by making taxes more expensive for their residents.

JasperL · Jul 30, 2018

jaeger19 said:
that's wrong. It most certainly is targeting. In fact.. it was specifically designed to target blue states so that it had less impact in republican states.

Yeah, it's funny - several members of Congress and the administration said they were targeting blue states, I guess because that sells with the GOP base, and when it's pointed out that they targeted blue states like they said they wanted to do and bragged about at the time, the same guys are going, "Who us?"

ludin · Jul 30, 2018

JasperL said:
The problem is always is we have morons running the government, and these same morons made EXPlICIT their desire to punish a bunch of blue states, often by name, and to try to force them into cutting taxes and services by making taxes more expensive for their residents.

still going on with this nonsense?

so tell me how is it punishing blue states when a guy that would have a SALT in AZ of more than 10K is just as capped at the guy in NY at 10k?
are you saying that there are no people in red states that would have a SALT of 10k or more?

I would like to see you prove that. You can't. the cap affects anyone with a SALT of 10k or more.
in essence what you are doing is arguing against tax increases on the wealthy.

lol

also with the new standard deduction of 24k for a family it makes SALT almost useless except for the top 10%.

jaeger19 · Jul 30, 2018

JasperL said:
Yeah, it's funny - several members of Congress and the administration said they were targeting blue states, I guess because that sells with the GOP base, and when it's pointed out that they targeted blue states like they said they wanted to do and bragged about at the time, the same guys are going, "Who us?"

what else would you expect out of our current government.

A person would have to throw out all intellectual ability, all reason.. to not see that the tax change was specifically designed to force blue states.. (who are already net tax payers).. to then have to send even MORE money to the federal government to prop up red states. (who are largely net tax receivers).

jaeger19 · Jul 30, 2018

ludin said:
still going on with this nonsense?

so tell me how is it punishing blue states when a guy that would have a SALT in AZ of more than 10K is just as capped at the guy in NY at 10k?
are you saying that there are no people in red states that would have a SALT of 10k or more?

I would like to see you prove that. You can't. the cap affects anyone with a SALT of 10k or more.
in essence what you are doing is arguing against tax increases on the wealthy.

lol

also with the new standard deduction of 24k for a family it makes SALT almost useless except for the top 10%.

Sure..when the cap is set so that AZ residents won't largely be affected at all.. because they enjoy low state taxes.. AND get roughly a 1.60 In federal money coming to their state.. for every dollar they send to the feds.

While those in NY will be affected because they pay higher state taxes AND also get .80 cents back for every dollar they send to the federal government.

ludin · Jul 30, 2018

jaeger19 said:
Sure..when the cap is set so that AZ residents won't largely be affected at all.. because they enjoy low state taxes.. AND get roughly a 1.60 In federal money coming to their state.. for every dollar they send to the feds.

While those in NY will be affected because they pay higher state taxes AND also get .80 cents back for every dollar they send to the federal government.

anyone in AZ would be capped the same as anyone in NY. 10k.

jaeger19 · Jul 30, 2018

ludin said:
anyone in AZ would be capped the same as anyone in NY. 10k.

Yep.. capped so that because they have low state taxes.. they won't be impacted.. and enjoy getting 1.60 or so back from the federal government for every dollar they send to DC.

meanwhile the NY resident will be capped at 10k.., meaning they will now not only be double taxed on their income.. and they will have to continue to subsizide red states by sending 1 dollar to the government and only getting 80 cents back.

The cap was set specifically to benefit red states.. while hurting blue states.

That's what the cap does.

ludin · Jul 30, 2018

jaeger19 said:
Yep.. capped so that because they have low state taxes.. they won't be impacted.. and enjoy getting 1.60 or so back from the federal government for every dollar they send to DC.

meanwhile the NY resident will be capped at 10k.., meaning they will now not only be double taxed on their income.. and they will have to continue to subsizide red states by sending 1 dollar to the government and only getting 80 cents back.

The cap was set specifically to benefit red states.. while hurting blue states.

That's what the cap does.

sure they will be impacted. anyone that would have a 10k SALT in AZ would be impacted.
why are you being dishonest?

they have the same cap as anyone else does.

the guy in AZ that has 12k SALT is impacted just as much as the guy in NY that has 12k SALT.

jaeger19 · Jul 30, 2018

ludin said:
sure they will be impacted. anyone that would have a 10k SALT in AZ would be impacted.
why are you being dishonest?

they have the same cap as anyone else does.

the guy in AZ that has 12k SALT is impacted just as much as the guy in NY that has 12k SALT.

Why are you being dishonest?

since state taxes are lower in most red states.. the number of people paying over that cap would be reduced versus states where the state taxes are higher.

They guy in AZ MAKING EXACTLY THE SAME INCOME..as the one in NY... has less state tax...

and the cap was set so that the fellow in AZ.. would fall under the cap.. and get full advantage.. while the guy in NY.. making the SAME INCOME... would not fall under the cap (because his state taxes are higher) and thus would get his income double taxed.

And thus end up sending more money to the federal government.. even though he is already subsidizing the fellow in AZ whose state gets more back in federal money than they put in.

that's the facts.

ludin · Jul 30, 2018

jaeger19 said:
Why are you being dishonest?

since state taxes are lower in most red states.. the number of people paying over that cap would be reduced versus states where the state taxes are higher.

They guy in AZ MAKING EXACTLY THE SAME INCOME..as the one in NY... has less state tax...

and the cap was set so that the fellow in AZ.. would fall under the cap.. and get full advantage.. while the guy in NY.. making the SAME INCOME... would not fall under the cap (because his state taxes are higher) and thus would get his income double taxed.

And thus end up sending more money to the federal government.. even though he is already subsidizing the fellow in AZ whose state gets more back in federal money than they put in.

that's the facts.

I am not being dishonest.

You are the one that can't tell me what the difference is between the guy in AZ that is capped at 10k and the guy in NY that is capped at 10K.
if they are both at 8k then no harm no foul. if they are both above 10k they are capped at 10k.

there is NO DIFFERENCE.

who cares what the state tax is both SALTS are capped at 10k. once they go over that they are capped at 10k.
what their state tax is doens't matter. 10k is 10k.

iguanaman · Jul 30, 2018

Hedgology said:
You're mistaken; the Alternative Minimum Tax ensures that. People can, and do, leave high tax states (such as New York) for states with no income tax (such as Washington State). This is common.

You haven't provided a rational why the Federal Government should be able to collect whatever taxes it could under the law.

LOL The AMT was gutted in the new tax bill and you don't even know that?

Under the new federal tax law, the number of tax filers hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax will drop by 96%.
Only about 200,000 tax filers are expected to owe the AMT in 2018, dramatically fewer than the 5.25 million who likely would have under the old tax law, according to estimates from the Tax Policy Center.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/18/pf/taxes/2018-amt-exemption-increase/index.html

Hedgology · Jul 30, 2018

iguanaman said:
LOL The AMT was gutted in the new tax bill and you don't even know that?

https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/18/pf/taxes/2018-amt-exemption-increase/index.html

It wasn't gutted; the qualifications were changed... Improve your vocabulary before writing...

iguanaman · Jul 30, 2018

Hedgology said:
It wasn't gutted; the qualifications were changed... Improve your vocabulary before writing...

When a program eliminates 96% of the people affected it is gutted. I stand by my term.

Hedgology · Jul 30, 2018

iguanaman said:
When a program eliminates 96% of the people affected it is gutted. I stand by my term.

I'm not even sure you understand how people are being effected by this...

iguanaman · Jul 30, 2018

Hedgology said:
I'm not even sure you understand how people are being effected by this...

You brought it up because you claimed it was how we made sure the wealthy paid at least some taxes. I pointed out that it has practically been eliminated by the GOP tax plan. I guess they dont think the wealthy should pay any taxes. No wonder we will have a trillion$ deficit in a year or 2. Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

Hedgology · Jul 30, 2018

iguanaman said:
You brought it up because you claimed it was how we made sure the wealthy paid at least some taxes. I pointed out that it has practically been eliminated by the GOP tax plan. I guess they dont think the wealthy should pay any taxes. No wonder we will have a trillion$ deficit in a year or 2. Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

The ATM isn't being eliminated; you obviously don't understand how the ATM works. The marginal tax rates are lower; therefore, there are higher exemption levels and higher phaseout levels. If you don't qualify for those exemption levels, you don't pay the ATM.

After all, the government only takes the ATM if it is HIGHER than your estimated tax bill, not lower.

enderpotato00 · Jul 30, 2018

nota bene said:
Here is Guy Benson's take:

Several state-level Obamacare lawsuits were built on fairly solid constitutional claims, eventually worming their way up to a closely-divided Supreme Court. Likewise, a number of state-based challenges to Trump policies, including the original travel ban, resulted in challenges, injunctions and mandated alterations. This farce, however, is headed nowhere....

….The point is to appease a political constituency that wants to see "progressive" politicians doing something, no matter now frivolous or dumb. Ironically, what New York et al are attempting in this case is a demanding an effective tax cut for the rich. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/07/19/ny-ag-tax-reform-lawsuit-n2501426

Disclaimer: I'm not a tax/government spending expert and simply found this article's questions interesting. Why would Democrats from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Maryland "[insist] that rich people in their states get special treatment"? Are they? Are they "jeopardizing middle class tax relief to help the wealthiest"?

Thats right, lets keep drowning California in taxes? No one wants a tax reform?

iguanaman · Jul 30, 2018

Hedgology said:
The ATM isn't being eliminated; you obviously don't understand how the ATM works. The marginal tax rates are lower; therefore, there are higher exemption levels and higher phaseout levels. If you don't qualify for those exemption levels, you don't pay the ATM.

After all, the government only takes the ATM if it is HIGHER than your estimated tax bill, not lower.

What you don't understand is that when 96% of taxpayers that used to qualify don't pay it anymore that makes it no longer a viable program. It is effectively eliminated. It is no coincidence that Trump is most certainly one that has been eliminated from paying AMT.

President Trump unveiled his tax plan Wednesday, which involves a sweeping simplification of the nation’s tax code, and he has the alternative minimum tax in his crosshairs.

The alternative minimum tax started because the young and the poor were upset that wealthy people paid little or no income taxes. That anger led to the creation of the alternative minimum tax, which was designed to keep the rich from living tax-free.

Trump was the first presidential candidate to not release his tax returns in 40 years and, when two pages of his 2005 returns were leaked to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC on last month, they revealed that Trump paid $38 million in federal tax on $150 million income in 2005.

The lion’s share of this? AMT.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/read-this-to-see-if-you-owe-the-alternative-minimum-tax-2017-02-23

Hedgology · Jul 30, 2018

iguanaman said:
What you don't understand is that when 96% of taxpayers that used to qualify don't pay it anymore that makes it no longer a viable program. It is effectively eliminated. It is no coincidence that Trump is most certainly one that has been eliminated from paying AMT.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/read-this-to-see-if-you-owe-the-alternative-minimum-tax-2017-02-23

You're not making any sense. The only reason people wouldn't pay the AMT if their taxable income is HIGHER than the reformulated taxable income under AMT. AMT is designed to treat certain income less favorably than other forms of income.

JasperL · Jul 30, 2018

Hedgology said:
The ATM isn't being eliminated; you obviously don't understand how the ATM works. The marginal tax rates are lower; therefore, there are higher exemption levels and higher phaseout levels. If you don't qualify for those exemption levels, you don't pay the ATM.

After all, the government only takes the ATM if it is HIGHER than your estimated tax bill, not lower.

You should proofread your posts before asserting others don't understand AMT. The bolded is a complete mess. Everyone "qualifies" for the exemptions, and you do two calculations - not estimates - regular tax and tax under AMT rules, pay the higher result.

I should be complete. You calculate AMT and subtract regular tax. If the number is negative (regular is higher), pay the regular - you're not subject to AMT. If it's positive, you add AMT to regular tax and pay the sum (which will equal AMT). That's how the form works.

JasperL · Jul 30, 2018

Hedgology said:
You're not making any sense. The only reason people wouldn't pay the AMT if their taxable income is HIGHER than the reformulated taxable income under AMT. AMT is designed to treat certain income less favorably than other forms of income.

That's also wrong. You compare the TAX (not taxable income) under AMT and regular tax. AMT has its own set of rates. So you compute alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI), apply the AMT rates (which are different than ordinary rates - 26% and 28%) and calculate the tax due under AMT. Do the same thing on the 'regular' tax side - come up with a tax number. Then compare them. Pay the higher amount.